Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s proceedings, I know that the House will wish to join me in acknowledging that today marks the third anniversary of the beginning of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. This House has always stood with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression, as they stand up for their ideals, which underpin a peaceful, stable and democratic world. Our thoughts today are with the people of Ukraine, as well as with our colleagues in the Ukrainian Parliament.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Arbitration Act 2025
Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Fraud devastates lives, and this Government are determined to meet that challenge head-on, including through the new expanded fraud strategy that we promised in our manifesto. We are working with law enforcement and industry to better protect the public, and we are demanding that the tech companies go further and faster to protect consumers at risk of fraud on their platforms.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
Online scams are a cause of particular concern in Hendon. A number of my constituents have been targeted, and one lost £40,000 to an online scam. Many of the scams originate overseas. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about tackling online scams and working with other countries to crack down on scams originating abroad?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, not least that the vast majority of scams are perpetrated by criminal gangs based overseas. We need the support of overseas Governments and agencies and the co-operation of tech firms to prevent fraud from taking place on their platforms. My noble Friend Lord Hanson will be meeting tech firms next month to confirm what action is being taken. Working across Government, including with partners in DSIT and others, we will not hesitate to take further action where necessary.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It was disappointing to see in the January figures that fraud has risen again after it had been coming down, but I commend the Government for proceeding with the Payment Services (Amendment) Regulations 2024 to slow down payments where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity. What effect does the Minister believe that change will make?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right that the latest statistics show that there were 3.9 million incidents in the year ending September 2024—that is one in 15 people becoming a victim—which demonstrates the urgent need for action. The Government are taking action: the Home Secretary, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently wrote to tech and telecoms companies, urging them to go faster and further on fraud, and we expect them to do so.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
Settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. There is already a range of periods of time that people are required to spend in the UK before they qualify for settlement. The number of people granted settlement each year will reflect the number of migrants coming to the UK in earlier years. This Government are determined to bring control to the immigration system and to bring net migration down, and we keep all our policies under review.
Mike Wood
There is clearly a cost to doing nothing about the current indefinite leave to remain policy, and a recent Centre for Policy Studies report estimates the net lifetime cost as £234 billion for those expected to be granted ILR over the next five years. What is the Minister’s assessment of that cost?
Seema Malhotra
I gently say to the hon. Member that the number of settlement grants grew by almost a third in the final year that his party was in government, compared with 2023. We will take absolutely no lessons from the Tory party and a shadow Home Secretary who completely lost control of our borders, allowing net migration to quadruple to a record high of nearly 1 million while the number of dangerous boat crossings soared.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Only refugees whose cases prove that they would be at harm if they returned home are given indefinite leave to remain in this country—30,000 people last year. They will not leave the United Kingdom to return to the bombs and the dictators, but without a route to citizenship they will find it harder to get a job to support their families, get a mortgage, or have a say in their local communities. Will the Minister meet me, and other MPs who are concerned about the new guidance on naturalisation, to talk about how we can properly support integration in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will know that, for many generations, refugees who have arrived for resettlement in the UK have been able to apply for British citizenship if they meet the conditions, and that continues to be the case. The UK must always do its bit to support those who are fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous boat crossings and risking their lives in the arms of criminal gangs.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As we have heard, according to the Centre for Policy Studies, over 800,000 migrants from the past five years could soon claim indefinite leave to remain. In NHS care, benefits, social housing and more, that will cost £234 billion—nearly six years of defence spending, or almost all income tax receipts for a year. Will the Minister commit to extending the qualifying period for ILR, or will she accept that the consequence of her policy is a liability for the public of hundreds of billions of pounds?
Seema Malhotra
I am still quite flabbergasted by the questions that the Conservatives ask in the House. Their party saw net migration more than quadruple to record levels. The shadow Minister will know that the Prime Minister has also pledged a White Paper on reducing net migration—that was at the end of last year—and work is under way to consider a range of proposals, including how better to support the integration and employability of refugees.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
May I support you, Mr Speaker, in your words about the people of Ukraine on the third anniversary of the invasion, including those who are here in the UK through the Homes for Ukraine scheme?
Too many communities are blighted by antisocial behaviour, which has increased over the past 10 years while neighbourhood policing was heavily cut. That is why this Government’s plan for change means putting neighbourhood police back on the beat in our town centres and communities, and stronger powers in our crime and policing Bill—to be introduced tomorrow—to tackle off-road bikes, repeat offenders and shop theft.
David Williams
Mark Porter is a community leader who runs Kidsgrove Ladsanddads. Around 400 young people play football at Birchenwood fields every weekend, yet the football pitches are constantly damaged by off-road bikes. The same happens at Burslem golf club and across estates such as Mill Hill in Tunstall. What steps will be taken to tackle the impact of off-road parks on communities in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some off-road bikes are a total nightmare and can drive communities up the wall with harassment and intimidation. That is why we are strengthening powers. At the moment, the police must provide repeat warnings before they can take action to seize such bikes; we think that they should be able to seize those antisocial bikes straightaway.
Alice Macdonald
Antisocial behaviour comes in a variety of forms. Norfolk police have recently made it a priority to address safety concerns about e-bikes and e-scooters. In just one day, they reportedly seized 12 illegally modified bikes in Norwich. I welcome that crackdown, but speeding e-bikes and e-scooters are a real menace in our city centre. Will the Home Secretary expand on the measures that we will take to tackle speeding and illegally modified e-bikes and e-scooters?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which causes havoc and can be really threatening for people in the local community. That is why we will strengthen the law by supporting the police to take stronger action on off-road bikes, and by introducing respect orders so that we can ban repeat offenders from town centres and tackle the antisocial behaviour that has blighted communities for far too long.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Antisocial behaviour is a problem not just in our town centres, but in our parks. That is why my constituents are extremely concerned about plans to axe the specialist royal parks policing unit and subsume it into community support teams, given the £450 million shortfall facing the Met police. This means that Bushy Park in my constituency will undoubtedly get less police coverage. What assurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that they will not see fewer police officers in our communities and our parks?
Yvette Cooper
This Government are clear: we need to get more police back on the beat. The number of police community support officers has halved over the past 10 to 15 years, and there has been a big drop in the number of neighbourhood police officers on the beat. That is why next year we are increasing neighbourhood policing, with an additional £200 million of investment. That is part of up to £1.1 billion of additional funding next year for our police forces across the country.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Home Secretary will be aware that councils up and down the country have real problems with nuisance tenants creating mayhem, committing crimes and making residents’ lives a misery, so does she agree that there should be a “one strike and out” policy for these tenants, and that if they keep creating problems, they should be out and the local authority should have no duty to rehouse them?
Yvette Cooper
We need stronger action against antisocial behaviour, whether that involves havoc in town centres, off-road bikes or nuisance neighbours making the community’s lives a misery. That is why the Government are increasing neighbourhood policing and giving the police and local communities much stronger powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour so that we can take back our communities from the vandals, the thieves and those who make others’ lives a misery.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), I find that constituents consistently mention the antisocial use of e-scooters and e-bikes, and I certainly welcome on my constituents’ behalf the measures in the crime and policing Bill about seizing such vehicles. Will Ministers talk to the Department for Transport about updating legislation, particularly in relation to e-scooters? Their usage has exploded but legislation has not kept pace.
Yvette Cooper
We are working with the Department for Transport. We need to keep communities safe, ensure that proper safety standards are met and tackle antisocial behaviour. I have also seen the work of Staffordshire police, who are using drones to follow riders of dangerous off-road bikes and take action.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be easier for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour if they had more support for special constables? The number of special constables has fallen in recent years, particularly since the pandemic. Will she agree to consider amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring special constables within section 50?
Yvette Cooper
I agree that special constables can play an important role. Their numbers have dropped by around two thirds over the past 14 years. I think that is damaging, and we want to increase their numbers. We are working with police forces on how best to achieve that so that they can play their part, both on the streets in neighbourhood teams and in supporting other specialist aspects of the police’s work.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Greater Manchester has one of the highest crime rates in the country, with many suffering as a result of antisocial behaviour, but this weekend we saw police officers knocking on the door of a grandmother because she dared to criticise a Labour councillor for his role in the pensioner-hating WhatsApp scandal. Does the Home Secretary agree that is a waste of police time?
Yvette Cooper
The Government have been clear that the focus of policing must be on the neighbourhood crimes that blight our communities. That is why we are increasing neighbourhood policing, because the Conservative party slashed the number of neighbourhood police on the beat and we lost thousands of neighbourhood police in our communities. That is why we are also focusing the police on serious violence. The legislation to be introduced tomorrow will focus on tackling serious violence and dealing with the most serious crimes in our communities—something that the Conservative party, which presided over a 61% increase in shoplifting alone during its last two years in power, failed time and again to do.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The Government are determined to tackle the scourge of domestic abuse wherever it is found. That is why we have already announced bold measures to transform the policing response to these devastating crimes. Last week, I am proud to say, we embedded the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms in five police forces, under Raneem’s law, and we plan to equip forces everywhere with the tools they need to crack down on perpetrators and keep victims safe, including in Gloucester.
Alex McIntyre
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and for all the work she has done over many years to champion victims and survivors of domestic abuse. As she will know, one of the biggest challenges facing survivors and victims in Gloucester is the financial implications of fleeing that abuse. Will she agree to meet me to discuss my 10-minute rule Bill, the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill, which would introduce safe leave for victims of domestic abuse and violence?
Jess Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and for his commitment to supporting victims. He will be aware that his private Member’s Bill is the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I would of course be willing to meet him, and the Department, to discuss it.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The recent National Audit Office report on the Government’s response to violence against women and girls, which includes domestic abuse, made a number of recommendations. My Committee will be considering that issue, but will the Minister comment on what the Government’s response will be to those recommendations, and say how she will ensure that domestic abuse is tackled across the country, including in Gloucester?
Jess Phillips
I was waiting for that reference to Gloucester. As the right hon. Lady will know, the NAO report is largely based on the previous Government’s period in office, and although it makes clear recommendations, it would be premature of me to comment. However, the strategy to combat violence against women and girls that will be published by this Government in early summer will undoubtedly be looking to the NAO recommendations.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime, and the Government work closely with law enforcement to tackle the drivers of that offending and target prolific perpetrators. That includes through operational intensification initiatives aimed at tackling modern slavery threats. The Online Safety Act 2023 sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences, and starting from 17 March, in-scope companies must adopt systems and processes to address those offences.
Carolyn Harris
I thank the Minister for her response. In 2023 the then Home Affairs Committee recommended that pimping websites be outlawed, but the previous Government took no action, allowing sex traffickers to continue legally to exploit their victims online. I have since been made aware of further online exploitation, with websites allowing men to rate and review the women for whom they are paying for sex, including admissions of trafficking, under-age sex, and rape. Will the Minister share what action this Government will take to protect victims of online sexual exploitation?
Jess Phillips
Like my hon. Friend, I am horrified that such practices should be allowed to continue. Online platforms have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, with a deadline of 16 March 2025, subject to the codes of practice completing the parliamentary process on 17 March. Online platforms will need to take safety measures set out in the codes of practice, and to use other effective measures to protect users from illegal content such as that of which my hon. Friend speaks. If they fail to do so, they will face significant penalties. As she might imagine, I will be keeping a close eye on that.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
What measures is the Minister taking to address the record backlog of court cases in the UK, which, as the chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office has warned, is on target to hit 100,000? In particular, can she comment on the call for changes to be made to the way that court cases are prioritised, which at present is resulting in victims of serious crimes, including sexual trafficking, exploitation and rape, facing years-long waits for trials, while less serious crimes are prioritised ahead in the queue?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I recognise the parlous state of the criminal justice system that we inherited, which has led to some victims of rape and sexual violence waiting for years on end. I note that the shadow Justice Secretary has only just noticed that failing, now that he has the word “shadow” in front of his job title, and even though his Government presided over that failing for a decade. Part of the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, which I work on in concert with the Ministry of Justice, is about ensuring that that issue is sorted.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister. I have to get through the questions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Fiona from Bradford was failed numerous times by social services and local police after suffering horrific sexual abuse at the hands of gangs of men while in a care home. Bradford’s local authority has shamefully sought to block a local inquiry into the issue. In Fiona’s own words:
“The Government can’t just leave it down to the local councils to decide if they’re going to be investigated, they’re going to have to enforce it.”
Will the Home Secretary reconsider a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs? If not, how will she guarantee that cases like that can never be allowed to happen again?
Jess Phillips
I am working with victims across the country to ensure, as has already been announced, that cold cases like the one referred to by the shadow Minister can be reopened. The Government have invested an extra £2.5 million in the taskforce to ensure that can happen. We will be working with local authorities across the country to ensure that the failures of the past are not repeated.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Through the county lines programme, we continue to target exploitative drug dealing gangs wherever they operate, including in rural areas, as part of our efforts to dismantle the organised crime groups behind that trade. Since the Government took office, the county lines programme has closed over 400 drug lines running across communities in England and Wales. In our manifesto, we committed to going after the gangs that lure young people into violence and crime. At the weekend, we announced that we will create a new offence of child criminal exploitation in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill.
Vikki Slade
It is well known that rural and seaside areas are targeted by drug gangs. Escapeline has assessed that up to 70,000 young people, some as young as six, are being trafficked. In my constituency, I have recently dealt with young girls who have been provided with drugs by trusted adults in dance schools, where no action is taken, because those adults are not seen as requiring a Disclosure and Barring Service check, and with vulnerable adults who are being controlled in their homes, where there has been no response at all from local police, because my small towns are simply not seen to be a priority and resources are directed elsewhere. How can I offer reassurance to my communities that their small towns are not being forgotten?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Specific resources are available to police forces to be surged into tackling county lines. I know the police force in Dorset, in her area, has applied for that funding in the past, so I encourage her to have a conversation with the police and crime commissioner and chief constable about what more can be done to get that resource into the towns she talks about.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The 2025-26 final police funding settlement provides funding of up to £19.6 billion for the policing system in England and Wales, which is an increase of £1.1 billion when compared to 2024-25. Of that, Gloucestershire will receive up to £168.2 million, an increase of over £10 million, including £1.5 million to kickstart the recruitment of additional neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers in Gloucestershire.
Dr Savage
My constituency straddles two large counties, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, which both languish near the bottom of the league table of funding for constabularies. Despite the modest rise in funding, those constabularies will have to cut policing numbers, so can the Minister assure my constituents that crimes will be addressed on a timely basis?
Dame Diana Johnson
More money is going into policing, particularly around the neighbourhood policing guarantee that this Government promised in their manifesto. We are providing £200 million to kickstart the recruitment of police officers, PCSOs and specials in all our communities. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the funding formula and how that affects the two forces that straddle her constituency. We are going into a spending review and I know officials have met representatives from Gloucestershire constabulary to talk about the financial situation. We will keep that under review as we work towards the spending review.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like Gloucestershire police, Essex police is receiving additional funding this year; in fact, we are getting increased funding of £27 million. Despite that, the front desk at Harlow police station is under threat. Does the Minister agree that given the additional funding, police services in Harlow in Essex should be increasing not decreasing, and that any proposals not to do so are down to historical underfunding by the previous Government?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very pleased that Essex has got that increase in funding. I gently point out that the decisions around how those resources are used are for the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable, but, overall, more than £1.1 billion is going into policing, over and above what the previous Government put in in 2024-25.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
This weekend’s horrific attack in Mulhouse in France has again reminded us of the threat from terrorists and from Islamist extremism, which can strike at any time. I have spoken to the French Interior Minister this morning to offer our support and any assistance needed. We will continue to work with our European colleagues and the Five Eyes partnership to tackle these threats, both internationally and here in the UK.
Peter Prinsley
Sadly, the misappropriation of religious belief to justify acts of terror and intimidation has become familiar across the world. We have seen the minds of too many of our young people corrupted by online pedlars of hate, so what action are this Government taking to tackle radicalisation at a time when xenophobia and intolerance are being promoted for political purposes?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that terrorists do not speak for any faith. Interfaith relationships are an important part of developing stronger communities, but we are clear that in the Government and across society we have to do more to prevent radicalisation and particularly the growing numbers of young people from being drawn into terrorism—both Islamist extremism and extreme right-wing threats. That is why tomorrow we will introduce new youth diversion orders through our crime and policing Bill to give the police new powers to divert young people away from terrorism.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Although I welcome what the Home Secretary is saying about the need to divert and prevent home-grown terrorism, does she accept that a pattern of terrorism is emerging in continental Europe of undocumented migrants going into countries and committing terrorist acts? Does she agree that it is very difficult for the authorities to prevent anything of that sort if undocumented illegal migrants are released into society when they arrive on these shores?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear that we need to tackle extremist and terror threats wheresoever they are found, which includes making sure that we have strengthened border security. That is why we have put forward new counter-terror style powers around people smuggling and trafficking to strengthen our border security, and it is also why we need to tackle particularly the radicalisation we see online. That is where we also see young people being drawn into extremist and terror threats. Wheresoever that is found, we need strong action in place to keep our country safe.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In fighting terrorism, the Security Minister has rightly said that Islamism is the foremost threat we face. Its danger lies not just in physical violence, but in the intolerance it embodies and the intimidation it relies on. Will the Home Secretary give a clear answer to this question? Should it be a criminal offence to desecrate a Koran or any holy text: yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
We are clear that the primary domestic terrorist threat comes from Islamist terrorism, which comprises three quarters of the MI5 caseload and 64% of those in custody for terrorism-connected offences. That is followed by extreme right-wing terrorism, which comprises around a quarter of the MI5 caseload. We already have a framework of legislation in place to ensure that we can deal with the dangerous threats to our cohesion and our communities that we face.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft reached a record high, and violence and abuse towards retail workers increased to an unacceptable level. This Government will not tolerate these crimes. As a central part of our safer streets mission, we are committed to introducing a new stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker and ending the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200, because there is no such thing as low-level crime.
Ruth Cadbury
I was recently contacted by a constituent who works in a small high street supermarket. He and his colleagues have frequently been violently attacked by shoplifters, so what else can the Minister say about what the Government can do to protect shop workers?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is appalling to hear about cases such as the ones in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am very struck—like everyone else across the House, I think—by how commonplace violence and abuse against shop workers has sadly become. The Government have made it absolutely clear that everybody who goes to work has the right to feel safe on the job, and we will not tolerate the criminality that we have seen in recent times. That is why, following years of campaigning from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-op, this Labour Government will finally deliver a stand-alone criminal offence of assaulting a retail worker.
Sally Jameson
Shop workers in Doncaster have told me time and again that they are fed up with the amount of shoplifting going on and the antisocial behaviour that goes with it, which includes threats and sometimes physical violence. This kind of crime needs to be crushed. I am pleased to hear that a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker is to be included in the legislation being introduced this week, but will the Minister confirm that the police will have the clout to enforce the law and make sure we eliminate this kind of activity?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our commitment to neighbourhood policing and putting the police officers, police community support officers and special constables back into our neighbourhoods—into our communities, high streets and town centres—will enable the police to take the action we all want to see against the antisocial behaviour that my hon. Friend talks about.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
One of the best ways of tackling retail crime and associated antisocial behaviour among young people is through targeted preventive work with at-risk pupils in schools. An example is the guidance and welfare unit at Cavendish school in Eastbourne. That unit was set up by my former headteacher, Mr Fitzpatrick, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with my former head of year, Mrs Fitzpatrick, who is also in the Gallery. Will the Minister join me in congratulating inspirational teachers such as them on their critical safeguarding and prevention work with young people across Eastbourne and beyond?
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not want to get into trouble; I would like to congratulate Mr and Mrs Fitzpatrick on the work they have done—we know how important that early preventive work is. That is why this Government are also committed to our prevention partnerships, identifying young people who are on the cusp of getting involved in criminality and diverting them, and putting the resources in to make sure they make much better choices in their lives.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Harrogate has a wealth of independent stores that attract people to the town from across the region—including shoplifters, unfortunately. I have been speaking with Harrogate business improvement district about what it can do to help tackle shoplifting. It has an increasingly good relationship with North Yorkshire police. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage North Yorkshire police and other police organisations to work with local community and business organisations to crack down on shoplifting?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I visited North Yorkshire last week, and one of the issues there is how well the police are working with communities and the retail sector to start to tackle some of the issues around retail crime. Over the next three years, £7 million will be allocated to support the police to tackle retail crime through the specialist team Opal, which is the national police intelligence unit. That unit is looking at the serious organised criminal gangs that are now involved in retail theft.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are committed to tackling rural crime. We recognise the devastating consequences it can have on communities and the agricultural sector. Under our reforms, rural areas will be safeguarded through tougher measures to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, to strengthen neighbourhood policing and to take action to prevent fly-tipping.
Leigh Ingham
Antisocial behaviour in Tyrley, a small village in my constituency, has had a significant impact on the community. Small rural communities like these often feel overlooked and struggle to have their voices heard when it comes to policing and public safety. Will the Government ensure that rural communities, such as Tyrley, receive the named police officer guarantee, so that they have a dedicated point of contact for policing and for support?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, and my hon. Friend raises an important point about those small parts of larger rural communities and how they can feel that our neighbourhood policing guarantee will provide them with reassurance. There is the named officer guarantee, and it is worth recognising the use of things such as WhatsApp groups in big rural areas, where intelligence can be fed into the police. That can also be helpful for those communities to feel safe.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Policing in rural areas is increasingly complex, but rural constabularies receive much less funding than inner-city ones. I know the Minister will jump on this opportunity to complain about the last Government, but will she at least take a moment to commit to publishing the methodology behind the funding formula and open a conversation about fairer funding for rural police forces?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman is right: I am going to say that the funding formula was introduced by the previous Government—I think in 2011. They had two goes at trying to update it, and they did not do anything about it. We have been in government for seven months now, and this is what we have inherited. In a lot of areas, we have inherited things that we would not necessarily have wanted to have inherited. As I have said before to the House, we will be looking at police reform going forward, and part of that conversation will be around financial issues.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
We are continuing to reduce the use of asylum hotels from the peak, which was reached under the previous Government, when more than 400 hotels were in use across the country at a cost of £9 million every day. We are determined to end the use of hotels over time as part of our wider objective to cut the costs of asylum accommodation and restore order to our immigration system.
Tom Hayes
Asylum seekers are forced to live in limbo. Bournemouth hotels cost the taxpayer eye-watering sums, as we just heard, and everyone is stuck in a situation that nobody wants. I have written to Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council to express opposition to additional asylum hotels in my constituency. Will the Minister outline how the Home Office has reallocated resources following the election to speed up the closure of hotels and the processing of asylum applications, to turn a page on 14 years of Conservative failure?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are determined to end hotel usage as part of our objective to cut the costs of asylum accommodation. A key element of that is clearing the asylum backlog and increasing returns, so that the system operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.
Simon Hoare
I am afraid that determination will not quite cut it, will it? Pensioners in North Dorset who have been deprived of their winter fuel allowance and farmers who have been hit by and are now facing a massive tax burden will want to know how the Minister will reduce the cost of asylum hotels, which is, as she says, eye-wateringly high. The action and her words are not apparently matching.
Dame Angela Eagle
We have to deal with the chaotic system that we inherited from the Conservatives. We are doing that in various ways. One of the big things that we are trying to do is speed up the system and end the backlog so that we can get people out of hotels.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are determined to act to ensure that people feel safe on our streets. On 6 February the Home Secretary brought together law enforcement agencies and representatives of the mobile phone industry to discuss what more could be done to break the business model of mobile phone theft, and to bring about stronger collaboration across those agencies to crack down on the criminal networks that are operating in this trade.
Gregory Stafford
In earlier times mobile phone theft was seen as an urban issue, but as has been evidenced by my postbag over the last couple of weeks, it is increasing in our rural towns and villages. What discussions is the Minister having with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that repeat perpetrators of this crime face custodial sentences?
Dame Diana Johnson
While there is a concentration of phone thefts in the Metropolitan police area in particular, it is important to note that they are happening around the country, and it is being suggested that the good practice used by those who are starting to tackle the problem, notably the West Midlands police force, should be spread to all forces. The taskforce that I mentioned earlier in connection with a summit will meet again in three months, and I will certainly speak to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice about the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Home Office works closely with other Departments and operational agencies to strengthen the UK’s defences against state threats. That includes continuing to implement measures in the National Security Act 2023, which will make the UK a harder target for states that seek to commit hostile acts.
Mark Sewards
Hostile states are using unknowing security officials here in the UK to undermine our national security and conceal their activities, and the director general of MI5 has said that Russia and Iran are increasingly using this tactic. I welcome the Home Office guidance that allows security organisations to carry out effective due diligence, but what else is the Department doing, with the security industry, to ensure that our country is protected from these hostile state threats?
Dan Jarvis
I thank my hon. Friend not just for his question but for mentioning the recent Home Office guidance, which was a crucial first step in upskilling security officials on the risks that they might encounter from state actors. We are following that up with targeted engagement events across the sector, including upcoming industry conferences which we will be attending to ensure that the key messages are well understood and we can have an ongoing dialogue with the sector about the handling of such threats.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When considering hostile state threats, we cannot ignore terrorist groups from both the right and the left in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who work with some of those states. What is being done to ensure that paramilitary groups across the United Kingdom are taken on, and that the hostile states they represent on the basis of their own motivations can be addressed directly?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, as he always does. I can say to him that a threat is a threat, regardless of the direction from which it comes. We take all those threats extremely seriously, and we work around the clock with the police and the operational agencies to keep the public safe, wherever the threat may originate.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Strong encryption is vital for everyone’s security, but last week Apple pulled its advanced data protection services in the UK after the Home Office had reportedly demanded back-door access to its UK customers’ encrypted data. Liberal Democrats have long argued that investigatory powers must be proportionate, as any “way in” for security services can be exploited by criminal gangs or, indeed, hostile states to target innocent people. Given that rights and security go hand in hand, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our national security and civil liberties are properly protected? Why do the Government believe that Apple’s UK customers do not deserve the same privacy rights as every other customer in the rest of the world?
Dan Jarvis
I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on operational matters, and it would not be appropriate for me either to confirm or to deny the existence of any notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This is a long-standing position held by successive Governments for obvious reasons of national security. What I can say is that the suggestion that privacy and security are at odds is not correct; we can and must have both. The Investigatory Powers Act contains robust safeguards and independent oversight to protect privacy and ensure that data is obtained only on an exceptional basis, and only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
“My son didn’t stand a chance.”
Those were the heartbreaking words of Pooja Kanda, whose teenage son Ronan was fatally stabbed in 2022. His teenage killers were able to buy multiple dangerous weapons online, without any proper checks. Following Pooja’s campaigning, we are introducing Ronan’s law, which includes tightening the rules for online retailers, increasing the maximum penalty for selling weapons to under-18s, and introducing much more stringent ID checks at the point of purchase and delivery. I thank Commander Stephen Clayman for his crucial review in this area, which underpins the reforms, and pay tribute to the Kanda family. We need to do everything in our power to prevent other families from suffering from terrible knife crime.
Greg Smith
Thames Valley police are £1.9 million down this year because of the flawed formula for distributing funds to police forces after a pay award is given. When will this historical anomaly be fixed?
Yvette Cooper
I will just point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party had 14 years to address all the things he is so concerned about now. This Government have increased funding for policing by up to £1.1 billion next year, including £200 million to start redressing the huge cuts in neighbourhood policing that we have seen on our streets in Thames Valley and right across the country, because we need to get police back on the streets.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
My hon. Friend is right to say that asylum costs make up the bulk of Home Office spend classified as ODA spending and that we are committed to reducing them, including by ending the use of hotels, which will mean that we can return that ODA resource so that it can be used upstream to prevent migratory flows from happening in the first place.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Border security is fundamental, but between the July election and yesterday, 25,135 people illegally and dangerously crossed the English channel—a 28% increase on the same period 12 months earlier. Does the Home Secretary now regret ignoring the National Crime Agency’s advice that law enforcement alone is not enough and that a removals deterrent is needed?
Yvette Cooper
I will just point out to the shadow Home Secretary that when the Conservatives were in government, we saw that many people arrive in the space of just over 100 days, because they completely lost control of our borders and let criminal gangs take hold along the channel. Some 84,000 people arrived in small boats while the Rwanda policy that he somehow wants to reintroduce managed to send just four volunteers. We have increased returns by over 20% to 19,000, which is important. I hope he will explain why he voted against counter-terrorism powers to go after smuggler gangs.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. Of course, it never even started, as she well knows. The first flight was due to take off after the election, but she cancelled it.
She mentions that returns have gone up. What she fails to mention is that the vast majority of those people did not enter the country by small boat. The number of small boat returns went down after this Government came into office, and it represents only 4% of people crossing the English channel. Does she really think that letting 96% of illegal immigrants stay here is going to deter anybody?
Yvette Cooper
I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that the Rwanda scheme ran for two years. It was running for two years—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, let us show a little bit more restraint, and when you ask a question, at least wait for the answer.
Yvette Cooper
The scheme ran for two years, and the Conservatives spent £700 million of taxpayers’ money to return just four people. In the period during which the shadow Home Secretary was in the Government, 128,000 people arrived on small boats, and only a tiny percentage of them were ever returned, even though that number included 12,000 Albanians. This Government are having to sort out this chaos, but his party is again failing to support counter-terrorism powers against smuggler and trafficking gangs—siding with the criminal smuggler gangs instead of the people of Britain.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. The Government are clear that online platforms are a significant enabler of sexual exploitation, and must be responsible and held accountable for the content of their sites, including taking proactive steps to prevent their sites being used by criminals. We are implementing the Online Safety Act 2023, which sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
On a recent visit to Marple sixth-form college, I was reminded that the last Conservative Government abandoned young people and our economy by trashing our relationship with Europe, so I was delighted to see recent reports in The Times that the Prime Minister will offer a youth mobility scheme in negotiations with the EU. This is a common-sense approach that will give our young people opportunities and help grow our economy. Will the Secretary of State support delivering the best possible deal for young people here in the UK by extending a youth mobility scheme to the EU?
Yvette Cooper
As the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats knows, that is not our plan, and we are clear that net migration needs to come down. It quadrupled under the previous Conservative Government in the space of just four years, and that number needs to come down. We believe we should support young people across this country, including through youth prevention partnerships.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am very sorry to hear about the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. She will know that we have a commitment to halve knife crime over the next decade. We have already introduced the ban on zombie knives and machetes, and we are moving forward with the ban on ninja swords. Last week, the Home Secretary announced the new measures under Ronan’s law to tighten the lethal loopholes in the online sale of knives, and we are developing the Young Futures programme, with prevention partnerships at their heart, to stop young people getting involved in knife crime.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and if he wants to write to me about that case, I will be very happy to look at it.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson
The abuse of animals using weapons of any type is an incredibly serious matter, and there are such provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006. There is a range of offences, and I encourage anyone who witnesses this kind of event to report it to the police. I will certainly discuss what more we can do with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about e-bikes and e-scooters being a safety hazard when modified or misused. What is the Minister doing to tackle riders travelling at high speeds on pavements and other pedestrian areas, and help my constituents to feel safe on their streets again?
Yvette Cooper
I can reassure the hon. Member that dangerous and antisocial behaviour involving e-bikes will be covered by the legislation we are introducing tomorrow to tackle vehicles and off-road bikes used in antisocial behaviour, so that we can keep streets and communities safe.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Too often antisocial behaviour is dismissed as a low-level crime, yet it can make people’s lives a complete misery. That is why we need more neighbourhood police back on our streets, working in communities to prevent and tackle the kinds of problems that communities face.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister recently said he was:
“hardwiring growth into all the decisions of the Cabinet”.
How did he react when the Home Secretary told him that her policy on electronic travel authorisations would cost the economy nearly £735 million over five years?
Seema Malhotra
We are introducing electronic travel authorisations in line with the approach of our international partners such as Australia and the USA, who have also been looking at how to enhance their ability to pre-screen travellers upstream, to stop those who pose a threat from travelling to the UK. As the former immigration Minister and now shadow Secretary of State of Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said at the time:
“ETAs will enhance our border security by increasing our knowledge about those seeking to come to the UK and preventing the arrival of those who pose a threat.”
If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with him, I suggest they have a catch-up. Perhaps the Conservative party will have worked out by then where it stands on the policy.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I can confirm that the Government take the threat of corruption, illicit finance and kleptocracy extremely seriously, which is why we announced that we will publish a new UK anti-corruption strategy this year. The new strategy will include measures that make it harder for corrupt actors to operate, strengthen global resilience to corruption, and address the UK’s vulnerabilities to corruption, including through ways to ensure that all those in public service are held to the highest standards.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Home Secretary knows that raising the minimum income threshold has reduced net migration, which is why I introduced it while I was Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary wants to continue bringing net migration down, will she now confirm that she will introduce the further increases to the threshold, as I proposed?
Yvette Cooper
Net migration quadrupled during the period when the former Home Secretary was in government, in the space of just four years—the most shocking loss of control of our borders. We saw visas and overseas recruitment shoot up at exactly the same time as training here in the UK fell. That is why this Government will publish a White Paper that sets out measures to reduce net migration, including by ensuring that employers recruit and train here in the UK.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson
I visited Bedfordshire police before Christmas, and I agree that it is an excellent force. Decisions around funding will be made in due course.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Refugees here from Ukraine under the Homes for Ukraine scheme are not eligible to indefinite leave. They have a three-year visa, which in many cases, obviously, is about to expire. They have a very short window to apply for what is only an 18-month extension. Does the Home Secretary agree that that is not long enough for Ukrainian families here to be able to plan their future, and will she reconsider?
Yvette Cooper
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that we continue to support the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which remains extremely important—I have a family from Ukraine still living with me in Yorkshire. We will continue to support those families and will ensure that people are not disadvantaged by the deadlines that have been set.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Challenging violence against women and girls is an absolutely critical mission of this Government. What work is the Minister doing with the Department for Education to promote positive role models in our schools and further education colleges?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am literally about to go into a cross-Government ministerial meeting with the Department for Education about exactly that. Our violence against women and girls strategy will not succeed without prevention through education.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Home Secretary quite conspicuously failed to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked earlier, so I am going to have another go. Should it ever be a criminal offence for anybody to desecrate a religious text—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not have a blasphemy law in this country, nor will we have one.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Three weeks ago, I met a nine-year-old boy in Blackpool’s asylum hotel. He cannot walk, has frequent seizures and is non-verbal. Since May last year, his family have been requesting a wheelchair, as they have to carry him everywhere they go. No child, especially one with these needs, should have to go without the equipment that gives them the dignity to live. Does the Minister agree that such hotels are unsuitable for vulnerable children, and will she personally intervene to help me to get this young lad a wheelchair?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention. My officials have investigated, and Serco has referred the case to healthcare partners, who are currently in the process of providing a suitable wheelchair following a thorough assessment of the child’s needs. Officials are monitoring the situation closely to ensure the family receive the support they require.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Domestic abuse services in my area are telling me there is a specific shortage of places in shelters for men, which is a particular problem for women fleeing domestic abuse with their teenage sons. What is being done to address this problem specifically?
Jess Phillips
Refuge accommodation actually sits within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, we have invested £30 million extra for councils to look at the need they have in their area, which will include creating dispersal accommodation, as women with older boys are often not allowed into group accommodation.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Last week, I held a summit with local businesses in the Top of Town in Basingstoke to discuss how we can breathe new life into our town centre. One of the key messages was that persistent antisocial behaviour is making residents feel unsafe and creating a barrier to businesses thriving. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give businesses and constituents in Basingstoke that this Government are making progress in restoring town centre patrols?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter, for both Basingstoke and towns right across the country. Town centres were blighted by a 60% increase in shop theft in the two years before the election, as well antisocial behaviour. That is why tackling town centre crime will be at the heart of the crime and policing Bill, introduced tomorrow.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be a better use of Greater Manchester police officers’ time if they actually policed the streets and prevented crime, rather than visiting grandmothers’ homes to discuss a Facebook post?
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the discussion on this earlier. We have been clear that the central priority for policing set by this Government is neighbourhood policing, to tackle town centre crime, challenges across the country and serious violence, including violence against women and girls and the knife crime devastating young lives. We have made those priorities clear to police forces right across the country as part of our policing reform and our new legislation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Dispersal accommodation for asylum is unevenly distributed across the country. In Hartlepool, we support 50 asylum seekers per 10,000 in the population, yet a few miles up the road, the neighbouring local authority supports seven per 10,000, with local authorities elsewhere in the country hosting none. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair, and that, as we bring the numbers down, we must evenly distribute support for asylum seekers across the areas?
Dame Angela Eagle
We did inherit a very uneven distribution—if I could put it that way—of dispersed accommodation, often in poorer areas where, its presence puts more pressure on local communities. It is not a situation that we would have wanted, and we want to remedy it over time.
Plant Oxford Site
(1 day, 10 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
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if we will make a statement on the Plant Oxford site.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
This Government are determined to see a strong, thriving UK automotive industry. We recognise the vital role that the British motor industry plays within our manufacturing landscape, employing more than 150,000 people, with tens of thousands more working in the wider supply chain. That is why we are ploughing £2 billion into the sector’s green transition and £300 million to encourage the uptake of new, clean, green electric vehicles—a big incentive for the global automotive sector to invest in the UK. Building on this momentum, our modern industrial strategy will back automotive companies that want to invest in Britain and drive long-term sustainable UK growth.
BMW has taken a commercial decision to delay the production of two new electric Mini models at its Oxford plant. Undoubtedly, that news will be unsettling for the company’s many hard-working employees, not least those working directly on the production line, but I must stress that BMW remains committed to its investment in the UK. It is by no means unusual for a manufacturer to adjust its product line-up or production start dates for commercial reasons.
We are proud that BMW considers Oxford to be at the heart of Mini production. As a Government, we are throwing our weight behind its investment. We want big automotive brands from Britain and around the world to lie at the heart of our growth mission and plan for change, creating well-paid jobs and putting more money into people’s pockets. As part of that effort, this Government are working closely with BMW as it reviews its investment timelines, ensuring that more cars are built right here in the United Kingdom.
Greg Smith
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I expected the Secretary of State to hide from talk of CVs, but it seems that also applies to EVs. This weekend we saw the disastrous consequences of Labour’s rigid approach to net zero: BMW hitting the brakes on a £600 million investment in Plant Oxford. That deal, from 2023, would have secured 4,000 high-quality jobs and was a strong vote of confidence in the UK. Like other deals, it was possible only because the previous Government were willing to be pragmatic. The Conservatives made the sensible decision to delay the ban on internal combustion engine cars, bringing the UK into line with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, but Labour said it knew better, restoring the 2030 phase-out date in its manifesto.
When the negative impacts of that approach became clear, the Government launched a fast-track consultation on the zero emission vehicle mandate, pitifully attempting to buy themselves time. Surely, no consultation is necessary. The effects of their puritanical ZEV obsession is already clear: Jaguar Land Rover says that the ZEV mandate is causing disruption to the market; Vauxhall has confirmed that it will shut down its Luton factory, citing the ZEV mandate as making the plant less economically viable; and now the future of Plant Oxford—the home of the Mini since 1959—is uncertain.
Labour’s reckless policies have shattered industry confidence, with consumer demand for EVs dropping off a cliff and numbers only just about sustained by subsidised fleet sales. Will the Minister do the right thing: stop hiding behind consultations and acknowledge that the Government’s ideological approach to net zero will lead only to economic disaster for our automotive sector and consumers alike?
Sarah Jones
It is hard to know where to start. The “puritanical ZEV obsession” was, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a Conservative policy from the last Government. The only changes made to that policy under the last Prime Minister dampened demand by changing the deadline, and hampered manufacturers by not ensuring flexibility or pragmatism in how the policy operated—it was the worst of both worlds.
By contrast, Labour and the Government are acting with pragmatism. We are listening to industry and working at pace to get this right. We are also creating the conditions in which the automotive industry can thrive. That means delivering not just the economic and political stability so lacking under the previous Government, but an industrial strategy that will deliver growth, including in the automotive industry; investing £2 billion in automotive transition through the Budget; investing in research and development; supporting and talking to our industries; and understanding the global climate.
It was really clear in BMW’s statement that there were macroeconomic global and commercial reasons why the decision to delay was made, but BMW is clear that it is still committed to this investment in the UK. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is liaising closely with workers and unions, as would be expected. We will continue to work to ensure the right economic and political climate, so that these industries can grow.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Will the Minister update the House on progress on the industrial strategy for the automotive industry? How will that support supply chains in places like Dudley and across the west midlands?
Sarah Jones
We are working at pace on delivering the industrial strategy in the spring. There are 150,000 good jobs in the automotive industry, and we want to see those jobs grow. We have identified eight growth sectors that the industrial strategy will turbocharge. Advanced manufacturing is one of them, and that of course includes the auto industry. We have £2 billion of investment, committed at the Budget, to underpin that. We are also working in the industrial strategy on identifying any barriers to growth, so that we can ensure that the sector grows in the years to come.
The industrial strategy will give the stability that we need over the long term—over five and 10 years. It will look at the policy levers that we can control to ensure that businesses continue to want to invest in the UK. PwC has just ranked the UK the second-best place in the world to invest, so I think the future is positive.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This is yet another failure in the Government’s main aim of getting Britain growing again. Zero-emission vehicles are too expensive and, it appears, too hard to manufacture in the UK. That forces us into an unfortunate reality in which we are reliant on Elon Musk for our supply of EVs, and are funnelling money into his already very deep pockets, rather than promoting a productive domestic market with good jobs. We need to show ambition and make it easier for ordinary families to buy EVs. What measures will the Government take to support and encourage consumer demand for electric vehicles?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s policies for growing the economy. A few months ago, we held an international investment summit, at which £63 billion of investment was announced. As I have mentioned, there was £2 billion announced in the Budget for the automotive industry. Interest rates have been cut three times, wages are up, and more than 70,000 jobs have been secured in the UK since the Government came to power. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD predict that the UK will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy over the next few years. The industrial strategy was scrapped under the last Government; our industrial strategy will be the backbone of ensuring that we deliver growth.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing. I have already set out the stability, investment and reform that we are bringing to the sector to make sure that it can thrive. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on the automotive industry through their work in it, or in its supply chains. Those are good, well-paid jobs, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the sector grows.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Minister has set out how we delivered £2 billion-worth of support for the automotive sector in the Budget. That support is both for manufacturing and for the crucial supply chains in places such as my Black Country constituency and Oxford. Is she able to set out any further details about how that money will be used to support our brilliant manufacturing?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her support for the industry, which is so important. Through the £2 billion funding, the automotive transformation fund, the exceptional regional growth fund and the advanced propulsion centre research and development fund, we have found innovative ways of supporting the industry. In January, I was pleased to hear Jatco, a company that makes transmissions for Nissan, announce that it would put its first manufacturing plant in Europe here in the UK; it is converting an old hospital building with a £50 million investment. That plant will be at the international advanced manufacturing park in Sunderland. That is the kind of opportunity that we want to create and deliver.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Jaguar Land Rover, which has its engine manufacturing centre based in Staffordshire, is a vital employer for people not just in Staffordshire, but right across the west midlands. That plant is pioneering the development of electric vehicles for JLR. What additional support and flexibility will there be from the Government to ensure that Great British brands continue to prosper in the west midlands?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about Great British brands. We have some incredible small car manufacturers, as well as larger ones, in the UK, and there is great diversity of provision. We are supporting the development of gigafactories in the UK, so that we can make the batteries that we need. We are helping with R&D and innovation to make our cars more sophisticated and efficient, and supporting the large manufacturers to ensure that the conditions are right for them to develop in the UK. We are doing all those things through our industrial strategy and our automotive strategy. I work with the Automotive Council; we met just a couple of weeks ago to talk about the vibrant future that we see for automotives in the UK. I am always happy to talk to JLR about its plans, and have done so several times.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I know that the shadow Minister struggles with the dynamics of the automotive industry, but for the last 20 years, 50% of new vehicle sales have been fleet and business sales. Does the Minister agree that the decision taken today is a commercial decision, based around the structure of BMW’s dealer network, as opposed to an obsession with petrol and diesel vehicles?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend as absolutely right to say that this is a commercial decision. As he would expect, we are talking to representatives of BMW; my officials were with them in Munich a couple of weeks ago, and I have met the UK managing director several times. We are talking to them to support the commercial decisions that they need to make. They have made it clear that there were macroeconomic, global and commercial reasons for the delay that has been announced; such delays are not uncommon. I know that BMW remains committed to this investment in the UK.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
More than 300 employees at the BMW plant in Oxford live in my constituency, and this morning I met plant convenors from the Unite union to discuss the impact that the uncertainty at the plant is having on those workers and their families. Can the Minister outline exactly how the new industrial strategy will help the plant to become more competitive, in the face of severe competition from other BMW plants in the EU, the US and China?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the concern that I suspect those employees feel. They have known about this change since last year. There are 3,500 people who work in the Oxford plant and many more who work at Rolls-Royce, which is owned by BMW, and in other parts of the UK. Through the industrial strategy, we are looking at a number of issues that we will use the £2 billion for, and we will use the powers that we have. Skills, energy costs and access to finance are all issues that we are having lots of conversations about, as well as the transition to electric vehicles. We are making sure that the flight path for investment in the UK is as good as possible, and that those who are already investing in the UK continue to do so. BMW has announced a £300 million investment in Rolls-Royce, which it owns. It remains committed to this investment in the UK, but I appreciate that there will be concerns among the workers to whom the hon. Gentleman has been talking, and I am always happy to meet people to discuss these matters in more detail.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Tata’s Llanwern steelworks in my constituency produces world-class automotive steel. The Minister has acknowledged the importance of the automotive sector. Will she also acknowledge the importance of having a strong steel industry, and of plants like Llanwern making steel for EVs, and put that at the heart of the forthcoming industrial strategy—a strategy that the Conservatives never had?
Sarah Jones
I am glad that my hon. Friend has managed, as ever, to bring steel into the debate. It is incredibly important, and that is why we will have a separate steel strategy, on top of the work that we are doing in the industrial strategy to ensure a thriving sector in the future. That will look at all the issues that we are grappling with and that she knows about, including the transition, energy prices, access to finance, access to grid connections and scrap. We will continue to ensure that the UK’s six steel producers can thrive and bring in new business.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), the Minister stated that the strategy is resulting in people wanting to invest in the United Kingdom. The sad fact is that as a result of the mad net zero policies that this Government are following, we are losing investment every week; this is yet another example. Does the Minister not follow the logic? If we punish people for not wanting the cars that we produce, the companies will cut back production and jobs, consumers will not get what they want, and economic growth will be affected. When will this Government come to the conclusion that this policy of net zero and punishing people is wrong?
Sarah Jones
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman saw that the CBI brought out figures over the weekend showing that the net zero economy grew by 10% last year, which is significantly more than the economy as a whole. We are absolutely right to transition to electric vehicles, so that we can stick to our commitments on climate change. We are being pragmatic in how we do that. We are not following the same policy as the previous Government, because we are talking to industry and consulting. We will publish the results of the consultation on how the flexibilities within the transition are working, and whether we need to change them in any way.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The British car industry was thriving until the Conservative party introduced net stupid zero, and now we have another car plant at risk; another business struggling and losing hundreds of millions of pounds; and hundreds more British jobs at risk. Does the Minister agree that the automotive industry in the UK will continue to decline until we scrap net zero?
Sarah Jones
Here we go with the same old lines. The hon. Gentleman tells us that net zero is a massive con, yet he owns a company that is investing in electric car charging ports. I rest my case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has a real interest in the matters for which she has ministerial responsibility; I want to put on the record my thanks to her. When we have had meetings on other issues relating to Northern Ireland, she has been anxious to help and support me, and I appreciate that.
The decision not to go ahead with the EV production is disappointing to say the least, but it perhaps indicates a wider issue that we face in the manufacturing industry due to rising costs. What can the Minister do to help companies attract more investment through lower energy costs, and what can the Government do to ensure that British jobs are not sent to China, and to ensure that firms that choose to relocate jobs understand that no future help will be forthcoming?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I should be clear for the House that the decision has not been made to not go ahead; this is a delay and a change in timing. BMW is committed to going ahead with the investment. At the moment, its e-Mini is being produced in China. This investment will bring it here to the UK. Lots must be done in terms of energy prices, as he says. Building a gigafactory means significant reductions in energy prices, but the wider manufacturing sector is talking to us virtually every day about these kinds of issues. Through the industrial strategy and the reforms that we want to bring in, and by spending the £2 billion that we were allocated in the Budget, we hope to deliver a thriving automotive industry well into the future.
Ukraine
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Ukraine.
In January 2022, I visited the Wall of Remembrance of the Fallen in Kyiv with my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. Seeing the faces of all those who had lost their lives since 2014 brought home the human cost of Kremlin imperialism—and of the Ukrainian determination to stand up to it. Indeed, some weeks later, just as British and American intelligence services had warned, we awoke to news of Putin’s full-scale invasion, launched to shatter the sovereign state of Ukraine.
Today, we mark three years of Ukrainian courage in resisting that brutal, illegal and unprovoked invasion. I have witnessed their fortitude at first hand in three visits to Kyiv over the past year—their defiant blitz spirit as Russian missiles and drones rain down night after night after night. On this grim anniversary, amid all the talk about talks, we must not forget that Russia’s barbaric war goes on, that the Ukrainian people are suffering, and that, beyond Europe, the conflict is piling pressure on the world’s poorest, too.
This debate takes place against the backdrop of intense diplomatic efforts, responding of course to President Trump’s call to bring this war to a swift end. At the G20 in South Africa last week, I listened to Sergey Lavrov. Once again, he shamelessly played the victim, rehashing the same old lies. I will say to the House what I said in response: if Russia is serious about a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, Ukraine’s independence and the United Nations charter; guarantees Ukraine’s security against future aggression; and rejects imperialism, then Britain will listen. No one wants that more than Ukraine.
At the Munich security conference, I underlined that Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks about Ukraine’s future, and I said that the west must learn from our history. Vladimir Putin and his war are no historical aberration. He draws on a tsarist tradition—the imperialism and authoritarianism of Peter the Great or Nicholas I—and a Soviet tradition: he is, after all, a KGB agent who operates by deception. It was an American diplomat, George Kennan, whose “long telegram” in 1946 warned of a deep continuity in Kremlin thinking. He argued that the Kremlin would respond only to strength. That was the basis for the policy of containment, as part of which Britain contributed tens of thousands of troops to the British Army of the Rhine. It was that strength, not paper promises, that deterred Moscow from further advances west.
Today, let us look at the Kremlin’s recent record. The Helsinki Final Act of 1975—betrayed. The Budapest memorandum of 1994—betrayed. The NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997—betrayed. The Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015—betrayed. This is foreign policy by lies. We must respond by being true to ourselves and provide the support Ukraine needs to stay strong, because that is what is needed to secure a lasting peace and shape our collective security so that Putin never invades again.
The UK has a unique role in helping to make that happen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister was in Paris last week talking to our European allies about how we step up support for Ukraine, accelerate work on security guarantees and take more responsibility for the security of our continent. In Munich, I spoke to Vice-President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio. In Brussels, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary chaired the Ukraine defence contact group, where US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed that, like us, the US wants to see a sovereign, prosperous Ukraine.
Europe must shoulder its share of the burden. With the United States and its unique capabilities, we can deter Putin from attacking Ukraine again and from escalating hybrid Russian attacks in Europe into some form of direct confrontation, so this week the Prime Minister and I will be travelling to Washington DC to meet President Trump. Ukraine needs friends and allies on both sides of the Atlantic working together to achieve “peace through strength”. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have spoken of their desire to achieve that, and the Prime Minister will reaffirm to Zelensky in a call today that it is Britain’s goal as well.
That must include European countries investing more in our own defence and capabilities. Already, the UK has stepped up and sped up military assistance. We have committed £3 billion in military aid a year—every year, for as long it takes. Over the next two years, we will provide an additional £2.26 billion earmarked for military spending, via our share of the $50 billion G7 loan backed by frozen Russian assets.
In addition, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we know our Kremlin history, and that is why we are ready to contribute to future security guarantees for Ukraine in the context of a US backstop, including by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary. That would not be an easy decision—anyone in this House who has taken responsibility for the lives of British servicemen and women can attest to that—but I know the whole House recognises that Ukraine’s security is our security.
The UK also continues to set the pace on ratcheting up the economic pressure on the Kremlin. Together with our international partners, we have already denied Russia access to $400 billion. Its war economy is increasingly unsustainable. Inflation is 9.9% and rising, and that is just the official figure. Interest rates are running at 21%. This year, Russia will spend almost 41% of its budget on defence and security.
Today, we are announcing our biggest package of sanctions since the early days of the war: over 100 targets, including 40 oil tankers—our largest set of ship specifications in a single sanctions package yet—as well as third-country enablers that are pouring money into Putin’s war chest. New legislation imposes additional trade sanctions on Russia, too. That will deny Russia access to the world-leading expertise needed to maintain its war.
Today, the UK is also solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which was signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January. In February, I saw for myself how much that partnership means to Ukraine, and how much potential there is for our collective growth and security. Together, we lay that agreement in Parliament for scrutiny, and I look forward to it entering into force when the process is complete—a clear sign of our confidence in Ukraine’s future.
Mr Speaker, this is a critical moment. I want to acknowledge how colleagues have stood united over these past three years, including hon. Members from all parties as well as noble Lords in the other place, the shadow Foreign Secretary, and several predecessors as Foreign Secretary. I am proud of that unity, which is a tribute to our country, proud of this country’s unwavering support for our Ukrainian friends, and proud that the United Kingdom is rightly taking on the responsibility of bringing our allies together. That is how we confront a foreign policy based on lies, and how we secure Ukraine’s future, secure Europe’s future, and face down a Kremlin dictator once again. Slava Ukraini. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. The House stands united with Ukraine on this grim milestone. Three years on from Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, we all think of the innocent lives caught up in this terrible conflict: the civilians mercilessly killed in towns such as Bucha and Irpin and in the east, the young Ukrainian children forcibly deported to Russia, the families of brave troops who have not returned alive from the frontline, all those with life-changing injuries, and those who have lost their homes and possessions.
When the war started, the UK led global efforts to back Ukraine and, rightly, to punish Putin. From training tens of thousands of Ukrainian recruits on British soil and donating Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, to being part of an unprecedented international sanctions response that has deprived Putin’s regime of $400 billion and one of the first countries to provide Ukraine with that multibillion-pound, multi-year funding pledge in military aid, the UK has led the way for Ukraine. Our support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to hold the line.
We must never forget that the cost of this war to Putin has been catastrophic. Russia’s Black sea fleet has been pummelled, and it is likely that by summer Russia will have incurred 1 million casualties, with Putin desperately turning to North Korea for troops and to Iran for weapons. Meanwhile, as we have heard, Russia’s economy is in dire straits. There have been uprisings against Putin’s regime, and the central pitch of his leadership—that he was the great restorer of Russia’s stability—lies in ruins.
The British public continue rightly to stand resolutely with Ukraine, and they expect us as politicians across the House to do so. I thank again the many thousands who have so generously opened up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war, including through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. They have genuinely showed the best of our country, the best of Britain.
Although there has been much debate about the course of the conflict in recent days, the war continues to rage. I urge the Government to continue giving Ukraine everything it needs—all the hardware it needs and the diplomatic support to strengthen its hand. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister, will do that in Washington this week. There must be no let-up whatsoever.
We welcome today’s announcement on new sanctions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there are no plans to lift sanctions in the future? If he discusses the use of sanctions when he goes to Washington this week, and the role of the United States in that policy, will he assure us that he will update Members on whether we should expect to see any new resources and support, in either military aid or humanitarian support, in the coming weeks?
As the Foreign Secretary has said, now is the time for Britain to lead, as we did from day one, and ensure that Ukraine is in the best possible position to decide its own future. We should be very clear that it remains ultimately for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself, to decide its own future, and that is peace through strength.
We want this terrible war to be brought to an end and, like President Zelensky, we want a lasting, reliable and just peace. However, the Euro-Atlantic community must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression, because the lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more. We must ensure that an illegal invasion like this can never happen again. We need a stronger deterrent. We recognise that the Prime Minister has commented on the options and the security guarantees in recent days, and I can assure the House that His Majesty’s Opposition stand ready to engage with the Government at every single level.
We must lead our NATO allies in Europe. In the long-term, collective defence and planning must be co-ordinated to back Ukraine in its fight for freedom. As the Government know, there is already a fully-funded plan to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030, as set out by the previous Government. I strongly urge the Government to at least look at a minimum plan to match that commitment. We will work with them on how that is delivered, to set a new benchmark for other NATO countries to follow and to fire up everything we can on defence production.
The US knows that the UK has an influential role in NATO, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be discussing that this week. The target to spend 2.5% of GDP is not a goal in itself, but an important step on the journey to increase the strength of our defence spending. Given the threats that our nation faces, I urge the Government and the Foreign Secretary—because the issue is within his purview and Department—to review and repurpose some of the 0.5% currently spent on official development assistance to further our national defence, safety and security.
Finally, the moral and economic case for mobilising sovereign assets of Russia to support Ukraine is very clear. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about that already, but I urge the Government to do more. Mr Speaker, we stand united as one House. Slava Ukraini.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for the unity she demonstrates once again in the Chamber on the subject. I confirm for her that, of course, all hardware and military support, all diplomatic support and all humanitarian support continue. We continue to discuss those issues with our European partners, particularly at meetings at the Munich security conference and subsequentially, and we will continue to do that, to ensure that we put Ukraine in the strongest possible position.
The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned the British casualties during the last few years. Some 17 British nationals who served as members of the armed forces of Ukraine have been killed in action, and we remember them on this day.
The right hon. Lady also rightly mentioned our continued solidarity with Ukraine. We continue to discuss sanctions with our European partners. Just as we have announced a sanctions package today, the EU, following its meeting with the Foreign Affairs Council, has announced a sanctions package too, which will all bear down on Putin’s war machine. I can confirm that we continue to support Ukraine with a medical aid package for its men and women on the frontline. I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for making further funds available in relation to that.
The right hon. Lady rightly comments on defence spending. We are grateful for the unity that the official Opposition are demonstrating on the issue. As we have said, it is very clear to all that Europe must pay a bigger part of the burden. In capitals across the continent, leaders are considering these issues. We have said that we will come forward with our plans shortly, and we will. In that context, as we have seen from the Secretary-General, NATO has been very clear about the burden-sharing and burden-shifting environment that we are now in.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I get the opportunity to meet many ambassadors, Defence Ministers, attachés and other stakeholders, both here in London and at events and gatherings such as the Munich security conference. There is considerable consternation and anxiety among them about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances, rather than a short-term transactional approach, can still be relied on.
Given the reduced American presence, and as we mark the third anniversary of Putin’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time as a nation to take that lead on defence and security matters in our continent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it can be our Prime Minister who takes that lead in our continent while pulling together our transatlantic, NATO and other allies in the process?
Mr Lammy
The UK has been ironclad in its support for Ukraine. We have been forward-leaning as Ukraine’s primary friend in Europe and across the world, under successive Governments. It is also the case that we have a special relationship with the United States, underpinned by a lot of military and defence capability and support over many, many years and, of course, a very close intelligence relationship. We bring all of that to bear in ensuring that we get a resolution to this terrible conflict, but a resolution that means we have an enduring peace in which Ukraine is at the centre of discussions. My hon. Friend should be absolutely sure that the UK intends to play its part, which is why we will meet with Donald Trump this week. The Prime Minister has also been at the centre of much shuttle diplomacy over this last period.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Today marks three years since Putin launched his barbaric full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Many people, including Putin, expected Russian tanks to capture Kyiv in days, yet Putin failed to consider the resolve of the Ukrainian people. Three years on, Ukrainians bravely continue the fight against Putin’s imperialism in defence of their sovereignty.
The UK and this House have stood together with Ukraine throughout these darkest hours. Across the country, people opened their homes to Ukrainian guests and demonstrated their opposition to Putin’s war. We must continue to support Ukrainians living in the UK, including by providing urgent clarity on what permanent options to remain the Government will introduce for them.
However, the past week has exposed the fragility of the west’s support for Ukraine. In parroting the Kremlin’s false claims that Ukraine started this war and that President Zelensky is a dictator, President Trump has shown that the US cannot be trusted to support Ukraine’s defence. That is why the UK, working with our continental allies, must step up to lead in Europe. That must include the UK committing to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible, and all parties working together to build a consensus on reaching 3%.
The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s suggestion that British troops could join a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That would depend on parliamentary approval for such military deployment. We also support the Government’s announcement today of new sanctions targeting Russian kleptocrats. I urge the Foreign Secretary to add to that list the pro-Russian founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili.
The Government should also now move to seize the frozen Russian assets totalling £40 billion across the UK and Europe and channel those funds into Ukraine’s defence. As a start, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on what is delaying the release of the £2.5 billion promised to Ukraine from the sale of Chelsea football club?
This week in Washington, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary must make clear that the UK will continue to stand side by side with Ukraine for as long as it takes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. Slava Ukraini.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On his comments, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. We know that Russia could do that by withdrawing its troops tomorrow, and President Trump agrees with us that it is important that Ukraine is at the table. When I spoke to Secretary Rubio, he was absolutely clear that there can be no peace without Ukraine. He was also clear that because of the burden of UK and EU sanctions, there cannot easily be a resolution to this conflict without Europe at the table as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sanctions and designations. Combined across both parties, we have now introduced more sanctions for this crime and this terrible conflict than for any other in our parliamentary history. I cannot comment on future designations, but the hon. Gentleman will know—and will have heard in my comments—that our desire is to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. We know that Putin has turned his economy into a war economy, and there are evasions that we will continue to bear down on.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Abramovich and the money that has been set aside. We are redoubling our efforts to unlock that money, which could be used on the frontline to support Ukraine over the course of the next few months.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that our Ukrainian allies will listen to the steadfast support in this House and feel heartened, and that they will also notice whose voices are absent from the House at this time. There are press reports that a deal is apparently imminent on Ukrainian mineral deposits for America as the price of continued support, so is there anything more that we and our European partners can do to stop the eventual products—those crucial metals—ending up in the hands of enemy and competitor states? Has that issue been discussed?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks a good question. I discussed that issue with President Zelensky when I was in Ukraine a few days ago, in the context of the 100-year partnership that we have just signed with Ukraine. That partnership is a unique document, not only in our history and Ukraine’s history, but in the history of the world, and I believe it sets a pretty good guide for how to strike a relationship across many fronts. Of course, that relationship will bring big wins for British businesses over the years ahead, but it will also bring big wins for Ukrainian businesses—we will learn from their innovation. I look forward to the discussions that Ukraine is having with the United States. It is for Ukraine to make its own judgments, but I think that 100-year partnership could be a good guide.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for the robust and bipartisan approach he is taking to this crisis. In that spirit, may I say to him that if the Government came forward with plans to reduce the number of adult welfare recipients just to 2019 levels, that would save £40 billion a year? It would mean that on Thursday he and the Prime Minister could say to President Trump that we are increasing defence spending to 3% of GDP, or even to 3.4% of GDP, which is what the United States itself spends. That would secure not only the future of Ukraine, but the future of NATO, which is one of the most important challenges facing the Government.
Mr Lammy
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in these matters. He has put his views on the record, and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be looking very closely at them as part of the detailed conversations that go on across Government.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is clear that the rules-based order established after the second world war is under extreme threat from oppressors and bullies who think that they can just take what they want—and I am not just talking about Putin. A raft of sanctions were introduced in 2022; why does my right hon. Friend think that previous sanctions failed to curb Russia, and what more do we need to do to organisations that use different measures to circumvent sanctions?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend refers to the rules-based order. That order was set up not just for its own sake, but because of the tremendous bloodshed and loss of life, including the many men and women from our own country and from the United States and other allies who lost their lives across Europe. The order has served us well, and we have to ensure that we continue to protect it. She rightly refers to the evasion that we have seen with the Russian shadow fleet, and that is part of the discussions I have to have with certain states who facilitate it. It is why she will also see in the announcement that I have made more efforts to target the dual-use technology that is finding its way out of countries such as China and being used against Ukrainian men and women.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
We need to recognise that the environment in which we operate has changed fundamentally, and therefore our response must change fundamentally. I very much echo the calls of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) to increase defence spending now, because we have to send a message to our friends and foes alike that we take defence seriously. I urge the Foreign Secretary to remember the commitments we made to the Ukrainian people when this full-scale invasion took place. Our support to them was not contingent on the support of others; it was absolute, and we should make good on that commitment, because we said things that encouraged the Ukrainians to put their sons and daughters in harm’s way. They have stood up their end of the bargain, and we should stand up ours.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right: we have been Ukraine’s foremost friend, and we will continue to do that. We have a key role to play, because of our special relationship with the United States. We understand here in Europe that, yes, we want this war to end, but we want an enduring peace. We have got a long memory in relation to the Soviet Union and tsarist history, and that guides us on how we secure that peace.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This weekend, I joined Rochdale’s proud, long-standing Ukrainian community to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal war and to remember all those who have lost their lives to Russian aggression. Our own Father Ben Lysykanych is today joining the Prime Minister in Downing Street. Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Zelensky is a democrat, not a dictator, and that the Ukrainian people can never again have their fate decided by other countries carving up their land, as has happened far too often in the past?
Mr Lammy
I have met President Zelensky six or seven times over this last period, and he has always struck me as the most courageous and brave of individuals, leading his people to self-determination. That is something that we recognise right across the United Kingdom, and so we stand with him.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I was at the Munich security conference and it became clear while talking with our European allies that they no longer fully trust the article 5 security guarantee. Put simply, they do not trust the Americans. Conversations naturally turned to what collective defence looks like in Europe without the Americans. Last night, Chancellor-elect Merz said that conversations are happening at the highest levels on precisely that. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on whether the UK is included in those conversations and on their content?
Mr Lammy
NATO has stood the test of time as the greatest modern-day alliance that we have ever seen, and has been strengthened further following the joining of Sweden and Finland. Of course there is a debate in Europe—there is a debate about burden sharing, there is a debate about burden shifting, and there are some who think that there is a debate about burden dumping—but NATO is a great alliance, and we work across that alliance. Successive United States Presidents, from Roosevelt to Obama and, of course, President Trump, have rightly said that Europe must do more, and that is what we now have to do.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The question of defence spending and GDP has been raised. I think it is clear from recent events that we cannot wait until 2030 to spend 2.5%, and, in fact, we should be exceeding that percentage.
In the lead-up to any negotiations, it is essential for us to ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position, including militarily. It is also essential for us to speed up our help and support as quickly as possible. I understand that the Ukrainian defence industrial base has the capacity to increase the production of weapons and equipment. Can we do more to get funding to it to ensure that that happens? Our current problem is that our own industrial base cannot gear up quickly enough.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has asked an excellent question about Ukraine’s industrial base. Drone technology, for instance, is improving apace around the world, and the country leading that technology is Ukraine. We have much to learn. We have signed the 100-year partnership, and capacity and capability are part of that partnership, which will please my hon. Friend, but he is right to say that we cannot wait; we have to act now. That is what was being discussed when the Defence Secretary was in Ukraine a short time ago, and it is what I was discussing with Ukraine a few weeks ago. So yes, we will accelerate the way in which our industries work together, and will allocate the funds that are necessary.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will want to wish the right hon. Gentleman, and the Prime Minister, a strong and successful visit later this week. He will be able to agree with the President about the importance of all European members of NATO stepping up and playing their part in the significant increase in defence expenditure that we all now need to see, while of course never forgetting what General Mattis has said about the important part of the mix that development constitutes in national defence. However, I hope there will be no compromise in Washington on the facts of the matter, namely that a P5 member of the United Nations invaded its neighbour in an act that we thought had gone out with the last century, has bombed and destroyed its infrastructure, and has butchered and murdered its citizens.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of the seriousness, and the responsibilities, that we have as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. That seriousness is underpinned by the UN Charter, which Russia breached, and in doing so it has made a serious hole in the way the Security Council works. Let us get beyond that; but if we are to do so, Russia should withdraw and should come to the table with the central issue of peace and making amends at its heart.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping ourselves safe here means showing Putin that we have the resolve and the resources to defeat him, as indeed we have. In European NATO our combined GDP is about $24.5 trillion, and the GDP of the United States is $27 trillion, while Russia’s is just $2 trillion. We have more resources, and converting them into more fighting forces, tanks, guns and drones is key, but we can go further. Russian central bank assets held by ourselves and our allies amount to more than £200 billion, including £170 billion in Belgium and £26 billion here, and Putin could use those reserves in the future to rebuild his armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to convince our allies of the need to seize those assets to keep us safe and to fund Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks a good question. If we are serious about the responsibility of burden sharing across Europe and, indeed, across G7 nations at this time, one of the issues on the table is moving from freezing assets to seizing those assets. It is a live discussion. There are other ways to find the funds, and that was a topic of discussion in Munich and at the G7, but we must now move from discussion to action.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will resist the temptation to ask the Foreign Secretary if he shares my feeling of disgust at the spectacle of the leader of the free world showering praise and admiration on the killer in the Kremlin. When he speaks to his counterparts, will he try to impress on them that the reason why George Kennan’s containment policy, to which he rightly referred, was so successful in preventing the cold war from turning into the third world war was that contentious territory was not demilitarised and left undefended? It worked in the case of West Germany, and it will have to be the only way that western Ukraine can equally be secured for the future.
Mr Lammy
The containment strategy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers ran right through the Reagan years and beyond. In a sense, it is the conventional way to understand peace through strength, and we would do well to keep it at the front of our minds in the days and weeks ahead.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the international community must not allow the sovereign nation of Ukraine to be traded like a chess piece by powerful nations, particularly after its brave defence of freedom and the international rules-based system for itself and the wider world? If we fail, we risk another “peace in our time” moment that would sooner or later endanger other countries and even our own.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right, and we know that Ukrainians felt let down by the Budapest memorandum. They felt brutally let down by the Minsk agreement, and they cannot be let down again. We also know that because of the unbelievable Ukrainian spirit, they would fight on, with guerrilla warfare if need be. These are the most admirable of people fighting for their self-determination, and the United Kingdom will continue to stand with them.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Scottish National party has stood alongside the people of Ukraine in solidarity—not just for the last three years but for the last 10 years, following Putin’s invasion of Crimea. I will not invite the Foreign Secretary to agree with me on this in the Chamber, but I am sure he thinks that President Trump’s remarks about Zelensky being a dictator were beyond repulsive. Surely we all know that no deal can be made with Vladimir Putin that he will not break. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has a point. Russia and Putin have been clear about the terms that they want for peace, which have often included the removal of 14 of NATO’s 32 members. That is unacceptable. We have seen Finland and Sweden join recently. The precondition for talks has been that Ukraine should effectively give up the territory now occupied by Russia. It seems to me that such demands show utter contempt for Ukrainian territorial integrity. The Russians will not be serious about discussions until they reconsider the criteria that we heard once again from Lavrov last week.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
A constituent of mine and her son moved to this country under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. She has a very stable job here and her son is doing A-levels at the best maths school in London, but she is worried that her 18-month visa extension will expire in the middle of her son’s exams. What conversations is the Foreign Secretary’s Department having with the Home Office to ensure that young Ukrainians who moved here through no fault of their own do not have their education disrupted, but can build a life for themselves?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting on the record the tremendous support the British people have given to Ukrainian refugees. It allows me to say that there is still a war, and there is still a need for those people to seek sanctuary in our country. It is my assessment that Putin is not showing a serious willingness to negotiate, and it may be that negotiations go on for some time. So I want to reassure her constituent that we are of course in close dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Some of us are old enough to remember Hungary in 1956 and some of us are old enough to remember Czechoslovakia in 1968. None of us wants to see Ukraine sacrificed on the same altar of expediency. When the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington, they will know that they will carry with them the good wishes of—almost—all of this House. Ukraine is not for sale, and it can never be for sale; this is not a transaction. The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the history. He will know that, in the 20th century, to the east it was only the Russo-Japanese war that stopped Russia’s imperial ambitions, to the south it was the war in Crimea, and of course to the west it was the containment strategy to which I have referred and NATO. This history is our best adviser as we approach the matter of peace.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I start by commending the people of Ukraine for resisting the murderous dictator Vladimir Putin for as long as they have. They are heroes. Almost every Member of this House knows that, if we fold in our support of Ukraine now and give Russia what it wants, Vladimir Putin will only come back for more. Our national security is at stake. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is in everyone’s interests—Britain’s, Europe’s and America’s—to ensure that any potential peace deal includes Ukraine at the table?
Mr Lammy
“Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” was heard loudly of course from President Zelensky, but all Europeans recognised it. I am pleased that Secretary of State Rubio, in my conversations with him, and indeed General Kellogg have both underlined the importance of Ukraine being at the table.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I very warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Although he perhaps cannot use the language I am about to use, I hope that when the Prime Minister and he meet Putin’s appeaser in the White House later this week, he will remind him that if we have a special relationship—and the Foreign Secretary keeps referring to a special relationship—it has to be based on truth, respect for democracy, respect for justice and respect for international law.
Mr Lammy
In the end, the United States is leader of the free world. President Trump had an election in which 77 million people voted for him and he holds both Houses on the Hill, and as we would expect, he is of course buoyed up—as, indeed, was my party—by such a democratic mandate. We will have conversations with him over the coming days on a range of issues. Friends agree and can sometimes disagree, but I think it is definitely the case that we support his desire for bringing this horrendous war to an end. We will now play our part in Europe to ensure that we raise defence spending and that Europe steps up to the necessary burden sharing. President Trump’s analysis of the huge problems in the Indo-Pacific are correct, and we must recognise that successive US Presidents have been clear about their responsibilities in relation to the Indo-Pacific.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Despite the astonishing 10 days we have had, and we should be under no illusion that they have been astonishing, there has been reassurance to be found in the Government’s steadfast commitment to Ukraine and the leadership they have been showing. The Foreign Secretary alluded earlier to Vladimir Putin’s penchant for lying: he lied about the invasion; he lied about Ukraine’s territorial integrity; he lied about the rules of war; and he abducted thousands of Ukrainian children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should Ukraine be at the centre of the negotiations, but that we should be clear-eyed about the character of the man we are dealing with?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the children who have been abducted. On the past two occasions I have been in Ukraine, I have met children who were viciously taken from their homes. There was an attempt to effectively brainwash them from their histories. We are supporting organisations that seek to get those children back and reunite them with their families. I also launched a children in care initiative. I was very pleased to be with Madam Zelensky, when I was last in Ukraine, supporting vulnerable children with their foster families.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the 2.5% of GDP ship has now sailed, and that we and our allies have to find the resources to spend 3% within a recognisable timeframe? When he is in Washington this week, will he discuss with his interlocuters how the billions of pounds he proposes to give Mauritius for taking on the Chagos Islands could be better served by being devoted to building and re-equipping our armed forces?
Mr Lammy
Ten years ago, there were just four countries meeting the 2% commitment. Today, that has risen to 23. Right across the alliance, countries are understanding that they have to do more. We will set out how we will do more very, very shortly. As the matter today is Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I will not discuss issues to do with the British Indian Ocean Territory. I am sure he will have an occasion to do so at oral questions tomorrow.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Just over three years ago, I flew the penultimate UK mission into Kyiv to deliver materiel essential to the defence of Ukraine ahead of the illegal full-scale Russian invasion. Since then, Ukraine has been defending European security, the UN charter and liberal democracy against Putin’s assault on those shared interests, and, in the words of the declaration of independence, the “unalienable rights” of
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that to free Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny and imperialist ambition, and to ensure the words of the declaration of independence are realised for all, UK leadership in the co-ordination of European and transatlantic allies is essential?
Mr Lammy
Yes, yes, yes, I say to my hon. Friend. I think all of us pay tribute to our armed forces and to his work in our armed forces. It is because of that work over so many years—that sacrifice—that I think the spirit of this country guides us to stand solidly with Ukraine on a cross-party basis. He is right to pray in aid those words that underpin our values, and indeed global values as underpinned in the UN charter. That is what we are fighting for and we will not give up.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State regret recanting the views he originally expressed in assessing Trump? When the time is right—it is certainly not any time now—can I urge him to consider following the example of Archbishop Cranmer by plunging the offending hand first into the flame?
Mr Lammy
Er—[Laughter.] This is a serious debate and a serious discussion. As I have said, that is, in a sense, old news; there is so much news before us, and so much history to be forged, which requires diplomacy and friendship and us understanding who the real threats are. Those real threats are the autocracies of the world, which could do tremendous damage over the coming years. I have always recognised that.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
As has been replicated across the country, people in Coatbridge and Bellshill have opened their doors to those forced from their homes by Putin’s illegal attack. Public authorities have also stepped up: North Lanarkshire council has provided homes and supported integration for more than 200 Ukrainian families at the High Coats tower in my constituency, and has been recognised nationally for helping to deliver stability and belonging. As we continue to push for a just peace, and following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), will my right hon. Friend commit to working with the Home Secretary, devolved Governments and other key stakeholders to ensure safe harbour for the families so cruelly and viciously targeted by Putin’s barbarism?
Mr Lammy
I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. I continue to work closely with the Home Secretary. There has been a tremendous outpouring of support across this country, which I recognise, and have seen at work in Scotland, too.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the robust statement from the Secretary of State today and the way he has stood by Ukraine and committed the UK to standing by Ukraine. I hope he will convey the same message to President Trump: that by giving into Putin, we jeopardise peace not only in Ukraine but across the whole of Europe.
First, what practical steps can he take, apart from the assurances he has given the House today, to ensure that Ukraine’s interests are reflected in any negotiations? Secondly, given the stretched state of our own armed forces, what long-term security commitments can we give to Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
We have committed £3 billion in support to Ukraine for as long as it lasts. The Ukrainians asked for more munitions, and we supported them; they asked for particular missile capability, and we supported them. We will continue to support them because this war is being waged on the frontline; it is a war of attrition. Notwithstanding any discussions or talks, we need to be there with the Ukrainians, and I guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do that.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I was present at the Munich security conference where it felt like the world changed around us, and the consequences could not be more serious. I welcome our Government’s announcement today of fresh sanctions on Russia. Given the absence of some on the Opposition Benches, I am sure the whole House will agree that it is President Putin, and not President Zelensky, who is the dictator. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is indeed a once-in-a-generation moment, and that the future of our security in the UK is bound up in Ukraine’s security and in the need to do what it takes to face down the aggression of Putin’s Russia?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: because of the history of Russia and the former Soviet Union, we understand deeply that our own futures are bound up in Putin’s ambitions. We also understand, by the way, that there are many valiant people resisting Putin in Russia; I met Mrs Navalny at the Munich security conference. Our fight is not with the Russian people—it is to support the Russian people. Our fight is with Vladimir Putin.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
When Putin invaded, he thought it would be a matter of weeks. Three years on, Ukraine is still standing. I am proud of how we as a House and as a nation stood up for Ukraine. That includes many of my constituents, for which I commend them. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about sanctions, but I did not hear an answer from the Foreign Secretary, so he perhaps he can shed some light. When the Prime Minister meets President Trump, will he raise the issue of new sanctions, which I would welcome? Will we urge the US to follow suit?
Mr Lammy
We continue to discuss sanctions with all our partners. I discussed that with G7 partners, including Secretary of State Rubio. We have imposed sanctions on more than 2,100 individuals and entities—the most wide-ranging sanctions imposed on any major economy. We believe that maximum pressure is required at this time. The United States has indicated that it would be willing to impose further sanctions on Russia. That issue remains under discussion.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the important statement from the Foreign Secretary and the comments from the shadow Foreign Secretary. This entire House should be united in our support for Ukraine. As others have said, it is rather a shame that one party has not shown up.
Ukrainians who have come to the UK since the war have made such an important contribution to our country. I met Olha, a Ukrainian Teessider, over the weekend. She shared with me that many Ukrainians face great uncertainty, partly because they are unable to access work and study because of the lack of a Ukrainian GCSE. Will the Foreign Secretary discuss this issue with the Department for Education to ensure that Ukrainians are able to access study and work? Will he recognise at the Dispatch Box the importance of the contribution that Ukrainians have made to our country?
Mr Lammy
There has been a history between us and Ukrainians, as they were making a contribution across Europe and in our country long before this war began. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the Ukrainian language. I have admired many Ukrainians for the way that they have quickly learned the English language. I will take his recommendation to the Education Secretary.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I join others in commending the Ukrainian people for their bravery in the face of Russian aggression, and the Government’s steadfast support for the nation’s sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the need for European nations to contribute more to future security guarantees for the Ukrainian people. Does he envisage more bilateral and multilateral agreements between European allies playing a part in that endeavour, much in the vein of the Lancaster House treaties or, latterly, the Trinity House agreement?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right that the UK has sought to forge strong relationships with key partners across Europe. Once the new Government are formed in Germany, we look forward to signing an updated Lancaster House treaty with our German friends. He is right that, bilaterally, that is important. I believe that NATO is the central underpinning of European security, but we need to work together across Europe to increase our industrial defence capability, and we need to find more funds to increase our defence spending right across the European family. He will hear more about that in the coming weeks and months.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary was right that if Russia is serious about a lasting peace, it must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, but given that it has shown absolutely no sign of doing that, will he reiterate that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine no matter what? Will he further reiterate, even for the Members who have not chosen to be here for this statement, that this country does not appease fascists but opposes them?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, since February 2022, the United Kingdom’s total military, economic and humanitarian support for Ukraine has amounted to £12.8 billion. That is our commitment to Ukraine so far, and that commitment will continue.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am proud that more than 600 Ukrainians have been hosted in my constituency through the Homes for Ukraine programme. Three years on, my constituents stand with Ukraine. They know that Ukraine has protected Europe’s frontline for three years. They know that Ukraine’s fight is one that affects us all, and that if Ukraine loses, Europe loses, and they know that Ukrainians are fighting for the values of our forebears: the British values of democracy and freedom. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to stand by Ukraine steadfast, even when others do not? In his meetings in Washington tomorrow, will he ensure that he points out the folly and the danger of the US Administration’s new approach to Russia?
Mr Lammy
The UK, of course, supports the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deters Russia from future aggression and ensures that Ukraine is at the table as we negotiate that peace. That is the issue that we will be discussing with President Trump, just as President Macron is discussing that issue today. I am quite sure that our assessment that Putin is not ready, really, to negotiate on proper terms stands, but I admire the efforts to bring that about. Of course, the US plays a central role in achieving that.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Today, we pay tribute to the people of Ukraine fighting not only for their own freedom but for the freedom of all Europe. The Foreign Secretary said that we must learn from history. Over 80 years ago in Munich, this country and others talked away the future of Czechoslovakia without it being there and stripped it of its vital resources; we all know the tragic consequences. Today, there can be no peace without Ukraine, and there can be no enduring peace without the security that this country and other NATO allies can give to it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend puts his remarks well. I agree with him.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I can barely believe that I have got to say this to the Foreign Secretary, but he will be unaware that in past moments the United States has just voted against the UN resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.
I understand fully the position that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister are in and the approach that they have got to take in Washington this week, but we know that President Trump listens to the people who last spoke to him. Can I therefore ask the Foreign Secretary to outline two important points? First, European military assets—not NATO assets—are often used to support American operations in the Indo-Pacific, and the American military really appreciates how we put our shoulder to the wheel. It is not the Americans only ever supporting Europe; we also help the Americans.
Secondly, last week, I and several hon. Members and noble Members were at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Brussels, where it was made clear that what will be presented at the Hague summit is what is actually needed for European defence rather than just GDP targets. May I also ask the Foreign Secretary to advise the Prime Minister that it will be important that he takes a position with the President of the United States that if those demands add up to more than 2.53% of GDP, our country will set itself on a path, within the time targets, to achieve those?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I remind Members that if we are to get everybody in, shorter questions—and shortish answers, please—would be helpful?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the Indo-Pacific, and it is important that we remember AUKUS and our critical partnership with Australia and the United States in relation to that. He quite rightly mentioned defence spending, on which much has been said in this Chamber—and much, I am sure, will be said when we go to the United States.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for a strong statement. He said that Ukraine’s security is our security. Does he agree that this is a fight for democracy where we need to tackle misinformation both at home and abroad, and where we need to maintain our steadfast commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because there is hybrid warfare taking place as we speak. Countries such as Moldova are at the forefront of it, with sabotage and constant attacks on its infrastructure and its internet services. This is hybrid warfare, and of course it is taking place against our own country, so he is absolutely right: this is not just a hard war and a hot war; it is a hybrid war, and we have to be vigilant.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It is indeed important that we have cross-party support across this House, standing in solidarity with Ukraine and being clear that Ukraine must be front and centre of the peace talks that must take place, but it is deeply disturbing to hear some of the comments from President Trump, including the absurd claim that Zelensky is a dictator and the ridiculous suggestion that Ukraine started the war. Therefore, when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister go to Washington later this week, will they make it clear to President Trump that Ukraine must be at the centre of these peace talks and that the Ukrainian people have an absolute right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
Yes. There must be no negotiation about Ukraine without Ukraine. As I have said, we have seen very little sign that Putin is abandoning his goal of subjugating Ukraine. Russia has continued to escalate this war, including through deploying Democratic People’s Republic of Korea troops and through daily barbaric attacks on innocent Ukrainian civilians and their infrastructure and energy supplies.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
On Saturday, I joined Ukrainian families and residents in Bishop’s Stortford to remember those who had lost their lives and suffered throughout this conflict, ahead of the third anniversary. This was a reminder that in my constituency and across the country, we stand firmly with the Ukrainian people. As we mark the third anniversary, will the Foreign Secretary reiterate to the Ukrainian families who have found safety in my constituency, and indeed to all Ukrainian people, that this Government will continue to advocate for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for it to be given a seat at the table right at the heart of any future negotiation?
Mr Lammy
I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, and I am very pleased to give his constituents that affirmation.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
No Member of this House should be in any doubt as to who the aggressor is in this situation, who the dictator is, or who started this war. No one should give cover to the dictator who started this war. The Prime Minister has said that, if there is peace, he anticipates a post-peace situation where there will be British troops on the ground in Ukraine, with what he termed “a US backstop”. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the prospect of a US backstop would be greatly enhanced if the European nations began more thoroughly to shoulder the financial burden that has been shirked in recent years?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I do. There was complacency in the post-cold war period across the European families, and at this Dispatch Box we have lamented the fact that the United Kingdom has fallen to 2.3% of GDP, so the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This is the time to step up and to demonstrate peace with strength, and the Baltic nations are very clear about the responsibility at this time.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Like the Foreign Secretary, I am incredibly proud of the role that the UK has played in supporting Ukraine, and especially proud of the role that my constituents have played in welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and into our community, but if we are to stop Putin, Britain must get real on defence. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must now urgently rearm, well beyond the existing 2.5% target, so that, with our European allies, we can protect our precious democracies?
Mr Lammy
As I said, we will set out further defence spending shortly.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
NATO countries bordering Russia are understandably stepping up their defences without waiting for others to take action. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the discussions he has had with those countries?
Mr Lammy
I met the Polish Foreign Minister at the Munich security conference and Baltic colleagues to discuss those issues. The hon. Member is absolutely right that those countries have been aware of the threat for some time. Her question allows me to say that when we talk about security guarantees for Ukraine, it is important to recognise NATO’s eastern flank. When it comes to the effort to get US security guarantees, many countries on that flank would have to know that they were supported. That is why the US backstop is so important.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Last week, along with other Members of this House, I met Ukrainian parliamentarians at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Vienna. The opposition MPs from Ukraine made it clear that they do not support Donald Trump’s call for an election in Ukraine while they are defending against Russian aggression. In his conversations with the US Administration this week, will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that there is only one dictator in this conflict, and his name is Vladimir Putin?
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
On the third anniversary of Putin’s brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, I welcome the United Nations having just passed a resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. However, in the last 15 minutes—this will shock the House —it was opposed by Russia and the United States. It was said in the press that
“This isn’t appeasement by Trump. It’s a direct stab in the back.”
Will the Foreign Secretary condemn what has just happened in the United Nations, where the United States has joined Russia in not signing up to the resolution condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
We are proud to have co-sponsored the General Assembly resolution, proposed by Ukraine, in support of a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. It is in line with the UN charter. The UN voted for it, and we will stand forever with Ukraine.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Yesterday, Ukrainians in Welwyn Hatfield came together in sober recognition of the third anniversary of the Russian invasion. I pay tribute to them for their bravery and resilience, and for how they are going about rebuilding their lives as valuable members of our community. I told them that in this House, I would speak the truth, and stand up for them as best I could. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need to say loud and clear from the Dispatch Box that one person was the aggressor, one person is responsible for the death and destruction, and—we should say it emphatically—one person started this war, and his name is Vladimir Putin?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was in Kyiv, I saw that close to President Zelensky’s office is an apartment block that was blown up a few weeks ago. A couple asleep in their bed were killed. That is the awfulness of this war. Of course, my hon. Friend will recall that when the Prime Minister visited, Putin sought to fire missiles into Ukraine. It is grim and unbelievable brutality, and of course we must continue to stand up to it.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In response to the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the Foreign Secretary said that Russia does not respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. On his comments on the Ukraine defence contact group, the US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth says that the US wants to see
“a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine”,
but given the news that we have just heard about the UN resolution, how confident is the Foreign Secretary that the US will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I am very pleased that the US has attempted to bring this horrendous war to an end. That does require conversations with Russia. Those are hard conversations, and I am not sure that the Russians are ready to properly negotiate, but I admire the attempt to try. It is important that Ukraine is at the table; it is important that Europe steps up with burden-sharing and increases its defence. Those are issues that we will discuss with President Trump in the coming days.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Online propaganda from the Kremlin has become a disturbing reality. Social media, especially platforms such as Facebook and X, have been flooded with the claim that Ukraine is solely responsible for the war—it is extraordinary. What measures are being taken to combat the propaganda being spread by Governments to blame the Ukrainian people for the conflict?
Mr Lammy
Those are important issues that I know preoccupy my hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. They are looking further at those issues and at what more we can do.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister said this morning that Russia does not hold all the cards. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of further sanctions. Will he work at national and international level to ensure that President Putin does not get a new hand that allows him to proceed with bluff, bluster and bullying that could bring the Ukrainian people to their knees—something that we have not seen to date? Will he assure the House that the Government stand resolutely with the people of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I met G7 Foreign Ministers, and we issued a joint statement on Ukraine 10 days ago. It is why I discussed this issue at the G20 in South Africa last week. I am proud of the work of our diplomats in the UN General Assembly today, where many countries have come together in support of Ukraine, with a resolution that had to be passed.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today of all days, we must remember that over 1 million people have been killed or wounded in Ukraine since the illegal invasion. I have just come from talking to a group of individuals who support Ukrainian veterans. Although they welcome the medical expertise that the UK has provided in Ukrainian military hospitals, there are also thousands of civilian casualties, so they ask that the UK provide medical expertise in civilian hospitals as well. Will the Foreign Secretary look into whether the UK can provide that support too?
Mr Lammy
I am very pleased about the decisions that I and the Defence Secretary have made to support Ukrainian armed forces at this time with medical support. I am happy to look at the issues facing civilians, which of course we discuss in a pan-European context. The hon. Lady is right to raise those issues.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Surely it cannot be right to leave those with no real care or concern for Europe’s wellbeing the sole voice in negotiating the future of Ukraine—and by extension the future of Europe. Will the Foreign Secretary convey, in his discussions with President Trump, the point that Ukraine must be present at the table when negotiations take place, and will he convey the disgust of this House at the fact that the US voted alongside North Korea and Russia against the Ukrainian resolution at the UN today?
Mr Lammy
We have been clear: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. The Ukrainians must have a seat at the table; it is their destiny that is in the mix in any discussions that take place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s strong words, commitment, strength and fortitude. I will always welcome the end to war, but I am unable to forget the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war by Russian armed forces during the fight for and occupation of the city of Bucha three days after the invasion started. To remind the House, girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 were raped; three Baptist church pastors were murdered; and nine children under the age of 18 were murdered. They were all put into a basement, had petrol poured over them and were burned alive. I and the people I represent want any deal to include the accountability of those who committed those dreadful, dreadful war crimes, and so many others that are still unknown.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the massacre at Bucha. I had the privilege of visiting Bucha and spending time with the community there—with families, victims and loved ones. The massacre was an horrendous act. It was criminal, barbaric and inhumane. He is right that we in this country have led on the issue of justice and accountability, and we will not let that go.
Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I will make a statement updating the House on the Government’s work to deliver free breakfast clubs and give every child the best start in life. This is a Government who act on their principles, deliver on their promises and drive the change that the country needs—change that is felt in our villages, towns and cities; change that will help families with the cost of living; and change that lifts the life chances of our children across the country. Change begins and the biggest difference can be made during those early years of life, and on into primary school, when the possibilities still stretch out.
Our action is urgent. Far too many children growing up in this country are held back by their background and denied the opportunity to go on to live happy and healthy lives, with the bad luck of a tough start weighing down their life chances. I will not stand by while those children are let down, because I believe that background should not mean destiny. Every single child deserves the very best start in life. To achieve and thrive at school is the right of all children.
Our manifesto outlined the action a Labour Government would take, and now, not yet eight months on from the election, we are delivering change in early years, change in primary schools and change in our country. I am delighted to update the House today that I have confirmed more than 750 schools as early adopters of our free breakfast club scheme. That is a promise made, and a promise kept. I will always act to protect working families’ livelihoods for children and their parents. It is for them that we are working tirelessly to deliver change, and it is for them that we will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school in this country. That is what we said we would do in our manifesto, and it is exactly what we are doing now.
Evidence shows why this matters so much. When schools introduce breakfast clubs, behaviour improves, attendance increases and attainment grows. That is no surprise when we are giving children the gift of a calm, welcoming start to the day, filled with friends, fun and food. It is the foundation for success that every child needs. This is about parents as well as children. Our new breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year, putting money directly back into parents’ pockets. That is why we are moving ahead with such energy and urgency, for children and for parents.
We are working to cement the clubs in legislation through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Thousands of schools have applied to take part—an indication of overwhelming demand, and a spur to act. From this April, free breakfast clubs will begin to reach more than 180,000 children, and 70,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country will be able to take part. Our early adopter schools are drawn from all kinds of places: cities and villages, north and south, east and west, affluent areas and more disadvantaged communities, big schools and smaller schools, mainstream schools and special schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities. They include schools that have had a club before and those that have not; schools in which parents have had to pay for breakfast clubs in the past; and schools in which places are limited. That variety is key. It gives us a representative sample, so we can see what works, when, where, why and how, guided by the best evidence. That is how we will maximise the impact of the full roll-out, bringing the benefits to children across the entire country.
We are taking a new approach—the challenges we face demand it. Breakfast clubs are one part, but we are going further and delivering more change for children. We are a mission-led Government, bringing meaningful change that is felt in our towns, our cities, and our communities, and I am proud to be leading our mission across Government to break down the barriers to opportunity. In December the Prime Minister unveiled our plan for change, and within that plan lies a vital milestone: a record proportion of children starting school, ready to learn. That is crucial to closing the opportunity gap; all children arriving at school, ready to achieve and to thrive gets right to the heart of what it means to have the very best start in life.
I believe that delivering the best start in life is about families—parents and children. Breakfast clubs are one piece of the puzzle, but our action starts earlier in life, with great early education and childcare. It is something that I have spent many years in this House fighting for, but that our childcare system has denied families. There are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand; additional hours are offered nationally, but they are unavailable to families locally. The Opposition’s failure to keep their promises is the reason their party suffered such an emphatic defeat at the last election. A promise made but not acted on is not a promise at all, and a pledge without a plan to deliver is meaningless. That is why this Government are committed to delivering the entitlements that parents were promised before the last election. As a result of this Government’s hard work in making that pledge a reality, families can now access 15 hours of Government-funded childcare a week from when their child is nine months old. From September, that will increase to 30 hours a week, matching the offer for three and four-year-olds.
This Government have matched the pledge with a plan—a promise now backed by funding. In the next financial year alone, we will invest more than £8 billion in early years entitlements, an increase of more than £2 billion. On top of that is a new £75 million expansion grant to support the sector to provide the extra places and staff needed. We will use those 30 hours a week to combine childcare with great early education, and to give children the very best start in life. I want to double down on support for those children who need it most, in the areas that need it most. That is why I introduced the biggest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium. Childcare delivers for parents too. Just like breakfast clubs, the entitlements give parents power, choice and freedom over their lives, enabling them to go back to work if that is what they want to do—work choices for parents; life chances for children. These are the steps we are taking and the promises we are keeping to support families.
I am determined to see the change through, but it is not a shot in the dark. The value of giving children the best start in life, and the power of spreading breakfast clubs across the country, is as clear as day and there for all to see if we know where to look. On the northern edge of St Helens sits Carr Mill primary school. Children at Carr Mill can come in before the school day starts and eat breakfast with their friends in the school bistro. When they reach year 5, they are invited to become bistro leaders. Those young leaders help their peers to get a good breakfast, but they also learn about responsibility, caring for their classmates, and what it means to be part of a community. Parents see the change in their children, who are more confident and eager to go to school in the morning, and the younger ones look up to the bistro leaders.
It is not just the breakfast; it is the club too—helping children to settle, showing them that they belong in school, getting them ready to learn, and shaping not just the students of today but the citizens of tomorrow. It sets children up for success in school and in life, because that wider goal we are chasing of giving every child the best start in life means giving them the best start to their school day, each and every day, week after week, year after year. That is how we are breaking the link between background and success, and how we are delivering the change that parents voted for. That is how we are driving the change that the children of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The previous Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools, and crated the holiday activities and food programme. The national school breakfast programme has been running since 2018, and 85% of schools now have a breakfast club, with one in eight having a taxpayer-funded breakfast club. In March 2023, the previous Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, some of which is being used to fund breakfast clubs. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on entitlement to free childcare more than double in real terms between 2010 and 2024.
I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell from the Children’s Society during the evidence sessions for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Given the resource constraints, he said taxpayer money should be focused on rolling out free breakfasts to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than providing a universal offer in primary schools. He said:
“I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.]
With that in mind, I want to draw attention to the uncertainty created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise the holiday activities and food programme. A number of charities have called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking the Secretary of State to give that guarantee. Getting rid of the existing free breakfasts would mean a cut in provision for deprived children at secondary schools, so will the Secretary of State guarantee to continue them?
According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year:
“Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil participating for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.”
Will the Secretary of State respond to that point made by the IFS? Do the Government plan food-only provision? If not, how does she plan to close that funding gap?
Paul Bertram, headteacher at Buxworth primary school in Derbyshire, told Schools Week that he had to pull out of the pilot scheme as it left him with a £9,000 funding shortfall. The charity Magic Breakfast said:
“if it is expected that 100 per cent of people can access a traditional breakfast club setting, with the appropriate staffing, then the Government is many, many millions away from the budget that we would expect that would require.”
Will the Secretary of State say how many schools applied to be part of the pilot, but subsequently pulled out? A number of journalists have asked that question. How many of the schools chosen to take part in the pilot already have a breakfast club, and how many already have a free breakfast club? Looking at the first 100 on the list, 71 have a breakfast club and 13 have a free breakfast club, but what are the numbers overall? If pupils need to have a one-to-one teaching assistant, how will funding for that work?
Ministers say that the policy
“will save parents up to £450 a year”.
The Secretary of State said that again today, but Ministers used to use a figure of £400. To give £450 to all 4.5 million pupils in primary schools would cost over £2 billion a year. In contrast, the pilot will cost £33 million. Labour’s manifesto said the programme will spend £315 million by 2028, which would mean a spend of £70 per primary school child, not £450. Will the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy between the planned spend and the much larger benefits that Ministers are claiming?
Parents on lower wages are bearing the brunt of the £25 billion increase in national insurance; as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the IFS have pointed out, that increase will directly hit wages, which even the Chancellor has now acknowledged. The biggest losers from that tax increase are those earning less than £15,000 a year. People who are among those most affected by the £25 billion tax increase may not feel better off from the £315 million of planned spending, so it is vital that we are clear about what Ministers are really claiming and on what basis.
I mentioned that 85% of schools already have a breakfast club. The new requirement to offer free school breakfasts in all primary schools will interact with that existing provision in different ways. Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope most will continue to provide at least the period they are providing now. However, if the breakfast club is provided for, say, an hour or more, the school will have to charge for the first 30 minutes of that hour, but not for the final 30 minutes, which is likely to give rise to considerable complexity. Will Ministers agree to report on the length of time that clubs are running in these schools, and on any reduction that this change may inadvertently bring about?
Taxpayer-funded breakfasts for those who really need them are helpful, but there are a number of questions about Ministers’ plans and their claims about the scheme, so I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answers.
Bridget Phillipson
The shadow Minister asks a number of questions, but at no point did he welcome the massive investment and the benefits that this provision will bring to children across our country, including in his own constituency—not a word of support. I hope when the breakfast club in his constituency opens, he might take time to visit that school and see the massive benefits being delivered to children and families.
Before I respond to the number of detailed questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, I note once again how disappointing it was that the Conservatives voted to block the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Let us remind ourselves what that would have meant. It would have completely stopped the roll-out of free breakfast clubs we are announcing today; they will be rolled out across England subject to the progress of the Bill. It would have stopped us limiting the number of branded uniform items that schools can demand, which again will save families hundreds of pounds at a time when we know that they are under real pressure. Most shamefully of all, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it would have stopped dead some of the most far-reaching child protection measures in a generation, just so that the Conservatives could grab a cheap headline.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the national school breakfast programme and the investment there. That programme is an online platform from which schools can order food. It covers 75% of food only; it does not cover wider costs, and schools are required to contribute the remaining 25%, so there is a significant difference in what we are setting out. One in seven of the schools in the pilot scheme that we are announcing today have no before-school provision. The rest have a mix of paid-for provision or, in many cases, school breakfast clubs where caps are in place and the numbers are limited. The breakfast clubs we are introducing will be free and available to every child and every parent who seeks to take them up. That is why it is estimated that parents will save £450 a year.
When it comes to evidence of the roll-out, the hon. Gentleman has said on many occasions that he is interested in evidence-based policymaking. The evidence is very clear that the impact is greatest at primary school level, and we would think that he would recognise that.
The purpose behind the early adopters is not simply to demonstrate to parents the difference that a Labour Government are bringing and a real difference to children’s lives; they also allow us to test really effectively what works ahead of a full national roll-out. That is why we want to work with school leaders as part of this programme to ensure that all children are able to benefit from universal free breakfast clubs across our country, including children with SEND.
The Conservatives have no plan for education except preserving the tax breaks for students in private schools, whereas we have a plan to give every child the best start in life. If they are going to spend the next five years defending their record, we will get on and deliver the change that this country voted for. We made a promise to the people of this country, and today we are delivering on the promise we made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today. I welcome the news that St Luke’s Church of England primary school in my constituency will be one of the early adopters of a universal breakfast club under the programme.
All too often, children with special educational needs and disabilities are excluded from extracurricular activities, and it is the parents of children with SEND who often find it the hardest to access childcare. It is essential that children with SEND have equal access to breakfast clubs in both mainstream and specialist schools. What steps are being taken to ensure that that is the case, that schools have the capacity to provide specialist staff where needed and that any additional home-to-school transport costs, which are often essential in enabling children with SEND physically to access a breakfast club, will be met?
Bridget Phillipson
Some 754 schools have been selected to take part in the early adopters scheme, of which 704 are mainstream schools and 50 are special schools and alternative provision settings. That is important, because we want to make sure that all children in time are able to benefit from the roll-out of breakfast clubs. We will work closely with schools and sector experts to develop the programme as we intend to roll it out. I really want to learn through the early adopter schools how we can best create a truly universal and inclusive breakfast school provision.
I recognise that delivering breakfast clubs may be particularly challenging for special and alternative provision schools. We have invited them to take part in the early adopters scheme so that we can make sure that, as we roll out across the country, including in mainstream schools, the needs of all children are properly catered for as part of the programme.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With three in 10 children growing up in poverty, any measure to tackle child hunger is to be welcomed to enable them to learn and flourish, so I congratulate the 750 schools selected as breakfast club early adopters. The learnings from those pilots will be absolutely critical as the Government seek to scale up the programme.
A number of questions that I have previously put to Ministers still stand, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address some of them. Many school leaders have raised concerns about the proposed funding rates, which are reportedly around 60p per child per day. If the pilots clearly show that those rates are insufficient, will Ministers commit to reviewing and increasing them? Schools simply cannot afford to make savings elsewhere, such as in teaching budgets.
Will Ministers review school food standards to ensure that breakfasts are specifically addressed, as the recent House of Lords report on childhood obesity recommended? What consideration has been given to how the 30 minutes of universal free childcare provision will interact with existing breakfast club provision? Most commuting parents need more than 30 minutes of childcare in the morning.
The Child Poverty Action Group has highlighted that breakfast clubs will probably secure only around 40% take-up. The most vulnerable children, especially those in temporary accommodation who travel long distances, may not make it to school in time for breakfast. The Children’s Society has argued, as have the Liberal Democrats, that where money is scarce, we should target resources at those who most need them. As such, why will the Government not prioritise expanding eligibility for free school meals—a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day when children are guaranteed to be in school —so that all children in poverty, whether in primary or secondary, are being fed? Is it not high time that Ministers introduced automatic enrolment into free school meals for all children?
Finally, on the Secretary of State’s childcare announcements, can she confirm how much of that money will go into plugging the gap left by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which will put significant pressure on providers and push up costs for parents?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. Turning first to the question of funding, there has sadly been some misunderstanding about the funding rates, so I will set those out for the benefit of the House. In the summer term, funding will be paid in two parts: an up-front, one-off payment of £500 to cover initial set-up costs and, alongside that, a lump sum payment of £1,099 to cover fixed staffing costs for the summer term. That is in addition to the per pupil funding rates that exist in both mainstream and specialist provision; of course, rates will be higher in special schools, recognising the additional needs and staffing requirements that exist there. Schools will receive support to manage the requirements of the scheme, and will be provided with opportunities to learn from one another.
On food standards, we always seek to keep all those areas under review. We want to make sure that all the food served in our schools is healthy and nutritious, so that children are well fed and ready to learn. The school food statutory guidance, which regulates the food and drink provided in schools, already applies to breakfast. We want to ensure that healthy meals are offered as part of breakfast clubs, and we will continue to keep these areas under review.
The hon. Lady is right to ask about existing wraparound provision. We expect the two offers to be complementary; schools will be able to provide a paid-for offer alongside the 30 minutes of childcare and food through the universal offer. I note her concerns about child poverty, and strongly agree that there is a need for further action to tackle the shocking rates of child poverty we see in our country. That is why, together with the Work and Pensions Secretary, we are leading work across Government as part of the child poverty taskforce. We look forward to setting out further findings from that work in due course, including to this House. We are considering a range of measures and ways in which we can support children out of poverty—the shocking legacy left behind by the last Conservative Government.
The hon. Lady asks about the additional investment going into the sector. The big investment that we are putting into the early years pupil premium and the expansion grant will be crucial to providing the support that the sector needs to deliver the places and staffing required ahead of September. I look forward to continuing to work with her to make sure we get this right.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I warmly welcome today’s announcement of the breakfast club pilot areas, including the two schools in my constituency, which will make a massive difference to the lives of many working families. However, on the subject of breakfast clubs, as an SEN parent I would like to issue the plea, “Don’t you forget about me.” Too often, SEN parents and their children find that policy moves ahead without them, and there is a risk that we could be slightly overlooked in this area. What measures has the Secretary of State put in place to make sure that disabled children and those with additional needs can fully take part in breakfast clubs?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important area. She is right that breakfast clubs must be fully inclusive and take account of the needs of all children, including children with SEND. That is why, as part of this process, we have announced 50 special and AP schools that will be taking part in the early adopters scheme. They will receive a higher funding rate of £3.23 a pupil, in addition to support for set-up costs and termly payments. I recognise the need to ensure that breakfast clubs operating in mainstream schools can cater to the needs of a wide range of children. That is why we are developing a toolkit for providers of wraparound care, including breakfast clubs, so that the provision that is put in place is inclusive for all children.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Secretary of State makes a compelling argument on the merits of breakfast for many of our young children and the benefits that it has for learning. Can she say a word or two on two points? First, will she answer the question being raised in the secondary sector about future funding beyond the agreed time period? Secondly, what incentives can she put in place to encourage schools to procure foodstuffs that are produced locally? That would give good support to our local food producers and our farmers.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of supporting local providers where that is possible and the fantastic contribution of British food and wider produce. I just observe that it is my understanding that his constituency is set to benefit from the early adopters scheme. I hope that he will be able to see the fantastic benefit that it will bring to children and families in his constituency. The national school breakfast programme will continue for the next year, but that covers only 75% of food. Schools are required to fund the additional 25% of costs. Our new breakfast clubs will be about more than just food; they will be about the wider opportunities that children in primary school will have at the start of the school day, and the costs will cover staffing, delivery and food.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this statement and the firm actions that my right hon. Friend is taking to make sure that we can level the playing field and boost attendance and attainment for children in Southampton Itchen and beyond. I am particularly delighted that St John’s primary and nursery school will get this investment from the Government as part of the early adopters programme. Will the Secretary of State detail what conversations she is having about how the monitoring will work, so that the national roll-out can be based on the best evidence? Ahead of perhaps 749 other invitations, may I invite her to visit St John’s to see the breakfast club in action?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted to hear about the good news for St John’s. I am sure that the Minister for Early Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and I will receive lots of invitations to visit fantastic breakfast clubs across our country. We will do our best to service those invitations, but with more than 750, it might be a bit of a stretch. We will try our very best. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) is right to identify the need to develop learning and understanding about what works across the early adopters. That is why the schools taking part in this pilot cover a range of settings and serve communities with a range of different needs—both rural and urban—and of different kinds, so that we can ensure a fully representative sample ahead of full roll-out.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. As a child brought up on free milk and free school meals, I very much welcome and support the Government’s plans to set up universal breakfast clubs in all primary schools. However, concerns are reported among headteachers, unions and charities that the plans will not be properly funded and will lack the flexibility required to be successful. This weekend, the independent publication Schools Week highlighted how some headteachers in primary schools, while enthusiastic about the aims, refused to take part in the early adopters pilot scheme as volunteer schools, because only 60p was being provided by the Government per pupil. The budgets of schools in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, as well as those across the country, are already stretched beyond breaking point. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that adequate funding for healthy foods, as well as the necessary flexibilities, will be provided to all primary schools for the breakfast clubs? Will she guarantee that schools will not be left out of pocket?
Bridget Phillipson
I am confident that the funding being made available to schools will be sufficient to deliver on this programme. The hon. Gentleman quotes the daily per pupil funding rate, but alongside that, as I set out earlier, there will be start-up costs, as well as lump-sum payments to cover the costs of running breakfast clubs, alongside a higher daily funding rate for special schools and a higher daily funding rate based on the proportion of FSM6 pupils at the school.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
First, my congratulations go to Pool Hayes primary school in Willenhall for being one of the 750 early adopters. Will the Secretary of State outline how the free universal roll-out of breakfast clubs, alongside capping the number of branded items of uniform and expanding funded childcare, will help families in Wolverhampton North East with the cost of living?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency is part of the early adopters programme. Our breakfast clubs scheme is all about making sure that children get a great start to their school day—a welcoming space that provides them with valuable opportunities to play, learn and socialise. However, as she identifies, the measures we are setting out to the House today on the early adopters scheme, as well as the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will also make a big difference to parents. They will put more money back into their pockets by limiting the costs of school uniform and providing more support around breakfast clubs. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome very much the Secretary of State’s commitment to the scheme. I know it is an England scheme, but we have a similar scheme in Northern Ireland. Every one of us as MPs has attended Kellogg’s events in the House, and we understand the commitment that Kellogg’s can make. Has the Secretary of State considered whether other companies could do similar to what Kellogg’s does in relation to schools? For instance, bakeries and those who make jam or marmalade could do something. Indeed, we know that the superstores dump their food out or dispose of it within 24 hours. That is good food going to waste. There might be better ways. Perhaps she can help us to achieve that.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is always more that we can do, and I note that many companies already involve themselves in important charitable works in this area. He names one company. It would be remiss of me, as a north-east MP, not to give a special plug to Greggs, which does fantastic work in this space, too. Alongside the national roll-out of breakfast clubs that we intend to deliver, we continue to believe that there is an important role for organisations such as Magic Breakfast, Greggs and Kellogg’s in supporting schools and children.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs for all primary schools, including Robin Hood primary school in Leeds South West and Morley. Such clubs provide £450 of savings to parents and extra childcare, and we know that children should not have to start the day hungry. What can the Secretary of State tell the primary schools in my constituency about the full roll-out? When can they expect to see breakfast clubs in their schools?
Bridget Phillipson
We intend to deliver the roll-out as soon as possible, because we know it is urgent, and we know the difference it will make to children’s lives. Free universal breakfast clubs will also mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. That is why we believe in that important provision being universal and available to all children. Today is an important step forward, and Robin Hood primary school will be an important part of how we develop and understand how to roll out the programme nationally.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Secretary of State that every single child deserves the best start in life, but if we are honest, we know that not every child has that. This programme will make such a big difference to so many children, including children at Van Gogh primary school, Henry Fawcett primary school and Crawford primary school in my constituency. The Secretary of State is always welcome to come and visit any of those three.
We know that this programme will make a big difference for many parents, too. One of the other pushes behind the free breakfast clubs is that they are really good for children’s attainment and attendance. The early adopters start in April. What is the timeline for reviewing them, especially in light of some of the funding concerns that other Members have raised?
Bridget Phillipson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the need to ensure that every child has the best start in life. I am grateful for her generous invitation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Early Education Minister and I will consider it along with, no doubt, a great many other invitations.
We intend to test and learn as we go along to ensure that the scheme is being rolled out effectively. This is a crucial part of ensuring that all children have opportunities at the start of the school day to play, to learn, to socialise and to benefit from that softer start. My hon. Friend was right to mention evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation which demonstrates the impact of breakfast clubs on attendance, attainment and behaviour, affecting not just the children who benefit but the whole school community.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Stories of children arriving for lessons hungry are far too common in my constituency and across the country, and the issue was exacerbated by the massive rise in child poverty under the last Government. Because of the actions of this Labour Government, however, my constituency will see pilots in Cornholme junior, infant and nursery school, Scout Road academy, Elland Church of England junior, infant and nursery school, and Luddenden Church of England school. Will the Minister confirm that the child poverty strategy, when it is delivered, will build on that and make the scandal of children missing meals a thing of the past?
Bridget Phillipson
It is a privilege to co-chair the child poverty taskforce with my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary. We have heard evidence across the country as a result of visits to Northern Ireland and Scotland—and will visit Wales shortly—to understand the challenges faced by so many families throughout the United Kingdom, and what is required to bring down the number of children growing up in poverty. We are considering a range of measures because of the dreadful record left by the Conservative Government: we have seen countless thousands of children grow up in avoidable poverty. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, can shake his head all he likes, but that is a fact.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, and it will also be welcomed by the families of children attending St Monica’s Catholic primary school and King’s Lander primary academy. We look forward to the extension and expansion of my right hon. Friend’s proposals. Does she agree that they are food for thought in the most literal and practical sense of the term?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted to hear about the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency that are taking part in the scheme. They will play a crucial role in how we find the most effective way of delivering this on a national basis. I believe it is essential for all children to arrive at school ready to learn, with full bellies and hungry minds.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Parents and teachers in my constituency will welcome the statement, as will, in particular, Monteagle and Richard Alibon primary schools, which are part of the early roll-out. The Secretary of State referred briefly to the evidence-based relationship between those who attend breakfast clubs and attainment; that is particularly important in my constituency, where 19% of children are frequently absent. Can she give us some more details about the evidence of a link between attendance at breakfast clubs and long-term school attendance?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant challenges relating to attendance. Breakfast clubs are an important part of support for children in respect of behaviour, attendance and attainment, and the evidence is very clear in that regard. I pay tribute to the school leaders and staff who will be involved in this important endeavour to support children at the start of the school day: their efforts will allow us to effectively roll out a national scheme that will benefit children the length and breadth of our country, and I am grateful for their contribution.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her important policy announcement, and I thank her in particular for the investment in Caversham Park and St Anne’s Catholic primary schools in my constituency. Can she give any further details of the evaluation of the programme over time?
Bridget Phillipson
We will update the House to ensure that Members are aware of the continuation of the roll-out and its progress, but also so that we can learn how it is progressing as quickly and effectively as possible. I am delighted to hear about the schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Gwinear Community primary school is one of the 750 early adopters, and I am extremely pleased that they have joined in. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is part of an overall strategy to ensure that all children can gain access to the education that they deserve—a strategy that has been profoundly missing for the last 14 years?
Bridget Phillipson
As my hon. Friend says, breakfast clubs are an important part of ensuring that all children are set up to succeed and every child has the best start in life, but we need to go much further, and, indeed, we are doing so as a Labour Government. We are seeking to break the link between background and success, so that more children than ever—a record proportion—are school-ready at the age of five. As we all know, the evidence points to the fact that children who slip behind at that crucial moment suffer later in life, and I want to ensure that every child in the country has the chance to get on.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am delighted that Denbigh primary school and Someries infant school are two of the first schools to benefit from Labour’s universal free breakfast clubs. We know that a balanced, nutritious breakfast will set children up for the school day and improve attendance and attainment. Does the Secretary of State agree that Labour’s delivery on its manifesto commitment, through our plan for change, is clear evidence that we are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and ensuring that all children have the best chance in life?
Bridget Phillipson
I do agree with my hon. Friend. The need for action is urgent. We know that far too many children are not achieving all that they can, and are held back by virtue of their backgrounds. We are determined to turn that around, and the announcement I have made today shows the determination of this Labour Government to ensure that background is no barrier to success. I am delighted that we have made such rapid progress, with more than 750 early adopters from April.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, and I am very glad that Chaucer infant and nursery school in my constituency signed up to the early adopters scheme. When I had the great privilege of visiting the school recently, Miss Dawley gave me an excellent tour and I had a fantastic discussion with the smart school council about its priorities for our community. Free breakfast clubs will provide a real financial boost for families in my constituency, who have struggled greatly as a result of the cost of living crisis. Will the Secretary of State say more about how they will improve the opportunities available to children in Erewash?
Bridget Phillipson
I send my best wishes to Miss Dawley and to the whole school community. They are clearly doing fantastic work to support children in my hon. Friend’s area. Of course breakfast clubs in primary schools bring benefits to parents at the start of the school day, giving them choices and flexibility at work, but, critically, this is about boosting children’s life chances. The evidence is very clear about the impact on attendance, behaviour and attainment. This is a crucial part of ensuring that background is no barrier to getting on in life.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be well aware of the impact of covid on the wellbeing and attainment of children who are now at primary school, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This welcome intervention will make a massive difference to that covid cohort, but may I press the Secretary of State on the next steps for them, in terms of attainment but also mental health? What is her Department doing to ensure that there is more mental health provision, especially in primary schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I think we all recognise, both as constituency Members and from the work that we see taking place across the country, the serious impact of the pandemic on young people and their mental health and the long waiting lists for specialist support from child and adolescent mental health services. I am working closely with the Health Secretary to ensure that we roll out more mental health support throughout our schools so that children have access to the support that they need at the earliest possible point.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I am delighted that four schools in my constituency are taking part in the scheme—The Ferns primary academy and Farnborough Grange nursery/infant community school in Farnborough, and St Joseph’s Catholic primary school in Aldershot. What is my right hon. Friend’s message to parents in my constituency who are eager for their children’s school to join the scheme so that they can benefit from Labour’s plan for change in Aldershot and Farnborough?
Bridget Phillipson
My message to parents in Aldershot and across our country is that this Labour Government are on their side and delivering better work choices for them, and more support for their children at the start of the school day, when it comes to breakfast clubs and the early adopters scheme. We are also taking action to cut the cost of school uniforms—an area that I know many parents find a real pressure—and expanding childcare and early years entitlement, so that parents across our country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are able to take up the places that have been promised.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
As a former teacher and local authority children’s lead, I got to see at first hand the transformative impact that breakfast clubs can have in driving up attendance, attainment and young people’s wellbeing, so I am delighted that not one, not two, but three local schools will benefit from the Government’s early adopters scheme. As excited as I am for primary-age pupils at Meppershall, Shefford lower and Etonbury academy in Stotfold, I want to make sure that even more can benefit. How will the Government make sure that we learn the lessons of the pilots as quickly as possible, so that every pupil in my constituency and across the country who is eligible for the commitment can benefit from it?
Bridget Phillipson
The schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency will play an important role in determining how we can roll out this commitment right across our country. Of course, the early adopters in his community will make a really meaningful difference to parents and children, but they will also give us the opportunity to test and learn as we go and, crucially, to demonstrate the impact of a universal breakfast club offer. We know that that is the way we can make sure that we reach some of the families that might find it more difficult to access such provision, because it is a less stigmatising way of reaching those in greatest need.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank and congratulate the headteachers and staff at Meldreth, Great Wilbraham and Stapleford primary schools in my constituency. Will the Minister explain to them how important it is that the learning that takes place in those schools will ensure the roll-out of breakfast clubs to all schools in my constituency and across the country?
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to the schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and to the workforce there, for the fantastic efforts that they have made in order to take part in this scheme. I look forward to seeing the impact it has in schools in her community and in constituencies across the country, so that we can make sure that when we roll out this scheme nationwide, we do so on the basis of the best available evidence, taken from a range of different contexts in different constituencies across England.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
As a newly elected Member of this place, I try to visit a school in my constituency every week. Time and again, parents tell me, as they did last week at Hindley All Saints primary, that having a child in this country is too expensive and too exhausting, which is why I really welcome the programme that the Secretary of State has set out today. In a few weeks’ time, I am hosting a coffee morning at the family hub in Hindley, where parents are coming to discuss the issues that they face, particularly dads, who often do not show up to these things. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will tightly monitor the timeline for rolling out this fantastic programme beyond the early adopters and to other schools that will benefit, including those in my constituency?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in his community to support families. He is right to suggest that all parents experience challenges at different points. Being a parent is a wonderful job, but it can also be a very challenging job at times, and the Government are determined to make sure that support is always available to families. We want to ensure that as we roll out this programme across the country as quickly as we can, we learn the lessons about what works in different parts of our country. I give my hon. Friend my commitment that the action that we are taking as a Government will benefit families right across his constituency. We are taking action on school uniform costs, rolling out childcare and early years entitlements, and making sure that children have more early and timely access to support in areas like SEND.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend think that a breakfast club might have helped the attendance on the Opposition Benches and, indeed, the Conservatives’ grasp of basic maths? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Barton primary school in my constituency of Isle of Wight West has taken an important step forward in improving the outcomes for all its pupils, and that this is one of the many important first steps that she is taking to fix an education system that has been ruined by the previous Government?
Bridget Phillipson
Attendance has been a bit slim on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. In my response to the shadow Minister, I said that one would think that Members from across the House would welcome the difference that breakfast clubs will make to communities the length and breadth of our country, because they have been selected in a range of different constituencies to ensure that we learn from what is effective and what works. I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency will be part of this scheme. The work that school leaders, teachers and staff will carry out in this important endeavour will allow us to roll out breakfast clubs, making a real difference to children across our country.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I know that my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Secretary of State, is personally committed to delivering the best start to life for children in Sunderland, and I warmly welcome the fact that the Richard Avenue, Hudson Road, St Joseph’s and Dame Dorothy schools in my constituency have been announced as early adopters. Will she say a little bit about regional variation in the availability of early years staff, which, as she knows, is a particular challenge in our city?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to identify the variation that exists across our country, including when it comes to early years places and provision. We have almost doubled the early years pupil premium to make sure that providers are supported to create places in communities that are in greatest need, but where places do not currently exist in the way that we would wish.
When it comes to the staffing of breakfast clubs, I am delighted that schools in Sunderland Central will benefit. It will be for schools to determine how best to use the funding to staff breakfast clubs, and there is no expectation that it should be carried out by teachers. Existing breakfast clubs use a mixture of provision, which will continue, and the early adopters will allow us to test and learn, and to strengthen delivery, as part of a national roll-out.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for giving families in Carlisle not one, not two, but seven reasons to be cheerful today. Those seven reasons are the schools of Yewdale, Inglewood, Blackford, Hallbankgate, Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Castle Carrock and Brook Street. These seven schools represent the full breadth, potential and diversity of Carlisle and north Cumbria, from the inner-city school of Brook Street, where many families have English as a second language and where opportunity is all too often denied to the children, to village schools such as Castle Carrick and Hallbankgate, where dropping off at school time can mean that parents cannot take advantage of the opportunities that exist in the city. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the opportunity that will be unlocked for parents as a result of today’s announcement?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the early adopters scheme covers schools serving a wide range of settings and communities. We have sought to ensure that there is a representative sample—large and small—of those serving communities with higher levels of deprivation and those with lower levels. The early adopters scheme that we are introducing will have real benefits for parents in Carlisle, including by offering the flexibility at the start of the school day to drop off children a bit earlier, and to take on more hours at work or to get to work. The scheme will make a difference to children’s life chances too, because the evidence is so clear that a softer start to the school day makes a big difference to children’s attendance, their behaviour and, crucially, their attainment at school.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s announcement, and I am very pleased to see that St Williams primary and Kinsale infant school in my constituency of Norwich North will be among those that benefit from the early adopters programme—they are two of the 12 schools in Norfolk that will benefit. Will the Secretary of State expand on the “test and learn” principle? As we feed that in nationally, how will we feed it back to schools on an ongoing basis so that they can make improvements, and are there opportunities for schools to join up locally in areas such as procurement?
Bridget Phillipson
We will provide the opportunities that my hon. Friend outlines to ensure that schools work with one another to develop best practice, to learn from what works in similar settings, and to make sure that breakfast clubs in those schools are as effective and accessible as they can be. We know that breakfast clubs make a really big difference to children and their life chances, and I am delighted that the Government have been able to move so rapidly in starting the roll-out across our country.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is shameful that after the last Labour Government lifted 1.1 million children out of poverty, years of neglect by Conservative Governments saw an increasing number of children going to school hungry, which limits their learning and life chances. I warmly welcome the announcement that four schools in my constituency will be able to offer a free breakfast club from April: Ruswarp and Fylingdales, as well as St Peter’s and St George’s over in Scarborough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these breakfast clubs show how this Government are not only supporting working parents, but delivering on our promise to tackle child poverty?
Bridget Phillipson
Opposition Members never like to have it pointed out to them that on their watch we saw rising levels of child poverty in our country, which have scarred the life chances of a generation and have left families struggling. As a Labour Government, we are determined to make a difference and to ensure that background is no barrier to getting on in life. I am grateful that my hon. Friend is such a champion for her constituents in making sure that where people are from does not determine everything they can go on to achieve. The fact that we are delivering on our commitments, not even eight months into this Labour Government, demonstrates the difference that voting Labour makes.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement, under which my constituents in Ashford will benefit from free breakfast clubs in three schools: Downs View infants school, Kingsnorth primary school and Chilmington primary school. Giving children a chance to settle down and start their day at a club with friends will have a positive long-term impact on their mental health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this needs to be rolled out to every primary school as soon as possible?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree, and we will do so as quickly as we can. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important benefits that breakfast clubs deliver by enabling children to socialise and play at the start of the school day. I have seen so many fantastic examples of breakfast clubs already in operation that make such a profound difference to children by giving them a chance to spend time with friends, play and learn ahead of starting the school day, as well as the crucial boost that having a healthy breakfast delivers.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am delighted that five schools in my constituency—Hartford Manor, Over Hall, Winsford High Street, Victoria Road and St Joseph’s—will be among the first to offer breakfast clubs. I pay tribute to the leaders of those schools, who, by putting forward their schools, will ensure that children in my area start the day ready to learn. The evidence suggests that this will improve attainment, increase attendance and enhance wellbeing, while boosting those children’s overall life chances. To ensure that all children can benefit from free breakfast clubs, can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that breakfast clubs are inclusive and accessible for children with SEND?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the school leaders in his community, who will be a part—a very important part—of our early adopters scheme. I thank them for their contribution. He is right to highlight the important need for all breakfast clubs to be inclusive, including for children with SEND, which is why, through this process, we will be able to learn from what works. It is also why, alongside announcements about breakfast clubs in mainstream schools, we are announcing specialist provision—alternative provision schools will be a part of this—so that we can learn from the best practice that exists in the specialist sector and ensure that mainstream schools can also develop it.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
There is no doubt that this Government’s introduction of free breakfast clubs will be transformative for many families. Worcester has always been a pioneering city, and as a city that trains teachers, we are a hub for education, so I am particularly pleased at today’s announcement that no fewer than three of our local schools—Oasis, Red Hill and Riversides—have been selected as early adopters of breakfast clubs. Will the Secretary of State elaborate on how this pilot contributes to ending poverty and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive, achieve and succeed?
Bridget Phillipson
The children and families at my hon. Friend’s schools in Worcester will benefit directly from the early adopters programme, but they will also be an important part of how we roll out this scheme nationwide, allowing us to develop best practice. I pay tribute to the schools and their leaders in his community for taking part in the scheme. He is absolutely right that we want to ensure that all children are set up to succeed at the start of the school day, so that they can achieve, thrive and succeed in every way possible.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Parents and families of children at Knockhall primary school in Greenhithe in my constituency will be delighted to hear that it is a breakfast club early adopter. This will ensure that pupils start their day well fed and ready to learn, and it will save families money. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about how the learning, nutritional and cost-of-living benefits will be evaluated?
Bridget Phillipson
Through the early adopters programme, schools will be able to take part in a peer-to-peer support network, so that they can work together to share expertise and approaches at a regional level, which will be crucial to the work we take forward on the national roll-out. The school in my hon. Friend’s constituency will not just play a role in supporting families locally; it will be an essential part of how we learn what works and what is most effective. We want to ensure that best practice is spread across the country as we roll out breakfast clubs nationwide.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I am delighted that three schools in my constituency—Ashurst primary, Garswood primary and PACE—are part of this initial roll-out, and I am delighted for them. I was also delighted to hear Carr Mill primary school in my constituency get a mention by the Secretary of State in her statement. I congratulate Mr Maley, the headteacher, and all the staff on the outstanding work they are clearly already doing—I know they are doing it, because I used to work there, and it is a great school.
Like many Members, I have already been contacted today by other families and schools to ask when they can be part of this scheme. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that the Government will work as quickly as possible to roll it out to all primary schools? Can she also assure my constituents who are concerned about school funding that schools will be properly resourced to deliver this, as well as everything else they have to do?
Bridget Phillipson
I can say to my hon. Friend’s constituents and those across St Helens that we will ensure that schools have the resources they need to deliver the roll-out of breakfast clubs, both for early adopters and beyond. As we get this initial phase under way, it is essential that we learn what works ahead of the national roll-out. We are determined to roll out breakfast clubs nationwide as quickly as possible, but the fact that we can announce the early adopters scheme starting from April demonstrates the difference that a Labour Government make.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I cannot tell her how delighted I am that four schools in my constituency, with over 1,300 children, will be early adopters under this scheme. I pay tribute to the leaders of Skelton primary, Lockwood primary, Pennyman primary and St Bernadette’s primary for their leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, as far as children of working families are concerned, this Government are on their side and focused on making sure they have the best start in life and the best start to the school day?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted that four schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency are taking part, and I look forward to all primary schools across Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland benefiting from the roll-out of breakfast clubs across our country. This Labour Government are on the side of working parents, putting more money back into parents’ pockets, supporting parents at the start of the school day and cutting the costs of the school day. That is the difference that a Labour Government bring, and that is the difference that electing my hon. Friend to this place brings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Points of Order
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as a freeman of the City of London. A constituent has raised with me the concern that the City of London is seeking by means of a private Bill—the City of London (Markets) Bill—the ability to sell and redevelop without replacement the historic meat market of Smithfield and the fish market of Billingsgate. A petition against this proposal with many hundreds of signatures has been denied an audience and blocked by the corporation on the grounds that the petitioners do not have a direct interest in the proposed legislation. Smithfield and Billingsgate have for centuries provided meat and fish that is consumed throughout the country, and it is therefore fair to argue that every citizen of the United Kingdom has a direct interest in these markets, for which the corporation has acquired and prepared alternative sites that it is now seeking to abandon. My question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: is it correct, proper and orderly that the petition against this Bill should not be heard?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving prior notice of his point of order. The right of petitioners to be heard before a Committee on a private Bill is not a matter for the Chair. None the less, he has put his point on the record, and hon. Members who wish to object to the Bill will have an opportunity to do so when it returns to the Floor of the House on Report.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today is the third anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine. During the Ukraine statement, several Members were asking where certain other Members were for that vital debate. Up to now, the House has been rock solid in its overwhelming support for Ukraine. It may interest Madam Deputy Speaker to know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not actually in the United States, and he is not in Clacton-on-Sea. He is 290 miles away, in my constituency, holding a rally. Should he not have asked me first?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I assume he has notified the hon. Member to whom he is referring.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The document called “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. That guidance also states that failing to do so is regarded by colleagues as “very discourteous”. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.
Crown Estate Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Marine Spatial Planning: coordination—
“In relation to any decisions made about marine spatial priorities, the Crown Estate must—
(a) ensure that the decisions are coordinated with the priorities of the Marine Maritime Organisation, and
(b) consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities.”
Marine plans guide marine use and regulation for sustainable development, balancing the environment, economy, and society. This new clause ensures the Crown Estate collaborates with DEFRA's Marine Spatial Prioritisation through the MMO, using its expertise to inform decisions, preventing conflicts of interest from its new borrowing and investment powers.
New clause 3—Sustainable development: community benefits—
“(1) Before making any investment decision, the Commissioners must assess—
(a) plans for community benefits for local communities, and
(b) plans for community benefits for coastal communities of offshore activities.
(2) In section 3(1) of the Crown Estate Act 1961, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Commissioners must transfer at least 5 per cent of all net profit generated from the Crown Estate’s activities to local communities impacted by those activities.’”
This new clause would require the Commissioners to ensure their activities benefit local communities, including coastal communities, and that 5% of any profits would be transferred to local communities.
New clause 4—Devolution of Crown Estate powers to Wales—
“(1) The Crown Estate Act 1961 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 7 (powers of Minister of Works in Regent’s Park) insert—
‘7A Commissioners’ functions in Wales
(1) The Treasury must set out a scheme to transfer all the existing Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners (“the Commissioners”) to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.
(2) The existing Welsh functions under subsection (1) are the Commissioners’ functions relating to the part of the Crown Estate that, immediately before the transfer date, consists of—
(a) property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and
(b) rights in relation to the Welsh zone.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a date to implement the scheme under subsection (1) to the transfer of functions to the Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’”
This new clause would require the Treasury to devolve Welsh functions of the Crown Estate Commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers.
New clause 5—Limit on the disposal of assets—
“After section 3 of the Crown Estate Act 1961, insert—
‘3A Limit on the disposal of assets
(1) The Commissioners must inform the Treasury if the disposal of assets of the Crown Estate will be of a value totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets in a single year.
(2) The Treasury must approve of any disposal of assets above the threshold in subsection (1) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified by the Commissioners.’”
This new clause requires the Crown Estate Commissioners to notify and seek HM Treasury approval for the disposal of assets totalling 10% or more of the Crown Estate’s total assets.
New clause 6—Partnership agreement: the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy.
Amendment 1, clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—
“(3) The Treasury must by regulations limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 26, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must limit borrowing by the Crown Estate under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument, and these regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) The first set of regulations made under subsection (3) must limit borrowing to a net debt to asset value ratio of no more than 25 per cent.”
This amendment would limit the amount the Commissioners may borrow by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.
Amendment 2, clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(3B) Any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate and the Commissioners must define ‘sustainable development’ for the purposes of this Act.
(3C) The definition under subsection (3B) must include reference to a climate and nature duty.
(3D) A ‘climate and nature duty’ means a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”
This amendment would ensure that this act’s Framework Agreement must define “sustainable development”, and that the definition must include reference to a climate and nature duty.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(3B) In pursuit of the objective under subsection 3A, the Commissioners must assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities.”
This amendment would require the Commissioners to assess the protections against coastal erosion in areas where landfall is made for offshore projects.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
“(3B) In keeping the impact of their activities under review, the Commissioners must have regard to―
(a) the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets;
(b) regional economic growth; and
(c) ensuring resilience in respect of energy security.”
This new sub-section would require the Crown Estate Commissioners, in reviewing the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development, to have specific regard to the United Kingdom’s Net Zero targets, regional economic growth, and resilience in respect of energy security.
Llinos Medi
New clause 1 transfers the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government within two years of the commencement of the Act. The principle behind it is simple: the people of Wales should control and benefit from their own natural resources. For much of Welsh history, that has not been the case, with resources often exploited for the benefit of others. From copper in Amlwch in Ynys Môn, slate in Gwynedd, steel in Port Talbot and Newport, to the coal across the south-east valleys, the rivers of wealth that flowed from those industries were sucked out of our communities—and those communities have since been ravaged by poverty.
Wales is blessed with natural wealth and brilliant people, yet we are also a nation afflicted with deprivation, following years of extraction. Shocking new figures show that child poverty in Wales is set to reach 34.4% by the end of the decade. That is the legacy of our past, in which wealth generated was not used to benefit the Welsh economy or communities. Today, in 2025, that extractive pattern is being repeated with Wales’s green wealth.
Wales has immense renewable energy potential in our windy seas and long coastlines—we can see that demonstrated in the Morlais project on Ynys Môn—but the seabed, along with thousands of acres of land, is controlled by the Crown Estate. Renewable energy projects using these resources are expanding rapidly and delivering profits. We see that in the value of the Crown Estate, which sky-rocketed from £96 million five years ago to £853 million in 2023. However, all profits generated by the Crown Estate in Wales are transferred to the Treasury. This green wealth, just like the wealth from coal and other minerals in the past, is being sucked out of our nation. Millions of pounds generated on the Welsh Crown Estate is taken out of Wales each year, away from our communities who have borne the brunt of decades of economic decline.
In 2017, Scotland gained control over the Scottish Crown Estate and ensured that all profit was kept in Scotland. Devolution has generated millions for the Scottish public purse, with funds going directly to deprived communities such as those in the highlands. Why do the Scottish people get the benefit from their own water, wind and sea resources, but the people of Wales cannot? It is simply not credible for the Government to continue to say that devolution is too complicated, too costly and too time-consuming. These are all issues that can be addressed with proper planning and resourcing. Scotland’s Crown Estate was devolved in 2017. It is ludicrous to say that the Welsh Crown Estate cannot be devolved in a similar way. In Scotland, interim measures were put in place to ensure a smooth transition from the point of devolution until the implementation of a long-term framework for managing assets. New clause 1 takes a similar pragmatic approach by introducing a transition period. It worked in Scotland; it can work for Wales, too.
Throughout this whole debate, the Government have still not addressed the principle of control, so I would like the Minister to answer directly: do his Government believe that the people of Wales should have democratic control over their own natural resources? The people of Wales certainly believe so. Polling shows that majority support among the Welsh public for the devolution of the Crown Estate is higher than ever. It is also supported by the Welsh Labour Government. A majority of councils in Wales have passed motions in support of devolution; Wrexham council did so just last week, with the support of its Labour group. More councils will follow suit, and we may very likely have all councils in Wales declaring support for devolution in the near future. There is a mandate from right across Welsh society for devolution. Members of Parliament would do well to remember that they are here to serve and represent the people, and that the people of Wales have clearly made their views known on this matter.
In closing, I return to the principle that I outlined at the beginning of my speech. Do Members of this House believe that the people of Wales should, after centuries of exploitation, finally be given the right to control and benefit from their own natural resources? If they believe in that principle, I urge them to join me in the voting Lobby.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
We live in uncertain times, and as a nation we face many challenges ahead. For one, there is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The impact on our domestic energy prices has shown the extent of our reliance on the international oil and gas markets. Since 2022, gas prices for households across the country have spiked, and the cost of living continues to bite. Putin’s boot is on our throat.
Another challenge is the result of rapid deindustrialisation across the UK since the 1980s, and too much economic focus on London and south-east England. We have seen massive job losses at Port Talbot; we face an uncertain future at Grangemouth; and we still bear the scars of the loss of the mining industry. Regional inequality is stark, and in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire, the rate of child poverty is steadily increasing.
And of course there is our climate crisis: wildfires in California, torrential rain in Spain, and extreme heatwaves and longer droughts. Even walking through the village of Angle in Pembrokeshire with members of the local community council, it is all too easy to see the increase in frequency of flooding, not to mention its damaging impact on residents and local farmers.
Prior to the general election of 4 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out her economic vision of securonomics: we would make, sell and buy more in Britain, and so deliver energy security and create good, well-paid jobs while tackling the climate crisis. My Labour colleagues and I stood for election on that manifesto, and it is time to deliver. At a time when the challenges are so great and the need for leadership is so acute, it is vital that the Crown Estate has greater scope to rise to those challenges and do its part for the revitalisation of our great nation.
The provision in clause 3 that commissioners at the Crown Estate
“must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”
is therefore to be welcomed. That amendment was hard fought for by the noble Lords in the other place, and I commend them for it. However, it is our duty in this House to provide clarity about the meaning and scope of “sustainable development”, and about the mechanism for enforcing that provision. Maintaining transparency and accountability is critical for an organisation as big and influential as the Crown Estate. Allowing the estate to define “sustainable development” and report annually is a move straight out of the environmental, social and governance playbook. Given the financial firepower that this House is granting the Crown Estate, allowing it to effectively self-regulate on an issue of national importance is a dereliction of our democratic duty.
Under amendment 5, the commissioners must have regard to net zero, regional economic growth and energy security. It would not impede the independence of the Crown Estate, but would provide unambiguous purpose and direction on an otherwise undefined and unexplained term. It should therefore be welcomed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Of course, a key issue for all of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly for us in Northern Ireland, is the fishing sector. Any net zero development, such as a wind farm—wind farms have been proposed for my constituency in the past—could have a direct impact on the fishing sector there. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the fishing sector could be impacted by measures that take away the opportunity to fish in the seas around this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to the detriment of those in the sector, and their families?
Henry Tufnell
The fishing industry has a great history in my constituency, and it is vital that the Crown Estate takes on board the issues in the fishing industry when it looks at leasing and consenting. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I am grateful also to the Minister for his assurances in Committee that the public framework document will give context to clause 3, on sustainable development. However, no text has yet been shared with this House, nor will any be shared until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This reduces scrutiny and will encourage a retrospective review, rather than a proactive approach. Furthermore, relying on a public framework document reduces this House’s ability to ensure that the clause is properly enforced. What is the mechanism for enforcement in the event of non-compliance? What if the Crown Estate failed to report in good faith—what would the penalties be?
Off the back of Labour’s resounding victory last July, we know there is democratic consensus across the nation on our economic vision, which promotes energy security, regional economic growth and net zero, yet the Crown Estate appeared to be relying on the window dressing of ESG standards to obfuscate its desire to maximise its 12% of profits, at the expense of our nation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument, and I share his concern for communities such as Milford Haven, in which renewable development will be critical in future. I am sure he will also agree that devolution of the Crown Estate would be a key way to make the best use of supply chains, and to ensure that money stays as local as possible, particularly in Wales.
Henry Tufnell
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I sometimes feel, though, that the ideas of her party are slightly for the birds. The idea of devolution—where is their plan? There is no plan. What are the practicalities?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I thank my friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. The plan is quite simple: we could look at what is happening at this very moment in Scotland.
Henry Tufnell
The issue, though, is the practicalities. Is the hon. Gentleman going to draw an artificial line in the Celtic sea? What about the issue of consenting? What would that do for the leasing rounds, when certainty of investment for the private sector is so critical at this stage?
Furthermore, other Government agencies and Departments have to take account of this economic vision. In its latest contract for difference round, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero set a criterion of achieving shorter supply chains, in order to ensure that manufacturing facilities, installation firms and ports are located in areas of deprivation. It also adheres to science-based targets, which are goals that businesses set to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in line with obligations under international treaties, so that we can reach net zero by 2050.
The national wealth fund has an overall goal of increasing investment in resilient and sustainable infrastructure to support the UK’s net zero transition, and to contribute to improved local economic opportunity and productivity. In partnering with the private sector and local government, the national wealth fund has two clear strategic objectives: to tackle climate change and to support regional and local economic growth.
Great British Energy facilitates, encourages and participates in the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and measures for ensuring the security of energy supply.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on Report, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will focus on amendment 4 and new clauses 5 and 6, which I tabled.
The Bill was developed under the previous Conservative Government to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete by providing a broader power to borrow, in order to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. The assets managed by the Crown Estate, which total £15.5 billion, are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate; they are held in right of the Crown. Appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate is therefore essential, which is what the amendment and new clauses I have tabled seek to ensure. Over the past decade, the Crown Estate generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances, and it believes that the measures in the Bill will enable it to generate an additional £100 million in revenues to the Treasury by 2030, which is a prize worth seeking.
Before speaking to the measures in my name, I turn briefly to new clause 1, which proposes devolution of the Welsh functions of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) has support from businesses for this change, as splitting the Crown Estate at this time would introduce risk for assets and revenue streams. In Committee, we heard about the potential problems and complexity of licensing of the Celtic sea, to which the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) just referred.
Ben Lake
I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s arguments against devolving the administration of the Crown Estate to Wales. The previous Government— his Government—devolved those same powers to Scotland. Can I ask him, very simply, why it works for Scotland, but is too complicated for Wales?
James Wild
We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.
The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?
Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.
New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?
In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.
New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.
We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.
Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:
“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”
I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.
There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.
If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.
The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.
Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.
I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.
Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.
Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I extend my thanks to colleagues in the other place, the Public Bill Office staff and those in this House who served on the Bill Committee. Their efforts have been invaluable in scrutinising and refining the Bill. I support the Bill. However, the Liberal Democrat amendments seek to ensure that it delivers for both people and the planet. While the Bill presents opportunities—it aims to enhance energy security, create new jobs and bring us closer to achieving our climate targets—we must not lose sight of the need for financial accountability, proportionate borrowing caps, the duty to protect nature in the marine environment and the necessity of taking communities with us and providing them with clear, tangible benefits.
It is important to note that our discussion coincides with the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its consequences not only for the Ukrainians suffering the war, but for families here in the UK with volatile, skyrocketing energy prices due to our reliance on fossil fuels from authoritarian regimes like Putin’s: a stark reminder of the need to secure the production of our energy here in the UK. The last Conservative Government set the UK back both in meeting our climate targets and in seizing the opportunity to be global leaders in green energy due to indecision and broken pledges. We have the chance to be global leaders in offshore floating wind, which is why the Bill is so important.
I speak to amendment 2 to clause 3, which I hope we will vote on tonight. It would ensure that sustainable development was clearly defined in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, explicitly including a reference to a climate and nature duty. The Crown Estate plays a crucial role in managing our land, seas and natural resources. It is central to offshore wind expansion, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land use. Given its influence, merely requiring its commissioners to “keep under review” their impact on sustainable development is insufficient without a clear definition and accountability of what that entails, as the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) mentioned. That is key to ensuring that there are social and economic considerations in all investments and that the costs and benefits—in particular to local communities and local economies—are taken into consideration.
The amendment builds on Baroness Hayman’s concession in the other House. She said:
“What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1448.]
By clearly defining sustainable development in the Crown Estate’s framework agreement, the amendment would establish a benchmark for accountability in line with existing legislation. In contrast with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, this amendment mentions nature, too, and builds on the agreements in the other House. It seeks to enshrine the assurances given to the Lords, ensuring that the framework agreement would indeed include a climate and nature duty, aligning the Crown Estate’s responsibilities with the UK’s legally binding climate targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and nature restoration goals under the Environment Act 2021. It is about more than environmental stewardship; it is about future-proofing the Crown Estate’s decisions against the economic risks of climate change and nature loss.
I strongly support new clause 3, which would ensure that the Bill brought local communities along with it. That is essential. We tabled the new clause to guarantee that coastal and rural communities would see real benefits from Crown Estate activities. It would require a proper assessment of community benefits before investment decisions are made, and mandate that at least 5% of net profits be reinvested in affected areas.
Coastal communities need to see both jobs and a fair financial return from large-scale developments around them and off their shores. The Crown Estate generates billions from offshore wind, marine industries and land developments, yet local people often see little direct benefit. The new clause would redress that imbalance, ensuring that such communities impacted by change actively benefit from it. It is about fairness and economic regeneration. If the Government are serious about levelling up, they should back the new clause, which would ensure that the Crown Estate’s success was shared by all, not just a privileged few.
We have other amendments, too—we were busy in Committee. New clause 2 focuses on marine spatial planning co-ordination and would ensure that the Crown Estate duly collaborated with the Marine Management Organisation, which has the mandate to make decisions about marine spatial planning, and that fishing communities were fully consulted. That aligns with work going on for years as Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks to resolve conflicts, determine priorities and improve co-ordination. With growing pressures from offshore wind, marine conservation, fishing and tourism, decision making must be joined up. Marine plans balance economic, environmental and social interests.
The Crown Estate must work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ marine spatial prioritisation framework and the MMO’s expertise, as well as other relevant consultees such as heritage. The Government amendment requiring ministerial approval for seabed sales is an important and positive step, recognising its national importance. However, that highlights the broader need for transparency and oversight in marine planning. The new clause seeks to avoid potential conflicts of interest in prioritising and decision making arising from the Crown Estate’s new borrowing and investment powers.
Members may have noticed a theme running through the Liberal Democrats’ amendments: that of ensuring that local communities both benefit from and have a real say in decisions that will affect them as a result of the Bill. That is why we have also tabled new clause 4. While the appointment of commissioners for Wales, England and Northern Ireland is a positive step, Wales still lacks the legal and financial control over the Crown Estate that Scotland enjoys. Welsh communities must also stand to benefit from the changes introduced by the Bill.
I hope that the Government and the Opposition will join the Liberal Democrats in supporting amendment 2 to ensure that sustainable development within the Crown Estate’s framework agreement is clearly defined and includes a climate and nature duty. The Bill presents a trident of opportunity—it can enhance energy security, create jobs and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets—but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Bill is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, for my constituents, it is about jobs, opportunities and a better future for places like Wolverhampton North East. Right now, the Crown Estate is held back by outdated rules that limit its ability to invest. It is forced to sell assets just to raise capital. That is not sustainable, and it is stopping us from reaching our full potential.
The Bill changes the game, giving the Crown Estate the power to borrow, invest and back long-term projects that deliver real benefits for our communities. Wolverhampton North East is ready to seize those opportunities. With our forthcoming green innovation corridor, world-class manufacturing industry and skilled workforce known for its true graft, we are perfectly placed to drive the UK’s green economy.
The Bill means more funding for renewable energy, more investment in advanced manufacturing and more demand for the products we make in Wolverhampton and Willenhall. More investment means more jobs, more apprenticeships and more chances for young people to get the skills they need to build a career in the industries of the future, whether in engineering, fabrication or high-tech manufacturing. The Bill will help us to build more, make more and sell more in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, right in the heart of the Black Country.
The unprecedented £60 billion partnership between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate will supercharge offshore wind development, creating huge opportunities for our local businesses. This is not just about turbines on land or at sea—we know that Wolverhampton and Willenhall are not geographically suitable for offshore wind—but about the supply chains, the manufacturing and the innovation that we can drive in towns and cities like Wolverhampton and Willenhall.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Just this morning, the CBI has said that Britain’s net zero economy is booming. The sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, the average salary in the net zero sector is £5,600 higher than the national average and productivity in the sector is nearly 40% higher than in the wider economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an industrial opportunity for this country that we cannot afford to ignore, and that this Bill will help us to realise this opportunity and make it more achievable?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree. This is an example of how this Government will respond to the changing world that we live in. This Bill is about backing British industry, investing in local communities and making sure that places such as Wolverhampton North East lead the way in the UK’s future success.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing these outdated restrictions on the Crown Estate will allow a greater return for the public purse and benefit all our constituents across the country, including her own in Wolverhampton and mine in Harlow?
Mrs Brackenridge
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and based on the make-up of our constituencies, we come from a different angle from other Members who have raised important points in the debate. For us it is about jobs, apprenticeships and our local economy, so I back this Bill and I hope that the House will join me in doing so.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to speak to amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), which deals specifically with coastal erosion. My constituency plays host to a whole load of energy infrastructure that is vital to our security and our renewable transition. We have the Bacton energy hub, which is on track to make the exciting transformation from being a key asset in national gas to hydrogen production and carbon capture. It is one of my constituency’s largest employers, but it is also of national significance because of the role it plays in our energy ecosystem. It is therefore understandable that, a few years ago, a £20 million sandscaping scheme was welcomed. It gave protection not only to the energy terminal but to the villages of Bacton and Walcott that surround it. One local business owner spoke of how such a scheme means he no longer feels “trepidation” when he checks the weather forecast.
Just down the coast in the village of Happisburgh, the Norfolk Boreas and the Norfolk Vanguard wind farms make their landfall. Happisburgh has been at the frontline of the coastal erosion suffered in north Norfolk, with 40 homes already lost to the ever-encroaching North sea. This is a village battling the real-world impacts of climate change, and it is doing its bit to fight back by hosting renewable energy infrastructure, but it has had no additional protections. This double standard seems deeply unfair. It is in our interest to protect the renewable energy infrastructure we are building, but it is also in our interest to protect the communities that live alongside it.
People in Happisburgh have lived with the looming threat of coastal erosion and frequently feel left behind or forgotten about, and it seems as though this is just another example of this happening. I am sure that if there were an erosion risk of this scale in central London or the south-east, the Government would move heaven and earth to take action, but in North Norfolk, right at the eastern edge of our island nation, people feel despondent about the situation they are facing. Our amendment seeks to right this wrong. We believe that when these reforms to the Crown Estate allow for new renewable energy products, efforts must be made to secure the coastline where they make landfall. Renewables are our future, and we have to make sure that the communities that host key infrastructure have a future too.
I am aware that the Minister did not support this amendment in Committee. I am not expecting the recess to have led him to a Damascene conversion, but I hope that he can provide some reassurance today on how the Government will look at this double standard for energy products and what steps they will be taking to provide protection to villages such as Happisburgh that are doing all the right things but feel they do not get their fair share back. I would also be happy to welcome him and any of his Government colleagues to Happisburgh to see the situation for themselves. I honestly believe that bearing witness to the way that our coastline is being ravaged by climate change, meeting the people it affects and understanding what we are set to lose will spark anyone into supporting radical action to stop this coming to pass. I would be delighted if the Government could back our amendment today, but if they are unable to do so, I hope that the Minister’s team will be able to provide promises of progress for the residents of Happisburgh and all the other communities who live with the existential threat of coastal erosion.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I was on the Bill Committee and I have followed the Bill throughout, mainly because I represent Truro and Falmouth, which has huge potential to benefit from floating offshore wind, with Falmouth docks and our position in the Celtic sea. If the build-out in the Celtic sea is done quickly and done well, our young people will benefit from good, well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain. I also want to mention the CBI report published today, which shows how the green economy has grown three times faster and has higher wages than the national average across the board. We in Falmouth could really do with some of that, so I welcome this Bill.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and to express my party’s frustration with the Government’s refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd, that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy. Under the current system, the profits generated from Wales’s vast natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where that wealth is created.
The Crown Estate in Wales is set to generate millions annually from offshore wind energy leases in Welsh waters. If this money were kept within Wales, it could contribute an estimated additional £50 million to the Welsh Government’s budget at a time when public services in Wales are crumbling. It is nothing short of outrageous that the Labour Government in Westminster seek to deny Wales these vital sources of income, which could help to address the crisis in our public services, economy and infrastructure. The Labour Government’s refusal to devolve these powers further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland.
While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets within its borders, has been left without those powers. The benefits of devolution for Scotland have been clear, with the Scottish Crown Estate generating over £103 million for the public finances since 2017. The excuses we have heard from the UK Government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from Ministers about how devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales’s “best interests” or would be a “waste of time” are frankly an insult to the people of Wales.
This Government claim to support growth, but they seem determined to keep Wales from reaching its full potential. Instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow directly to London. That is not the vision of growth to benefit local communities or level up left-behind communities; it is a continuation of the Conservatives’ failed economic model, which prioritises centralisation and investment in the south-east of England over everywhere else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities. I hope the Government will change their mind.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.
This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.
A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate; I will follow on from what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) seeks. I want to make a specific request, which I did when I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell).
My issues with the provisions primarily relate to the fishing sector and the impact on fishing fleets around the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but particularly in Strangford for Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects Crown Estates in the entirety of the United Kingdom.
As the Library briefing outlines, the Crown Estate focuses on activities that align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. It manages the seabed and much of the coastline across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, playing a
“fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset, including the UK’s world-leading offshore wind sector.”
I am not against wind turbines and the green energy they produce, but I am concerned about the impact on the fishing sector. I want to state my concerns and express my support for the fishing fleets at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel, where fishing is an important economic sector, providing jobs and investment. That has been happening for hundreds of years, and I want to see that tradition maintained. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will reassure fishing communities that any development will not be to the detriment of the fishing sector.
Jim Allister
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the problems in this territory is that we do not yet have the definition of what is meant to be sustainable? On reading the Bill, it appears that the whole focus of what sustainable will be is on the green energy side, rather than what will sustain the fishing industry.
Jim Shannon
That is the thrust of where I am coming from. I am not against the idea of green energy, but I want to ensure the sustainability of the fishing sector over the years. It has been sustainable and still provides jobs in Kilkeel and Ardglass, and I want it to continue to do so. That would be my concern as well.
The fishermen in my area are well aware of the limitations brought about by Crown holdings on the coastline, and concerns have been expressed to me regarding the partnership announced by the Government for the Crown Estate and Great British Energy—the very issue that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim refers to—to bring forward new offshore wind developments. I wholeheartedly welcome renewable energy and attempts to harness the reliable energy of our vast seas and loughs, but only inasmuch as they do not stop the fishing sector from operating and being successful. That must always be the key consideration. If we were to lose one of our primary sectors in fishing and to gain wind turbines and green energy, that would be something that the Government would have to consider sensibly.
Similarly, the regeneration and development department in my local Ards and North Down council has highlighted the additional red tape that comes from leasing or altering existing leases to the Crown Estate. That being said, the council is also thankful for the open doors and accessibility when needed. However, it has been seen that there is a willingness to consider the national needs when requests are made for alterations, and that is appreciated. When we look at the national needs, we want to ensure that they do not take away from the local needs of those in Strangford, in Ards and North Down and in the fishing fleets and those who own land and farms around the Irish sea and Strangford lough.
During 2023-24, the Crown Estate generated a net revenue profit of £1.1 billion. Over the past decade, it has returned £4.1 billion of net revenue profit to the Treasury. We must ensure that the Crown Estate is being run at ultimate capacity and is bringing money into our coffers, but also that it has a socially conscious operating model and that it is being used to do good for everyone, including the fishing sector in my constituency.
I was very much inspired, as we probably all were, by the Prince of Wales’s scheme on homelessness, and by the fact that he is using his personal estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, to build 24 homes to help tackle homelessness. The construction of the first homes in Nansledan, Newquay, is due to be complete in autumn 2025. That good work should inspire us all to ensure that a Crown Estate operated by a team appointed by the Prime Minister attempts where it can to make such an impact for the common good.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and provided further detail about their amendments or concerns.
I start by making it clear that the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill. Where we have agreed with the intent behind an amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward. That was evidenced in the changes made by this House to ensure appropriate protections for our seabed. As a result of changes made to the Bill, the Crown Estate will now be required to seek the approval of the Treasury for any permanent disposal of the seabed. I thank the Opposition for a constructive debate on that matter. Alongside that, further changes made in the other place have helped to strengthen the Bill, including changes to require the appointment of commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland; a reporting requirement in respect of activities with Great British Energy; and a requirement relating to sustainable development. In that spirit, I have considered the amendments that are before us.
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for tabling new clause 1, under which, within two years of the day on which the Act commences, the Treasury must have completed the transfer of responsibility for management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. It would allow the Treasury, by regulations, to make provision about the transfer relating to reserved matters as necessary, and would require it to ensure that no person in Crown employment has their employment adversely affected by the transfer of responsibility.
I also thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for tabling new clause 4, to which her colleague, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), also spoke. It would require the Treasury to set out a scheme for transferring all Welsh functions of the Crown Estate commissioners to Welsh Ministers or a person nominated by Welsh Ministers. The Welsh functions would consist of the property, rights or interests in land in Wales, and rights in relation to the Welsh zone. As I set out in Committee, the Government believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form.
New clause 4 would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the management of the Crown Estate in Wales—an entity that, by definition, would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. It would further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables. It would also risk disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-system approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. Those reforms aim to create a more efficient system and reduce the time it takes for generation projects to connect to the grid.
Ben Lake
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his concerns about devolving the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government—he listed a number of them. Am I right in saying that he believes that the devolution of powers from the Crown Estate to Scotland has fragmented the market, and is in some way to the disbenefit of people in Scotland?
James Murray
The matter that we are considering today, through the two new clauses that I have mentioned, is the proposal by Opposition parties for devolution to Wales. We are not analysing what may have happened in Scotland, historically; we are looking at the proposals put to us in those new clauses, which I am addressing.
To be clear, the cumulative impact of the changes that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn is suggesting in her new clause would likely be to significantly delay the pathway to net zero.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister said that the Bill would be beneficial to the people of Wales as it stands. Could he quantify that benefit, please?
James Murray
If the right hon. Member waits just a moment, I will come to some of the direct benefits for the people of Wales of retaining the Crown Estate in its current form.
It is important to emphasise that the Crown Estate’s marine investments are made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. Devolving to Wales would disrupt existing investments, as they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh-specific entity. To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would risk jeopardising the pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic sea, which is planned for into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic sea. It was launched in February last year and is expected to contribute 4.5 GW of total energy capacity—enough to power 4 million homes.
In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy. Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as manager of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. On Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its pipeline of Welsh projects—the biggest of which is the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic sea—can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front.
David Chadwick
If devolution presents such enormous barriers, why are the Government choosing to put the headquarters of Great British Energy in Scotland?
James Murray
GB Energy is for the benefit of the whole of the UK. It is absolutely right to locate its headquarters in Aberdeen, given the strong connection between Aberdeen and use of the assets of the North sea to generate power for the entire United Kingdom. In fact, the hon. Gentleman’s example underlines my point, which is that when different parts of the United Kingdom work together, we can achieve more than we can separately. I thank him for endorsing my point.
It would not make commercial sense to introduce a new entity, with control of assets only within Wales, into a complex operating environment in which partnerships have already been formed. Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales are fundamentally smaller than its assets in England, and would likely not be commercially viable if their costs were unsupported by the wider Crown Estate portfolio. The Crown Estate can take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the cost of investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability; neither would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades of delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister has just told the House that Wales is too small and poor to benefit from the devolution of the Crown Estate. That is an extraordinary argument, and I am sure that the Welsh Government will share my amazement. Has he discussed that with his partners in Welsh Labour?
James Murray
I think the right hon. Member has misunderstood the point I was making. If we were to have a devolved entity, it would be starting from scratch midway through a multimillion-pound commercial tendering process, just at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero—something I am sure she is keen to support.
The commercial viability of all three 1.5 GW floating offshore wind project development areas in the Celtic sea, which straddle the English and Welsh administrative boundaries, benefited from the Crown Estate’s significant investment of time, expertise and capital, which enabled their entry into the market. UK floating offshore wind, an emerging offshore technology that the Crown Estate is supporting, would be particularly vulnerable to market disruption.
It is important to underline that income generated by the whole Crown Estate benefits the people of Wales. As I have noted, the Crown Estate pays its entire net profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year. That means that much of the revenue already supports public services in Wales, either by supporting UK Government spending in reserved areas or through the funding provided under the Barnett formula and the Welsh Government’s block grant funding.
Llinos Medi
As I mentioned in Committee, the Barnett formula is not a fair formula for Wales. In the Scottish model, £10 million was taken out of the block grant, but those communities received £103 million back. I think that is a fair exchange. Does the Minister not agree?
James Murray
The hon. Member has highlighted that the changes made in Scotland led to a reduction in the block grant to Scotland.
The focus of the new clauses is the proposal to devolve Crown Estate capabilities to Wales. As I am setting out, that would not make commercial sense when it comes to advancing greater energy capacity, or when it comes to increasing the Crown Estate’s net profit, which is of course reinvested in public services right across Wales and other parts of the UK.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that in the other place, the Government supported the inclusion of clause 6, which requires the appointment of commissioners responsible for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the Crown Estate’s board of commissioners continues to work in the best interests of Wales.
Jim Shannon
I seek assurance that the ambitious net zero targets will not detrimentally affect the fishing sector. I remember some years ago there was talk of a wind farm just off the coast of Kilkeel, and the fishermen were concerned that it would be in one of their prime fishing sectors, where scallops were plentiful. If that continued, the fishing sector could lose out because the Government decided to push for net zero. I sought reassurance that Northern Ireland MPs would be able to contact the Northern Ireland commissioner directly, but I ask specifically for a wider assurance about the fishing sector in Northern Ireland—for Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention about the impact on the fishing sector, and I can reassure him that the Crown Estate is committed to the sustainable management of the seabed. As with any developer, the Crown Estate’s proposals go through the standard planning approval process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate’s strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering on that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates recovery of, our marine environment. Of course, the Bill will not impact directly on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.
I pointed out that the inclusion of clause 6 in the Bill in the other place provided for the appointment of commissioners responsible for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The requirement to give advice to the board about Wales will be alongside the commissioners’ existing duties. That change will strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability to deliver benefits for the whole UK.
Hon. Members may not agree with the points I have made, but I hope that I have set out clearly why the Government believe that the existing structure remains the best approach, and I hope that hon. Members will feel that they do not need to press their new clauses to a vote.
New clause 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require the Crown Estate to ensure that any decisions about marine spatial priorities are co-ordinated with the priorities of the Marine Management Organisation, and to consult any communities or industries impacted by the plans, including fishing communities. I confirm that the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation already have well established ways of working together to ensure effective collaboration for marine spatial planning and prioritisation.
Pippa Heylings
We will not be pressing this new clause to a vote, but the new investment and borrowing powers change the context for the 2020 memorandum of understanding. I ask for reassurance that we might seek a new memorandum of understanding between the Marine Management Organisation and the Crown Estate.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. As I said, the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation agreed the statement of intent in 2020, and it is reviewed periodically to focus on priorities and opportunities for alignment. That may provide an opportunity for review in due course to ensure that it meets current aims.
In addition to the Crown Estate’s relationship with the Marine Management Organisation, there are various regulatory requirements on developers who lease areas of the seabed from the Crown Estate to engage with the Marine Management Organisation themselves. Those include requirements through marine licensing. Developers must obtain marine licences from the Marine Management Organisation for activities that could impact on the marine environment. That process involves consultation with statutory bodies and adherence to marine plan policies.
As part of a marine licence application, developers must conduct environmental impact assessments for projects that could significantly alter the environment. That includes consultation with the Marine Management Organisation and other relevant authorities. Developers are furthermore encouraged to engage with local communities, statutory bodies and other stakeholders throughout the planning and development process to address concerns and ensure compliance with marine plans. I welcome the indication from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that she feels able to withdraw the new clause, and I hope I have gone some way to addressing the points that she made.
New clause 3, which was also tabled by the hon. Member, would require the commissioners to assess plans for benefits to local communities and coastal communities in respect of offshore activities before making any investment decisions. It would also require the commissioners to transfer at least 5% of the Crown Estate’s net profit to local communities impacted by its activities. As I set out in Committee, local communities benefit economically from onshore and offshore developments—for example, through job creation and increased business for local suppliers. Local communities will also benefit in the long term as the country transitions away from volatile fossil fuel markets towards clean, domestically produced power, enhancing Britain’s energy independence and security.
As I highlighted in Committee, the Crown Estate has specifically designed the leasing process for its offshore wind leasing round 5 in the Celtic sea to require developers to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value. Tender bidders must think about how their developments can encourage healthier, more resilient and more prosperous communities, creating lasting benefits that extend beyond the lifetime of wind farm leases. Those commitments will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.
As I have laid out before, the Crown Estate is committed to proactively working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. As I mentioned in Committee, it has invested £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs and develop a green skills pipeline. It is supporting development in the skills we need for the future, through measures that range from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. It is also partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.
The Crown Estate already works closely with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies. While I respect the concerns reflected in new clause 3, the Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered. That enables it to contribute to skills training in the best possible way, while—importantly—not conflicting with its statutory duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire feels able to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 5 seeks to limit the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of assets without Treasury approval, by requiring it to seek consent for disposals of assets totalling 10% or more of its total assets in a single year. It would also require the Chancellor to lay a report before Parliament within 28 days of being notified of disposals above that threshold. As the Government have set out both in Committee and in the other place, in our view imposing a limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility needed to enable the Crown Estate to operate commercially and meet its core duties under the Act. It is important to emphasise that the Bill is not intended materially to alter the independence of the Crown Estate. Requiring the Treasury to approve the Crown Estate’s ordinary business transactions, which may well be caught by the new clause, would encroach on the independence of the Crown Estate. That is inconsistent with the Government’s vision for the Crown Estate.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) has concerns that the Crown Estate could choose to sell off critical or significant assets—indeed, he raised that point in Committee. I reassure the House that strong safeguards are already in place to ensure that the Crown Estate maintains and enhances the estate. The first is a legislative safeguard, namely the statutory duty on the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, and the returns obtained from it, while having due regard to the requirements of good management. Those are set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961 and will remain unchanged by the Bill. The second is a requirement set out in the framework document that governs the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate. That document is clear that the Crown Estate should inform the Treasury of any matters concerning spending, income or finance that are novel, contentious or repercussive. The Government’s view is that that captures any proposed sales of nationally significant assets—a point the shadow Minister raised. I recognise that he may not agree, but I hope he understands the Government’s position on the matter and, as a result, feels able to withdraw his new clause.
The shadow Minister also tabled new clause 6, which would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. As I made clear in Committee, partnership agreements are highly commercially sensitive. It is therefore right that any agreement is not made public or laid before Parliament, as to do so would likely prejudice the commercial interests of the Crown Estate or Great British Energy. I hope the hon. Member feels that he does not need to push the new clause to a vote.
I will consider amendments 1 and 4 together to try to make progress as speedily as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would impose a legislative limit on the amount of borrowing that could be undertaken by the Crown Estate, and both would require the Government to introduce affirmative regulations, setting out a borrowing limit of no more than a 25% net debt-to-asset value ratio. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this matter. The Government recognise that borrowing controls are an important consideration for the Bill. As such, the Government made available the Crown Estate’s business case, as well as the underpinning memorandum of understanding, which sets out the guardrails that will protect against uncontrolled or excessive borrowing. The key principle is whether a specific limit should be set in legislation. As I have set out previously, it remains the Government’s view that limits on borrowing are best set outside of legislation in a memorandum of understanding.
I have listened to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk that a limit outside legislation can be easily changed, but I reassure the House that the Bill has been carefully drafted to include strong controls, specifically the requirement for Treasury consent. Alongside that, the existing requirement for the Crown Estate to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, while having due regard for the requirements of good management, is maintained. Taken together, those elements provide clear guardrails around the ability of the Crown Estate to borrow.
Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, would require any framework document published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Crown Estate or the commissioners to define “sustainable development”. That definition would be required to include a reference to a “climate and nature duty”, which would mean
“a duty to achieve any targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 or under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021.”
As I set out in Committee, the Government understand the intention behind amendment 2, but a key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over the previous 150 years, which were hampering the effective management of the estate. By focusing the commissioners’ duties on enhancing the estate’s value and the returns generated, the commissioners have a clear objective on which they can be held to account. It is an important principle that giving an organisation too many objectives will make it far less effective than giving it clear and focused priorities, and, as I set out in Committee, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from Government, that operates for profit. That mandate is unchanged by the Bill—[Interruption.]
I am getting vibes from the Whip, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I might not respond as fully as I had hoped to some of the remaining amendments. However, I will address amendment 5, which I know matters to several Labour Members who have spoken to it. Amendment 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), would require the commissioners, when keeping the impact of their activities under review with respect to clause 3, to have regard to the UK’s net zero targets, regional economic growth and resilience of energy security. I thank my hon. Friend for the discussions that he and I had on this topic both before Committee and last week. A version of the amendment was debated in Committee. I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for engaging with me on this matter, and setting out so clearly what is important to them in the constituencies they represent.
Although I understand the sentiment behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, it is perhaps helpful to set out the context behind clause 3. The clause was supported by the Government in the other place, as it sought to clarify and enhance the accountability of the Crown Estate to deliver on environmental, social and economic outcomes. Clause 3 will require the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the public framework document, which governs the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury, will be updated in light of that clause, and will include a definition of “sustainable development”, as I have set out several times. The Crown Estate will continue to include information on its activities in its annual report, which is laid before Parliament. The Government’s intention throughout the passage of the Bill has been to ensure that it can stand the test of time without need for regular updates. That, in part, is why the term “sustainable development” was adopted.
I hope I have addressed some of the concerns raised by hon. Members, although I regret I was not able to address all the amendments with quite the level of detail I had hoped. As I made clear earlier, the Government have carefully considered all amendments throughout the passage of the Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will understand the approach we are taking. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Harlow (Chris Vince), and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for powerfully setting out the benefits that the Crown Estate and measures in the Bill will provide to people in their constituencies and across the country. I hope all hon. Members will understand the approach we are taking, and support our targeted and measured changes to ensure that the Crown Estate is able to operate independently, commercially and in the national interest.
Llinos Medi
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. The Government have tried to explain how devolution and the creation of a Welsh Crown Estate would undermine investor confidence, but that has not been the case for the devolved Scottish Crown Estate, which has raised £700 million from offshore wind investments since 2022. A devolved Crown Estate could lead to greater alignment and integration with the economy in Wales, as has been the case in Scotland. With a well-managed transition, there is no evidence that disruption would occur. Devolution would also offer opportunities to strengthen the role of the local supply chains to be used and to actually see the 5,300 jobs that the Government claim will be created for the people of Wales.
I remind hon. Members that it is projected that child poverty numbers will reach 34.4% in Wales in five years’ time, at the end of this decade, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that the forecast in Scotland is 19.8%. I refer hon. Members to the words of a former Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Peter Hain. He recently said that opposing devolution of the Crown Estate
“reflects old, centralised, conservative, anti-devolution Whitehall thinking.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2024; Vol. 840, c. 18.]
Labour promised us that a Labour Government in Wales and a Labour Government in Westminster would benefit the people of Wales. This Labour Government do not show any ambition for the people of Wales, and I ask every Member who wants to see the best for Wales to join me in the Aye Lobby.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
James Murray
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Crown Estate is an independent commercial business with a varied portfolio of assets across London, and with marine, rural and urban holdings. It operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities. However, it is governed by legislation that has not changed since 1961. That is why the Bill is focused on modernising the Crown Estate by removing limitations that, if unchanged, would hamper its ability to compete and invest as a commercial business.
The central aim of the Bill has been to ensure that the Crown Estate has a sustainable future for decades to come. Through these targeted and measured changes to its founding legislation, particularly in respect of its investment and borrowing powers, the Government are building on the Crown Estate’s strong track record of success in creating long-term prosperity for the nation. The changes will ensure that the Crown Estate has flexibility to support sustainable projects and preserve our heritage for generations to come. Crucially, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, helping to drive growth across the UK.
The Bill has been strengthened and improved in its passage through both Houses. It has been amended to require the Crown Estate’s board to include commissioners with special responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will ensure that the Crown Estate continues to work in the best interests of the UK. There have also been changes to strengthen its transparency and accountability, for example through the requirement for the Crown Estate to report on its activities under the partnership with Great British Energy, and the requirement to keep its activities under review with regards to the achievement of sustainable development.
I thank all hon. Members and all noble Lords in the other place for their thorough consideration and scrutiny of the Bill, and for the many and varied amendments that have been tabled and debated. I also thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage, including my colleagues in the Treasury, Members from across the House who took the time to provide scrutiny, all the parliamentary staff who worked on the Bill, and the officials in my Department who have put in a significant amount of time and effort. I am grateful for the broad support for the Bill from across all Benches. It will ensure that the Crown Estate can operate successfully for many more decades to come. I commend the Bill to the House.
James Wild
I thank hon. Members from across the House, and my noble Friends, who have worked hard to scrutinise this important legislation. I also thank the Exchequer Secretary for the constructive approach he has taken throughout these proceedings, as did the Financial Secretary, particularly on seabed protections, as well as the Public Bill Office, and everyone who has helped to scrutinise the Bill.
There is support across the House for the aims of the Bill, which will deliver the modernisation that the Crown Estate needs, and should generate greater returns for the Exchequer. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have resisted our proposals for greater transparency and appropriate parliamentary oversight, including on borrowing. Similarly, the Crown Estate is about to embark on a novel partnership with GB Energy, and the lack of clarity around that partnership—notwithstanding the limited transparency through the annual report—is a concern. It raises concerns about the political pressure that may be brought to bear on the partnership to persuade it to fund the Energy Secretary’s costly plans. Notwithstanding those concerns, we support the legislation. However, we will be watching carefully to ensure that the primary purpose of the Crown Estate—to maintain and enhance its assets for the benefit of the nation, as well as the income derived from it—is protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Delegated Legislation
Bank Closures: Rural Areas
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We now have the enjoyable prospect of an Adjournment debate lasting an hour and a half, which I know will fill the Minister with joy. I can see the boyish smile on his face—he just cannot contain himself. I do not intend to take an hour and a half, although a number of colleagues from across the House have indicated that they wish to intervene.
I am very pleased to have secured this debate. It is clear that our banking world is going through a period of transition. There are changes in technology; there is the move—some would say at too high a speed—towards a soon-to-be cashless society; and there is the cost of running branches, which includes insurance, business rates, staff costs and the like. I know full well that the closure of a high-street bank hits an area hard, whether the area is urban or rural. However, North Dorset is a rural constituency, and the thrust of my thesis is that the impact is felt disproportionately harder in rural communities than in an urban setting.
Why do I say that? I do not believe that North Dorset is unique in how it operates. [Interruption.] Heckling from the cheap seats. Our market towns operate on a hub-and-spoke model: the market town grows, and the villages are magnetised towards it, which is good for businesses large and small across the sectors, as we all recognise. It is also good for community cohesion at a time when we are all rightly concerned about rural exclusion and isolation; it brings people together. Our rural areas, by accident rather than by design, contain a disproportionately high number of retired or elderly people.
Simon Hoare
I will, although the hon. Gentleman is neither retired nor elderly.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I commend him on bringing forward this debate. He is right to highlight elderly people. Social isolation is an issue for many people, not just those who are elderly or vulnerable, and it is worsened by the loss of basic banking. The hon. Gentleman told me before the debate that he has lost 14 banks. I have lost 11 banks in my constituency in Northern Ireland, which means that going to the bank becomes an all-day job, taking buses and making connections. Does he agree that there is a moral obligation on banks to ensure that they look after their customers? Indeed, if the banks do not do it under a moral obligation, does he think it is time for the Minister to make legislation to make it a legal obligation?
Simon Hoare
I agree. I will certainly come on to what I am asking the Government to consider, but the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about social isolation. We have lost 14 banks in my constituency since 2015. In 440 square miles, we have five banks remaining. We have had a fall of 74%. Across the county of Dorset, which includes the major conurbations of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, we have had a decrease of 68% overall, with 101 branches closed and only 48 remaining in the whole of the county. Eight parliamentary constituencies are served by just 48 banks.
My constituent Deborah Jones made a good point in response to a recent announcement by Lloyds that it is closing its branch in Blandford Forum, a market town in my constituency with a large village hinterland. With the exception of Nationwide, it now has no proper, traditional high street branch.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned Nationwide. My understanding is that 142 towns in the UK do not have a bank, and many are left only with a building society. It seems that the banks have exited while the building societies have stayed behind. I would appreciate his thoughts on what that says about the lack of community cohesion as a result of losing those banks. Often we are losing post offices at the same time.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is right. She allows me to pause to pay tribute to the Post Office and to members of the Association of Convenience Stores, which have stepped in to provide some level of service in those areas where the banks have gone. That brings me to one of my key asks of the banks, and the Minister as well. Yet again, a rubric seems to be used to argue in favour of closures that is blind to whether it is an urban or a rural setting. That differential needs to be taken into account.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Simon Hoare
I will, but I just want to make the point that was well made by my constituent in her email. She is a customer of Lloyds in Blandford and she does online banking, but during the storm, her digital services were down. She needed to do some important banking and had no way of doing it. She asks how her 92-year-old mother-in-law, who no longer drives and does not use the internet or have a mobile phone, is to contact her bank. At the moment, she is taken into Blandford every Wednesday for shopping and can pop into the bank. What will she do? She is a very independent lady and not ready to hand over all her affairs to a family member just because they have internet access. A number of organisations have drawn attention to that issue, such as Age UK in 2023. But before I get to that, I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Dame Karen Bradley
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In Leek in my constituency we are about to lose our last two banks. We will be left with a building society with a cashpoint and the post office, yet Link has done a review suggesting that we do not need a banking hub because there are sufficient branches 9 or 10 miles away. That does not take account of rurality. We are a market town with, as he rightly described, a hub-and-spoke model, and it simply is not possible for elderly people to get to those other bank branches that are not easily accessible and are not on bus routes. Does he agree that rurality and topography are incredibly important and should be considered when deciding on banking hubs?
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a bank closed in my constituency on an earlier occasion, I remember it telling me, “If customers need to talk to an actual person, they could use the branch in Poole.” I explained that that was right, but it would take two days out of the week, because those customers would have to get a bus to Poole, book a hotel, stay over and get the return bus the following day. It did sound a little bit nonsensical. I am therefore grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the point that I am seeking to make: there must be rural-proofing of the rubric for these decisions in the first instance and a better understanding of the geography of our rural areas as well as of the lack of public transport or other connectivity between the two places.
It is easy—dare I say it—if one represents Ealing, where the Minister is from. There are plenty of buses and tubes, and heaven knows what else, that I have no doubt will take the people around Ealing. North Dorset does not have those things, and nor do many of our rural areas, but I just do not think that point is recognised by the banks.
Simon Hoare
Let me make a little progress and I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.
At the heart of everything this place does, we must think about social inclusion and trying to deliver services that meet the needs of a wide range of our population. According to Age UK, four in 10 adults over the age of 65 do not bank online, and three quarters of those who are over 65 have expressed the very clear desire that they wish to bank in person. The over-80s, people with disabilities and those on low incomes disproportionately want physical facilities, and yet they are being denied them.
As the Royal National Institute of Blind People points out, in my constituency alone there are, I think, 4,170 constituents who are either blind or partially sighted. They are unable to conduct banking online. Why are we excluding them from the personal management of their financial affairs?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate, which has attracted a large number of colleagues; he has touched a nerve. May I enter a plea on behalf of coastal towns such as Harwich, which suffer exactly the same difficulties as somewhere like Blandford Forum? In Harwich, the TSB has closed down and the Halifax has closed down, and that is affecting business in the town. Businesses need a banking hub. The Government have really got to come up with a solution, and a single hub representing all these financial institutions must be able to provide some kind of efficiency. I very much look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s proposals.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His constituency, and indeed a lot of our coastal communities, will have that profile of constituents that is older and more settled, and they will want to see things delivered in the way that they are used to. That does not mean that they shun change completely, but they do have a legitimate expectation.
Let me take the House briefly through the timeline narrative of justification, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of that great Tory intake of 2015—those were the days; it is nearly 10 years—will remember being told that there would never be a town without a bank.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Simon Hoare
Let me just finish this point.
That was the first promise, but it seemed to disappear quite quickly. Then the Post Office came in, and then there seemed to be an over-reliance on building societies. I notice that Nationwide—I think it is Nationwide; I could be wrong—is saying in its television advertisement that it pledges not to close a branch before 2028, but it is under exactly the same cost and other pressures as its high street competitors.
Then we were told that the answer to the maiden’s prayer was going to be the banking hub, but there has been quite a lot of disappointment surrounding that. I suggest to the Minister that that is in part to do with the erroneous conflation of access to cash and access to banking services. Link has assessed, perfectly properly, that in Blandford there are ATMs at the local Tesco, at the local Morrison’s and at Nationwide, but just try asking an ATM to amend or set up a standing order or direct debit. A small businessman or businesswoman who wants to extend their line of credit or has a question mark over something cannot ask an ATM those questions. Saying that there is access to cash, as important as that is, is far too blunt an instrument when trying to assess the impact of these closures.
Luke Myer
North Dorset is quite far away from the north-east, but many of the issues the hon. Gentleman is talking about are issues that I am encountering in my constituency as well. The rural side of my constituency in East Cleveland contains many villages and towns with high deprivation and high rurality, and I am endeavouring to get a banking hub in one of those towns that has lost access to banks over many years. Does he agree that deprivation needs to be included as a metric alongside rurality?
Simon Hoare
I agree absolutely. A more sensitive and refined definition of the hub-and-spoke model is also needed. If we look at the resident catchment of a market town, we can construct a compelling argument that a proposal for a hub does not stack up, but we must add in the thousands of people who live in the villages that look to it and are magnetised to it, and who will spend more money in those businesses, and the businesses themselves—not just individuals—who use those businesses.
Simon Hoare
Let me give way to my hon. Friend from Surrey and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.
Gregory Stafford
I would not like to claim that I am the Member of Parliament for the whole of Surrey. My Hampshire residents would not be pleased about that. Just last Friday, the Barclays bank in Farnham closed, leaving the whole of my constituency of 101,000 people with just one bank, Santander, and one building society, Nationwide. We are lucky enough to have a banking hub in Haslemere, and we are going to get another one in Whitehill and Bordon—Liphook does not have one—but given that there are only 100 banking hubs across the country and that the Government say they are going to put forward 350, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are going to have to turbocharge those banking hubs, not just for access to cash, but more especially, as he mentioned, for proper banking services for residents in rural constituencies?
Simon Hoare
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend who represents Surrey and part of Hampshire.
I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this point if it is easier, but it strikes me that there is scope for a little bit of wiggle room with regard to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Act did not give the Financial Conduct Authority powers to reflect on and assess wider banking services. The Minister’s party, when in opposition, was very keen that it should do so. When my party was in government, for some unknown reason we resisted amendments to that effect, and Labour, then in opposition, did not push them to a Division. I just think that there is too gaping a lacuna in all of this, in that it is only access to cash that is assessed, and not access to banking services.
Simon Hoare
Let me give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Helen Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech outlining the issues. In North Shropshire, four of my five market towns have lost all their banks and only two of them will get a banking hub. Does he agree that we need to look at a much wider area to make those banking hubs work, because people who work in small hamlets and villages without access to public transport simply cannot access one that is maybe 20 miles away?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Again, I hope that any of the banks or regulators who may listen in or read the report will understand that this is not an issue that divides by party; it affects constituents across the country irrespective of which party represents them in this place. The key point is to have a proper assessment of rurality and the differential of living in a rural area compared with an urban area.
I commend the Government for their support for hubs, but they need to be more physical and robust in driving them forward. It is almost as if the banks are marking their own homework as to whether the argument in favour of a hub stacks up. As Sarah Coles of Hargreaves Lansdown commented a year or so ago:
“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online”.
Of course, by definition, the more people move online, the more that almost hollows out the argument to justify creating a hub.
I understand that initially the banks were slightly reticent, just as the mobile phone operators were about shared masts—that somehow clients would be pinched and all the rest of it—but the hubs are a shared facility jointly financed by the banks. Those banks need to remember that they are still in business principally due to the good will of the British taxpayer and the Exchequer during the financial crash of 2008, who keep our banking sector afloat. They owe a little bit of payback, as a number of my constituents have been keen to point out.
The hubs seem to work and fill that gap; but as I say, marking one’s own homework and setting the rubric to decide whether a hub will work is not right. The Treasury could take a more engaged and proactive leadership role on the matter.
Harriet Cross
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important and timely debate. I certainly spent a lot of my recess looking at banking hubs, especially in a town called Ellon in my constituency, which has recently lost its last bank. Ellon is a large town of over 7,000 people, and if the surrounding villages are included, it is getting up towards 11,000 people. However, it does not qualify for a banking hub. Link has not given its permission to have a banking hub, saying that there are not enough businesses in the town. It does not take into account, for example, the farming businesses, and the rural nature of the area, as we have touched on, is not taken into account in the criteria set out by Link.
I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the importance of “rural-proofing” the conditions that Link looks at to deliver a banking hub. I hope that this debate and the Minister’s response will put some pressure on Link to look more holistically at the rural environment when it comes to considering hubs, because places like Ellon need a banking hub.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because again she enhances and underlines the argument that I have been deploying, and for which colleagues across the House have been kind enough to add their support.
I suppose my annoyance is that the people who write the policies, whether they are the regulators or those in the bank boardrooms, do not know what living in a rural area is like. If they are in the Square Mile, they are not part of a rural community. They may have a getaway weekend retreat that they dash off to in their personalised number-plated Land Rover or Range Rover, in which they take their food down from Waitrose, before coming back to London on the Sunday, but that is not living in a rural area. That is not running a business in a rural area.
Simon Hoare
I give way to the hon. Member for North Northumberland, which really is a rural area.
David Smith
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. He mentioned the Square Mile there. In my constituency of North Northumberland—the third largest in England—there are eight branches in 2,100 square kilometres. That has gone down by 64% since 2015.
I want to highlight a point raised elsewhere in the debate. Banking hubs are important and, like other Members, I am pushing for them in my constituency; but again, the role of the Post Office in those banking services is key. We had to fight together as a community to secure Wooler post office. I must give credit to Glendale Gateway Trust for securing that. Does the hon. Member agree that post offices are absolutely vital and part of the solution to this problem?
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In many respects—[Interruption.] I am beginning to get paranoid; I hear voices. He is absolutely right to make the point that he does. I pay tribute to how the Post Office has stepped up. Very often, in providing that sort of transactional bank service, it has supported the continuance of rural post offices, which can often be marginal and fragile businesses themselves. Again, I think it an easy crutch to lean on to say, “Well, of course, the post office does this.” We can all applaud what post offices do, but customers cannot use them to talk to someone from their bank to discuss their overdraft, loan, mortgage, business credit card maximum or whatever it may happen to be.
I say to the Minister that we want our local businesses and small and medium enterprises to flourish—small, micro and family-owned businesses are very much the hallmark of a rural economy—and they have the greatest need, on a more regular basis, for that relationship with their banks. Then, the banks know the nature of the business and its long-term viability, and they can build that relationship.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to him for giving way a second time. He is making an important point. One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when a bank has closed in North East Fife, it offers to deliver not an access-to-cash service but some kind of pop-up banking advice service in the constituency. That suggests to me that banks know very well that giving banking service advice is important. Instead of doing it as a sop for a number of months before giving up, they need to do it on a more regular and permanent basis.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is again absolutely right. Surely it makes good commercial sense for high street banks, as we used to call them—increasingly, they are not particularly high street banks—to be able to tout their wares to existing or potential customers. That is how to generate business: by having a presence. A hub makes a very good presence for them all, but they seem to move at the speed of the slowest, and if one is not particularly convinced, the whole thing sort of seems to fall down. I know that the Government are trying to do more on that, but I think they could do even more to turbocharge it.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Falmouth is to have a banking hub. We are losing our last bank; Lloyds is going at the end of the year. The interesting thing about that is that the banking hub will be open 9 to 5, five days a week—and potentially even more—whereas the banks were very slowly cutting their opening hours after covid, and it was hard to find a bank outside school hours. That of course did not help rural businesses, which could not get there in time.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is right. The cynic might suggest that the opening hours were set in order to try to deliberately reduce footfall—possibly. That might be hugely cynical, and if it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will plead guilty as charged.
Dame Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is so very generous to indulge me a second time during his excellent speech. I am struck by the impact on charities. As any trustee of a charity will know, trustees quite regularly have to prove their identity at the bank that the charity chooses to bank with. When it is simply not possible for trustees to get to a branch of the bank to prove their identity, the impact on rural charities will be devastating.
Simon Hoare
I admire my right hon. Friend’s perseverance in ever trying to change the signatory on a charity bank account. People have died of boredom and exasperation trying to do it. A 60-year-old has to turn up with their great grandparents, their first cat and everything else to prove who they are. The fact that the bank has known them as a private customer for years seems to pass it by.
I hope I have made my points to the Minister, but let me rehearse them very briefly in bullet point form. One concerns the rubric to defend a bank closure. The assessment of access to cash needs a rural dimension, and there needs to be a much more granular understanding of the hub-and-spoke geography of a rural economy, which is very different from an urban one. We need to move away pretty quickly from merely assessing as satisfactory access to cash as defined by access to an ATM.
We need to turbocharge the delivery of hubs and bring pressure to bear on the banks, and there are a variety to do that. It can be carrot and stick, through tax and other policies, to try to nudge them to move at a faster pace. I hope, however, that the Government will take the lead on social inclusion for our rural areas, reflecting the fact that they have far more small, independent shops and businesses, and that the population is disproportionately older and/or retired and dealing with disabilities, infirmities, frailties and so on. Those things should be taken into account, and I remain to be convinced that they are.
I think an opportunity exists to amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 to give the FCA greater powers to look at wider banking services, not just cash. Our rural communities struggle. Our economies are fragile, and wages are usually lower than in urban counterparts. Another bank closure is not just another bank closure in a rural market town.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Although I welcome banking hubs, I am increasingly concerned that banks see them as an excuse to accelerate the closure of core services. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pressure needs to be applied, first and foremost, to the banks to keep branches open on the high street, and that banking hubs should remain as an infill as opposed to being seen as the solution? That is the danger when we, as a collective, talk so frequently about banking hubs.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I think the trend has been pretty clear, and the goalposts have moved. From late 2008 or 2009 through to about 2015 or 2016, I think the Government could and should have been much tougher and more exacting, but we are where we are. I take his point and I understand it, but let us not let the delivery of the good be sacrificed in pursuit of the excellent, which seems unattainable.
I think the trend in what the banks are doing is pretty well set, and it is probably irreversible. All sorts of things play into that. What I think is arrestable is the attitude of, “We will pull out even if we are the last branch open, and somebody else will pick up the slack”—principally the Post Office—or “We expect our customers to travel great distances to find a bank that is open and can help them.” That may require a number of visits in the case of something like an overdraft.
That is where the idea of a hub comes in. I understand that we are due to have our first hub in Dorset at some point this year—in Sherborne, in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)—but North Dorset needs one as well. I will certainly be campaigning for one in Blandford. I would value the support of the Treasury Bench to emphasise to the banks that they have a duty of care to their customers, and they cannot just cut them adrift and say, “Make your own way. Find an alternative. Beat a path to another branch. It is terribly inconvenient for you, but that is what we are telling you to do, because we have no social responsibility at all.”
For the sake of our rural communities, economy and businesses, for charities and the farming community, and for a host of other people who want that personal interaction because they do not have access to the internet, or do not want to use online banking or an app and so on, there should be a bank teller, as we used to call them, from a bank, in a hub at set times, to help their customers. By so doing they will not damage our rural and market town economies as much as many of us fear, and as many hon. Members have attested to in this short debate.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I commend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for securing this debate. He has ensured that the views and concerns of his constituents have been heard by Ministers this evening, and he has set out the particular dynamics of the role of banking hubs in rural communities. The fact that he received so many interventions from other hon. Members underscores how important this issue is to constituents across the country, and I thank him for securing this important debate.
It might be helpful if I outline some of the context around this issue. In recent years, people across the UK have reaped the benefit of the transformations of the UK’s banking sector, particularly the enhanced accessibility and convenience afforded by remote banking. For example, in 2017 40% of UK adults regularly used a bank branch, but by 2022 only 21 % of UK adults did so, and almost nine in 10 banked online or used a mobile app. Notably, that includes 65% of the over-75s. However, the Government recognise that those changes have presented considerable challenges for others.
Bank branch closures can have a particular impact on rural communities given the distances to alternatives—indeed, we heard examples of that from the hon. Member for North Dorset, and other hon. Members who intervened to highlight specific cases and to draw the House’s attention to the challenges facing their constituents. I assure hon. Members, and the people they represent, that this Government understand the importance of face-to-face banking, and banking access, to local communities and high streets. Our objective is to ensure that people and businesses have access to banking services, supporting local communities and local economic growth. Work on that is well under way, and we are working closely with banks to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor marked the opening of the 100th banking hub in December, and more than 200 hubs have been announced in total.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to 14 banks closing, and I referred to 11 closing. When it comes to the criteria for agreeing where those bank hubs will be, will the Minister reassure me that those constituents who have lost the most banks will be those who get more banking hubs when the opportunity comes through?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman highlights how this issue affects communities right across the UK, and in a moment I will turn to the criteria by which the locations of banking hubs are decided—hon. Members have raised that important issue, and put on record their concerns and feelings about it.
Banking hubs offer counter services provided by post office staff, which allows personal and business customers of more than 30 banks and building societies to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and check their balance. They also, crucially, contain rooms where customers can see community bankers from their bank to carry out wider banking services, such as registering a bereavement or help with changing a PIN. As the hon. Member for North Dorset pointed out, banking hubs offer more than just access to cash—that is an important point regarding why such hubs can bring so much to an area that has otherwise lost its local banks.
Community banking hubs can clearly contribute a great deal to local areas where existing banks have closed, and decisions over the opening of a hub are guided by the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulations. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it may be helpful for me to briefly outline how the FCA’s process works. When a bank announces a closure, Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network, conducts an impartial assessment of a community’s access to cash needs. Link considers criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses and levels of vulnerability, as well as the distance to the nearest branch, and the cost and time taken to get there via public transport.
Should Link recommend a banking hub, Cash Access UK, a not-for-profit entity funded by major UK banks, will implement it. Crucially, a bank branch cannot close until any recommended services are in place. Additionally, individuals, including Members of Parliament, can directly request an access to cash review via the Link website. In collaboration with industry, the Government remain committed to advancing the roll-out of these hubs.
It is worth pointing out that customers have alternative options for accessing everyday banking services. Notably, 99% of personal and 95% of business banking customers can conduct their banking, including taking out and depositing cash, at over 11,500 Post Office branches nationwide. The Post Office, as several hon. Members have mentioned, has a duty to serve rural communities, with the Department for Business and Trade requiring that 95% of the total rural population across the UK be within three miles of a Post Office. Therefore, where communities might be too small for a banking hub, as may be the case for some of the rural communities we are focusing on this evening, individuals and businesses can still access essential services at their local Post Office.
Helen Morgan
Have the people who have developed these regulations considered that three miles is a very long way for those who do not drive or have access to a car, or where there is no bus service? That is certainly the case for large numbers of people in North Shropshire and, I am sure, the other rural communities mentioned during the debate. People have set up their lives to be able to access the services that are available, but if those services are taken away and put somewhere else, they are unlikely to be able to get to that location, which is really problematic. Will the Minister consider reassessing the criteria, so that banking hubs are placed where banks were previously located so that people can still access them?
James Murray
The hon. Member is correct that people need to be able to get to banking hubs, and I will address that point later in my speech.
More broadly, this Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, so that rural communities and businesses can realise their full potential. A prosperous rural economy will be underpinned by improvements in rural connectivity, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out, and access to a diverse range of services. In the autumn Budget of 2024, the Government therefore announced funding of over £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. That investment will drive roll-out of broadband and 4G connectivity to support access to good internet in rural areas across the UK.
We have also confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. In recognition of the fact that each community has individual needs, we have introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. Every region in England, including the rural communities at the heart of this debate, will benefit. Taken together, these investments will help improve access to banking services, whether digital or in-person. More broadly, they will help to deliver economic growth more evenly across the country, helping rural areas to thrive.
In closing, on behalf of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), I again thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for his continued work in highlighting this important topic. I assure him and other hon. Members that this Government are steadfast in their commitment to supporting rural communities in their access to banking services, and I thank him again for raising his constituents’ concerns in the House tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Ms Furniss. This statutory instrument, which was laid in draft on 20 January 2025, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at approved fee cap providers in the 2025-26 academic year. This SI also introduces new lower tuition fee limits for foundation years in classroom-based subjects offered by approved fee cap providers, starting in the 2025-26 academic year.
Our higher education sector is part of what makes our country great. The sector makes a vital contribution to powering our economy, delivering world-leading research and innovation, enriching our society, supporting communities and opening up opportunities for individuals. From my personal experience—I was the first in my family to go to university—I know that the sector is a beacon of opportunity that everyone in this House ought to be proud of.
But this world-leading sector is now facing severe financial challenges. With tuition fees frozen for the last seven years, universities have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income. Teaching income per UK student has declined in real terms since 2015-16 and is now approaching its lowest level since 1997. The Office for Students reports that a growing number of higher education providers are facing significant financial difficulty. Its analysis suggests that, by 2025-26, up to 72% of providers could be in deficit, and 40% face low liquidity if no mitigating action is taken.
We need to act now to put our higher education sector on a secure footing to face the challenges of the next decade, and to ensure that all students can have confidence that they will receive the world-class higher education they deserve. We also need to ensure that students receive value from their investment.
Taking each of those objectives in turn, this SI is intended to fix the foundations and put this vital sector on a more secure footing. It will mean that, from 1 August 2025, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 3.1%, in line with forecast inflation, based on the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments inflation measure. That means an increase to £9,535 for a standard full-time course, £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course, and £7,145 for a part-time course.
The decision to increase maximum fees has not been easy, but it is necessary to ensure that our higher education sector can continue to contribute to our economic growth, our globally important research and our local communities, and can continue to open up opportunities for those who wish to participate in higher education. Members on both sides of this Committee will agree that it is no use keeping tuition fees down if there are no universities for students to attend, or if students are not receiving the quality of education that they deserve and that is needed to meet the skills needs of our economy now and in the future.
I understand that some students may worry about the affordability of higher education, but I reassure them that eligible students will continue to be able to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition, and that when they start repaying their loan, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of these fee changes. That is because monthly repayments depend on earnings, and at the end of their loan term, any outstanding loan balance will be written off. We will also be working with the sector to ensure that it does more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to deliver the very best outcomes both for students and for the country.
This SI also focuses on improving efficiency and delivering value for students. Lower fee limits will be introduced for undergraduates starting foundation years in classroom-based subjects in the 2025-26 academic year: £5,760 for a full-time course and £4,315 for a part-time course. The Government recognise the importance of foundation years for promoting access to higher education, but there has been a rapid and disproportionate growth of foundation years in classroom-based subjects that can be delivered more efficiently at a lower cost to students. To be clear, providers offering foundation years in all other subjects, such as those in science, technology, engineering and maths and the creative arts, will be able to charge fees up to the new fee limits of £9,535 for a standard full-time undergraduate course and £7,145 for a part-time course.
This SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, enabling the sector to continue delivering the world-class higher education that both current students and future generations deserve. I hope that hon. Members will support these important regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.
Through these regulations, the Government are increasing tuition fees to £9,535 a year. The maximum maintenance loan for students not living at home is £10,227, or £13,348 in London, so after a typical three-year degree, a graduate will need to pay back up to £59,000, or up to £68,600 for those who studied in London. If the Government continue to raise fees in the same way throughout this Parliament, those figures will increase to about £66,400 in the rest of the country, or £76,900 for those who studied in London. Those are two very large numbers.
As it happens, this year’s fees hike has not made universities any better off because the cost of the national insurance hike wipes out the benefit to the sector of the decision to increase tuition fees. Effectively, one broken promise on fees is paying for another broken promise on tax. The Secretary of State’s website still has the ironic headline, “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour Government”, but in reality they are paying higher fees and more tax, too.
The current system produces some incredibly high marginal rates for young people. Those who have a postgraduate loan, or who pay the high-income child benefit charge, face incredibly high marginal rates, even on middling incomes. Sadly, the new Government have abandoned plans to reform the HICBC, so this problem will not go away any time soon. Graduates have 51% of their income taxed away at just £50,000 of earnings, a sum which will not feel like being rich for those renting in an expensive city. At £60,000 of earnings, graduates with kids, particularly postgraduates, face marginal rates in the 58% to 73% range—the kind of rates that used to apply only to super-taxes on the very wealthy.
One way things have changed since the launch of fees is that we have much better data, particularly thanks to the creation of the longitudinal education outcomes dataset under the last Government. This lets us look at a degree’s value added compared with something else, and something else can sometimes be better. The latest data shows that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation are £29,900, compared with £33,800 for level 4 apprentices; the apprentices are earning substantially more.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the deepest look at this question. It has considered how graduate earnings are evolving for those who study at different types of institutions and on different types of courses, and it has tried to compare that with counterfactuals for people with similar prior characteristics. It looked at how many people saw their earnings boosted by a degree and what the costs were, and worked out the net benefit for the individual and the taxpayer, and it combined these perspectives to get a final score. The conclusion of its 2020 report was that
“seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.”
That is a huge share for whom it is proving not to be worth it.
The IFS also noted that
“While getting an undergraduate degree is worthwhile financially for most students, there is significant variation across subjects. Some subjects, such as medicine, law and economics, offer a springboard to very lucrative careers…However, a significant minority of mostly men are likely to not see positive returns as a result of going to university…lifetime earnings returns remain low or negative for subjects such as creative arts and English.”
Today’s Times has a report based on my freedom of information requests to the Student Loans Company. That in itself is telling: the whole process of assessing public spending on higher education needs to be radically more transparent. We should not need to rely on freedom of information requests just to get this data, but now that we have it, it reveals the vast variations between higher education institutions in the share of loans that are being repaid. Where we see that only very small fractions of the money loaned out by the taxpayer is paid back, it often means that the courses are not that great for either the taxpayer or the student, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot without necessarily taking them to where they hoped. Yet the Government seem to have looked first at jacking up young people’s fees, and they seem to have given up on reforming the system to weed out courses that offer low value for money.
Speaking of value for money, one university that will benefit from these regulations is the University of Greater Manchester. The Minister will have seen the extremely concerning reports in the press, particularly The Manchester Mill, about the attempts to pay huge sums of what is effectively taxpayers’ money to relatives of the university’s managers, and to what appears to be a shell company in Casablanca. Can the Minister assure me that he is investigating those concerning allegations?
I am very sympathetic to the plight of staff at universities where the leadership have got them into financial difficulties, be it through taking out ill-judged, expensive loans, overspending on buildings or becoming overdependent on one particular group of overseas students—I am sympathetic to universities and lecturers more generally, as it is a hugely important job. I am not saying that all universities are awash with cash, but it is worth saying that up-front real-terms funding per student is still substantially above the level of the pre-fees era, even as student numbers have exploded.
There are many wonderful, valuable courses in our universities, which I hope will expand and prosper, but young people in Britain are now facing really large repayments and high marginal rates, which make it difficult to get on in life. We need to do right by our universities, but we also need to do right by our young people. I believe that reforms offer scope to get them a much better deal. We should look first to reforms, rather than simply increasing the burdens on young people. That is why we are sceptical about these regulations.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I speak as an MP with two universities in my constituency. Over the last few years, I have often talked with them about the new financial strains they have experienced. I have therefore followed this debate extremely closely.
Many universities have had a very difficult few years. We need to acknowledge that and congratulate them on the way they have put measures in place to control those costs, but for many it has been at a cost to their courses, with many staff, including academics, being made redundant. That means narrowing the offer at a time when we want our higher education sector to excel, as it is a sector of which we can be immensely proud.
I fully understand why the Government have gone down the path of raising tuition fees by 3.1% to a cap of £9,535, other adjustments aside. However, it would not be right to see this as a long-term solution, and I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister that we will not see further fee increases in this Parliament, and that we will instead look to address the quick succession of financial shocks to which the sector has been exposed.
The student visa changes have had a profound impact on York’s universities, decreasing the number of overseas students. The universities are therefore having to reschedule their costs. I very much hope the Minister will move to enable students to come with their dependents to study in the UK and put into our local economies, which depend on those students and their families making a wider, positive contribution, as well as helping the universities with their finances. I also hope the Minister will ensure that we can continue to have the excellence that comes with the academic study and research base that I see in York’s universities.
I know that universities are trying to plan for the long term. I disagree with what the shadow Minister says about universities overreaching, as the University of York and York St John University have placed themselves in the centre of our city, ensuring that they are part of our economic future. Investing in the technologies and jobs of the future is part of York’s inclusion agenda, which we need to facilitate. Universities are key anchor institutions in places like York, and they can help to address the inequality and huge regional divides we experience.
But we also know that there have been wider pressures. The national insurance obligations have had a real impact on the sector, as has the rise in the national minimum wage. I urge the Government to feed back to the Treasury in particular that the national insurance rises could have been more nuanced so as to assist the sector, particularly given the plans to raise student fees. I welcome the rise in the national living wage, but that of course has had a cumulative impact on universities’ income and expenditure.
As we all know, Brexit has had a real impact on universities. The loss of the Erasmus scheme has not been equalled by the Turing scheme, and there has been an impact on research relationships, academic work and the ability of students to come to the UK—the visa controls. It has also not been long since the covid shock and then the cost of living shock. That has all had a cumulative impact on the budgets of universities, which are trying very much to lead our communities and drive forward the economy of the future.
Despite universities’ excellence in demanding more from their finances, restricting their ability to offset costs has meant that the Minister has had to let those costs fall on students. I have real concerns about that, not least after discussing the issue with students in York. I understand the need for more income for universities, but the impact on students is considerable. Having met student unions in York, I know that the cost of housing there is absolutely astronomical and having a real impact on students. It is the same with travel costs, which are significantly more than in other places outside London.
As a result, students are having to work ever more hours in the local economy to offset the costs. They are being priced out of degrees; many who have started their studies in York have not been able to complete them as they are having to work more or less full time. Academic work is suffering as a result. I have a real concern that placing a greater financial burden on students particularly affects those from families with a lower socioeconomic background, and I note that page 27 of the relevant equality impact assessment says that the fee increase may deter students of lower socioeconomic status from coming to university and discusses the real cost of the increase on them.
I trust that the Minister will look at how to support hardship resourcing through the Office for Students so that no student is turned away. All in all, the tuition fee model is broken when it comes to funding education; the money risks ending up in the wrong places. Now that we are in power, I urge the Government to take a bigger view of funding for higher education. Education should be seen as the most significant investment in our economy. It fuels our research and innovation, drives economic benefit and transforms people’s lives. We need to make sure that no one is excluded. I regret that the failures of the last Administration have brought us to the point of raising fees today. I trust that we can find better solutions for tackling the wider funding of higher education and its broader ecosystem, not least as universities produce the research and innovation to drive our whole economy forward.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether he expects other rises in student fees during this Parliament. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that people of lower socioeconomic status are not impacted by this policy? I note the increase in the money that students will be able to access and what the Minister has said about the amount that students pay back. What future planning are he and his colleagues doing to ensure that there is a better account and better process for funding higher education in future?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central for their contributions. First, I reiterate the importance of the statutory instrument in putting our higher education sector on a secure footing and ensuring that students receive value from their investment. Committee members will know the sector’s importance for economic growth. They will know about its world-leading research and contribution to local communities, as well as how it changes the lives of those who participate in it.
Providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income, following seven years of frozen tuition fees, and we need to act now to ensure that future generations of students can benefit from our world-class higher education sector. However, we are clear that in universities, as across our public services, investment can come only with the promise of major reform. That was why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced in the House on 4 November last year that we will publish a plan for higher education reform in the summer.
The shadow Minister made a number of points about national insurance contributions. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, raising the revenue needed to fund public services and restore economic stability requires difficult decisions on tax. That is why the Government are asking employers to contribute more. We strongly believe that that is the fairest choice to help to fund the NHS and wider national priorities. The higher education finance and funding system needs to work for students, taxpayers and providers. The fee increase represents a significant additional investment from students into the sector, and we will support higher education providers in managing the financial challenges that they are facing.
On student loan repayments, we understand that some students might worry about the impact that the increased fee limits will have on the size of their loan. We want to reassure students that, when they start repaying their loan, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of changes to fee and maintenance loans. That is because student loans are not like consumer loans; monthly repayments depend on earnings, not simply the amount borrowed or interest rates. At the end of any loan term, any remaining loan balance, including interest that has built up, will be cancelled.
The shadow Minister asked about graduate earnings. On average, graduates benefit from their university education by over £100,000 in their lifetime compared with someone who did not go through higher education. He also asked about the press coverage of the University of Greater Manchester. Of course, that is a matter for the university, but we understand that the Office for Students—the independent regulator for HE in England—has been notified of this case. The university is conducting its own investigation and it would not be appropriate to comment any further at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who is a real champion of higher education for her constituents and her community, made helpful points about quality. Students and the taxpayer have a right to expect a good-quality education in return for their considerable investment in higher education. For their investment, students deserve excellent teaching that supports them to learn and develop the skills that they need to achieve their full potential. That was why we made a commitment to raise university teaching standards in our manifesto, and we want higher education providers to collaborate, share best practice and deliver continuous improvement in the quality of their provision. Students also deserve to know what to expect when making their investment in higher education. We want providers to be transparent about the things that matter to students, such as the number of contact hours that they can expect when studying specific courses.
On international higher education students, the Education Secretary, in her speech in July 2024, made it clear that we welcome international students who have a positive impact on UK higher education, and on our economy and society as a whole. International students enrich our university campuses, forge lifelong friendships with domestic students and become global ambassadors for the UK. Our universities have taught dozens of current and recent world leaders. This gives us an enormous amount of soft power and also builds strong relationships, which is why we offer international students who successfully complete their studies the opportunity to work, or look for work, in the UK on a graduate visa for two or three years after their studies finish, allowing them to live and work here, and to contribute to our society and economy.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for what the Minister says, but we know that the changes in visa requirements have had a major impact on higher education. I urge him to take that back to the Department and look at the changes again so that our universities can welcome students and their dependents into our country.
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is being kind to me, as she knows I am not the Government spokesperson on higher education, but I will ensure that my colleague who does lead on it takes that point back to the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a number of helpful points about access and participation. Our mission is to break down the link between background and success that has hampered the life chances of too many in this country. We are committed to supporting the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university. We know that there are stubborn and persistent inequalities within our education system, and those must be addressed. It is vital that all higher education providers play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students.
By summer, we will set out our plan for higher education reform and the part that we expect providers to play in that. Through our reform, we are determined to ensure that universities are engines of opportunity, fairness and growth. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
County Council elections in West Sussex
Free 1-hour parking in Yarm
Family farm tax
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
Social Media Use: Minimum Age
(1 day, 10 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
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700086 relating to a minimum age for social media.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The House is considering whether social media should be banned for children under the age of 16. I start by thanking Kim Campbell, who is in the Public Gallery, for submitting this petition, which has gained over 130,000 signatures. Kim believes that the answer to the question posed is yes. When I asked my two boys, aged 14 and 10, whether social media should be banned for children, their answer was predictable: [Hon. Members: “No!”] No—of course. But when we ask the same question of UK adults, the overwhelming majority respond: [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Yes—75% of them, in fact, according to a poll published last month and based on a survey of 2,000 adults, I think. On the same theme, I asked my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe last week whether smartphones should be banned in schools. Almost 2,000 responded and, again, 75% thought that they should—I must say that many of the 24% who thought that they should not looked to me as though they were still at school themselves.
Are adults imagining a problem here? Do we just not understand our young people? I have heard it said more than once that most adults do not see how important social media is to young people’s social and digital identity and that we cannot teach boundaries if we ban access to these apps altogether. I totally agree that social media can be a space where young people can build positive relationships with their peers, reduce loneliness, improve coping skills and improve general knowledge and creativity—social media can of course be a wonderful tool, but it is currently a wild west where there is too much harmful content.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, given where we are with social media today, that legislation just has not kept up with the pace of change? We are far behind in being able to deal with and tackle this issue, given how extensive social media usage is. Our pace of change, in terms of legislation, just has not met that demand.
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The legislative regime that we have at the moment, as I will come on to say, will require risk assessments. The state of the evidence when the Online Safety Act 2023 was being passed is different from the evidence that we have today, so the nature of those assessments and of the risks is necessarily different. As I will come on to say, we need to look at that on a continual basis.
As I was saying, social media can be a wonderful tool, but it has become a wild west where too much harmful content is being pushed on to young people, and social media companies are simply not doing enough to tackle it. The sad fact of the matter is that social media is pushing content that radicalises, that catalyses mental health crises and that is highly addictive. The head of MI5, Ken McCallum, last month raised the alarm about how extremist ideologies are reaching children as young as 12 through social media platforms, and young people radicalised by social media are on its books. That, of course, is a growing threat to national security.
Another issue is mental health crises. We are seeing skyrocketing rates of anxiety, depression, eating disorders and even suicide among adolescents.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on an excellent speech. On that point, students from Brighton Hill community school in my constituency recently raised the issue of the significant impact that social media was having on their mental health and wellbeing. Does he agree that it is not just adults who are concerned, but young people, and that they should be involved in the review of legislation, because it is they who are seeing the most detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate the children in his constituency on taking a very sensible approach. It is interesting that children themselves are coming forward and saying that—perhaps because they see the harms that I am talking about and want to do something about them. We have seen cases where children as young as 14 have taken their own lives after being bullied or exposed to harmful online content. During preparation for this debate, I was informed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that there is an online website posing as a community that encourages suicide. That is the dark and depressing side of the online world that we have to do more to tackle.
What about addiction? Social media platforms are designed to exploit vulnerabilities in our young people. Algorithms push harmful content—body image issues, self-harm or anxiety videos—directly on to their feeds. A recent survey showed that on TikTok the algorithm was 4,343% more likely to show toxic eating disorder content to users who were already vulnerable to such issues. Many Members will have seen the Channel 4 documentary “Swiped”, where a secondary school took the phones of year 8 pupils for 12 weeks to see what would happen. The results were impressive: children talked to their friends more, reported less anxiety and were more focused in class.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Given that 70% of youth services investment has been slashed since 2010, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we need to provide opportunities, aside from school, where children can interact before taking away one of the few places that they have to spend time with their peers?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. This cannot be about shutting down avenues for young people to socialise with each other. Whatever action is taken to make it harder for young people to access social media, we have to make sure that other things are going on in society so that they do not feel that that is the only place they can go to socialise.
The petitioners’ view, as I said, is that we should ban access to social media until children are 16. I spoke to the NSPCC before this debate; its position is that it does not think an outright ban is the answer. Without changing the software or the devices, a ban on children using social media—without doing more—would be unenforceable. The NSPCC’s view is that a ban would push children into unregulated and more dangerous online spaces.
Does the Online Safety Act do enough? Several people I spoke to in preparing for this debate think that it does. For example, there is a requirement for social media companies to conduct children’s access assessments to determine whether children are likely to access their platform. There are online age assurance measures that require social media companies to assess whether their services are likely to be accessed by children and to adopt robust methods such as photo ID matching, facial age estimation and mobile network checks.
Age assurance measures are of course right, but groups such as Smartphone Free Childhood do not believe that risk assessments, and the Online Safety Act more broadly, go far enough. They do not advocate for an approach of risk assessment and risk reduction methods; rather, they say that the onus should be on the social media companies to demonstrate that their apps are safe for children to use and that, if they cannot, their app must not be used by children. That seems to be the opposite of putting the onus on the regulator to prove that an app is dangerous or harmful. It might well be that that would be something the code of practice under the Online Safety Act could do. It would require tightening that code of practice, so it would be useful to know whether the Minister agrees that the Act would be capable of reversing that burden, and that we ought to think about those methods.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, while legislation can go so far, we have a broader responsibility as adults in society and as parents—myself included—to make sure that we monitor not only what our children are using and how they use it, but our own habits? A headteacher in my constituency was alarmed that she had to write to parents to tell them that when they collect their infants from the playground, they should put their phones away and have eye contact and engage with their children.
Tony Vaughan
The hon. Lady makes a common-sense point: if we are going to advocate for change, we have to lead by example. It might be said that the harms we are talking about are a somewhat separate issue to that. Of course we need to take responsibility, but where we have social media companies that are pushing content that is objectively dangerous, we need to have the conversation that we are having today about how the system and social media companies should be forced to ensure that that space is a safe one.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the parents who have brought forward this petition—they are often way ahead of us as legislators when it comes to issues affecting children’s safety. My hon. and learned Friend is doing a very good job of setting out some possible risks that the Online Safety Act will not fully be able to mitigate some of the challenges that we are seeing. Considering robust measures on the age of access to social media is timely and important in thinking about the best way of protecting young people from possible exposure to online harm. On top of that, though, we must recognise that some exposure is always likely to be there. Would he also agree that it is important to ensure that we think how, through the curriculum review, we can best empower and set up children, young people and their parents to protect themselves from harm where they are exposed to it, even with the stronger regulations that we are looking to put in place?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We will not protect children through just Government or social media while expecting parents to do nothing. Of course, we parents will have to do our part. Interestingly, on that point, I was going to say that an important potential measure is the approach put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) in his private Member’s Bill, the Protection of Children (Digital Safety and Data Protection) Bill. His concept, which I hope to hear more about in the course of this debate, is about raising the age of data consent from 13 to 16, which essentially stops the social media companies being able to harvest data and keep feeding the kind of content that will be harmful. That seems to me a no-brainer.
Very briefly, I want to talk about smartphones in school, an issue closely connected to the one posed by the petitioner. Many teachers and parents who I have talked to believe that this “never seen, never heard” guidance, which was introduced by the previous Government, is not working. We have students still using phones during break time and often during lessons, and the problems that that causes are significant. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time—it is a huge distraction and it interferes with learning.”
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Prior to entering Parliament, I worked for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, a type 1 diabetes charity, and one of the issues that came to light when this measure was previously proposed by the Government was the fact that children who might need to use their phones to monitor their type 1 diabetes, or who have parent carer’s responsibilities, need to have an exemption. That creates a stigma between children who might have a medical requirement to use their mobile device and those who do not. How would the hon. and learned Gentleman see this measure interacting with that?
Tony Vaughan
Every school has to comply with the Equality Act 2010. Whatever policy a school puts in place, one would have to check that what they are doing complies with the law. Those sorts of exceptions would obviously have to be looked at very carefully.
We do not have to look far to see examples of local areas that have banned smartphones in schools, such as the London borough of Barnet.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for mentioning the action that has taken place in the London borough of Barnet, for which I have the honour of being one of the three Members of Parliament. I have been working closely with local teachers in primary schools and secondary schools and with the fantastic Smartphone Free Childhood campaign in north London, led by a wonderful volunteer called Nova. We now have 103 primary schools in the borough committed to going smartphone free from September. Every secondary school has also said that they will go from year 7 or upwards—with some going further and faster—to go smartphone free. That is not just “not seen, not heard”, but headteachers working together, so that they have safety in numbers and are backed up by their MPs, to say that, unless there are specific exemptions that apply, smartphones will not even be allowed on the premises.
Further to an earlier point, it has also been really encouraging that some teachers are going further and saying that parents should also not be allowed to use smartphones on the grounds, for the reasons that have been pointed out. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising Barnet. It has been fantastic to work with the campaign locally to support parents and young children in my constituency.
Tony Vaughan
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his activism and organising on this issue. I know that he has played a big role in the outcomes that he has just described.
An example more local to my Folkestone and Hythe constituency is a policy designed by the John Wallis academy in Ashford in Kent, where students put their mobile phones in a locked pouch during the day. The principal, Mr McBeath, had intended that the rule would limit disruption in school and support safeguarding. I, for one, will be advocating for that whenever I speak to headteachers in Folkestone and Hythe. I commend the work being done by Smartphone Free Childhood nationally and by its group in Folkestone and Hythe. It is important to work closely with everyone involved to address the problems that social media use is creating for our young people.
I am conscious of all the other people who want to speak as well as the Minister, but I have a few questions for him, one of which I have raised already. Is the code of practice likely to be robust enough in the coming years, as we see more evidence of the harms caused by social media? What changes may be needed as time goes by? Is Ofcom striking the right balance between safeguarding children from harm and ensuring economic proportionality? Is there anything that Ofcom is doing or can do to tackle the small but high-risk sites I mentioned earlier, which act as online communities and encourage things like suicide? Last, what measures can the Government take to get ahead of AI development to ensure that children can be effectively protected from the risks posed by AI so that our politics can forge technical progress? That is enough from me. I look forward to hearing others’ contributions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that, even if they have put in to speak, they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. The debate is well subscribed, so I ask hon. Members to stick to about six minutes. I will not impose a time limit now, but that should enable everybody to speak. Finally, Mr Speaker has made it clear that if people are called to speak, they should be here for the wind-ups, as in the Chamber.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to be here today to support the petition calling for social media companies to be banned from allowing children under the age of 16 to create social media accounts. I stand here today in complete agreement with the over 700 Reigate constituents who signed the petition urging us to take action on this important issue.
As a mother of three, I spend much time worrying about the impact of social media and screen time on my children and their peers. When I was growing up, in the school holidays I was out playing with my friends, climbing trees, building camps and learning the critical social skills that we all need in adulthood. Now, instead, we do not let our children out, and the only world we allow them to explore is a fantasy one that is rife with risk and does not equip them with the life skills that they need.
When children are online, they can interact with predatory individuals without realising, see unrealistic body images that batter their self-esteem and be convinced that black is white by false information. That is extremely damaging. Many adults fall for those things, so how on earth do we expect our children not to? It is no coincidence that we see a mental health crisis in our young people at the same time as mass adoption of smartphones and access to social media. Yes, increased mental health support is needed, but the best remedy is to remove the root cause.
I note that the previous Conservative Government took some welcome first steps in the fight to safeguard our children through the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Thanks to that Act, providers must be proactive in removing illegal content such as child sexual abuse material, and they must protect children and young people from content that is harmful. That could include harassment, abuse, bullying or content about suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. The Act also includes welcome measures to prevent children from accessing online pornography, something I particularly welcome in the light of the huge damage that material does to both our girls and our boys.
While the Online Safety Act is a welcome starting point, we must go further. That is overwhelmingly the view of Brits, 75% of whom now back raising the minimum age for creating a social media account from 13 to 16, as a recent More in Common survey shows. If, as I hope, we raise the minimum age to 16, more thought needs to be given to enforcement. While platforms may set a minimum age requirement, with 13 being the standard for most social media sites, those limits are easy to circumvent. If teenagers can evade the ban by using a simple virtual private network, we will not get the full benefit of raising the age limit. It will be of great value to hear more today about the best ways to overcome this challenge.
I also want to touch quickly on smartphones, as this is another route to better safeguarding and protecting our children. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) made some really powerful points on this. I strongly support a ban on smartphones in schools for children under 16. When asked, 42% of older teenagers say that on a typical day their smartphone distracts them from schoolwork, and nearly half say social media has distracted them enough to affect their grades. Currently, only 11% of schools are genuinely smartphone free, and children at these schools get GCSE results one to two grades higher, so there is clearly a big upside to banning smartphones in schools.
The Conservatives recently tabled an amendment to Labour’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to do exactly that. Unfortunately it was voted down, but I urge the Labour Government to seriously consider implementing this much needed restriction in some form. To be honest, I am perplexed as to why they rejected the amendment, when this one measure would be a game changer in terms of protecting children and improving educational outcomes, which is the whole purpose of the Bill. I hope that they will reconsider the amendment at a later stage.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I am very grateful that one of my constituents who has campaigned hard for a smartphone ban is here today. Does the hon. Lady recognise that although we can ban phones in schools, as the majority of schools have, it will not prevent kids from bringing phones to school and playing with them when they get outside the school gates? It is a much bigger challenge than just banning phones within the school boundary.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is a tricky and difficult thing to achieve, but a ban it makes it a little easier for schools. We have implemented guidance, but it has not cut through as much as we wanted. We now need to accept that we need to go further and introduce a ban, because it is much easier for schools to take action when it is on a statutory footing.
I thank the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for his great work on safer phones for our children. I hope to be able to support his private Member’s Bill on 7 March. These are exactly the type of initiatives that we should be working on together on a cross-party basis, because we all agree that we want to protect our children.
I encourage Ministers and the Government as a whole to engage fully with the excellent points made in this debate, and act swiftly to protect our children from an increasingly insidious online realm that they are simply not equipped to navigate. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to raising the minimum age for social media use to 16 and banning smartphones in schools. The value from these two changes alone would be huge for our society, and we would all thank the Government for it.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and the petitioner for bringing this vital debate.
Since being elected to this place in July, I have spoken about children’s safety online several times, including in this Chamber. For too long, our children’s development and protecting them from harm from predators, inappropriate and disturbing content and from each other, have been treated as an afterthought. As legislators, it falls to us to protect our children, but we are way behind where we need to be.
In my constituency of Darlington, this issue came up time and again on the campaign trail as parents, siblings and grandparents all reported feeling ill equipped to fulfil their most important role of giving their children a safe and healthy childhood. It is vital we understand that parents are asking for our support now, because for many of them, the fight and pressure from their own children to allow them the latest phone, more screen time, or access to an adult version of a game and much more, feels relentless.
This debate is about social media, but it is also about the digital age of consent. My view is that children under 16 should not be given the responsibility to permit or to deny companies’ access to their data. The risks are too high, and the long-awaited children’s codes from Ofcom are not yet in place; we do not know what impact the measures in the Online Safety Act will have on children’s behaviour and experience online. We should, therefore, stipulate that 16 is the age of digital consent.
Last week I visited Firthmoor primary school in Darlington for an assembly on online safety. It was exceptional; the children had songs, raps, roleplay and helpful tips for staying safe online. These children, aged between four and 11, are online already. I was struck by their understanding of passive screen time versus active screen time. Passive screen time includes scrolling aimlessly through suggested content, and active screen time is about learning. These children are trying to protect themselves, but it cannot just be left to them. I do not think that we can ban children from accessing screens, but we must safeguard them from harm until they are old enough to navigate the risks themselves.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My wife and I regret ever getting a smartphone for our two eldest children. We have four, and we are wondering what to do when the third expects access to the same rights. Smartphone management is something we continually get wrong. My hon. Friend has talked about screen time. It cannot be beyond the wit of our smartphone creators to give parental controls better intuitive use, so that they cannot be undermined so easily by the smart children using the smartphones. Does she agree that while we need to strengthen the role of Ofcom in rooting out the toxic content that our children are pushed towards, the smartphone manufacturers also have a job to empower parents? It is a real concern, because children’s use of smartphones and their access to social media is a daily battle for their parents.
Lola McEvoy
I fully support what my hon. Friend says. Lots of parents in Darlington have said that although the default setting may be that children cannot access chat rooms on games or a more violent version of a game—because it is not just the phones and devices, but what they are accessing on those devices that really matters—they just lose the battle. When it comes to the crunch and their child is arguing that they want to go on the device and they are going to have a tantrum, they just allow them to go on it. Parents need more support from us as legislators, which is basically my point.
Children should be able to enjoy games and access safe and engaging educational content. Platforms should not be allowed to target them with suggested content. That is where the problems are coming in—with suggested content, children are exposed to harmful and unhealthy things. Platforms should have children-safe search engines, and features including live location and chat rooms should be designed to be transparent and child-friendly, with their safety at their heart. Accessing certain social media features, such as chatting with adults who they do not know or sharing content, should be solely for those who have been strictly age-verified as over 16.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for her work with my constituent, Ellen Roome, on issues to do with children and social media. As a Liberal, I am instinctively against banning things. However, liberal society has long tolerated minimum age limits for things that might be dangerous for children, such as cigarettes, alcohol or driving. Does she agree that we should consider social media use in the same light?
Lola McEvoy
That is absolutely right; I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. It is important that we strike the right balance. For a long time, we have been behind on protecting children online. It is time now to use the Online Safety Act 2023 and the upcoming children’s codes to get it right the first time. We do not know how they will bed in, and it is crucial that we get it absolutely right with the first iterations of the children’s codes in April.
To be able to chat with strangers or have content suggested to them, a person should be age-verified as over 16. For me, the online world is a hugely valuable part of modern life. As with everything we do offline, we must ensure that it is safe and regulated for children to use, and if it is not, we should not let them use it.
In Darlington, I have set up an online safety forum with year 10s across every secondary school in the town. Their biggest concern is the disturbing content that the Online Safety Act and children’s codes should protect against, but they have also flagged to me awful, horrible examples of peer-to-peer bullying, which is totally acceptable on social media platforms and goes unchecked. Ofcom is required to issue new codes every three years, so if the first codes do not get it right in April, we could be waiting for three years for a 13-year-old to be protected properly, by which point they will be 16 anyway.
The age to use social media in its current form, where platforms can suggest content and children can chat unchecked with strangers, should clearly be 16. Those whose age is not verified should be able only to access child-safe, limited platforms designed for children. That is common sense. I am concerned that without further legislation, platforms will be left to implement their own safeguards. In some cases, those may well be good, but our job is not to leave the protection of children online to chance. We should stipulate an age, require ID and be bold leaders in this space. Our children will look back and ask us what we were waiting for.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I thank Kim Campbell and the petitioners, including almost 400 from East Hampshire, for bringing this debate to Parliament. There has been a lot of interest of late in Australia’s upcoming ban on social media for under-16s, and I was interested in how the Australians are going to implement it, considering some of the complexities and definitional difficulties. I recommend to colleagues a very good interview on American National Public Radio with Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, in which she said that it is not about flicking some big switch. She said that there was a possibility that some social media functionality could be removed, rather than an entire app being blocked; that
“messaging and gaming sites and anything that delivers education or health care information”
would be exempt; and that, ultimately, it would be for the Minister for Communications to
“decide which platforms are in and which are out.”
Well, I hope they have invested in their legal defence budgets.
It is true that parents vary widely in what they think is good or acceptable. Everybody agrees that their child should be able to call or text home to let mum or dad know that they are delayed or feeling worried, or that their club has been cancelled. Some also value things that can be done only on a smartphone—such as using a map to find the way home—and there is a whole other debate about education technology and the use of Show My Homework and all the rest of it. Some parents are totally happy with the entirety of the electronic world—smartphones and social media. Let us be honest: it is parents who often help children get around the minimum age limit to be on these platforms. Sometimes, we say that they do that only for fear of the child missing out, and that may be true, but we do not know that it is in the majority of cases.
In addressing these questions as legislators, we often fall back on saying, “Hang on, we’re not talking about banning all phones; we’re talking specifically about smartphones. And we’re not talking about getting rid of the good stuff; we’re only talking about getting rid of the bad stuff.” This, of course, is the easy stage in the legislative process, and things become much harder later, when we have to define precisely what we mean. I am about to recommit that sin: I am going to talk about an ill-defined “it” that we may in some way want to restrict. That “it” is something about smartphones and social media that I will today fail to define, but I hope to come back at the end to say a little about more precisely what I mean.
I am not in the business of trying to put new restrictions on how parents manage their families or of trying to do things to them that they could do for themselves. There is already a minimum age for using social media; it just happens to be an arbitrary age that is based on some legislation—not even from this country—from the 1990s. When the GDPR came in through the European Union, which we were in then, countries could choose an age anywhere between 13 and 16. Different countries chose different ages; we happen to have settled on 13. Most people would say that we have to set the bar somewhere, so the question becomes, where? Of course, we could, alternatively, say that the Government or a regulator have no role in setting an age at all. However, if that is not our view, and we accept that there should be an age, we have to ask the secondary question: what should it be? There is no ancient right to be on TikTok at age 13. These are novel technologies, and we are facing these questions now for the first time.
In this country, there are two main thresholds for the transition from childhood to adulthood, and they are 16 and 18. Those are not the only ones, but they are the main ones. In English law, there has never been a concept of an age of digital consent and nor, to my knowledge, was there a non-digital concept of consent in contract law previously for somebody under the age of majority. I grant that it is arguable, but it seems that 16 is the most appropriate threshold.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I have met parents from Smartphone Free Childhood, but also young people. This is a big issue in Brighton Pavilion. Has the right hon. Member thought about pushing for the Minister and Members to talk more with young people about where the age limit should lie, rather than trying to come up with a number in the middle of a debate? It is clear from talking to young people that they feel that parts of social media are very toxic, but I also think they are best placed to judge where the limit should lie.
Damian Hinds
To be fair to the Minister and previous Ministers, I think they do make efforts to hear from young people. An interesting survey by the Youth Endowment Fund, which I commend to the hon. Lady and others, put an extreme proposition to 13 to 17-year-olds: “If you could turn off social media forever for you and everybody else, would you do it?” While a majority did not say yes to that extreme proposition, something like a third did. We also have various other surveys.
It is true that when we talk to children, as I am sure many colleagues have done in schools across their constituencies, we get a variety of views. In particular, children do not want to be left out, and as parents we do not want that for our children either. If everybody else is in a certain group or has a certain means of communication, we tend to want our children to have that too.
The evidence is not perfect. There is even evidence that some screen time is a positive good. A programme for international student assessment study in 2019 talked about a Goldilocks effect, where about an hour of screen time was beneficial for mental wellbeing, after which the benefit declined. That same study found wide differences in life satisfaction between what it called “extreme internet users” and others. There are now plenty of other studies on everything from happiness, the quality of relationships and eyesight to the effect on sleep and concentration.
There is also the rising incidence of mental ill health among teenagers, which—for the avoidance of doubt and to take politics out of it—is not unique to this country and not uniquely a post-covid effect. Causality is still hard to prove, but it seems extraordinary that, when we are talking about children, we allow something to happen because we cannot prove 100% that it causes harm, rather than allowing it to happen only if we can prove that it is safe. That is not the way we deal, for example, with children’s food or toys. I would turn the question around: are people really suggesting that the prevalence of self-harm is nothing to do with the prevalence and normalisation of certain imagery on social media?
The Online Safety Act was a landmark piece of legislation, and we will debate it again in Westminster Hall on Wednesday. Everybody who worked on it— including myself—was always clear that it would not be the last time we had to come back to this subject in legislation. It is inevitable that there will be further regulation and restrictions in the interests of greater child protection. I therefore urge the Government to move from working out whether there will be further protections to working out what those will be. Of course, to write legislation—to return to where I started—one needs to be able to define things precisely and, in reality, there is no bright line between a smartphone and a brick phone, and no slam-dunk definition of social media either.
It can be instructive to think about individual platforms and services. One of the things we worry about is TikTok. Do we worry about Snapchat? Yes, we probably do, because of the association with bullying and the disappearing messages. But some families like the snap friends function, because they can see where different family members are. Do we worry about Instagram? Yes, we probably do, and it has a particular association with issues around body image. But it is also a way for people to share lovely family photos, and for extended families to keep in touch.
A lot of families allow children to have WhatsApp, when they would not allow them to have TikTok, and up until quite recently, some would not even have called it a social media platform. Where we think we have problems with disinformation on TikTok and Facebook, other countries have them with WhatsApp. What about YouTube? For many people, YouTube is not social media; it is a place where they go to watch videos or for music. But because it has user-generated content, it is also social media; it is certainly capable of sucking up a lot of young people’s time, and it has potential rabbit holes that people can fall down.
What about gaming? Gaming is different from social media, but modern gaming also has quite a lot of social media-like functions, such as lists of friends. Certainly, it is a way of trying to create communities of people with common interests. It is also often linked to the use of Discord or to streaming on Twitch. And, again, it certainly takes up a lot of time—unless, of course, someone is in China, where the Government will allow them to do it for only one hour a day, on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
All of the above have risks attached, and they all have negatives, but we are unlikely to say that we want to ban them all—far from it. There is also a different risk: if we take one thing and ban it based on its specific features—its specific definition—we just push people to other places. Other things will then get more social-media characteristics, and children may end up in darker places on the internet. All of that is probably why the Australians ended up where they did: saying that it is probably more about specific functionality and that, at the end, it might be about having to make case-by-case judgments.
We worry about content; unwanted, inappropriate contact, as others have said; the excessive time children spend on platforms; potential addiction; the effects on sleep and concentration; and myopia. Crucially—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) covered this very well—these technologies can also crowd out other things. Whether they, in and of themselves, are good or bad, there are only 24 hours in a day, and we want children, in the time they are not at school and not asleep, to be able to access the full range of things that childhood should be all about.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
There is no defined time limit at the moment, but I did suggest that people take about six minutes. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is bringing his remarks to a conclusion.
Damian Hinds
I confessed myself a sinner at the start, Mr Stringer, and I will now come to a close.
In the Online Safety Act, we covered a lot regarding content and contact, but we need to do more on the issues of time and addiction, and I am pleased to see some of that in the work of the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). In the meantime, as others have said, we also need to do more on parental controls. I would like to see NHS advice to parents, which can be very powerful, on what an appropriate amount of time would be for children. We also need to enforce the existing age limits, particularly the one at age 13, and to recognise that some people who falsely proved they were 13 when they were eight, nine or 10 are now showing up on social media lists as being over 18, when, in fact, they are still in their much earlier teens.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The debate so far has done a really good job of summarising lots of the reasons why I chose to bring forward a private Member’s Bill earlier last year to address some of the issues relating to the addictive features of smartphones and social media, such as the impacts on sleep, mental health and educational attainment. There are also increasing concerns about conspiracy theories and their ability to spread, particularly among young children.
Today, I will focus specifically on the evidence, because I think that that is where the political debate is moving and where there seems to be the greatest disagreement—particularly on whether we have enough evidence now to act with confidence or whether we should pause and wait for further evidence.
There are three ways I think about this issue. The first is that, in 2012, something happened not just here, but around the western world and beyond, and it was specifically to do with teenage mental health and levels of anxiety and depression among our young people. That global event coincided with the rise in access to smartphones and social media and high-speed internet. There is no other plausible hypothesis that I have heard or come across—I would welcome interventions from colleagues here today—to explain that global phenomenon; there is no coherent alternative hypothesis. So when we think about the evidence that we require to act in this country, we should think carefully about whether we are looking at developed, different hypotheses for why this problem has grown.
The second element is the precautionary principle, which links to another point that was made. The tech industry in particular is very effective at casting doubt over findings from studies. Over the years, the burden of proof and of evidence has fallen on those like the many Members present and the petitioners. It has been for them to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there is a causal link between the use of smartphones and social media and the harms that it may cause. It is important in this debate, and in others, to balance where that evidence should be brought from. Surely we should place a burden of proof on those rolling out technology and platforms that are gobbling up huge amounts of children’s and young people’s time. At a fairly conservative estimate, the average 12-year-old is spending the equivalent of a part-time job every week on their smartphone. That must have some effect on how they might otherwise have used their time, the development of their brains, and their relationships with other people while they are on those platforms.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his private Member’s Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. On the subject of evidence, pilots are increasingly being undertaken, such as the one in the “Swiped” documentary that was referenced earlier. I met 70 parents at All Saints Catholic college in my constituency two weeks ago to discuss this topic, and they have seen, from the school’s own evidence base, the impact of a much stricter smartphone policy. We are starting to see both the evidence of the harms, as my hon. Friend talked about, and interesting pilots that show the improvements that could be achieved by measures such as the internet age of consent and a stronger policy in schools.
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue in his constituency. He is absolutely right. Micro-experiments and anecdotal feedback from members of the public, who have signed this petition in large numbers, show that parents are really worried that something is going on here, but it will take some time to gather the evidence. The second aspect is about where the burden of proof should lie. Applying the burden of proof in one direction only—to those advocating for tighter regulation—is not balanced. It should apply both ways.
The third point about evidence relates to the absence of causal studies. They will take many years, so what do we do, in their absence, with the weight of correlational evidence before us? This is where we must look at the work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill. The Bradford Hill criteria, which were named after him in the 1960s, were based on the epidemiologist’s work to try to fill in the evidence gap for policymakers when the debate was being had about the public health impacts of smoking. The tobacco industry did a very effective job of casting doubt over whether smoking itself caused cancer or, as the industry then said, it simply brought cancer out earlier—that cancer was inherent within people. That was the argument: the industry said that there was no correlational study to prove that that was not the case, which goes back to my burden of proof argument.
We need to fill in the gap, because we will not have causal studies for many years. Petitions like this will continue to come, the debate will carry on raging, and politicians will be pulled towards this problem until we find a way of solving it. In the absence of those correlational studies, we have to find a way of applying a framework to look at the existing causal studies. I will not go through all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria, but one of them is dose-response rate: does the dose of a certain factor relate to the degree of the impact? In 2019, the UK millennium cohort study found that
“social media use is associated with mental health in young people”,
and greater use means greater impact. A 2022 dose-response meta-analysis found that more time spent on social media was “significantly associated” with depression. There are stacks of studies out there that show the correlation between time spent and impact. When one works through the nine criteria, in the absence of a causal study or series of causal studies, the evidence points in a clear direction: we need tighter regulation that can empower parents to set boundaries and the collective rules for how our children use smartphones and social media.
There is a risk, at times, that the sides to this debate are characterised as pro- or anti-tech. My final reflection is that, for the UK to be the global sandbox and incubator of great tech development that it should be, we need good, intuitive shared rules that can garner high degrees of public consent and support. If we move quickly on this issue, and do it smart, as a country, we will get benefits not only for economic growth and the tech industry, but for our children and their future.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. It was good to briefly chat to Kim Campbell outside the Chamber. She has done a great job in getting this petition debated. This issue is something that thousands of parents around the country are agonising over.
We live in an era when social media connects us instantly, but that often comes at quite a cost. As the Lib Dem spokesperson for mental health, I knock on a lot of doors and speak to a lot of parents, headteachers and teachers. At the moment, one of the top issues that is brought up, often unprompted, is people’s struggle to get access to treatment for their children’s mental health. Nearly everyone seems to agree, throughout society, in whatever area, that children’s mental health issues are increasing in incidence. Everyone is reporting an increase in anxiety, depression and body image issues, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned. All those things are on the rise, and many people believe that that is fuelled by platforms designed to capture and keep children’s attention at any cost.
The risk goes far beyond self-esteem: social media is an open door for strangers to make contact with vulnerable children. Grooming, exploitation and harmful content are just a few clicks away. As several Members have mentioned, parents, despite their best efforts, struggle to keep up with the rapidly evolving digital landscape. We know that children are often much quicker, more adaptable, and quick to circumvent any safeguards with workarounds. They can quickly access restricted content and bypass age limits with ease. We also know that once one child in a cohort has managed to get hold of that content, they can send it to other children quickly and easily. That is why, along with nearly everyone present, we support reviewing the minimum age for social media access.
We are in an environment where online bullying is relentless and inescapable. Bullying has always taken place in schools, but people went home. Now, when a child gets home, though they might be in bed or having dinner, the bullying can continue. They might even wake up in the morning to bullying that has come in overnight. We must ensure that restrictions are not just appropriate and evidence-based, as far as they can be, but properly enforced. There has been a lot of discussion about what age should be the minimum for social media access, but the age does not matter if the restriction is not enforced by anyone. At the moment there is a minimum age, and we know that people younger than that are accessing this content anyway. That is one reason why, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) will speak about shortly, the Liberal Democrats are calling for more of a public health approach to children’s social media use.
I have just spent a month sitting on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, going line by line through that legislation, which is one of the most impactful pieces of public health legislation in decades. It will have a huge impact on public health by creating a smokefree generation. As a Government and as a society, we recognise that potentially harmful behaviours such as smoking and gambling need to be appropriately regulated. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) reminded everyone very eloquently about the supposed research that tobacco companies carried out for years to try to obfuscate the real situation. They pretended to add scientific value and knowledge, when it was really about trying to confuse the situation and slow any regulation of their products.
Just like the tobacco companies that prioritised profit over people’s health, social media companies will prioritise profit and engagement over young people’s mental health. Tech giants must be held accountable for the impact of their platforms on young minds. We need stronger protections, real enforcement of age limits, and proper digital education—not just for young people but for parents and teachers. All children will have to receive education in online safety and safer screen use to ensure that they are equipped with the skills to safely navigate the digital world, because when they finally hit whatever age is deemed appropriate, they need to be prepared and have the skills to engage critically, safely and responsibly with online content.
This is not about restricting freedom; it is about protecting young minds and improving the mental health of young people. We have allowed the digital world to move faster than our policies. Now we must act to keep up, because everyone agrees that our children deserve better.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the campaigners who brought this petition forward, and particularly my constituent, who I mentioned earlier, for her tenacious campaigning on this issue at regular surgery appointments and for sharing some fascinating research with me.
While I understand the concerns driving this debate, I do not believe that a blanket restriction set at an arbitrary age is necessarily the most effective way of protecting young people online. While I believe that we need to protect young people, and adults, from the harms of social media, I will set out why I do not believe that an age restriction change is necessarily the best course of action.
A huge proportion of our young people use social media daily for research, to connect with friends and to explore the world. We know that around 40% of kids under the age of 13 are already using social media platforms, which suggests to me that age restrictions alone have limitations in practice. It is worth noting that parental awareness of those age restrictions and requirements is mixed; while nine out of 10 parents of young kids have said that they are aware of the requirements, recent studies show that less than half can actually pinpoint that 13 is the age restriction for most sites. More concerning is that a third of parents with children below the current age restriction said that they would still allow their kids to use social media. That shows that a blanket restriction will not work, and that we need to bring parents and young people along with us if we are to make online spaces safer.
The figures are concerning because when we look at the impact of social media on young people, we see a complex picture. On the one hand, research suggests that over half of 12 to 15-year-olds have negative experiences online, and a magnitude of studies, as referenced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), have shown a link between heavy social media use and mental health concerns. Seven out of 10 young people admit that they have experienced cyber-bullying, with over a third reporting that it happens on a frequent basis. Some have described social media as much more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, so clearly there are concerns.
On the other hand, 90% of young people said that using social media makes them feel happier and closer to their friends. During the pandemic, these platforms provided a crucial connection when face-to-face interaction was simply not possible. Social media has prompted a revolution in peer-to-peer interaction and sharing; we, as a Government, should not do anything to stifle that growth, and the grasp of creativity that our young people are showing. Social media offers our young people an opportunity to read, watch and understand the experiences of others around the world like they never have before.
The real question is not simply whether young people under the age of 16 should be able to use social media. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) recognised, social media is not just about TikTok and Snapchat; it is about all the different ways in which young people connect online—and even me, when I get time to jump on the PlayStation.
The real question is this: young people are using social media and are unlikely to stop using it even if we bring in a ban, so what can we do to make it safer? Social media companies, schools and parents all have a role to play in creating safer online environments for our young people. I believe that social media can do a lot more to moderate content and provide safer spaces for our young people. Harmful content that promotes self-harm, disordered eating, bullying and body image issues should not be making it to online platforms. There has to be more accountability for the big tech giants.
Parents have to play a more active role in supervising and guiding their children’s online activities. Research shows that only six in 10 parents are aware of the technical tools and social media controls available to them, and less than a third admit to actually using them to fully control how their kids use systems online.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
As a parent of four teenagers, I do battle on screen time every single day—so much so that my children actually thought I was coming into Parliament to give screen time to the nation. I think it is grossly unfair to blame parents or attribute responsibility to them when most parents are having this battle every single day. With the addictive algorithms on social media platforms, it is impossible for children to resist. I have a child who was 16 last week and is sitting his GCSEs. He is finding it very difficult to look away from his phone and concentrate on his studies because of these algorithms.
Mike Reader
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am not saying that responsibility sits solely with parents, but parents definitely have a clear role to play. We cannot look solely to the state to help to raise our kids.
Teachers also have a big role to play. My mum, as a teacher, could tell us how important digital literacy is in this day and age. Children need the skills to navigate online spaces safely. Rather than focusing solely on age restrictions, we should consider how we make social media platforms safe for kids and improve their literacy so that they can connect with the world and explore the opportunities in front of them. Children should be aware of the risks that they face and should know how to report harmful content and navigate platforms safely. As the Government look at curriculum reform and at how we support our schools, teachers and parents, I hope that digital literacy will have an important place.
Social media is now fully embedded in young people’s lives. It offers the opportunity to connect and provides for creative expression and learning. Our challenge is to maximise those benefits while minimising the risks, not to remove the opportunity altogether.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Mr Stringer, you would struggle to find a Member of this House who is more committed than I am to classical liberal ideas surrounding individual liberty and personal responsibility. I do wish there were more of us. However, when it comes to children, I very much agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) that the Government’s role is very different. Our job is to protect children and give them the skills they need to make decisions for themselves as they grow into adults. That does not mean mollycoddling them or wrapping them in cotton wool: there is a clear difference between a bloody knee or a playground argument and exposure to graphic violence and pornography, which can be easily accessed on social media.
As many hon. Members have noted, anxiety levels in children are at an all-time high. In particular, suicide has increased dramatically: since 2012, the rates have doubled in boys and trebled in girls. According to the “Good Childhood Report”, British children are now reporting some of the lowest happiness levels in Europe. In my constituency, a freedom of information request submitted to the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead found that mental health referrals in children had doubled since the pandemic.
The problems are due in large part to smartphones and social media. As was stated in a recent Select Committee session, the average 12-year-old now spends 21 hours a week on their phone. As well as the obvious direct harms, there are indirect consequences, which is the point that I believe the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) was making. Those are hours in which they are not having formative experiences or interacting with the world around them—experiences that our generation took for granted. I spent my early teens climbing trees and playing rugby, not staring at a screen. Something is being missed today in the healthy development of young people.
What sets social media apart is the ability to circumvent the traditional safeguards of parent, family and community, with children now exposed to the weight of the world in their bedroom. Feeling unable to protect their children from the ills of social media, many parents are resorting to banning phones entirely, which I do not think is sustainable. Things need to change. By changing the law to limit under-16s’ access to social media—I take the point from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that that is easier said than done—we can give parents and children a fighting chance.
I believe that changing the law will play a key role in reversing the fortunes of our children, but we also need to make sure that they are prepared for the challenges of modern life. As with many of the great initiatives that have been discussed today, change in Windsor has come from the bottom up. There is already a very active branch of Smartphone Free Childhood in my constituency, and parents have shared awful stories of hardcore pornography being circulated in primary school WhatsApp groups. Separately from the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, there is a wider movement around children’s mental health.
In my constituency, the Well Windsor charity, which I emphasise is neutral on this particular proposition, is unique in what it does. I believe it could be the blueprint for change across the country. It was officially launched late last year by Andy Nuttall, along with seven other parents, who recognised that there was a gap in state services when it came to children’s mental health locally. It is more than a cluster of well-meaning adults; the charity is run by individuals with varied professional backgrounds, including former teachers, ex-CEOs, business leaders and clinical psychologists. They are proactive: they are raising funds, talking to schools and delivering already for students. The data that they have collected on mental health provision in schools in Windsor confirms what we already knew intuitively: parents and teachers feel underprepared for providing the necessary support when facing rising anxieties among children.
Well Windsor works with third parties such as myHappymind to provide schools with programmes to help children to check in with themselves, practise mindfulness and improve their resilience, so that they can face the modern world head-on. The NHS, local authorities and the Department for Education can often go round in circles, directing children and parents from one service to another, while children are left to fall by the wayside. Charities such as Well Windsor go directly to the schools that need help and deliver it—not in a month’s time or a year’s time, but within weeks of discussions first taking place.
Importantly, Well Windsor’s approach is non-invasive, with a focus on positivity, self-esteem and general mindfulness. We should be careful about raising awareness for the sake of it, because the last thing that suggestible children need is to be bombarded with information about depression, anxiety and mental health. That would be counterproductive. There can also be a tendency to medicate away mental health problems in children. That can sometimes come at the cost of addressing the root causes of those problems in the first place. One of them is clearly social media.
I believe that if we in this place can change the law for those in our communities who are taking matters into their own hands, we can help them to turn around some of the trends that we are seeing. The only thing limiting that is political will and time. I think most of us in this House, on a cross-party basis, would encourage the Minister to move in that direction. Communities across this country have had enough of the downward spiral in children’s mental health. Parents, teachers, children and charities such as Well Windsor are taking action. It is time that we in this place did the same.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This issue has been raised by parents across Beckenham and Penge. More than 600 of my constituents have signed the recent petition, making Beckenham and Penge one of the top constituencies nationally for signatures. We have also had one of the largest sign-ups for the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign. That includes an active local group that I have been working with, which is led by Crispin Eccleston, Elizabeth Eastham and Raj Gandhi. Hundreds of people have emailed me. The issue has come up on the doorstep and has been raised through local schools and local groups such as the Scouts and Girl Guides, so I really welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing it.
We know that a growing number of children use smartphones daily. Technological advancements are a fact of life and are here to stay. Smartphones and new media applications are a means of communication and come with many benefits. Before I became an MP, I worked in the tech sector for seven years, including as head of international operations for the global edtech firm Discovery Education, which teaches children coding and digital curriculum subjects. We want our children to be digitally native, confident in using technology and able to harness it for their own benefit. We also want them to be happy, healthy, safe and aware of and resilient to the risks of social media and the world online. We hope to find that balance in what is relatively new territory for all of us.
There is a growing body of concerning evidence about the amount of time that children and young people are spending online. A study published earlier this month by the University of Birmingham found that 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK now spend an average of 35 hours a week on their smartphone. That is the equivalent of a full-time job, and all that time spent online is time not spent interacting with family and friends face to face, playing outside and building the social and emotional skills needed to form deep and meaningful relationships. It is also time when parents have very little idea what their children are viewing or who they are speaking to. Increasingly, we are coming to understand that giving our children unfettered access to the internet is a safeguarding risk. We should think about it not only as giving our children access to the internet, but as giving the internet access to our children.
Over the weekend, I listened to a brilliant podcast on the BBC about Greystones, a small town in County Wicklow, Ireland, where a group of headteachers came together to work with parents who signed a voluntary pledge to delay buying phones for their children until at least age 11. One of the headteachers said:
“You wouldn’t let your child open the door to a room full of strangers and leave them in that room on their own. And unfortunately, that is what is happening when they have a smart device.”
The need for action, with solutions that are practical, proportionate and can be implemented, is clear. One thing we risk doing is excluding children and young people from that conversation. That is why I recently held a student focus group at Harris Academy Beckenham and spoke to young people from every year group about the impact that smartphones are having on their everyday lives. I thank students including Arek, Sara and Rose for organising it, alongside one of their fantastic teachers, Leila Hussein. While the majority felt that the benefits of having a smartphone outweighed the downsides, over half of the students present said that smartphones and social media overall had a negative impact on their mental health. The same number admitted that they could not survive a week without a smartphone.
When I asked the students what they rely on their phones for, the top things on their list were schoolwork, chatting with friends and filling the time. When I asked what they would be most excited for if they had a phone-free day, their responses included going to the park, walking the dog, spending time with family, playing music and making art—all things that we would eagerly encourage our children to do more of. Overall, the students gave a balanced view. While they were all clued up on the risks and agreed that social media needed properly enforced age limits, they also saw the positive role that it can play if used in moderation and with the right protections.
Listening to different perspectives is important in this debate, and we should respect the idea that, in the large, parents know what is best for their children. I strongly believe that the best approach will be community-focused. Working as a community and creating voluntary codes and pacts means that we can support parents and schools and bring them with us. I believe it is clear to parents that this is coming from a place of concern, rather than judgment, that we share their fears and that we need to work together to address them. I pay tribute to the work of Smartphone Free Childhood, which has secured recent wins in Barnet, Southwark, Ealing and many more areas across London and the rest of the country.
I hope to learn from the examples in Beckenham and Penge as I continue to work with parents’ groups, local schools and students to find a way forward that will mean children and young people can lead happy, healthy and carefree childhoods while obtaining all the benefits that the digital world offers. That includes a meeting next week at Harris Academy Beckenham on Monday to bring stakeholders together.
I look forward to continuing to push social media companies to take greater responsibility in a range of areas including on age verification and the sort of content that children and young people are being exposed to daily. I strongly believe in the principle of reverse burden, which was explained really well by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) when he said that we would not take such an approach to children’s toys or food. I again thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing the debate and the Minister for his time.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to Kim and the other petitioners for bringing the petition to the House. In the Government’s response to the petition, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology referred to
“a systematic review by the UK Chief Medical Officers in 2019”
that
“does not show a causal link between screen-based activities and mental health problems, though some studies have found associations with increased anxiety or depression. Therefore, the government is focused on building the evidence base to inform any future action.”
That review is six years old now, so how much evidence do the Government need? Things have changed radically in the past six years, and we live in a very different digital world from 2019.
The evidence I read in preparation for the debate included a 65% rise in mental health admissions to hospital among under-18s, a staggering 638% increase in admissions for eating disorders among girls aged 11 to 15, a 50% rise in childhood myopia, a 56% increase in ADHD diagnosis since the widespread adoption of smartphones, a 27% increase in just the last two years in the number of children with speech and language challenges, and a rise in obesity that means that about a quarter of children leaving primary school are now judged to be overweight or clinically obese. The evidence comes from the UK, Japan, Canada and Australia—it is all there and is growing.
As many other Members have said, we protect our children from smoking and alcohol. We do not allow them to buy those products because we know the damage they can do. Just because mental health damage is not as visible as a damaged lung or a damaged liver due to cirrhosis—just because we cannot see it, measure it and photograph it—that does not mean the evidence is not there. We can see it all around us.
This morning I spent time talking to the mental health leads in Devon about children’s mental health. They talked about the difficulty in employing enough psychologists and psychiatrists to cope with the mental health crisis among children in Devon, because of the vacancies they have and the ever-increasing need for children’s mental health support—it just grows and grows. Although it is right to give children the mental health care that they need, which they and the parents ask for, we surely have to look at this the other way round and say, “We have to stop this rising trend and to look at the cause. We have to turn it on its head; we owe it to our children.”
As the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) said, all the graphs show that the change started in 2012. For the sake of our teachers, who are trying to cope with the ever-increasing pressure of special educational needs, autism spectrum disorders and so on, the time has come for us to act and not look for more evidence.
It is time we used the precautionary principle for smartphones. That enables decision makers to adopt precautionary measures when the scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain but the stakes are high—and we know the stakes are high for our children. Some may see that as unscientific and an obstacle to progress, but to me it is an approach that can—and, in this situation, must—be used to protect the health of our youngest humans. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the Online Safety Act
“puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them responsible for their users’ safety, with the strongest provisions in the Act for children.”
Platforms
“likely to be accessed by children will have a duty to take steps to prevent children from encountering the most harmful content”—
such as—
“pornography and content that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide.”
We all know that we cannot trust the tech companies to do that. It is not in their interest. They have developed addictive apps to keep our children on them, using them hour after hour; it is not in their interest to do what is required to protect our children. Where, in the code, is a restriction of content that perpetuates the myth of the perfect body, that is not hardcore content like online pornography or suicide videos? The subtle stuff of social media—the addictiveness—is really dangerous. My concern is about the long hours that children spend on screens, and the time spent indoors instead of playing with friends and making real human connections.
Although we are talking about teenage use, what is even worse is the fact that 25% of three to four-year-olds in the UK now own a smartphone. Tiny children are looking at a screen rather than interacting with other humans. Children are not learning to speak and communicate, because babies do not learn from a machine. They are captivated by the videos, but they are not learning how to communicate with other humans. Older children are not experiencing boredom. We all remember standing at bus stops, right? We did not have a mobile phone; we got bored. We looked at the sky, around us and at other people. It is part of the development of the human brain. Has anyone ever seen a teenager standing at a bus stop now getting bored? It just does not happen.
I would like to leave the last word with John Gallacher, professor of cognitive health at the University of Oxford. He said that he found
“a linear relationship between higher rates of anxiety and depression and time spent networking on social media sites…In the most extreme cases, we had young people reporting they were spending up to eight hours a day using these sites.”
We must find a way to change that for our children. I do not believe in a ban on smartphones—that is not workable—but we must raise the minimum age for social media use. We must change the conversation and give parents the support they need, so that there is peer pressure not to have phones rather than to have them. We must support all the brave schools trying to eradicate this problem for their teenagers. I fully commend the petition and, cross party, we really need to do something about this.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I did a lot of research in preparation for my speech today and, as a parent of three primary-age children, what I found really alarmed me. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that there were more than 7,000 offences of sexual communication with children last year, which was a significant increase on the year before. It says that typically in those offences, the perpetrators start to talk to children on fairly mainstream web services, and then encourage them to communicate instead on more private messaging services such as Snapchat, WhatsApp and Instagram. I was pretty shocked. I did not appreciate that this was such a widespread problem. We all know that if there were 7,000 offences reported to the police, a considerably larger number will have happened. I also discovered the prevalence of dating app use among children. Children experience terrible offences when they go to meet people who were, in fact, adults preying on them.
Fundamentally, we need to understand that when we talk about social media, children are a product. If anything that we use on the internet does not cost any money, the gain for the provider is access to our thoughts, feelings and communications—in this case, our children’s thoughts, feelings and communications with their friends. We have a generation now for whose entire lifespan those thoughts, feelings and communications with friends can be monetised and tracked across multiple different websites or social media apps. The complex picture that those companies have of our children is incredibly sophisticated, and their ability to target content at them is like nothing we have ever even imagined.
There is also a problem with parents inadvertently facilitating some of this stuff. I would count myself within that description to some extent, so it is certainly not judgmental. When a parent naively says that when a child is 13, they can access something that they would broadly consider uncontroversial—such as WhatsApp so they can chat to their friends—that creates an ageing risk throughout the lifespan of that app use. As was mentioned previously, children subsequently appear to be 16 or 18 before they actually are, and therefore obtain access to services that are unsafe for them much younger than they otherwise would have done. The parents do not appreciate the ageing risk that they are creating, potentially several years down the line.
The NSPCC says that we have a fundamental problem. We now have the Online Safety Act, introduced by the Conservatives, and we are working hard as a Government to bring it into force. Ofcom has been given a significant role in looking at child risk assessment by online providers. We all know that if those people had children’s best interests at heart, they would already have done a lot of the things that Ofcom requires. The fact that Ofcom is having to do an investigation into OnlyFans, and its ability or willingness to prevent under-age children from seeing sexualised content, does not sit comfortably—that is the minimum I will say about it.
[Martin Vickers in the Chair]
If I am honest, I am not quite sure what the right solution is to those problems. If we do not get societal consensus on the right solution, we will, for instance, carry on seeing parents helping children to circumnavigate age restrictions, and children using VPNs to circumnavigate them themselves. Plenty of teenagers are sophisticated enough to do that. I am not sure what the right answer is. I am not sure that preventing under-16s from accessing such content will solve it. There is a risk that it will create a false sense of security and enable providers of the facilities and apps to say, “Well, under-16s can’t use it. We don’t have to put any safety features in because children are not allowed it anyway.” They will completely abdicate responsibility.
It is important that we keep talking about these issues, and that we move forward on a cross-party basis. These are sophisticated problems and I am not sure whether we have a sufficiently sophisticated response to them. The Online Safety Act provides us with a lot of tools, and I can see that its potential fines of 10% of global revenue are quite high. That has the potential to drive some behaviour change, provided the companies involved really see that the tools have teeth. I hope that we will monitor very heavily how Ofcom gets on with the new legislation; I am sure that Members of all parties will be interested in that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) said that he spoke to his children before the debate to tell them that he was going to raise these issues. I did so with my children over breakfast this morning, and one of them berated me for not having been in her online safety assembly. We have to be realistic about the capacity of both parents and schools to manage these issues without making it a blame game between different organisations—parents versus schools versus major corporations. These corporations have a huge vested interest in exploiting our children, and we have to figure out how better to protect them.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children’s online safety, but I am contributing on my own behalf.
The opportunities and perils of social media are increasingly weighing on the minds of parents, educators, society and, above all, young people themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) spoke about balance, which I think is one of the key issues. Our young people require digital skills and literacy in order to access the modern world, be it the world of work, public services or their social lives, and we need to give them the tools to do that. This has been a useful debate to think about how we do that.
We can see the strength of feeling about this measure reflected in the parliamentary petition that we are discussing. It is a petition signed by 92 of my Livingstone constituents, and it speaks to the widespread anxieties about the impact of social media on our children and young people. Those concerns are real and heartfelt, and they come from not only parents and communities, but young people themselves, who are having to navigate those digital landscapes every single day. They tell us that social media is not merely a tool for connection, but a space where the line between reality and illusion is often blurred, and where photoshopped images and curated lifestyles can distort self-perception.
I am convinced of the merits of enforcing a minimum-age requirement of 16 for social media on the Australian model. I am in favour on mental health grounds, with social media shown in study after study to be linked to increased anxiety, depression and low self-esteem for young people. I am in favour on online safety grounds, with social media exposing children to cyberbullying, predators, misinformation and harmful content. I am in favour in order to try to reverse children’s decreasing attention spans; we need to give our kids the support they need to focus, to learn and to reach their full potential.
I believe, however, that it is vital not to leave young people out of those conversations, but to centre on their concerns and experiences. I spoke the other week to academic colleagues at the University of Manchester, who stressed the complexity and variety of young people’s views on these subjects. They have conducted research, including focus groups, to understand how children use social media and what it means to them and their lives. They pointed out that a key concern of those young people in the focus groups, short of a ban, was the capacity to better distinguish between content that is real and content that is faked, manipulated or highly curated. Their point was not so much about disinformation or misinformation, but more about those perfect lifestyles that are shown on Instagram and other platforms. As has been mentioned, that is more insidious and not easy to ban, but it has a real effect on young people and on their perceptions of themselves and their lives.
That point brings me to the role of social media companies. Many hon. Members have mentioned those companies in this debate, and it is right to say that they have not taken enough responsibility for the content on their sites. The incentive at the moment is to let loose, for eyeballs and time spent, rather than to ensure that the content is properly moderated and is going to the right people. We already have various minimum-age restrictions in place, but the challenge has been to enforce them. Social media companies must adhere to and enforce them. With or without a ban, we need more effective oversight and accountability for how those platforms operate. There is also a vital role for industry leaders such as Google and Apple through their app stores. These gatekeepers possess significant influence and could do much more to ensure that age verification and content moderation is robust and reliable.
Hon. Members have also mentioned smartphone bans. I was pleased that at the Scottish Labour conference at the weekend Anas Sarwar, our leader in Scotland, said that in our manifesto for the 2026 Scottish parliamentary elections will be a ban on mobile phone use in Scottish schools. That gives parents and educators—and children themselves—clarity on what we think is right and not right. I do not believe that having phones in schools is right for children or for the educators trying to do their jobs.
I believe that the minimum age for social media is an idea whose time has come. For me, it is a matter of protection and of ensuring that we prepare young people mentally and emotionally as best we can to handle the pressures that social media can bring. Even without a ban, however, we must ensure today that existing age limits are being properly and rigorously enforced, and we must engage robustly with the tech companies to ensure that they are doing all they can to protect our young people and children.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate, and for his excellent speech. I thank Kim Campbell and the other petitioners who have brought this subject to debate today.
I recently met with one of my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, Sam Rice, who told me about the charity he set up called Kids For Now. He was extremely concerned about a lot of things that have been discussed already, so I will not repeat that, but he shared with me the work of his campaign, which is all about smartphones and social media use in children. His organisation Kids For Now is a grassroots movement that connects parents within the UK to help to delay smartphones together. It is not really about banning them entirely, but about delaying their use and working on campaigns calling for child-safe phones in the UK. He very much mentioned child-safe phones, but I am not sure that young people want the old-style phones that we all used to use and rather than a smartphone like the rest of their peer group. He also mentioned banning smartphones in Scottish schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) has just stolen my line on that as well, because we were delighted that that pledge was made at the Labour conference in Glasgow at the weekend—that was very positive.
My constituent Sam also spoke about making primary schools internet free. Now a lot of this is obviously up for debate, but what he said to me was that he helps parents to take positive collective action against peer pressure and challenges the norm of young children feeling as though they need social media. We have discussed a lot of that today as well—including other things people can do while standing at a bus stop. When I was growing up there were clearly no mobile phones, so that was not a distraction we were ever going to have, but it is really important that we actually have time for our children to be children.
Sam was extremely concerned about the mental and emotional health of children, as has been discussed today. For example, as has been said, research from the project Delay Smartphones found that children can no longer have any respite from bullies at home. It said a shocking 84% of bullying of children with smartphones now happens online. That is a huge figure. Additionally, smartphones and social media are more likely to expose children to sexual and offensive content, which can include young people being pressured into sending sexual images of themselves. For example, Ofsted found that 80% of teenage girls are being put under pressure to provide images of themselves.
When we look at a strategy tackling violence against women and girls, that needs to be considered because of the damage that access to social media can have on young girls. It is really important to consider young people’s safety on the internet in a time where technology is constantly evolving and changing. I am pleased that this debate is taking place to allow for further consideration of where we go with this conversation, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the future of smartphone and social media legislation.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the British public for bringing this petition forward so that we can debate it today, and thank those who have led on this issue. The petition comes from a place of real strong feeling among parents. This is not some blind moral panic; it is the lived experience of anybody who has raised a teenager in the last few years. My wife and I spend a lot of our time discussing our own parenting. Like many parents, we agonise over whether we are getting it right—on the one hand, wanting not to be too autocratic and to give our children the freedom to engage in a social space which their friends are in, while, on the other, knowing that we are allowing them access to something that we believe is causing them damage.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for an excellent speech setting out the strong evidence base for why it is imperative that we, as a Parliament, act. There have been some excellent speeches from Members across all the parties in this place today. I was reflecting, were I ever fortunate enough to place where my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington did in the private Member’s ballot, and to be able to one thing to improve our country right now, what I would do. I think that he has got it right—it has to be about what we do to protect the next generation. It is not a cliché to say that they are all our futures and that we face an epidemic of youth mental unwellness today that is holding back a generation.
Many people have spoken well about the damage that we know social media is causing to our children: apps that are designed to addict, requiring users to get streaks, which we know affects concentration; an over-connectedness that is driving anxiety and disrupting children’s sleep; content that distorts children’s relationships with reality on bodies and lifestyles, which is damaging to self-esteem, and, while some of these sites do not host explicitly pornographic material, in the sense that certain body parts are covered, children are often overexposed to a general timbre of content that is still sexualising the human body and causing them to think in sexualised terms at a young age. There is also the challenge of apps that are designed for children to communicate through images, which are driving the phenomenon known as sexting. Despite schools’ valiant efforts to teach children not to do that, we know it is happening—and happening at a worrying scale.
We also know that children are overconnected to a social space, which is completely unsupervised, where they can encounter humiliation and bullying. I had a conversation not long ago with a child and asked the question, “Well, why don’t you just not go online?” The response came back, “Because I need to know what people are saying about me.” As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) suggested earlier, if young people were asked, “If you could switch this off for everyone, would you?” lots of them would actually say, “Yes, I would.” However, there is a phenomenon, which my teenagers tell me is called FOMO—fear of missing out—that means that they have to be in a space, while simultaneously not wanting to be in that space, all the time.
In our generation, we might have found school life difficult, but we could go home from school and switch off. For many children today, the first thing they experience when they wake up in the morning is the notifications from the night before, and those notifications are the last thing they see when they go to bed at night.
Therefore, I think we do need to regulate. We already regulate childhood in various ways to protect children, such as with laws that prevent children from going to nightclubs, the requirement for disclosure and barring service checks to protect children from coming into contact with adults around whom they would not be safe, and even film classification ratings. There is a huge industry around those ratings—yet, were the content that children can access on Facebook to be classified by film standards, we would often say that they were not old enough to be seeing that regular content.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) said earlier, many children and young people actually agree about the benefits of limiting social media. Before I was in this place, one of the roles I had was tutoring in various north-east high schools, and often our conversations in seminars would turn to this challenge of mental health. A lot of young people talked to me about how they can simultaneously feel lonely while also being overly connected and not having a place to switch off.
Girls at Teesdale school, which was my first visit as a new Member of Parliament, also talked to me about a change in attitudes that they saw among many of the young men that they go to school with and the increasing misogyny in the way that they would treat them, because of far-right content that those young men were accessing.
What can be done? People have spoken for and against an outright ban, and I think all their arguments have merits, and some have highlighted the challenge of simply banning things. Having said that, I think we do need to consider an age of consent; we need not just a legal shift, but a cultural shift, with greater parental controls and greater support for parents to supervise what their children are viewing. Perhaps we could have time-limit controls that would force a child to switch off.
Education around social media already exists, but we know that it is not yet effective. Perhaps we need education that looks not just at the don’ts, the warnings to young people, but at the do’s and reimagines childhood. We need to provide fewer virtual experiences and more real experiences for our children. I think back to my own childhood and remember learning an instrument, playing after-school sports, riding my bike around the block, attending a weekly youth club, going for a walk and bopping along to my Walkman, and yes, it also involved being bored and just being able to take in the world around me.
Children need more family time. We need to be real and acknowledge the fact that one of the things driving smartphone use in children is that parents are often less present in their children’s lives, and every parent feels guilt about this. That is why I was proud to support the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ “Keep Sunday Special” campaign on Sunday trading laws. It is why I support flexible working and laws in the world of work to make sure that families can have time together.
There are many things to be considered, but what we can all agree on is that we cannot allow the status quo to continue. It is imperative that we as a Parliament and the Government consider how to better safeguard our children’s future.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because the safety of young people online is possibly one of the most pressing challenges of our time.
I have a confession to make: I hate social media, but I feel compelled to use it. It cannot be denied that social media is an inescapable reality of modern life. For young people, it plays a role in how they interact with the world, form their identities and access information. I do not for a second dispute that social media is a tool of extraordinary power for connection, education and creativity, but it has increasingly become a space where harm is done that is profound, persistent and deeply damaging. Legislative change has not kept up with the pace of social media growth. As a society, we are playing catch-up to the impact of social media, and we are not doing it fast enough.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) detailed, the evidence base that surrounds this is much debated, but something we can all agree on is that numerous studies have exposed declining mental health in adolescents and rising cases of anxiety, depression and self-harm. Algorithms are designed to drive engagement on platforms. They do not prioritise wellbeing. Instead, they prioritise views, clicks and the user’s attention. It is easy to see how our children become passive observers of extreme content and harmful trends when harmful material does not need to be sought out but is instead delivered to their phones.
Unfortunately, it does not just stop at exposure to harmful content. The dangerous reality of the online world is that it has become a hunting ground for those who seek to manipulate and exploit others. We have seen the rise of online grooming facilitated by the anonymity of fake profiles. We are in a situation where children are being targeted in their own homes through their own devices by individuals who have never had easier access to them. I understand why parents are worried. Since being elected I have received numerous representations from concerned parents in Gillingham and Rainham who just want their children to exist and go through life free from harm. I appreciate that everybody wants that, but they perceive the risk to their children now extends into sanctuary of their own home. They see no pause, no protection and no escape.
While I support a review of the minimum age for social media access—there is certainly a need to look at it in closer detail—I do not think that will be a quick fix that solves the issues we face at this point. I encourage everyone here to go and speak to an average 15-year-old—clearly, some hon. Members have already done so, as their speeches today show. One finds very quickly that they are extremely capable of being inventive and circumventing the rules. That is what teenagers have done since time immemorial. The fundamental problem is that these platforms were never designed with the safety of children in mind. We would be doing our children a disservice by raising a legal barrier and simply hoping that the risk disappears, because that is not what will happen. Children deserve more. They deserve more responsibility from social media companies, more urgency from regulators and perhaps more action from us, the Members elected to this House.
The Online Safety Act was a huge step in the right direction under the previous Government, but we must ensure that the protections are not diluted to the point where obligations are placed on platforms only where they are seen to be the least burdensome. Harm reduction for our children must remain the fundamental priority. I welcome this Government’s commitment to working with Ofcom to effectively implement the 2023 Act so that children benefit from the protections as soon as possible, but clearly the legislation alone will not be enough. We have heard powerful speeches about cultural change. Implementation must also be done at speed and with determination. Ofcom is now armed with new regulatory powers and must move at pace to protect our children from the harms that colleagues across the House have spoken about time and again. We have to get this right.
My constituents in Gillingham and Rainham are particularly interested in ensuring that implementation of measures such as user identity verification are sped up, so that adults and children alike can benefit from the protections. We need to send out a clear signal that delays will not be tolerated and that platforms need to be held to account. Various platforms do that to different degrees, and some are much better than others, but all still have a long way to go. Online safety should be not a distant ambition, but acknowledged to be an immediate necessity, because every day that action is delayed, another young person is exposed to harm, and we have to prevent that.
I end by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. It is incredibly important that we continue this conversation. I also thank the Minister for his time and for listening to the powerful representations that have been made today.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I will set out some facts and figures before moving on to the substance of my speech. Seventy-one per cent of children report having experienced harm online. Twenty-one per cent of children report having been contacted online by adults they do not know. Vulnerable children are twice as likely as their peers to encounter online bullying. Fifty-seven per cent of parents report that their children’s sleep patterns are being negatively affected by online activity. And here is the killer stat: despite the age limit of 13, 85% of 9 to 12-year-olds are reported to use social media. It is obvious that a mere increase in the threshold to 16 years of age is insufficient; the measure needs to go hand in hand with enforcement.
Many Members in this debate have, rightly, concentrated on the harms to children. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) somewhat stole my thunder by so eloquently drawing an analogy with smoking in the 1950s. I have truncated my speech accordingly, but the analogy is accurate: we are now at the stage where social media usage is analogous to smoking in the 1950s. Obvious harm is being done, but we are not yet at a stage where we can accurately quantify it, categorise it or come to a settled conclusion on how to deal with it.
Evidence continues to emerge around harmful content, disrupted sleep patterns, damage to the mental health of children, addictiveness and more, but we as a society, a Government, a Parliament and politicians do not yet know how to adequately deal with all of that. As a starting point, I support an increase in age restrictions, in line with the petition, but we need to learn more about the causes of the problems affecting our younger generations and find out how to prevent them for future generations. In addition to an increase in the age limit, I want stronger enforcement of age limits by Ofcom and through self-regulation by social media companies. We also need more high-quality, robust research to prove causality beyond any doubt.
I finish with an aspect that has not been touched on in the debate. Last week in the House, I noted how there is increasingly a political element, where social media companies reflect the national interests of the host countries in which they are situated. There are national interest considerations for the UK in regulation of social media. We do not want foreign agents and foreign actors to influence our democratic process in relation to adults and we certainly do not want them to influence the formation of the politics of our children.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. We are holding this debate because over 128,000 people across the UK signed a petition calling for social media companies to be banned from letting children under 16 create accounts. This reflects a deep and growing concern among parents and professionals about the impact of social media on our children’s wellbeing. I thank Kim Campbell for launching the petition and thank Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate and for their consensus on action.
At the heart of the call for social media companies to be banned from letting children under 16 create accounts is a mental health crisis that requires a public health emergency response. The evidence is stark, as was eloquently highlighted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Between 2016 and 2024, child contact with mental health services increased by 477%, rising from 96,000 to 458,000 cases—and those are just the ones reaching out to those services. There has been a fivefold increase in eating disorders among 11 to 16-year-olds, particularly girls. Our young people are struggling, and social media’s role cannot be ignored.
I have spoken to young people in schools across my local area of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Young men and women alike are worried about the content they are consuming and the impact it has on them and their friends. Young people told me about their concern for their mental health, and young men told me that they are seeing things they do not want to see. Young girl guides told me that they worry about bullying, online harm and the impact it is having on the young men around them. Many parents have also written to me about their concerns. That is why I launched a “Safer Screens” tour, to listen to young people first hand, as well as parents, teachers and healthcare professionals.
The current system is fundamentally broken. Social media platforms remain easily accessible to young children despite having minimum age limits. Social media companies must go further to implement those limits, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) highlighted. Even more concerningly, the platforms’ own designs actively work against child safety. They are built with features that nudge children to share photos, videos and location data—indeed, all of us have been victims of those nudges. Their recommender systems can push harmful content, from extreme dieting to self-harm, continuously to vulnerable young users.
The Online Safety Act is a step forward, but it has critical gaps, particularly in addressing those addictive design features. As the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) highlighted, this is the wild west; the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who I know has done a lot of work on the issue, reinforced that point. Although the Act made important progress on harmful content, it failed to address the fundamental issue: the addictive architecture of the platforms themselves.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) highlighted, these are not neutral tools; they are precision-engineered addiction machines. Every pull to refresh, every infinite scroll and every notification is designed to trigger dopamine pathways, similarly to what happens in gambling or substance abuse. As research from the University of Sussex shows, teen social media binges mirror behaviour seen in drug addiction. I absolutely welcome the work that the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington has done and is doing to push forward his private Member’s Bill to address the issue. Between one in three and one in 10 young people now show behaviours consistent with problematic smartphone use. That is not an accident; it is by design, and that design puts profit before children’s wellbeing.
As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) highlighted, we should look at what other countries are doing. Australia is moving to ban social media for under-16s entirely. Norway is raising the age of consent for data processing to 15 and developing a robust age verification system. France has passed a new law requiring parental consent in relation to minors under 15. Those countries recognise, as this petition does, that we must act decisively to protect our children. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an explicit public health approach to children’s social media use. Just as we eventually recognised that cigarettes and gambling products needed strict regulation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington highlighted—we must now acknowledge that social media requires similar oversight.
Let me be clear: this is not just about social media. It is about age-appropriate experience across the online world. We cannot ignore other reasons why children are gravitating to phones. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) highlighted, if youth clubs are closed, sports facilities are underfunded or safe community centres are out of reach, the path of least resistance is to spend hours online. A real shift in tackling screen overuse must include supporting these third spaces—providing well-funded, welcoming spots where young people can socialise, explore hobbies and simply be children.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady share my concern about what seems to be a growing phenomenon in my area of Fife, where young people are filming themselves committing acts of violent crime and then sharing the footage on social media? Last month, there was an attack on a young boy in Cowdenbeath by a group of other youths; they filmed it and shared the footage on Snapchat. Does the hon. Lady agree that although raising the online age of consent to 16 would not solve that problem completely and it would need to be properly enforced, it would be an important first step in tackling this kind of harm?
Victoria Collins
I am so sorry to hear about what is happening in Fife. I am sure that other Members across the House see that impact. Social media reinforces negative images, thereby changing social norms, so there is a wider problem, but there are indeed important first steps that need to be taken.
I was talking about providing well-funded, welcoming spots where young people can socialise, explore hobbies and simply be children, without the allure of an endlessly scrolling feed or of sharing those viral images that reinforce dopamine hits. That is an important aspect. Investing in after-school programmes, libraries and youth clubs not only gives children alternative outlets, but strengthens mental health, builds social skills and eases the pressure on parents to supervise every minute of screen time. In short, offline opportunities are just as crucial as any digital safeguard.
To tackle the public health emergency in relation to mental health for young people, we need three immediate actions. The first is the establishment of a safer screens taskforce empowered to ensure that a public health approach to children’s social media is taken across all Departments, examining international best practice and developing comprehensive solutions. That includes ensuring measures for protective defaults on phones and other connected devices, and looking at safety by design, such as having no infinite scrolling, no notifications at night and no addictive engagement algorithms unless explicitly enabled by a parent. Secondly, all children should receive stand-alone education on online safety and safer screens at each key stage. Children and parents need to be equipped with the skills to navigate this digital world. Thirdly, we must expand safe third spaces to give young people a true alternative to being on their screens.
I started my uni days without social media, but ended them with it. It is worrying to say that that was 20 years ago, so this is not an overnight phenomenon; it is a debate that has been a long time in the making. The Government have stated that a ban on under-16 social media use is on the table. Now is the time to look carefully at international precedents and bring forward whatever measures will be effective, practical and implementable to keep our children safe. We need to protect parents’ rights to make decisions, but let us be clear: we already accept age restrictions on activities that can harm children’s development. We do not let under-18s gamble or buy cigarettes. We have age ratings on films and video games. We cannot allow our children’s developing minds to be left at the mercy of platforms that are deliberately designed to be addictive.
Parents are crying out for support. They want help from the Government and industry in managing their children’s online safety. We simply must get this right. Whether the answer is an outright ban at 16, as the petition suggests, age-appropriate experiences across the digital landscape, or a robust system of graduated access with proper age assurances and parental oversight, one thing is clear: the status quo is failing our children.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate; Kim Campbell for launching the petition; the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate; and the 128,000 signatories of the petition, including 225 people from my constituency of Huntingdon.
In a recent survey by More in Common of more than 2,000 parents, social media and excessive screen time was ranked as the top issue affecting children’s mental wellbeing: parents ranked it higher on the list of threats than alcohol, bullying and financial problems. Exposure to harmful content online was deemed the second biggest risk to mental health. The challenges facing children have changed astronomically in recent years. Children now face a boiling point of addiction, constant connectivity, online crime and harmful content. Many feel that it has become too much for children to handle.
The evidence base is growing stronger. Smartphones and social media are adversely impacting our children’s mental health. The Royal Society for Public Health says that about 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression. In increasing numbers, children are coming into schools up and down the UK having stayed up all night on their phone. A child who has not had a healthy night’s sleep is not equipped to contribute to the classroom, except perhaps to disrupt it.
Evidence from Health Professionals for Safer Screens shows that children who routinely spend extended periods on their smartphones have poorer eyesight, inhibited speech and language development, interrupted sleep and rising rates of anxiety. Smartphones are designed to be addictive. Platforms are constantly seeking to develop new design strategies that encourage children to stay online longer. Notifications, comments and likes are designed to drive feelings of happiness. It is easy for children to feel obliged to engage and even compete with their peers online.
Of course, children access social media on mobile phones via the internet. Individually, each tool brings its own benefits. Mobile phones allow children to let parents know that they have reached school safely, providing an extra safeguard that allows them greater and earlier independence. The internet itself allows children to further their education, whether through research tasks, homework or practising coding; it also provides better connectivity, information and entertainment. The internet is so integral to society that we must ensure that children have the skillset and the know-how to navigate it.
I expect that many hon. Members use social media every day, scrolling through their feeds, checking the news or drafting updates to their constituents. Social media has its benefits, not least because it allows us to communicate with people instantly and en masse, wherever they may be in the world. Used responsibly, social media can provide some benefits for children. Children may use it to stay connected with friends and family around the world. They may use it for civic engagement or to fundraise; they may use YouTube or short reels for online learning or content discovery.
The drawbacks, however, are considerable: addiction to their screen, online bullying and exposure to harmful content such as eating disorders, self-harm and body shaming. There is some bad content on the internet. It is deeply concerning that half of 13-year-olds reported seeing hardcore, misogynistic pornographic material on social media sites. There are widespread concerns that this is impacting the way young people understand healthy relationships, sex and consent. Half of parents worry that online pornography is giving their children an unrealistic view of sex. We see the same with knife crime: there is constant exposure to content that glamorises violence, exposes children to a world of criminality, gangs and scoreboard videos, and contributes to the perception that every teenager carries a knife and thus drives the urge for them to carry one themselves, too often with deadly consequences.
What can be done to tackle these issues? The previous Government passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, which places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services to increase child safety online. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise. As well as content, the Act applies to service functionality, including the way in which platforms are operated and used by children. Will the Minister confirm whether platforms will be obliged to manage and mitigate addictive functions if a provider’s risk assessment identifies habit forming that could cause sufficient harm?
We are cleaning up the online space with world-leading legislation and an enforced regulator, but I worry that that is not enough. We should be having a conversation about the use of mobile phones in schools. The previous Government took action and issued guidance backing headteachers in restricting access to phones in schools. However, new research has shown that only 11% of schools are genuinely smartphone free, while children at smartphone-free schools get one to two grades higher at GCSE. That is why the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban mobile phone use in schools. It was disappointing that the Government rejected that amendment and that argument. Will the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department for Education about that policy?
Conservatives want to put the safety of children first. I hope that the Minister agrees with that aim. The More in Common poll showed that nearly nine in 10 parents—86%—backed raising from 13 to 16 the so-called digital age of consent, the point at which children should be allowed on social media. Some Members have also proposed banning social media for children under 16. I note that the Secretary of State has not ruled that out, saying that it is “on the table” and that he “is not currently minded” to enact such a policy.
Instead, the Government have announced the launch of a study to explore the effects of smartphone and social media use on children. It seeks to build the evidence base for future decisions designed to keep children safe online. The work is being led by a team at the University of Cambridge, with contributions from researchers at other leading universities. The project lead, Dr Amy Orben, says:
“There is huge concern about the impact of smartphone use on children’s health, but the evidence base remains fairly limited. While the government is under substantial time pressure to make decisions, these will undoubtedly be better if based on improved evidence.”
The Opposition agree that the evidence base needs to be improved, and we welcome the study.
The last piece of substantial Government-backed research into children and mobile phone use was completed in 2019, before covid. We know the devastating impact of lockdown on children and how pandemic restrictions forced children to connect with their friends and schoolteachers online. That pushed children towards technology and social media, potentially leading to irreversible changes in behaviour.
However, the timeline for the work is unclear. Although the research should be detailed and thorough, its publication should be timely. Will the Minister please outline when the study will report back to the Department and, given the dangers of delay, whether he has considered speeding it up? I am aware that the Children’s Commissioner has recently done some work to better understand the impact of mobile phones on children. Her insight could prove very valuable while the academics are researching in depth. I presume that the Minister has spoken to the commissioner, but can he update the House on what he has learned from those discussions? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points.
The poll is a clear illustration of the strength of feeling among parents, but we all know—from our own families and our conversations with parents, teachers and children in our constituencies—the impact on children of mobile phones and social media. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the online world is a safe place for our children. We also have a responsibility to ensure that online platforms take their obligations seriously. I am pleased that the previous Government’s Online Safety Act delivers on both those points, and I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is always a delight to see you, Mr Vickers—and particularly to see you in the Chair, where you cannot take part in the debate.
First, may I pay enormous tribute to Kim Campbell? Many other Members have already done so, but it is a significant achievement to force Parliament to debate something. Getting 130,000 people to sign up to the petition is a phenomenal achievement, so thank you very much. I think I can say that on behalf of all the political parties in Parliament and all Members of the House.
I also thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan): first because he is a Labour Member for Folkestone and Hythe, which is a great advance in the world, and secondly because he advanced the cause on behalf of the Petitions Committee so effectively. Many Members may not know this, but when I was first elected back in 1873 under Queen Victoria, we did not have online petitions. It is an irony, in a way, that today we are talking about an online e-petition about online activity.
If colleagues do not mind, I will not answer each contribution individually. Members have put their own arguments powerfully; there has been a mix of views, but with a general direction of travel, which I fully understand and to which I am very sympathetic. I want to lay out where we are at now and where we, as a Government, think that we could get to and should get to.
The first thing to recognise is the utter toxicity of large parts of social media. You do not have to be an MP to be aware of that, but being an MP certainly does make you aware of it. The toxicity for children is utterly degrading and pernicious, as I think everybody in society recognises. We all recognise, too, that the social media companies need to go much further to protect children. We have talked about some of the misogyny that is evident on many platforms and to which kids have access—it is pumped at them, in fact, because that is sometimes what the algorithm seems to support. Similarly, there are large amounts of utter misinformation. I do not know who is driving that or why it is being driven; sometimes it may be state actors from elsewhere in the world, and sometimes it is just pernicious actors in their own right.
Completely unrealistic body shapes are being promoted to girls and, for that matter, to boys. There was a time when the concern was solely that girls were being encouraged to be a particular shape, but exactly the same concern applies to many young men and boys today. I used to be a priest in the Church of England, many years ago; I was a clergyman in High Wycombe. While I was the curate there, a young girl took her own life, and then three of her friends took their own life in successive months. Undoubtedly, they had somehow or other managed to engage one another in that spiral. That was long before social media. Now, social media can play a pernicious role in undermining young people’s self-confidence and their belief in themselves through a whole series of images, videos and so on. That is very dangerous.
Tackling this is one of the most important things that the Government have to do. It is good to have a former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), with us today.
Mr Frith
I thank the Minister; as ever, he has been very generous and is making excellent remarks. Away from the emergency—the toxicity and the worst aspects of this—the mundane sapping of hour after hour after hour is just as dangerous when we consider social media use and our ineffective guardrails for smartphone use. Yes, we all agree that the content the Minister has described should be done away with and prevented, but what is his reflection on the mundane drip and sapping away of the energy and attention of our young people and the doomscrolling ethos that has developed in their expectation of their everyday lives?
Chris Bryant
I do not want to be a hypocrite; this 63-year-old engages in all those things as well. In fact, it is a shocking shame for me every time I get that notification that says, “You spent on average x number of hours a day on your mobile phone.” I can make justifications—I have to find out what an hon. Member’s seat is, I have to send things back to my private office on WhatsApp and all of those kind of things—but the truth is that if somebody had said to us 40 years ago that they were going to invent something that would make us all, in an addictive way, spend hours and hours and hours looking at a phone rather than engaging with other human beings, we would have said, “Maybe not, eh?”
I was really struck by that when I went to a primary school in Blaengarw in my patch. The headteacher was saying that one of the difficulties is that all the parents waiting to pick up their kids were on their mobile phones outside, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) mentioned earlier. Whatever they did inside the school, the message that every single child got was that life was about being on a mobile phone. As has been said, one of the most important things that a parent can do is engage eye to eye with their children. If they are engaging eye to eye only with their phone, I would argue that that is as much of a problem. I will come on to some of the issues, but I do not want to be hypocritical about it.
I think we all accept that we have to do more. One thing that was not included in the list of things that someone might do if they did not have a mobile phone to spend all their time on was reading a book. I would love more young people to read a book. That longer attention span is one of the things that is an admirable part of being an adult human being.
Several hon. Members referred to the fact that legislation needs to keep up. I will put this very gently to Conservative Members: we argued for an online safety Act for a long time before one ended up becoming legislation. It went through a draft process, and there were lots of rows about what should and should not be in it, and whether we were impinging on freedom of speech and all those kinds of things, but the legislation did not end up on the statute books until the end of 2023. Even then, the Act provided for a fairly slow process of implementation thereafter, partly because Ofcom was taking on powers that, on that day, it simply would not have had enough staff to engage with. The process has been difficult, and I am absolutely certain that the Online Safety Act will not be the end of this story. That is why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said clearly that everything is “on the table”, and that is why today’s debate is so important.
Of course, legislation has to be proportionate, balanced, based on evidence—I will come to that in more detail in a moment—and effective. That is why the Online Safety Act will require all platforms that are in scope, including social media platforms, to set up robust systems and processes to tackle the most egregious illegal content or activity proactively, preventing users from encountering it in the first place. Platforms will be required to remove all other illegal content as soon as it is flagged to them.
The Act will also require platforms easily accessed by children—this goes to a point made by several people—to deploy measures to protect children from seeing content that is harmful to them. That includes the use of highly effective age assurance to prevent them from seeing the most harmful types of content, such as that which promotes, encourages or provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms will also be required to provide age-appropriate access for other types of harmful content, such as bullying, abusive content or content that encourages dangerous stunts or serious violence.
Additionally, under the Act, providers that specify a minimum age limit to access their site must specify how they enforce that in their terms of service and must do so consistently. As many Members have said, this spring will be a key moment in the implementation of the Act, and that is an important point for us to recognise: later this year, things will change, because of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom has already set out its draft child safety codes of practice, which are the measures that companies must take to fulfil their duties under the Act.
Ofcom’s draft codes outline that all in-scope services, including social media sites, will be required to tackle algorithms that amplify harm and feed harmful material to children. I would argue that that includes the process of trying to make something addictive for a child. Services will have to configure their algorithms to filter out the most harmful types of content from children’s feeds, and to reduce the visibility and prominence of other harmful content. In January, Ofcom published its guidance for services to implement highly effective age assurance to meet their duties, including the types of technology capable of being highly effective at correctly determining whether a user is a child.
Chris Bryant
Yes, of course. I am about to come to my hon. Friend’s speech, in fact.
Josh MacAlister
I and a number of colleagues have had fairly extensive dialogue with Ofcom over the past few months about some of the detailed points, and there are two important gaps in the existing legislation. First, social media companies might put in a minimum age requirement, but there is no power to provide that social media platforms need to have a minimum age requirement to start with, so there is a big gap in the legislation in that respect. Secondly, despite the fairly extensive drafting in the Act, there is no requirement on Ofcom to look at functionality beyond where it relates to harmful content. Ofcom has stated clearly in writing to myself and other Members that it cannot regulate functionality unless it is specifically about harmful content, so much of what has been discussed today would not be covered by Ofcom’s current powers.
Chris Bryant
There are four or five different areas where the legislation is not sufficient for the task. Both codes require parliamentary approval, but that process will happen in the next few weeks, with the powers coming into effect this spring. As a Government, we have to decide whether it is better to make that happen now and bed it in, or say that we will have another piece of legislation. I am not allowed to make commitments on behalf of the Government, but I would be absolutely amazed if they did not bring forward further legislation in this field in the next few years. All these issues—and the others that will come along—will definitely need to be addressed, not least because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said at the beginning of the debate, we need to make sure that the legislation is up to date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) talked about the burden of proof, and he is quite right. Of course there should not be a one-way burden of proof. We have to bear in mind two things about proof—perhaps evidence is a better word, because it is not about criminality; it is about evidence-based policy. The first is that, as everybody has said, causation is not correlation. I apologise for the slightly flippant way of putting this, but Marathon became Snickers at the same time as Mrs Thatcher gave way to John Major. I am not aware of any causal relationship between those two events. Many people understand that, but it is often very difficult to weed out what is causation and what is correlation in a specific set of events. For instance, we have all laid out the problems in relation to mental health for children, but only one Member mentioned covid. I would argue that covid is quite a significant player. It was shocking that we strove hard as a Parliament to open pubs again before we opened schools, and that children, who were at the least risk, bore the heaviest burden and that sacrifice on behalf of others. I think we need to factor that in.
The second point is something that I have campaigned on for quite a long time: acquired brain injury. Children from poorer backgrounds are four times more likely to suffer a brain injury under the age of five than kids from wealthier backgrounds, and again in their teenage years. Acquired brain injury in schools is barely recognised. Some schools respond to it remarkably well, but it is likely that there are somewhere between one and three children with a brain injury in every single primary class in this land. Nobody has yet done sufficient work on how much that has contributed to the mental health problems that children have today. We certainly know that the use of phones and screens after brain injury is a significant added factor, but we need to look at all the factors that affect the mental health of children to ensure that we target the specific things that really will work in a combination of policy changes.
Damian Hinds
The Minister speaks with a great deal of knowledge and authority, particularly on acquired brain injury, but I want to come back to the covid point. Obviously, a Westminster Hall debate is not the place to establish correlation versus causality in any sense. However, if we look at a graph of what has happened with children’s and young people’s mental ill health in this country, France, Germany and the United States, while the data are not perfectly comparable, the shape of the line is not consistent with the hypothesis that it is mainly the result of covid. It predates covid, and it carries on going up afterwards.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry if I indicated that it was mainly covid; I was not trying to say that at all. I am simply saying that that is one factor, and there may be many others—social factors, personal factors and the structure of education. One could argue, as one of my hon. Friends did, that there are other things that kids could do in society. We might, for instance, want to intervene by having a creative education option. We hardly have a youth service in most of the country any more.
Damian Hinds
The Minister would be making perfectly adequate points if we were talking only about this country. We could make all sorts of points about what Government policy was and what happened to Sure Start, the curriculum and youth clubs, but those things did not happen in France, Germany or the United States.
Chris Bryant
I have not seen any of the statistics for what has happened to youth services and the cultural education offer in schools in France and other countries.
Chris Bryant
No, I do not. I am trying to make a very simple point: many factors have contributed to the mental health problems that many young people have, and social media is undoubtedly one. The question is, how do we rate and address all those different factors? As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) said, we must address this from a public health angle, and that is essential. But then, when we have the whole bag of evidence, rather than just individual bits of evidence, the question is, what is the most useful intervention that we can make?
I want to come on to the definition issues. Several Members raised the issue of what social media is. That is partially addressed by the Online Safety Act, but we may want to go further. As to the reason why the previous Government landed on 13 rather than 16—which was an option available to them—the consultation at the time came back with 13. It is interesting that Members referred to content availability and to there being two ages in the UK that are generally reckoned to be part of the age of majority: 16 and 18. Actually, for film classification, it is 12 and 15. There is an argument for saying that we ought to look at film classification because it is long established and—although the issues are different in many regards—some of them are similar. We might want to learn from that—I say this from my Department for Culture, Media and Sport angle—to inform the debate on this matter.
On enforcement, several Members referred to the fact that there is no point in just changing the law; if we do that but have no form of enforcement, that is worse than useless. That is one of the Government’s anxieties, and we need to make sure that the enforcement process works properly. I take the point that there are two areas where Ofcom feels it is unable to act, because the law does not allow it to do so, and we will need to look at that. That is why we are keen to get to the moment in April when the two codes will be voted on in Parliament. We will then make sure that Ofcom has not just the powers but the ability to enforce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) said, Ofcom has the power to fine up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the relevant year, which could be a substantial amount, but it needs to ensure it is in a legally effective position to do so.
My final point is that the Secretary of State has made it clear that nothing is off the table. We are keen to act in this space. The question is, how do we act most proportionately and effectively in a way that tackles the real problem? Some of that is about how the evidence stacks up, and some of it is about when the right time to legislate is. But, as I said earlier, I do not think for a single instant that this debate or the Online Safety Act will be the end of the story. I would be amazed if there were not further legislation, in some shape or other, in this field in the next two or three years.
With that, I once again thank Kim Campbell for bringing the petition to us, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
Tony Vaughan
I thank hon. Members and the Minister for their valuable contributions and explanations. As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) said, the status quo cannot continue, and I think everyone can agree with that. Several Members also said that we need a cross-party approach to these issues and, again, I think everyone would agree.
Like many others, I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for his analysis of the approach we should take to the evidence. The anecdotal and correlational evidence of the effects of social media is known to us all—especially to parents and teachers—and we have heard much of it in the debate, but putting the onus on social media companies to prove that social media is safe, rather than on the regulator to prove that it is not, seems to be common sense, and I was grateful to hear the Minister agree.
Reversing that burden would mean that the social media companies would have to show that the mountain of correlational and anecdotal evidence of harms, which we have all talked about today, is explained by something else, but none of the discussion today has really pointed to what that “something else” could be. Of course, as the Minister says, there are other things—other material is part of the picture—but it is not good enough for the social media companies to say, as they currently do, “Well, it’s very complicated. You can’t prove that our social media is the problem, so we can get away with doing what we like.”
I was therefore heartened to hear the Minister reiterate that everything remains on the table and that this is the first stage of rolling out what the Online Safety Act seeks to do, but not the end of action on this issue. Whatever the burden, the evidence is evolving and, while we wait, our children are losing out. I am a big supporter of evidence-based policymaking, but we as legislators have to make difficult decisions and difficult judgments on the evidence as it is, imperfect as it may be.
Ultimately, of course, a judgment call will be needed, and we should give weight to the precautionary principle. It is clear that social media is part of the context, even if we cannot say that it is 51% of the cause—or however we want to put it. So it is important to say that if it is part of the context, we should take it out or do something more ambitious. But I accept that, as the Minister explained, we need to put the current mechanism in place so that we can at least see what we are dealing with.
Lastly, I want to comment on the contextual point my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) made about the importance of keeping foreign state actors off our children’s screens. That is, of course, an important point, but I just want to acknowledge a big contextual factor here, without perhaps saying too much about it. I am under no illusion about the power of the social media and tech companies. To take the owner of X, who has a role in the US Government, the regulatory regimes are relevant to his bottom line—I think somebody else said that as well. The issues we are talking about do not only concern us here in Westminster; they may well involve relations with other countries, and how we go about persuading people who we want to help us in different ways to make the very bold changes that may ultimately be needed.
I will end on that because it is one of the most difficult aspects, which is perhaps why it has not been talked about too much today. Nevertheless, let us not worry about the difficulties, because we are all united in the desire to do something about this issue. For me, that is one of the big, important things that has come out of today: we are united in trying to sort it out, so let us all work together and do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700086 relating to a minimum age for social media.
Transport
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood
Last year, the UK was the largest market in Europe—in fact, in the world—for EV vehicles.
[Official Report, 13 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 380.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood):
Lilian Greenwood
Last year, the UK was the largest market in Europe for EV vehicles.
Steel Strategy: Consultation
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Steel is essential for a modern economy, underpinning sectors from construction to advanced manufacturing and driving growth. It plays a vital role in the communities in which it is situated, supporting jobs and living standards in the UK’s industrial heartlands.
The Government are wasting no time in taking action to support the industry. We have simplified public procurement and aligned it with the Government’s missions, to put UK firms—including the steel industry—in the best possible position to compete for and win public contracts. That is on top of delivering a better deal for Port Talbot within weeks of taking office, to transform production there and deliver a modern electric arc furnace and implementing the British industry supercharger to cut electricity costs for steel firms, bringing prices more in line with international competitors.
We are committed to rebuilding the UK steel sector and securing the future of the industry, and that is why in spring 2025 we will publish the steel strategy, “The Plan for Steel”, which will establish a clear and ambitious long-term vision for the steel industry and set out the actions needed to get there. It will articulate what is needed to create a competitive business environment in the UK, with the aim of attracting new private investment to expand UK steelmaking capability. Our planning reforms will give the industry a strong pipeline of business that will secure supply chains for years to come and drive economic growth as part of our plan for change. This will be backed by up to £2.5 billion, which will be available through the national wealth fund and other routes.
This could benefit regions across the UK—such as Scunthorpe, Rotherham, Redcar, Yorkshire and Port Talbot—that have a strong history of steel production. It will be spent on initiatives that will give the industry a long future, such as supporting the transition to electric arc furnaces, or other improvements in UK capabilities. The strategy will be pursued in alignment with wider Government priorities, including the trade strategy, the strategic defence review and Invest 2035, the upcoming industrial strategy.
On Sunday 16 February 2025, we published a consultation document that sets out our planned approach for the strategy and asks stakeholders for their feedback and evidence on a range of topics, both on the wider direction that the UK steel sector should take and on the detail of the proposed areas of focus for the strategy. This is an important step in developing the strategy for the longer term. This includes issues that we know to be concerns for the industry, such as the price of electricity and the challenging global trading environment, but also areas of new opportunity, such as how best to leverage the UK’s abundant supplies of scrap steel and how we can best align our production capabilities with domestic demand. The document also seeks views on funding and financing, which will help inform how best to take forward our commitment of up to £2.5 billion for the sector. This information will be reviewed as we develop the strategy and will be reflected in the final document when it is launched in spring 2025.
This is just one element of our open and collaborative approach to this work, which had a strong start at the beginning of this year with the first meeting of the Steel Council under this Government. The intention is that the Steel Council, a body of industry experts and representatives, will meet again before the publication of the strategy. I have also had the opportunity to speak to the industry directly—and I will continue to do so— by chairing a series of roundtables addressing specific issues where detailed industry feedback will be vital to inform our approach.
We believe that this is important and timely work. This Government stand by the UK steel sector as it continues to work on finding solutions to those challenges. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), has set out in the consultation document, the steel industry has an enormous role to play in our mission to drive economic growth, and it is of the utmost importance that the steel strategy is a real driver of meaningful change in the industry. The publication of this consultation, and the insight that we hope to receive from stakeholders, is an important step in achieving that.
Responses to the consultation can be provided by online survey until 30 March.
[HCWS457]
Arts and Culture Funding
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On 20 February, I announced “arts everywhere”—a package of funding for our cultural sector of over £270 million.
This Government believe that while talent is everywhere, opportunity is not. As part of our plan for change, I am committed to ensuring that arts and culture thrive in every part of the country, with more opportunities for more people to engage, benefit from and work in arts and culture where they live.
Much of this funding will invest in fit-for-purpose cultural infrastructure, so cultural organisations can keep on doing what they do best—providing the public with breathtaking performances, showcasing the best collections and connecting communities to their rich history. The funding I have announced will also preserve increased access to arts and cultural activities for children and young people. This will help ensure that all children and young people, no matter their background, can have a stake in their culture, heritage and creativity and, where there is passion to do so, go on to rewarding creative careers.
I have also set out how, as part of the Government’s plan for change, this investment will help kick-start economic growth across the country by improving our cultural offer and attracting tourism to the UK, creating more jobs and opportunities. Together, through investment and reform, we will ensure that our incredible arts and culture sectors continue to thrive for future generations.
The package of funding for 2025-26 I have announced includes:
A new £85 million creative foundations fund, funding urgent capital works to help keep venues across the country up and running;
A fifth round of the popular museum estate and development fund worth £25 million, which will support museums across the country to undertake vital infrastructure projects, and tackle urgent maintenance backlogs;
A fourth round of the libraries improvement fund worth £5.5 million, which will enable public library services across England to upgrade buildings and technology to better respond to changing user needs;
A new £20 million museum renewal fund to invest in cherished local, civic museums, supporting them to expand access to their collections and programmes, to continue serving as trusted custodians of our heritage, sparking national creativity and imagination;
An additional £15 million for heritage at risk, which will provide grants for repairs and conservation to heritage buildings at risk, focusing on those sites with most need with funding weighted towards applications from the most deprived areas;
A new £4.85 million heritage revival fund to transform local heritage buildings. Funding will empower local people to take control of the heritage they love. It will support community organisations to bring neglected heritage buildings back into good use;
Confirmation of the continuation of the £120 million public bodies infrastructure fund to ensure national cultural public bodies are able to address essential works to their estates;
A 5% increase to the budgets of all national museums and galleries to support their financial resilience and to support them in providing access to the national collection;
Confirmation that DCMS will be contributing funding to four cultural education programmes for the next financial year to preserve increased access to arts for children and young people. These will be the museums and schools programme, the heritage schools programme, art and design national Saturday clubs and the BFI Film Academy;
Confirmation of the recipients of the fourth round of the museum estate and development fund, which will see 29 local museums up and down the country receiving a share of almost £25 million to upgrade their buildings.
Alongside this investment, I have confirmed the panel of experts who will be supporting Baroness Margaret Hodge with her independent review of Arts Council England, as well as the scope of the review within the newly agreed terms of reference. The terms of reference and panel of experts can be found on gov.uk.
This month marks the 60th anniversary of the first arts White Paper—“A Policy for the Arts: The First Steps”—published by Jennie Lee, the country’s first Minister for the Arts (1964-70). Her vision for accessibility in the arts is one I am proud to share. Our world-leading arts and culture sectors are an essential part of who we are as a country. They have enormous growth potential to drive our economy forward and through reform and investment we are bulldozing the barriers to growth and unlocking opportunity for all.
[HCWS464]
Early Education and Childcare
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
This Government are committed to giving children the best start in life, breaking the link between background and opportunity. We are ensuring that families in every community across the country can access affordable childcare places that deliver high-quality early education for children.
In our plan for change, we have set a milestone of a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn. We will measure our progress through 75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment by 2028.
Already in 2025-26, we plan to provide a £2 billion increase in funding for the entitlements compared to 2024-25, to deliver the roll-out of 30 hours of funded childcare from 9 months of age in eligible working families. On top of this, we have announced the largest single uplift to the early years pupil premium since its introduction, increasing the EYPP to £1 per hour in 2025-26, equivalent to up to £570 per eligible child per year. We are investing in quality early education for those children who need it most, in the areas that need it most.
Expansion grant funding
September 2025 marks a critical stage in the roll-out of the new entitlements when the new childcare entitlements will increase to 30 hours. To support delivery of this key milestone, on top of core funding, we are providing a £75 million expansion grant that will specifically target providers with children who are using the new entitlements. We plan to publish local authority allocations for this grant by the end of the month, and will expect to ask local authorities to confirm provider allocations within 6 weeks of publication.
Clarifying guidance on additional charges
As we set out in the autumn, we are taking action to protect parents from reported instances of very high additional charges or “top-up” fees on top of their entitlement, ensuring the funded hours remain accessible and affordable for families, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds where it makes the biggest difference. We have therefore updated the statutory guidance on Government-funded entitlements that relates to additional charges, helping local authorities ensure there is clarity and consistency for parents and providers.
The changes also put transparency at the heart of how the entitlement should be passed on to parents, including that all costs should be clear to parents up front and greater clarification of what are considered “consumables” including nappies, suncream and lunch. The guidance also reaffirms, in line with a recent High Court judgment, that while providers can charge for some extras these charges must not be mandatory.
Maths champions and stronger practice hubs
We are focused on growth, working with the early years sector to meet the challenges of creating the places needed for September 2025, but we will not compromise on quality as we deliver on our plan for change for a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn.
The maths champions programme helps early years educators to support children with core maths skills. This year, staff from 800 early years settings will benefit from the maths champions programme, double the number from the previous year. This evidence-based training is delivered by the National Day Nurseries Association through the Education Endowment Foundation. The EEF evidence of the programme shows that children in settings who had maths champions made the equivalent of three months’ additional progress in maths. The first cohort of this year’s settings are starting the programme this month.
Further, we are driving quality early education through the stronger practice hubs programme, with up to £6.1 million in funding for financial year 2025-26. These hubs provide free support and advice to improve quality in early years settings, sharing evidence-informed practice and building lasting local networks.
Together, these latest actions are the next big step in delivering on our plan for change, building a reformed early years system that is sustainable for providers and better serves children and their families.
[HCWS465]
UEFA Women’s European Championship: Alcohol Licensing
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for the semi-finals and final of the 2025 UEFA women’s European championship this summer, contingent on either the England or Wales women’s national football teams playing in the semi-finals, and if any of the aforementioned teams subsequently reach the final of that tournament. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.
Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003, which would contingently extend opening hours on the days of the semi-finals, on 22 and/or 23 July 2025, and the final, on 27 July 2025, so that they would end at 1 am—i.e. early in the morning after the matches have taken place, rather than 11 pm on the day of the matches—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises.
The extension would ensure that those wishing to host a viewing of the matches and potential post-match celebrations are able to do so, which would also provide a welcome boost to pubs and other on-trade businesses.
The extension would be contingent on the England and/or Wales national football teams reaching those stages of the championship and would not take effect should neither of these teams reach those stages of the tournament.
I am seeking to use a contingent order to extend licensing hours for the semi-finals and the final to ensure that there is sufficient time to consult publicly on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk. The consultation will run until 23 March 2025.
[HCWS459]
Home Office Exclusion Policy: Russian State
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government are today announcing an important reform to the Home Office’s exclusion policy.
Under new measures, the Home Office will expand the criteria for exclusion to ensure that while Russia remains an acute national security threat to the UK, exclusion from the UK may be considered if the individual is part of an elite linked to the Russian state.
This category will consider any individual who:
Provides significant support to the Russian state;
and/or owes their significant status or wealth to the Russian state;
and/or has access to the highest levels of the Russian state.
The entry of elites linked to the Russian state into the UK may threaten our national security and our national interests. Elites linked to the Russian state may pose a number of specific harms, including but not limited to: acting as tools of influence for the Russian state; opening the UK to accusations of hypocrisy for welcoming these individuals while condemning the actions of the Russian state; and enabling the continuation and expansion of the Russian state’s aggression or malign activities.
The UK has been steadfast in its response to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine and to its malign activities in the UK and around the world. We have imposed extensive sanctions on elites linked to the Russian state, strengthened our law enforcement capabilities through the National Crime Agency’s combating kleptocracy cell, and closed the legislative loopholes open to money laundering by criminal actors.
Despite these measures, there are members of the elite who continue to travel to the UK while denouncing the west in public life, seeking to enjoy in private the benefits here, which they deprive others of in Russia. The nature of the Russian state, with its lack of rule of law, free media, or delineation between the public and private realms, means that we can no longer rely on existing exclusions measures, such as grounds of corruption or involvement in serious crime to deal with corrupt elites. We must go further to ensure that those who pose a threat to UK interests, because they enable, support or are indebted to the Kremlin regime, are prevented from accessing the UK.
The measures we are introducing today will expand our exclusion criteria to ensure that the most senior and influential individuals linked to the Russian state—whether through financial, political or governmental ties—can be stopped from entering the UK when that is what our interests demand.
Our reforms will:
Strengthen the criteria for exclusion—any member of the elite with known links to the Kremlin may be subject to exclusion from the UK.
Enhance information sharing—working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as well as with our operational partners, the Home Office will ensure that exclusion decisions are based on the most robust and up-to-date information available.
Signal the UK’s position on Kremlin-linked elites—these reforms make clear the Government’s view that elites linked to the Russian state are not welcome in the UK.
This policy has been subject to extensive internal and external review. These new measures will not target ordinary Russians, but will focus on those who prop up the Russian regime, wherever they were born. The Government have been clear that we take issue not with the Russian people, but with the actions of their Government.
On the third-year anniversary of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Government remain resolute in our support for Ukraine and in standing with our allies against Russian aggression both at home and abroad. These measures send a clear message: the UK is not a haven for those who enable or profit from the Kremlin regime.
[HCWS458]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force—as of 30 November 2024 3 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 1 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 30 November 2024 3 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 1 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices expired—during reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 3 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 1 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation —during the reporting period 3
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 19 and 22 November 2024.
[HCWS460]
Local Government Finance
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
On 3 February 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out the final local government finance settlement for 2025-26. The settlement makes available over £69 billion for local government, which is a 6.8% cash terms increase in councils’ core spending power on 2024-25. The settlement reaffirms this Government’s commitment to rebuild and reform local government, and to empower local leaders to deliver that change so that the benefits are felt in every community. The additional funding made available in this settlement and the Budget will deliver over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above local council tax.
The Government are under no illusions about the fragile state of the sector and the pressures councils are facing to deliver for residents. As a result of the 14 years of decline and instability overseen by the previous Government, we know there are large numbers of councils in significant financial difficulty. Our fiscal inheritance means that there will be tough choices on all sides to get us back on the path to recovery, and it will take time. However, we are committed to restoring stability and bringing forward reform to ensure local government is fit, legal and decent and can play its critical role in providing the services communities rely on. We have already taken steps to improve sector sustainability, including targeting money towards areas with greater need and demand for services and less ability to raise income locally at this year’s settlement with the introduction of the new £600 million recovery grant.
The financial legacy of the previous Government has resulted in a record number of councils engaging with the Government asking for exceptional financial support to help them set their budgets. We confirmed in the local government finance settlement that we have already had to consider requests for council tax increases from some councils where this was necessary for their long-term sustainability. As set out in the settlement, we only agreed to this on an exceptional basis, we did not agree to all requests, no request was agreed to in its entirety and we have only permitted additional increases where councils had lower levels of existing council tax compared to similar councils.
The exceptional financial support process has existed since 2020 to support those councils facing unmanageable financial pressures. This Government understand that fragility in the system has left some councils in difficult positions and recognise that support is required in exceptional circumstances to balance budgets. Unlike the previous Government, we have been clear that we do not believe in punishing councils and local residents where this is the case. We are taking a partnership approach to the exceptional financial support process which prioritises protecting the interests of local residents. We have already announced that, where councils deem it necessary to undertake additional borrowing to support their recovery, we will not replicate the previous Government’s punitive approach of making that borrowing more expensive through an additional 1% premium.
On 20 February 2025, my Department wrote to 30 councils confirming that we would provide in principle support to enable them to set balanced budgets. The total amount of support provided is circa £1.5 billion, around £1 billion lower than was announced last year. In some cases, requests relate to support in prior years or to reprofiling existing support agreed in previous years.
Details of the councils and support provided were published on www.gov.uk. This includes six councils whose improvement is being supported via statutory intervention. We are continuing to work with these councils and through the commissioners and panels in place to support the councils’ recovery from more severe financial issues. Support is being provided through financial flexibilities where the Government permit councils, in special circumstances, to treat revenue costs as capital costs. This is known as capitalisation and means councils can then meet those costs through capital receipts, or if necessary, borrowing, in line with the approach of the previous Government. Since capitalisation is a relaxation of normal accounting requirements, it has always been subject to agreement from the Secretary of State.
In taking these decisions, the Government have considered carefully appropriate protections for the public and the public purse—including the protection of treasured community assets. We have set out a clear expectation that where a council is considering financing capitalisation support through capital receipts, this should not be from the disposal of community and heritage assets. Retaining these treasured assets within public ownership is imperative to ensure local communities can continue to benefit from them.
While we are taking a collaborative approach, the Government have been clear on our wider commitment to effective oversight of local government and our expectation that councils deliver value for the taxpayer’s pound. That is why we are working to fix the local audit system and strengthen the standards and conduct framework for councils in England. In line with this, as part of our partnership process, we will seek additional external assurance for councils receiving exceptional financial support that will help support local improvement as well as providing an assessment on action each council is taking locally to help manage its position. I am clear that Government will continue to expect councils to make sure they are doing all they can locally to deliver for residents. We will always act where there is any evidence of failure, including in the management of public money.
We are committed to setting a new relationship with the local government sector. As part of this, we will treat all discussions with councils worried about their positions in confidence, with respect and determination to find a solution together. In making these decisions, we are committed to prioritising the needs of residents.
We also want to make sure that councils have the information that they need to conduct their business sensibly. For this reason, the decisions highlighted today were communicated to councils as soon as possible after the House had had the opportunity to consider the local government finance settlement. Given that this was while the House was in recess, we wrote to relevant MPs, the Opposition and the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to inform them of our decisions and confirm that we would make this written ministerial statement once the House returned.
This written ministerial statement applies to England only.
[HCWS461]
Independent Monitoring Panel: Internal Market Guarantee
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 19 September 2024, I announced the appointment of Aidan Reilly, Anna Jerzewska and Alastair Hamilton as members of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I would now like to provide an update on how the panel will fulfil its core function, as set out under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, by scrutinising the performance of the internal market guarantee over six-monthly reporting periods.
I can confirm that, following agreement with the panel, the first six-month reporting period for the internal market guarantee commenced on the 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025.
The internal market guarantee relates to movements taking place under the UK internal market system. The guarantee undertakes that more than 80% of all freight movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be treated as “not at risk” of moving onwards to the EU, and therefore moving within the UK internal market. Relevant data will be provided to the panel to support it performing its monitoring functions.
The Government believe that this progress demonstrates our continued commitment to protecting the UK internal market. I look forward to considering the panel’s first report later this year.
[HCWS463]
AI Security Institute
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
We recently launched the AI opportunities action plan to create one of the biggest clusters of AI innovation in the world and deliver a new era of prosperity and wealth creation for our country—harnessing AI to deliver on the plan for change.
None of that is possible unless we can mitigate the risks that AI presents. Safeguarding Britain’s national security, a key pillar of the Government’s plan for change, alongside protecting citizens from crime, will continue to be a driving principle of the UK’s approach to the responsible development of AI. That is why I am renaming our AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute.
This change of name better reflects the team’s essential remit and the priorities that they have always focused on. Their work does not centre on freedom of speech or deciding what counts as bias and discrimination.
My Department addresses these issues in other places. Through the fairness innovation challenge, we are supporting the development of socio-technical solutions to bias and discrimination. And through our work on AI assurance, we are making sure that we adopt this technology safely and responsibly across the economy.
The team at AISI, though, are focused on serious AI risks with security implications, such as how the technology can be used to develop chemical and biological weapons, or to carry out cyberattacks, or to enable crimes such as fraud and child sexual abuse.
To achieve this, the institute will partner across Government, including with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory—the Ministry of Defence’s science and technology organisation—the Laboratory for AI Security Research, and the national security community. That includes building on the expertise of the National Cyber Security Centre, the UK’s national technical authority for cyber-security, including AI.
As part of this update, the institute will also launch a new criminal misuse team, which will work jointly with the Home Office to conduct research on a range of crime and security issues that threaten to harm British citizens.
This work is also rooted in the strength of our partnerships with the companies that are at the frontier of AI development. Working with those companies, the Government can conduct scientifically informed tests to understand new AI capabilities and the risks they pose. US companies have led the way in taking security risks seriously, but we need to scrutinise all models regardless of their jurisdiction of origin. That is why the institute will take a leading role in testing AI models wherever they come from, open or closed. This ground-breaking scientific research will be shared with our allies, demonstrating the UK’s commitment to our shared security.
The UK is alive to the security risks of today, but also aware of the risks of tomorrow. The 2025 international AI safety report, led by Yoshua Bengio, warns us that—without the checks and balances of people directing them—we must consider the possibility that risks will not just come from malicious actors misusing AI models, but from the models themselves. We do not yet know the full extent of these risks, but as we deploy AI across our economy, our society and the critical infrastructure that keeps our nation secure, we cannot afford to ignore them. The AI Security Institute will be critical to this mission.
Governments are not passive bystanders in the AI revolution; we have agency in how AI shapes our society. The UK Government have a responsibility to use that agency to defend our democratic way of life. Only countries with a deep and knowing understanding of this technology will be able to build the capacity they need to deliver for their citizens in the 21st century. This depends on the democratic world rallying together to maintain our leadership in AI and protect our fundamental values: freedom, openness and opportunity. This will not only keep our people safe, but ensure that they are the first to benefit from the new era of wealth and prosperity that AI will bring.
[HCWS462]
Rail Reform
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On Tuesday 18 February, I launched the public consultation for the Government’s upcoming railways Bill. This consultation sets out our proposals for the most comprehensive reform of Britain’s railways in 30 years, ending decades of fragmentation and inefficiency and delivering a simplified model built from the ground up to serve its users.
Our country needs an efficient, modern railway that kick-starts growth and realises the potential of our towns, cities, and businesses. An affordable, reliable railway brings new markets and job opportunities closer to those who stand ready to make the most of them. It makes education, healthcare, public services, and even just the support of family and friends more accessible to those who need it. A railway that offers a genuine alternative to road travel, combined with a thriving rail freight sector, means cleaner air and less congestion for everyone.
As you are aware, this Government are delivering our plan for change, with investment and reform driving growth, putting more money in people’s pockets, and rebuilding Britain. Reforming our railways is central to this and will drive improved performance, bringing more people back to rail, generating greater revenue and reducing costs. This consultation document sets out our vision for the future of Britain’s railways, and the transformative changes that are already under way to make it a reality.
Our manifesto commitment to put passengers and communities back at the heart of the railways by establishing Great British Railways is central to achieving this plan. We have already delivered the legislation to bring our railways back into public ownership, set up shadow GBR, and reset industrial relations with the trade unions. The publication of this consultation marks our next step in fixing the railways once and for all.
The consultation sets out our plans to establish GBR as a new arm’s length body, bringing responsibility for train services and rail infrastructure together into one integrated organisation. This means that most passengers will travel on GBR trains, running on GBR tracks, and arrive at GBR stations—all delivered by a single organisation in line with the clear strategic direction set by Government. GBR will be empowered with the expertise and authority to run the railway in the public interest, delivering reliable, affordable, high-quality, and efficient services, alongside ensuring safety and accessibility.
The private sector will continue to play a vital role under the new model on everything from freight and open access services to ticket retailing, rolling stock and the wider supply chain. GBR will leverage the best of both the public and private sectors to unlock growth and drive innovation. GBR will follow fair, efficient and transparent processes when allocating access to the network, with a robust set of protections for third-party operators enshrined in law. There will also be a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, recognising the sector’s growth potential and helping to deliver on the Government’s commitment to net zero.
GBR will have a new customer-focused culture, ensuring passengers are at the heart of everything it does. This will be reinforced by the establishment of a powerful new independent passenger watchdog that will monitor standards, champion improvements, and ensure that passengers feel they have a clear voice within the industry standing up for them.
A reliable, affordable, and efficient railway is vital to supporting the Government’s growth mission—vital not only in connecting people to jobs and opportunities, but also in contributing to the regeneration and integration of local communities. The proposals in this consultation protect and enhance the roles of devolved leaders, both in Scotland and Wales and within England, in shaping how the railway serves their communities. Existing devolution settlements will be protected and devolved leaders will benefit from new statutory roles, drawing on their experiences and expertise to manage, plan and develop a network that delivers for communities. We will continue to work closely with these leaders as we shape this role to ensure the benefits of our reforms are felt across Britain. In addition, established mayoral strategic authorities will have a right to request further rail devolution within England, bringing decision making closer to those who use the railways.
The publication of this consultation marks the next milestone in delivering the legislation needed to transform our railways, unlocking their potential to drive growth and contribute to a decade of national renewal under this Government. We are therefore seeking the views of passengers, freight customers, industry suppliers and experts, and the public at large ahead of the introduction of the railways Bill later in this Session. Only once we have these views can we deliver a system that truly serves its customers, provides better value for hardworking taxpayers, acts as an engine for growth and opportunity, and stands once again as a point of pride for modern Britain.
[HCWS466]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I commence, as I am obliged to on these occasions, by advising the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Monday 24th February 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeNon-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 61-I(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 Feb 2025)
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to vary some non-domestic rating multipliers and to remove the charitable exemption from private schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of this Act and is intended to invite the House to consider whether the Bill meets the Government's stated aims of protecting the high street and encouraging investment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to his place and say that the whole House was sorry to hear of his family’s loss.
We on these Benches welcome this Bill as a narrow tinkering of a broken system. It may have some beneficial effects, but I remind your Lordships that the non-domestic rates system has been broken for years, and if this tinkering distracts from a full and proper review of the system, then it is a malign influence rather than a benefit.
From scrutinising the Commons debate on this Bill, it seems that the Government sought to limit debate by asserting that its purpose was to use multipliers to manipulate the non-domestic rates of a subset of businesses in what it calls high streets. This measure is focused on retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments. Having done this, the broad government claim is that our high streets will somehow be protected and that investment will be encouraged. In wording Amendment 1, we attempted to include words that spelled out the spirit of the Government’s Commons claims, but I have to say that the Public Bill Office resisted all attempts to include the concept of protecting high streets and encouraging investment in the purpose statement. The PBO has confirmed the narrow nature of this Bill.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If they accept the restraints of their own handcuffs and restrict this Bill to varying multipliers for this subset of businesses, the Minister cannot claim to be protecting high streets. There are at least three reasons that make this true. First, high streets are much more than retail, hospitality and leisure, as we will see from various groups of amendments. If the Government’s actual purpose is to protect high streets, they would spread its activity more widely. This will be effectively asserted from these Benches and from those of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Secondly, the Government present no evidence that their claims to be protecting high streets will actually come to pass. As we know, the non-domestic rating system is complex. It is further complicated by the application of reliefs, which will vanish as these multipliers arrive. Increasing the multipliers for larger businesses is another complication. In addition, there is the issue of valuations—this is the elephant in the room that this Bill ignores. They are always up. There are many puts and takes that affect the individual business rates that a business pays and what its competitors pay, yet there has been no attempt at an impact assessment. I have to put it to the Minister that no one actually knows the effects that this Bill will have.
Thirdly, we know that there are some important consequences for activities that fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure focus that could be badly affected by the consequences of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Pinnock will highlight the issue of medical and health-related premises, and I will seek to demonstrate that an important sector of our creative industry—independent music venues—will be hit hard. In both cases, we need the Minister to confirm that increasing rates for these activities is an unintended, rather than an intended, consequence. Both these activities are important parts of well-functioning high streets, although of course there are other activities that also contribute. This is a consequence of blunt targeting, and it needs to be sorted.
I propose this amendment with a heavy heart, because the narrowness of the purpose allowed by the PBO identifies the limitations and faults of this Bill. But there is hope. First off, the Minister could accept my noble friend’s Amendment 51, when it comes up. That is a good starting point but, otherwise, I am sure that we can work with the Minister to come up with a new Short Title and Long Title that will allow us to properly set about protecting our high streets. My colleagues and I stand ready to help the Minister in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I stand to introduce the second group, in which, conveniently, there are three amendments, all in my name—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
We are still on group 1. We will come to group 2 in the fullness of time.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and to my notice opposing the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I was pleased and interested to see that the Liberal Democrats had tabled a purpose clause, given that they have criticised purpose clauses tabled by my Conservative colleagues on other Bills. On the purpose clause tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—
Lord Fox (LD)
As a point of information, I have proposed purpose clauses for at least six Bills in the last three years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will continue. When my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower tabled a purpose clause on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, argued that it was unnecessary because it restated some of the language in the Long Title of the Bill. In contrast to the amendment that we are debating today, my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment included a legal duty on the Secretary of State, as well as establishing a purpose clause giving it legal effect. This is all water under the bridges, though, and we hope that our friends on the Benches to my left will not criticise our use of purpose clauses when scrutinising future Bills. As I say, we on these Benches are very comfortable with purpose clauses which seek to probe the intentions of the Bills that this Government are bringing forward, so I welcome the noble Lord’s amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says in his explanatory statement, there is a real question mark over the Bill’s impact on the Government’s plan to deliver on their stated aims of protecting our high streets and encouraging investment. Later in this Committee, I will seek to probe the impact of the Bill on larger anchor stores, which are often the key drivers of the footfall on our high streets and keep smaller businesses alive. I will also seek to understand more fully the impact that the Bill will have on the retail and major food shops, including supermarkets, which people across the UK rely on.
We know that the Government’s original intention was to hit international businesses that have large, warehouse-style business premises, such as Amazon and other international tech giants, but it is not clear that the Bill achieves that goal effectively. There is a risk that the increased costs of multipliers will be passed on to consumers in very unexpected ways. The higher multipliers that the Bill will introduce are a tax on business. We need to understand better what impacts this business tax will have on jobs, growth and prices. The impact assessment that the Government have published to date is utterly inadequate. Although I am really very grateful to the Minister for his engagement on the Bill so far, I feel that we will need to hear much more detail from the Dispatch Box on the real-world impact of the Bill if we are to proceed with it.
I turn to my stand-part notice, which seeks to question whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. Clause 1 sets out the Government’s intention to create a system whereby hereditaments over the value of £500,000 pay at a higher multiplier. What they have failed to include in any part of the Bill, or indeed in the Explanatory Notes, is an explanation of why £500,000 was chosen as the threshold for the higher multiplier. Indeed, £500,000 seems entirely arbitrary, and the Government have not explained why that is the number.
As was mentioned by several noble Lords from across the House at Second Reading, the Bill raises more questions than it has answers, and there is a complete lack of clarity. Not only do we not know why the threshold is set at £500,000, but we also do not know what the actual multipliers will be. The Government’s choice of setting the threshold in this way means that many businesses on our high streets will be forced to pay this higher multiplier.
I agree that the business rates system needs reform, but I do not for a second think that this Bill achieves the reforms that our high streets need. There is an understanding across the board that businesses that operate online and occupy out-of-town warehouses should pay a larger amount of business rates, and such reforms have been nicknamed an “Amazon tax”. But the Bill does not achieve that on its own terms. We know that thousands of large shops will be caught by this threshold, and we cannot support a Bill that risks a decimation of our already struggling high streets across the country simply because the Government have failed to do their homework and have got their numbers wrong.
We will be probing the Government’s proposed threshold as the Bill progresses. It is the job of Ministers to get this right, and we will be listening carefully to the Government’s responses to this challenge. The Labour manifesto committed to reforming the business rates system and to
“level the playing field between the high street and the online giants”,
so why does the Bill not do that? The arbitrary threshold set by the Bill will damage many high-street businesses and, coupled with the reduction of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, will not fulfil the Government’s claims that they intend to reduce how much in business rates these businesses actually pay.
Again, the Explanatory Notes reference the higher multiplier as applying to
“distribution warehouses … used by online giants”,
but simply including a cut-off of £500,000, while it will tax online giants, will not protect other businesses. Although the majority of the businesses with a rateable value over £500,000 may be warehouses, not all of them are. Through a failure to target the policy effectively, the Bill is likely to have unintended consequences that will have a ripple effect on other businesses on our high streets.
It is important to look at this Bill in the context of the wider decisions that this Government have made that force businesses to have higher costs. The Government have increased the minimum wage, which we support, and they have increased the employer national insurance contributions—a hidden tax, a job tax, that will hit the retail sector with a bill of £2.3 billion a year. Although this Bill alone may not cripple businesses, when considered with the other taxes that the Government have imposed on businesses, it very well could be the thing that forces businesses to close on high streets up and down the country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has provided a good contribution to this debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider the concerns that we have both raised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by expressing my gratitude for the kind words from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in relation to my not being present for the Second Reading because of the tragic loss of my mother, and I extend my gratitude to everyone in the House. I had a good look at the Second Reading, and I appreciate all the tributes that were made during this difficult time of my life.
It has been a lively start to this afternoon’s proceedings, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for tabling Amendment 1. It will be appropriate alongside this amendment to consider whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I understand that there is concern that the Bill before us does not deliver on the Government’s stated intentions. I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, but I must disagree with their position.
The Bill delivers on the Government’s commitment, as announced at the Autumn Budget, to introduce from 2026-27 permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, as also announced at the Autumn Budget, the introduction of a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above—to fund that permanent tax cut sustainably. Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill enable this.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. The nature of this debate has set the scene for some of the groups that we will debate later—the £500,000 limit will certainly come up shortly, as will the other issues. The overall point suggested by the Minister—that we must have this move, or that this move is a helpful precursor to wider reform—is one that I would question. I do not see why this must happen without the wider reform; it is not needed unless it is in the context of something that is more total around the system. Let me repeat myself: there are so many puts and takes in this system that it is hard to know how individual businesses and their competitors are going to be affected simply on the basis of where they stand on a particular road. There is much to be done but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Thurlow
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of Lord Thurlow, seeks to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for more valuable properties.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, after my practice run, for which I apologise, I rise to address this second group. Conveniently, it consists of three amendments, all in my name. Before doing so, I should mention that I was formerly a chartered surveyor and spent several decades working in the realms of commercial property. This included a certain amount of rating, so I have considerable experience. I also beg the Committee’s leave inasmuch as I was unable to take part at Second Reading, but I have read Hansard and spoken to colleagues.
The purpose of Amendments 2 and 4—the latter is consequential on the former—is to remove the power to introduce higher multipliers for the more valuable RHL properties on the valuation list. There is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s proposal to pay for the reduced multiplier, hereditament or—I cannot remember what it used to be called—poundage by taxing the larger organisations. To understand this, we must look for a moment at what characterises a successful high street and distinguishes it from one that withers and fades. Although a high street that has withered will continue trading, it will have lost its heart as a retail centre and lost the social cohesion that it provides to the community. There is a gradual decline in the presence of national multiples, which are the key to high streets’ economic health.
A key presence in a successful high street are the anchor retailers, as we have heard. These may be department stores—though, sadly, few remain—other large retailers, such as Marks & Spencer, or possibly a leisure centre. Importantly, nowadays, it may also be a large supermarket. Most larger towns now have a town centre shopping scheme, of course. These are developments that have been carried out behind the retail frontage, usually, but with one or two shopping units providing access to the prime section of that high street. They are anchored by a large retailing presence: the department store or the supermarket in the shopping centre. They also frequently have the advantage of providing car parking and bus station services to the high street, which are particularly important these days with traffic restrictions and general congestion.
It is important to understand that anchor retailers are the lifeblood of our high streets, many of which are pedestrianised to improve the experience and safety of pedestrian traffic. The proposal to charge the larger retailers or RHL traders premium rates will cause yet more of these anchors to close down. This will structurally destabilise the complementary nature of a balanced retail offer. These anchors, including supermarkets, are already under extreme financial pressure.
It is no accident that the large department stores are fast disappearing from our high streets. To ask the higher NDR companies to pay this extra tax is punishment in the extreme. British Home Stores has gone, as has Binns in the north-east. C&A, which many of us will remember, is a good example of another that was forced to close by its parent because it could not afford all the costs, yet it trades healthily and thrives across continental Europe and in other countries around the world. It closed in this country because it could not afford to trade any longer; there was nothing wrong with its product.
Ironically, the only retailers that can afford the high street costs are the mail order giants, and the Government know who they are. Yet we must tread carefully in taxing the fulfilment centres, which are linked to the remaining high street operators and which, by managing to operate away from the high street, can control their costs and keep operating. They are a very different category from the Amazon generic, if I may use that phrase, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, already mentioned.
Amendment 45 probes the wisdom of asking the large ratepayers—£500,000-plus is proposed—to subsidise the RHL discount for smaller traders. As already mentioned, the sweeping and inclusive size-related premium will impact many high street retailers attempting to stay afloat by resourcing their mail order businesses elsewhere. They are not the Amazon generic. Asking the larger retailers to subsidise the smaller ones is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The unintended consequence is that the larger retailers will find it harder to continue. It will be another financial burden for them to bear, and it is too much. High street shops will then close to save costs, impacting in turn the economic health of the town.
The key to all this is to separate the fulfilment centres operating behind the scenes of the high street retailers—the big organisations—from the Amazon generic. Dealing with this is complicated and difficult, and it is a matter of definitions. The solution is to ask the experts. There has been consultation on the Bill, but there has been no impact study of this aspect. There needs to be a simple invitation to the experts in the field—the Rating Surveyors’ Association, the RICS and one or two others—whose profession is focused on these subjects, to come up with proposals, ideas and suggestions that can then be refined and considered as a satisfactory solution to funding the discount that the small RHL players will enjoy. Amendment 45 addresses that funding problem. It should not be the highest ratepayers; they suffer enough. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Thurlow for introducing this point. I support the general thrust of what he said, although I do not see any great likelihood that this will move the government position at all.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, at this point in our first day in Committee, I ought to remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor—we are reliant on business rates for what we do—and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also remind the Committee, given the further amendment that I have, that I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield’s council.
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for speaking to this group of amendments. The thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to remove the higher multiplier. Without really understanding the combination of potential higher multipliers and the loss of what we could call the Covid business relief, because we do not have an impact assessment from the Government, it is difficult to understand the financial impact on businesses of both those changes. I will urge the Minister at every opportunity to provide for the Committee the financial impact on businesses; otherwise, we are debating in the dark a bit because we do not know exactly what the totality of the impact will be on different sectors of the business community.
One of the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, concerned the lack of targeting of specific businesses in the whole range of proposals in this Bill. It is really difficult to see how the current valuation assessments will result in a fair share of property taxation. I say “fair share” because, in his response to the first group of amendments, the Minister talked about the purpose of this Bill—I quote him—as being to create a fairer system. As we will come to understand in our debates on later groups, this Bill fails to do that because it fails to target businesses except on the basis of valuation. The purpose is ostensibly—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who called it the “Amazon tax”—to try to extract a fairer share of property taxation from distribution warehouses.
At this point, I shall quote what I have, I think, quoted before. The Valuation Office Agency has a figure for an Amazon warehouse near where I live in Yorkshire of £25 per square metre, whereas, in my own small town, a local shop is valued at £250 per square metre. That is at the heart of the problem, which this Bill does not address; it is fundamental. What is absolutely essential to getting a fairer system is a total rethink about property taxation.
Things have changed enormously since the non-domestic business rates regime was introduced. There are now significant out-of-town developments in warehouse distribution which did not exist 20 years ago, and large out-of-town retail parks, which did not exist 25 or 30 years ago. However, they do now, and they are benefiting from the way property is valued by the criteria set by the Valuation Office Agency, and they are benefiting at the expense of high streets. If the Government are certain in their aim to provide a fairer system for our high streets, then absolutely essential is this fundamental change to the way properties are valued, so that taxation can be fairly shared between out-of-town distribution centres, which currently benefit from very low rental values, as opposed to city and town centres, where rental values are high and landlords want to keep them high, because that is important for their income.
We will achieve nothing in this Bill unless that basis of the system is addressed. I agree with the thrust of what is being said, though I do not see how you can let people off a high multiplier if you introduce a lower one without losing that taxation take. I also agree with the final point that both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made, which is that this arbitrary £500,000 figure as a cut-off between the lower and higher rates will lead to appeals. If I ran a business which had a rateable value of £510,000, I know what I would do: I would do my best to make it come up for £499,000.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response, but I hope it will be thoughtful.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, if I may, I will intervene a second time, first with an apology because I should have properly declared my interests as a chartered surveyor and a member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association and of the Institute of Revenues, Rating & Valuation.
That apart, I will follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has said. First, we are of course dealing with either the rental or the imputed rental value of properties. I get that point that this is reflecting much lower figures per square foot for some giant distribution centre somewhere upcountry, as opposed to a high-value shop in a sought-after city centre location. However, if that is not the right basis, then we cannot go on slavishly following that. We then have to start thinking about how we split the basis, so that the rental value forms one part of the thing only and something else happens to top the thing up. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to do that, and it cannot be beyond the wit of the Labour Party in opposition to have thought of something when it said in its manifesto commitment that it would replace business rates and
“level the playing field between the high street and online giants”—
and I think I have that verbatim.
More recently, the description of the Bill has been a “rebalancing”. The other way you deal with the whole question of imbalances is to look at the scope of the tax base. The Government have looked at the scope of the tax base; they have decided to take certain private schools out of the exemption and that has increased the tax base. However, that tax base is not retained at all in the business rates pool on a fiscal-neutrality wicket; no, it will be split between government and local authorities for other purposes altogether, so there is a net attrition from the system by that means. What could have been an improvement of the tax base resulting in a reduction across the board will not be there. We have to look carefully at what Governments and the Treasury think they are using business rates for. If they are to go on, bluntly, flogging this poor donkey to death, then things might well start unravelling quite quickly within the timeframe of a valuation list.
Lord Fox (LD)
The noble Earl alluded to a balloon being squeezed; we should remind ourselves that this is an expanding balloon. The costs faced by local authorities, of which a huge proportion—well over 50% and approaching 80% in some areas—is adult social care, are a rapidly expanding balloon that we are seeking to get our hands around and fill. This has enormous ramifications for not just high streets but the other services that local authorities are required and able to deliver on the budgets they get from rates and central government.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. I understand that he may be concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding the higher multipliers. We share this concern. We need to hear more detail from the Government. They are wrong to seek legislative powers to implement the higher multipliers without giving Parliament—and, more importantly, businesses—any clarity on what they are likely to be. We do not have an estimate of the revenue from the new multipliers. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation.
In principle, we are open to and understand the big concerns surrounding online giants, but more details are needed on this Bill, which we do not believe meets the policy aims. The principle of higher multipliers for certain ratepayers is a sensible idea when done well, so I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendments 2 and 4. This Bill does not do it well with its arbitrary £500,000 threshold, but the principle of a higher multiplier for businesses that tend to pay less of other taxes can benefit small independent shops.
I cannot support the noble Lord’s Amendment 45—although I understand the sentiment—because, in the way the Bill is structured, high street businesses will be supporting other high street businesses through the higher multiplier. This is not sufficient reform. If we are to engage with the Bill on its own terms and seek to make it effective, the threshold will need changing the most. If the online giants were to pay a larger proportion of tax to enable a tax reduction for high street businesses, I would be inclined to support the Bill.
Before I finish, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, because, when you hear them talking, you will understand this sector of our economy. They understand what businesses know and think. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is right to say that there should have been a much more in-depth consultation with all types of businesses, but it is difficult to do that when you do not know the effects on those businesses then or cannot give any indication whatever of that.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because I have heard her stories of online giants in Yorkshire. I was pleased when I saw this coming, as perhaps the Government were going to deal with that issue for her. Sadly, I think they are dealing with part of it while, at the same time, putting our high streets in danger.
I am sorry that I disagree with the noble Lord that the Treasury should fund this reduction, but these are important points that the Government should consider carefully and answer fully. I hope the Minister will respond with much more clarity than so far.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 2, 4 and 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which concern provisions relating to the new higher multiplier and the funding of the new lower multipliers.
At the Autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor set out a Budget to fix the foundations—a Budget that took the difficult but necessary decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair public finances, to increase investment in public services and the economy, to rebuild Britain and to unlock long-term growth. Part of that agenda included transformation of the non-domestic rating or business rates system, including delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support the high street.
Support for the high street is an area on which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and others in this House have spoken passionately in prior debates on business rates legislation. I appreciate the depth of knowledge and experience that both he and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, bring to these debates.
The Government have made clear that supporting the high streets is a priority. They are a focal point of economic activity and a point of local pride, and they can often reflect the unique character of a community. Yet, as they are property-intensive sectors, the Government are aware that they shoulder a significant business rates burden. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, a one-year relief has been repeatedly rolled over for retail, hospitality and leisure properties as a temporary stopgap. However, this has meant uncertainty for businesses about their business rates bills from one year to the next, and it has created a significant fiscal pressure for the Government.
The Bill will enable the Government to provide a permanent tax cut for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in doing so, better ensure the ongoing vibrancy of high streets up and down the country. However, against the challenging fiscal position that the Government inherited, we have been clear that we must take difficult choices to ensure that this support is delivered in a sustainable way. I repeat: the system should work in a sustainable way.
Specifically, this is why, at the Autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced our intention to introduce a higher tax rate on the most valuable properties. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, go to the heart of this element of the Bill. They serve to prevent the Government funding the support that the noble Lord would agree is critical for the high street from within the business rates system.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Several times already we have queried the decision to make the dividing line £500,000. It would be good to know why that number was chosen. Why not £600,000 or £400,000?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will come to the noble Baroness’s points when I come back to the valuations, rest assured.
The Government have been clear that they intend to fund new lower multipliers by raising revenue within the business rates system. The lower multipliers are a necessary tax cut, but a tax cut that must be funded. By limiting it to properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above, the Government are asking those with the most valuable 1% of properties to pay more to support the viability of high streets. Moreover, by including all sectors within this group, they are doing so equitably and will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants—a cohort that I know the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has previously raised in relation to imbalances in the business rates system. We are trying to make sure that we have prudent financial management of the economy and a system that is sustainable.
I come back to some particular points. First, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke in relation to the potential rise of £39 billion, as indicated by the OBR’s Budget report. The OBR forecast assumes that business rates income will vary in line with forecast CPI inflation, estimated growth in the tax base and the change to business rates relief. The main business rates forecast is gross rates yield, net reliefs, net collection costs and other reductions to contributions. The forecast is higher for future years as it assumes that retail, hospitality and leisure relief is removed. The business rates forecast considers measures only after they have been announced at fiscal events. As in normal practice, forecasts beyond 2025-26 are based on a number of assumptions, as the Government have not yet set out their policy beyond that year. This will take place at the Budget later this year: the main business rates forecast will then be updated to reflect it.
As I have highlighted today, the Bill includes constraints that I hope will reassure Members of this Committee. In addition to limiting it to the most valuable properties, the Government cannot set the higher multiplier more than 10 pence above the standard multiplier. The Government have also been clear that this is not the intended rate. It is there to provide flexibility to adapt to outcomes in 2026 following the next revaluation, while acting as a guardrail against concern about excessive increases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will also be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.
Lord Fox (LD)
Coming back immediately on that point, what criteria will the Government be using for that revaluation? In other words, what are they seeking to confirm or otherwise from it? Can the Minister recognise that the point made by my noble friend, which I am sure will be made otherwise, is that when you multiply two numbers together, if one side of the equation is substantially smaller, the sum becomes low? If the valuations are 100 times less out of town, versus those in town, you can mess around with the other number as much as you like, but it will still be a tiny number out of town relative to town centres. Does he recognise that valuations are crucial to this and that, while this is all well and good, until valuations are sorted out, we really are fiddling around?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, on that specific point about criteria, I want to be clear that we have had a one-year ad hoc system and we are trying to build a sustainable system, which will have a three-year rating on non-domestic properties. We want to see how we will get there when we see what the situation is in the fiscal climate; that will be a big part of addressing how the Treasury will set the multipliers. The Bill is not about setting multipliers. It is up to the Treasury to set those. I will come back to the impact in a moment.
In relation to the different level of multipliers, of course it is a complex system. However, the highlight of what we are trying to do is to have a sustainable system that funds itself and, by asking less than 1% of properties to shoulder a bit more, ensures that we support the high street and properties of low valuation. We are trying to have an equitable system that is sustainable and can pay for itself. We recognise that there are different scenarios and situations but, ultimately, we want to ensure that the system is much fairer than it is now and creates more certainty.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this group. The most important takeaway is that it would be too little, too late to postpone until 2027. The acute pain felt in the high street is great enough for there to be substantial loss of retail presence if we do not move more swiftly. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that the lack of impact assessments on the specific, granular issue of definitions is of very serious concern. It needs only another 12-month delay for consultations with experts to take place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, revealed with clarity—the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to it as well—that there is a harsh difference between an Amazon warehouse with a rental value, on which rateable values are based, of £4.50 per square foot, versus £45 on the high street. That is a massive difference. Amazon are paying 10%. We are tinkering with the deckchairs if the rate poundage is increased for these larger retailers because it cannot be increased—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out—to anything near what will be required to provide balance.
The difficulty is one of definitions. I would be grateful if we could speak to the Bill team before the next stage of the Bill. There is scope to introduce a new use class order specifically for the purposes of rating—not for planning, but rating. This would identify the difference between a fulfilment centre for a high street business and an Amazon generic. If that was offered, I would withdraw my amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) must provide discretion for billing authorities with regard to the application of the higher multiplier.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce an element of discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Amendment 3 leads a substantive group. I suggest that the Opposition might want to move it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I deputise? Before I do, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. In moving Amendment 3, I shall speak to Amendments 18, 37 and 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, and in favour of Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
Amendment 3 seeks to introduce discretion for billing authorities in the application of the higher multiplier. The other amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott—Amendments 18, 37 and 43—question whether the Treasury is the right authority to define these hereditaments. The purpose of these amendments is to seek the Government’s reaction to the proposal that local authorities should have a role in deciding which businesses pay the newer, higher multiplier. Local authorities are in a unique position to comprehensively understand the challenges and circumstances faced by their local businesses, which a centralised body certainly is not.
For all its strengths, we know that His Majesty’s Treasury does not have the local knowledge and in-depth understanding of the needs of individual high streets to make informed decisions on business rates that work in the best interests of the local areas. Local authorities are on the ground and are intimately familiar with the economic, social and cultural landscape of their high streets and areas. From my own experience in Central Bedfordshire, I know the positive impact that a well-run local authority can deliver for its high streets. We are interested to hear how the Government seek to empower councils in these areas. We have heard a great deal from the party opposite about the value of devolution; this is a good example of where the Government should put these sentiments into action. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott look to empower local authorities to tailor policy to best suit their local area’s specific needs.
Fundamentally, policy is about not only implementing rules but creating a framework that works in practice. Therefore, it is essential, even if the Government are unable to accept the amendments in this group, that local authorities are consulted properly before the Bill is passed. Can the Minister set out the consultation process undertaken to date and confirm for the Committee the further steps that his department will take to consult local authority leaders on these changes? Can he also update the Committee on how this change to our business rates system will interact with the Government’s wider plans to reorganise local authorities? We know that the environments in which businesses operate vary dramatically throughout the UK. However, this issue is neglected in the drafting of this legislation.
It is concerning that the broad applications of the definitions of hereditaments, which will be determined by the Treasury, will not address these regional disparities and enable a focus on what works locally. When created by the Treasury, definitions are designed with an overarching and national perspective and may risk creating unintended consequences for local businesses. They do not account for the nuances of local businesses, which are well understood by local authorities, so we must be cautious about adopting a one-size-fits-all approach when introducing legislation that will undoubtedly have significant implications for local businesses. The Government risk implementing blanket definitions that are disconnected from the realities faced locally.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which seeks to remove the power of the Treasury to define a retail, hospitality and leisure property; this addresses the fact that it is local authorities who decide what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property, in line with the government guidance. In tabling this amendment, the noble Lord appears to have many of the same concerns as those expressed in my noble friend Lady Scott’s amendments. I look forward to hearing his speech. We did not discuss this matter before Committee so I was pleased to see on the Marshalled List that I have a friend on this issue on the Cross Benches; I thank and offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and hope that we can work together constructively after Committee.
To conclude, I hope that all noble Lords will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group of amendments. I look to the Minister to engage proactively with the issues addressed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has taken the words out of my mouth. I support much of what he has said.
The starting place for my comments on this group is that the Bill seems to reverse the attempts to regionalise power from the centre; it would take the ability to define these hereditaments back to central government. As the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said clearly, the definition of RHL properties needs local expertise. There are regional disparities, to which he referred; it is terribly important to understand that. Regional disparities are huge. This measure is a generic product, but it is subject to huge regional variations. One size does not fit all hereditaments. That is an important starting place. It is no accident that the government guidelines allow local authorities to define RHL in accordance with the existing government guidance. That is very sensible. They are the people on the ground. They understand the give and take, as well as the commercial flows, involved.
A large supermarket on a high street may be the only anchor present in that town, being vital to the health of the high street, probably with a car park or a bus stop, and the only source of sufficient turnover of pedestrians to justify its presence in the high street at all. It has to be understood that, if these anchors pack up and leave, high streets really do suffer. There is a terrible price to pay for letting them go and anything that imperils their presence has to be terribly carefully decided, which is why it is a local issue, not a central government one. I strongly urge the Government to allow local authorities to continue to make these decisions.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, it may save time later if I rise to make a comment in the context of these amendments. I can quite see that there is an objection in principle to some of what is being put forward here, because of the Treasury need to predict the yield, if it is going to be able to explain to the Chancellor what announcement has got to be made in the Autumn Budget with regard to the multipliers.
That said, this raises the question of the complication that has arisen from the fact that, by virtue of the Bill, the discretion to define RHL properties, which has rested hitherto with billing authorities, will be taken away under the Bill and, as we have heard, the definition will be set centrally. How will central government make the relevant decisions in applying this as between a small seaside town at one end and a bustling urban metropolis at the other? Will it be by reference to the road name—high street or non-high street, depending on whether you want to dance on that glass pinhead—its predominant use or position vis-à-vis the town itself, never mind the range of uses as between different geographical locations?
I am entirely unsure what the outcome of this shift will be, but I am pretty certain that it will be pretty crude and, to local eyes, fairly insensitive of locational differences. That is because it will have to make one rule that applies across everything, from Bognor to West Bromwich—that is what is going to happen. There is a great deal to be said for some sort of discretion being in the hands of local government, which understands the pitch. That said, I do not know how easy it would be to achieve that, because valuation list analysis does not give you that information; it gives you an address, a postcode, a use category and a rateable value, but it does not go further than that, so there is actually quite a lot of qualitative information that we need before we can actually deal with that.
There are other aspects to this whole question of local government billing authority choice, which I will go into when I get to the group starting with Amendment 5, but I thought it was worth making that comment at this particular juncture.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson—also known as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—and Lord Thurlow, for the amendments in this group. I have always in principle supported more powers and influence for local authorities. What I have always said should go without saying, but I repeat it.
However, I am nervous about the amendments from the noble Baroness, which seek to enable local authorities to have discretion over whether the higher multiplier should impact on businesses in their area. This is because, if you look at the Valuation Office Agency’s billing lists, you find that the vast majority—I have not worked out the percentage—of businesses in the £500,000-plus bracket are based in the south-east and London. Therefore, the income from the application of the higher multiplier in those areas is essential for the totality of the business rate take, which is then distributed to fund local authorities across the country. Areas of the country where valuations are much lower absolutely depend on the business rates raised from the south-east and London, and that has been the situation for ever.
If I were a London or south-east authority, I would see anything to encourage businesses as an opportunity and I would use that discretion, but it would be at the expense of councils in the north. Those such as mine in Yorkshire and the Minister’s over the Pennines—I dare not say the county—would suffer as a consequence, because the totality of the business rate take would reduce and the distribution of funding, which is vital for local services, would be less. If the noble Baroness comes up with an amendment which counters that, I could support it, because I support more power and discretion to local authorities. However, as we have a national system, we cannot have little local changes to the benefit of places that currently are fairly well funded or have better income already.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, on defining retail, hospitality and leisure properties, there are later groups which try to get at the detail of this, but it seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong or right—that this whole business is associated with the removal of the Covid rate reliefs. Currently I think they are at 75%, to be reduced to 40% and then to zero. It will be quite a big hit to RHL properties to find themselves suddenly facing the totality of their business rate bill.
It seems to me that the essence of the Bill is removing that with one hand in order to provide some relief with the other hand; that is what we have got here. I think that is why the Government are in difficulty in helping us as a Committee to understand the purpose of this. It seems to me that it is that rather than trying to extract more from distribution warehouses et cetera, which we see from the lists provided are not many—of the, I think, 16,000 properties in the £500,000-plus bracket, only about 1,400 or 1,500 are large distribution warehouses. So, my plea is again: let us have an understanding of what this is about. If we had an impact assessment, we would be better able to understand it. I will keep repeating it, so perhaps before we get to Report the Minister will have extracted and published an impact assessment so we can make the judgments that we need to make.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 3,18, 32 and 37, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, are concerned with the role of local authorities in determining the application of the higher and lower multipliers. Amendment 3 seeks to provide local authorities with discretion over the application of the higher multiplier, and Amendments 18, 32, 37 and 43 are concerned with who sets the definition of a qualifying RHL hereditament.
Currently, the Bill includes a power for qualifying RHL hereditaments to be defined in regulations by the Treasury, as I have said. Our intention is for the definition broadly to follow that currently used in the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme. The criteria for the current relief scheme are contained in guidance from this department and are implemented by local authorities. Ultimately, under the current relief scheme, local authorities have the final say over and discretion about who should be awarded the relief. I understand that that is the type of arrangement that the amendments are seeking to reinstate from April 2026 for the lower RHL multipliers.
I should, for completeness, explain to the Committee that Amendment 43 replaces the Treasury’s power to define RHL on the central rating list with the relevant local authority. In fact, the central rating list is operated by the Secretary of State for my department and does not require any local authority involvement. Instead, Amendment 43 would create an unworkable section of the Bill. This would be due to the fact that central list hereditaments cross multiple local authority areas, which would create a lack of clarity around the responsibility. In addition, this amendment would inappropriately insert local authorities into the central list process. I do not think that this is the intention of the noble Baroness. I think it is important to clarify there are currently no eligible properties to be prescribed for the lower multiplier on the central list, and nor would we expect there to be in future.
Moreover, I understand from the helpful explanation provided that Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is, in a similar way to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, seeking to confer on local authorities the power to determine what is a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament. However, as drafted, it does not do that. As drafted, Amendment 32 would completely remove the power to define a qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditament in respect of unoccupied properties from the Bill. In essence, it would mean qualifying RHL for unoccupied properties would remain undefined, as the power would not automatically be granted to local authorities.
However, I understand that these amendments are intended to probe the matter of local decision-making, and that is how I have sought to discuss them here today. As noble Lords would expect from me, I fully support efforts to give local authorities more power and discretion in their areas. The Bill does not disturb the already considerable powers that local authorities have to award relief to ratepayers as set out in Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
However, we have to balance this against the needs of businesses. What we hear from businesses is that they really value certainty. They tell us that the current RHL relief scheme, operated through local discretion, does not give them that certainty. We hear that they do not favour a system where a national relief scheme, such as RHL relief, can be delivered differently by different local authorities. It leaves businesses, especially those with multiple stores, unsure as to where and when they will be awarded relief.
The new lower RHL multipliers will therefore operate through a single set of regulations for all of England, made by the Treasury. Those regulations will still be implemented by local authorities, using their local knowledge, but the definition will be set by the Treasury. This is something that businesses in general would support. We will work with local government over the coming year to prepare these regulations. That goes to the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in relation to our relationships and work with local government; we are doing that already.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Does the Minister have any comments to make on the possibility of redefining the use classes for the purposes of rating, which would focus on the Amazon generic problem?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I forgot to mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow; it would be helpful for him to sit down with me to discuss that, as well as his previous request, as soon as he has time in his diary. This is a discussion that we should have to engage on that particular point.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to our debate on this group of amendments, which deals with the role of billing authorities and the definition of hereditaments.
During the debate, I listened closely to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, whom I thank for his support in raising yet again the impact on anchor stores on the high street, which is quite fundamental. I fully support the sentiment of Amendment 32 in his name. It seems plainly obvious that we are closely aligned; I hope that we can work collaboratively before and during Report and that the Minister will both listen to this argument carefully and see what can be done to improve the Bill’s provisions on the definition of hereditaments.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his support for discretion. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was concerned that it may mean somewhat less funding for councils in the north of England. That is absolutely not the intention; I would be delighted to look at this matter further and have a conversation outside this Room.
The Minister made a couple of points about certainty. All businesses like certainty but they also want equity. Our concern is about equity and what is reasonable and fair. I was slightly puzzled by what the Minister said—I would be grateful if we could have a conversation on it later—about this idea of “centrally set but locally implemented”. That does not feel like local discretion; it feels like local implementation. I would be keen if he could speak more on that point.
Finally, local authorities have the ability for some local discretion. However, my understanding is that that would be funded locally, which is not particularly desirable.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is saying “Let’s have some conversations to follow this up”. As I have said to all here, I am happy to sit down with any noble Lord or noble Baroness to discuss any point, in particular post Committee, before we get to Report. I would absolutely welcome a conversation with the noble Lord.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister.
We must steer away from blanket definitions issued centrally by the Treasury, which does not have the thorough oversight of local businesses in all parts of the UK. Local authorities have a particular understanding of the business landscape in their areas, so while the definition of hereditaments introduced by the Treasury may work in some places, it will not work everywhere or be appropriate to others. This can be avoided if local authorities are issued with a power to determine a hereditament or other type of property.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, rightly pointed out in his Amendment 32, local authorities already determine what constitutes a retail, hospitality and leisure relief property. We must therefore ask why the drafting of this legislation provides complete power to the Treasury to define a retail property or a hereditament. Would it not be more suitable for local authorities to define property types? I would argue that, with their first-hand local knowledge, local authorities are best placed to define terms in a way that reflects the realities and suits the needs of their local areas.
Unsurprisingly, many questions have been raised in the debate on this group of amendments, so I look forward to the Minister—I thank him for his willingness to engage with us—providing more clarity on the matters discussed. I hope we will engage positively on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton
Member's explanatory statement
This would have the effect of leaving large RHL properties paying the standard multiplier rather than the supplement in line with previous policy intentions.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I will also speak to Amendments 13, 19, 22, 30 and 38 in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for putting her name to Amendments 5 and 22.
The RHL sector was particularly badly hit as a result of Covid and it has been used, quite reasonably, as a proxy for the challenges facing urban core economies and town-centre trading. The previous Government introduced reliefs in the form of financial support to ameliorate rate bills for this sector, but that has been progressively reduced. I think I have it correct that the figure currently stands at 40% until April this year, reducing to 25% thereafter until April 2026. But at that point there is a cliff-edge readjustment to zero, as I understand it.
If I am correct in thinking that Governments past and present still believe that RHL properties should be accorded some relief going forward, because of their function, inter alia, in town-centre and urban core activity economies, it seems odd that hereditaments with a rateable value of £500,000 and over that are none the less in that RHL category and are still challenged by the longer-term changes in spending patterns should not be capable of maintaining, at least for the time being, some element of relief—or at any rate, not being at risk of a surcharge.
We clearly have an issue here with defining RHL. That is going to be a problem, because at the moment it is in the hands of the local authority. I have already referred to the difficulties of dealing with that when you take it all on board and try to decide it centrally. We also have the question of what constitutes a high street—we have touched on that before—and, finally, defining where the surcharges and reduced multipliers should actually apply.
The problem is that predictability for HM Treasury does not equate to certainty for ratepayers. We keep being told that ratepayers want greater certainty, but I do not see it in what this Bill is trying to produce, or in much else that has gone before in business rates legislation.
This amendment, as your Lordships will appreciate, is an attempt to probe what the Government really intend. The intention would have been made a lot easier, as we have heard, if there had been some sort of impact assessment. The Government seem to be unwilling to do any modelling until the draft 2026 valuation list is published later this year. Frankly, I cannot see that this would prevent having some sort of economic impact analysis of discrete subsets by property type and location, even if the actual values remained unknown. However, the point has already been made, and I will look carefully at what the Minister said in answer to it when this was raised earlier. We are getting to the point of having too many moving parts to give us any clear idea of where this is going, including the ability of policymakers in trying to identify outcomes and trends.
Amendment 5 seeks to remove the risk of surcharge from larger RHL properties. It is as simple as that; what it says on the tin is what it tries to do. This would try to deal with issues of larger shops, restaurants, leisure centres, cinemas, museums, hotels and all sorts of things that operate in a town centre which actually give the thing life and purpose and bring people into that economy. That is the sort of thing that this amendment would try to deal with.
Amendment 13 would provide flexibility in the powers under the Bill to apply the lower multipliers to a wider range of property types. That is not giving local government or billing authorities additional powers. It is saying: let us have those powers in this Bill so that the Treasury can bring them in as and when it sees necessary, without coming back to the whole business of having further legislation. This is made necessary because the range of activities represented by the RHL sector, as I have said previously, may differ between locations and for those reasons that I mentioned. Going forward, it may well require some radical rethinking about what actually underpins the type of use. It might not be RHL but RHL-plus, or something else. It might be minus L, or whatever term we want. We need to be careful that we can understand what underpins local economies.
The explanatory statement with Amendment 13 refers to equalising treatment between losers and gainers in terms of the supplemental or “reduced multipliers”. The Bill provides for the possibility of several supplements but only two reduced multipliers, and more flexibility should be brought in there. As I say, I am suggesting something that would give the Government more powers, rather than fewer, but enables them to fine-tune the outcomes. Amendments 19, 30 and 38 are allied to this last amendment. I will not go into detail, but they are consequential and apply the same principles.
Amendment 22 makes a specific allied provision for unoccupied RHL properties, which, as we know, are otherwise subject themselves to empty rates, even though because of the circumstances relating to the local economy they may not be—in all normal senses of the words—beneficially occupiable, because market demand has collapsed. This is a serious problem for getting town centres back up and running. I appreciate that is an argument if the Treasury wants to control the RHL definition for the purposes of accurately calculating multipliers for future years, but I believe that argument holds good only so long as rating and billing authorities are not required to make an up-front return to the Valuation Office Agency of those properties in their area considered to be in scope.
That may be seen as a fairly imperfect thing but, with all the churn of hereditaments being added, taken away, altered or going temporarily out of rate because they are undergoing major works, or whatever, this is never going to be a precise science anyway. It will always be a little hit and miss. I am quite certain the Treasury has a contingency in the workings to deal with that, so I do not see that there can be any real objection to it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 7 and 24 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 14, 31 and 41 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. I have also added my name in support of Amendments 5 and 22 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to which he has just spoken. This is an important group of amendments because it seeks to expose the problem that the Government have in applying a higher multiplier to some businesses without targeting them, as we heard on an earlier group this afternoon.
Searching through the Valuation Office Agency’s information reveals, for instance, that about 60 civic centres or town halls, and 80 police headquarters or very large city centre police stations, are included in this higher rate. If the top end of the higher multiplier is applied to these properties, that will add 20% to the business rates bills of those local authorities or police authorities, at a time when both have severe problems with their finances and are struggling to make ends meet.
It is not just police headquarters, police stations and town halls: 80 courts, from the Supreme Court at one end to large magistrates’ courts at the other, are included in the rateable values assessed as being above £500,000—this is in the information that the Minister shared with us at the weekend—as, indeed, are 80 prisons. I am not quite sure why the Government are including town halls, civic centres, police HQs, courts, prisons and 630 schools in the higher multiplier. Why would any Government want to impose 20% higher costs, potentially, for business rates on those publicly funded essential institutions? I am sure the Minister will have a reply; whether it is one I will accept is a different matter. It gets worse: 300 further education colleges are included in this.
We just had a skills Bill passed through this House, which purported to increase the advantages of a skills agenda for young people. Most of us know that FE colleges have been consistently undervalued and underfinanced over the last 10 to 14 years—or even more. Adding this to the list of their problems will not help the skills agenda, nor will 360 state schools. Why on earth would you include state schools in this catch-all of the higher multiplier? Within the budgets and funding for state schools there is an element to cover their non-domestic rates costs. Whether that will be increased for those who are caught up in this higher valuation remains to be seen. I am just quoting from the information that the noble Lord shared.
On top of that, 310 universities are caught up. As I declared earlier, I am a vice-chair of the University of Huddersfield. I know how hard the changes that the previous Government made have hit university funding. Across the country, universities are having to close departments—often those that are vital for the future growth agenda that the Government are following. I need to hear from the Minister how the Government will address this non-targeted way of having the higher multiplier. Will all those state-funded institutions that I listed—local government, police, prisons, courts, schools and FE colleges—be compensated for the potential higher rate multiplier and therefore the 20% increase in their business rates? Universities function as businesses now and have very little income that comes directly from government, but they are facing very challenging financial futures, which is absolutely contrary to what the Government want to achieve from their emphasis on R&D. That cannot happen if universities struggle to make ends meet.
The challenge the Government have is to ensure that the changes result in the same income from NDR as previously. Between 30% and 40% of local government funding now comes from business rate income. As well as my earlier questions, can the Minister assure this Committee that local government will have the same total funding pot from business rates as it does now and—because of the way the system works—that no local authority will suffer a loss in income from business rates as a result of these changes? I will not go into the way it works for local government. The Minister will understand that assuring the total funding pot of business rates does not necessarily mean that each local authority will continue to have the same level of funding.
The question is whether the Minister can assure us that schools, colleges and so on—all those publicly funded institutions that may have to pay considerably higher costs in business rates—will have compensatory funding from the Treasury to meet those additional costs. Otherwise, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I am going to leave my noble friend to talk about the importance of music venues. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, knows that I support both the amendments he has tabled, to which I have added my name, and I do not wish to add anything further to what he said. I am looking forward to the Minister’s answers to my questions .
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 12, 15, 29 and 33 and, in doing so, I apologise to the Committee that I omitted to declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I keep forgetting it. My amendments seek to exempt manufacturing businesses from the higher multiplier.
The manufacturing industry is exceptionally important to the British economy, and to place an additional financial burden on this sector is unsatisfactory. In 2023, the total value of UK manufacturers’ product sales was £456 billion, which demonstrates the value of the sector to the UK economy. The sector accounts for 8.1% of UK employment and, in July to September 2024, accounted for 8.8% of the total UK economic output. Ministers never tire of telling us that growth is this Government’s number one mission, so can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will not have a negative impact on the growth of our UK manufacturing sector?
Recently, the global political situation demonstrated the importance of being self-reliant with the rise in energy prices we have seen in the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. My amendments seek to protect this vital sector, which has an important role to play in growing the UK economy, by allowing manufacturing hereditaments to qualify for the lower multiplier. This Bill, despite promising business rates reform, will put an arbitrary threshold in place and many businesses will be adversely affected. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this group. Given that the manufacturing sector is likely to be included in this bracket, I would be grateful if the Minister would take this opportunity to outline exactly what impact his department expects the changes to business rates will have on the UK manufacturing sector.
This sector is already facing higher costs due to the increase in the cost of labour, and the Government are hitting it with a triple whammy of increasing costs with the increase in the minimum wage, which of course we support, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is a damaging jobs tax. The House will have the opportunity to debate the national insurance measures tomorrow, and we will be speaking up for the number of sectors that will be devastated by this government policy. But why would these businesses invest to increase the value of their business and risk it going over £500,000? Labour-intensive sectors are already paying the cost of a Labour Government, and if businesses are forced to pay the higher multiplier suggested in this Bill that will only worsen their predicament.
Amendments 5 and 22, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seek to exempt retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from the higher multiplier. They are sensible amendments, and several of my amendments touch on very similar issues. I have referred in my amendments to specific types of stores on our high street, which are yet to be debated, but the sentiment of the noble Earl’s amendments is certainly one that I support.
Amendments 14, 31 and 41 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I do not see in her seat.
Lord Fox (LD)
They are not from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They are in my name.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Once again today, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Fox (LD)
For the Committee’s information, there is a misprint. It should have read “grassroots music venues and larger venues”. If I had spoken before the noble Baroness, I would have explained. The Royal Albert Hall is clearly not a grass-roots venue.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That confused me, but I thank the noble Lord.
Amendments 7, 13, 19, 24, 30 and 38 all seek a similar thing: to allow the Treasury the power to exempt other hereditaments from the higher multiplier as it sees fit. While I understand the desire to introduce flexibility into a Bill that does not seem to have been fully thought through, it is important that we empower local authorities rather than afford the Treasury further powers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Fox (LD)
I will speak for myself rather than the noble Baroness. What we have seen in the various themes in this group is the malign effect of a blunt instrument. My noble friend Lady Pinnock raised the important issue of public sector buildings that fall into the trap of high value and therefore the higher multiplier. Clearly, we need to understand the overall financial effects on those organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke well about manufacturing. We tabled the same amendments in the Commons, where one of the implications of what the Government said was that manufacturing does not have to be in a town centre, on the basis that there is somehow an ability to up sticks and go without huge capital implications and lots of other things.
If we are talking about a mixed economy in town centres, things such as light engineering and printers, as well as other businesses such as accountants, design agencies and all sorts of things, add to their plurality and success. When you remove from a town centre the people who work or live there, you remove a huge proportion of the trade that the sector that the Government are seeking to boost relies on. Not everybody has to come in a car to buy a sandwich from a shop. They might work or live there. That is an important part of trade that this Bill seems to ignore.
I turn to my Amendments 14, 31 and 41. I was going to clarify at the beginning that the explanatory statement should have read that they are to probe the impact of the higher multiplier on large venues and, for other elements of the Bill, on grass-roots venues. There were two issues, and I somehow managed to conflate them into a mess.
I spoke earlier about unintended consequences. This Bill has lots of potential unintended consequences. The Music Venue Trust calculates that just the move from 75% to 40% business tax relief from April 2025 will create a demand for £70 million more in additional premises tax from the GMV sector, as I am going to call grass-roots music venues, that in 2024 returned an entire gross profit across all 810 venues of just £25 million. In other words, the sector will be asked for well over twice—nearly three times, in fact—what it made in profit last year. Some 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2024 and, in 2025, they continue to operate an overall profit margin of just 0.5%. This is a very marginal activity. I believe that, given the tone of the Budget and the commitment to consider the culture area of our economy in the spending review, this must have been an unintended consequence or an omission of protection, rather than an intended tax rise. I look to the Minister to confirm this.
As an aside, GMVs have specific space issues in their business characteristics that are not recognised properly in the general rateable value process. That is a separate issue with which a review would, I hope, deal.
I return to the consequences of this Bill. There are two areas. The first is an option for the Government to create multipliers that are designed specifically to encourage activity we wish to see. This goes back to the flexibility point that other noble Lords mentioned. For example, specific multipliers for cultural spaces would go a long way to support creative growth and the regeneration of our high streets, both of which are key elements in the Government’s wider agency, but there is an immediate, separate issue facing cultural spaces that operate in properties over the rateable value threshold of £500,000.
Just like schools and universities, there are big venues around the country, such as the Royal Albert Hall, the Underworld, the Roundhouse and the Royal Festival Hall—there are others, I am sure, but not a huge number—that fall above the £500,000 threshold. For those businesses, there needs to be some differentiation according to their activity. I come back to what my noble friend said about universities. Why are we including them in this measure? Why are we including police stations? Also, why are we including large-scale cultural icons? The idea of flexibility will help with other issues, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend will talk in our debate on a future group of amendments. Without that flexibility, what we have is a blunt instrument, as I have said before.
I come back to music venues: we believe that these venues will be penalised unless something is done. Can the Minister respond to either this debate or some consultation with experts so that we can make sure that that does not happen? Grass-roots music venues are the R&D of our music industry. They are where almost every band starts. Bands start in their bedrooms, they then move to the streets, and then get to a grass-roots music venue. They may end up in the Royal Albert Hall, on television or whatever, but GMVs are where our music industry comes from. That ecosystem also supports wider nightlife and hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs, food businesses, takeaways, taxis and nightclubs, all of which have physical premises in the community.
There are two issues here. One is the removal or reduction of relief for grass-roots music venues across the country, which will, on average, put them out of profit and into loss. The second is the application of the higher multiple on particularly large venues around this country. I do not think that the Government intended to deliver either of these outcomes for our music industry, but they must intend to improve and change the system in order for these catastrophic issues not to happen. So I hope that the Minister, either now or with consultation, can come back with two different solutions for these two sides of a very important industry.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I speak in support of this group of amendments. I declare my interest that I do not have the expertise that I have listened to this afternoon, so I will just do my little bit. I thank the Minister for his reply to the questions I sent him on the multiple retail shops that will be affected by this increase due to the larger rate for valued properties.
I support Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. There will be 3,260 retail shops affected by these changes, many of which are supermarkets. If the Government increase the multiplier by 0.1%, this would increase costs by about £3.7 million per year on these properties. This would be passed directly on to customers who shop in these shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets, and would also damage the large anchor stores in shopping centres, which are under pressure already from the online warehouses which this Bill tries to target. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has already detailed the value of these large retail stores to the high street and shopping centres much more expertly than I. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider these amendments urgently, because they will add costs to these businesses.
The Minister also made clear why no detailed impact assessment or calculations have been done. This is due to these rates being set in the Budget, and the revaluation, which will be a disappointment to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The cost to large businesses is unknown. The Bill could damage these larger businesses just to support smaller ones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, stated, we just do not know what the final financial impacts of this will be. I spoke to a leisure business this weekend. It has no idea what its rates will be in 2025-26 and therefore finds it very difficult to budget for what it will have to charge and how it will manage its subscriptions in the coming year.
Regarding Amendment 13, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, the Bill tries to protect the high street. The high street is not only retail, hospitality and leisure, so I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to try to ensure some flexibility in the future for these types of businesses to be added in. High street businesses will change in the coming year as high streets need to prosper, with new types of business. These could include veterinary surgeons—a business that I have an interest in—who want to come to the high street and need to be encouraged with possible lower rates.
I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who spoke with passion about government and local authorities, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who spoke in support of the manufacturing industries and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who spoke in support of music venues—all of which need more clarity and information in this Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group and the three groups that follow seek to change the Bill in two broad respects. They seek to carve out properties from the higher multiplier and to widen those hereditaments eligible for the lower multipliers. These amendments and those that follow would have a significant impact on the scope of Clauses 1 to 4, the potential cost of the lower multipliers and the revenue flowing from the higher multiplier. They would therefore reduce the Treasury’s ability to set sustainable and worthwhile higher and lower multipliers. As such, it is important that we consider these amendments—and those in the three groups that follow—in the overall context of the wider purpose of Clauses 1 to 4.
In the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27 by introducing two permanent lower multipliers for these properties. It is important that any tax cut is sustainably funded, which is why the Government also announced their intention to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and over—from 2026-27.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I clarified that there were two issues. If the Minister looks in his data, he will find that the Royal Albert Hall is classed as being over £500,000, and I specifically asked about the Royal Albert Hall, so we require an answer to that. The point about grass-roots venues was not about the £500,000; it is about the loss of the relief, from 70% to 40% in the coming financial year, which will put them below the waterline, on average. That was a specific and different question that the Minister may want to answer separately.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I did say that I would come back to the noble Lord on his specific question.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Will the extra burdens on local authority budgets that might come be funded by the new burdens policy?
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I have just looked up the Royal Albert Hall. It has a £1.9 million rateable value.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl very much for that clarification, but if he looks at my remarks later, he will see that I said that we do not expect “many”—not any—grass-roots music venues to fall above the £500,000 threshold. As I said, although we do not hold data specifically on music venues, we know, for example, that pubs, which often play an important role in the grass-roots music scene, have an average rateable value of only £16,800.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked how the lower multipliers will affect vacant property. The Bill allows for the lower multipliers to apply to vacant RHL properties. I assure the noble Earl that we intend to apply these new multipliers to occupied properties in the same way as we do to vacant properties. That will be consistent.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched on the important point of why an impact assessment has not been prepared. Let me be absolutely clear and repeat my previous points on this: policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions and are therefore not required to be accompanied by an impact assessment. However, His Majesty’s Treasury committed to publishing an analysis of the new multipliers at the Budget.
A further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties. I repeat this for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who raised this in particular: a further set of amendments seeks to expand the set of properties eligible for the lower multipliers. This includes widening the lower multipliers to manufacturing properties and, more generally, a power to widen the lower multipliers to other sectors.
I acknowledge the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to provide greater flexibility within the Bill, should it be deemed appropriate, in future, to apply the lower multipliers to other types of property. However, the Government were clear at the Budget that the intention is for the permanently lower tax rates to apply to qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of RHL relief that has been extended year on year. This has been an ad hoc system, and year on year is not the most effective way for businesses to plan.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I heard the Minister say, on a different group, that this will apply for three years. On that basis, we cannot really expect a root-and-branch change of the system until either the end or beyond the end of this Parliament. Would that be a reasonable assessment?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. This will come into force in 2026-27; we are talking about the revaluation and review being three years after that. Again, this provides more certainty, because we do not want year-on-year unpredictability in an ad hoc system. This is a sustainable process, and it will give us a chance to see what the environment and fiscal climate will be at that time. Again, it is for the Treasury to set the multipliers.
Against the current fiscal backdrop, widening the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers would potentially reduce the level of tax cut that could then be provided to that cohort. Similarly, widening the scope may require a higher tax rate on those properties paying the higher multiplier to enable the Government to deliver a permanent tax cut.
The amendments for manufacturing could, of course, widen the lower multipliers somewhere beyond the town-centre and high-street environment. As we have heard from stakeholders, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses tend to occupy properties in higher-value locations with higher footfall, which in turn drives up the rateable value and rates bill. The Bill will rebalance this. The same cannot generally be said for manufacturing, so the case for special treatment for it here is weaker.
The Government are supporting our manufacturing sector through other means. At the Autumn Budget, we announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period and up to £520 million for a new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund.
I turn to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Live music venues are currently eligible for the existing RHL relief. The definition of RHL, in terms of the new multipliers, broadly follows the current definition, which will be set later in secondary legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry; I am just trying to process that. Are you saying that, going forward, they would continue to benefit from the lower multiples as RHL-qualified businesses?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
In terms of over £500,000, we are going to have the same policy applied to all sectors. We are not doing carve-outs, but in terms of any relief that music venues are having below that, the definition of the new multipliers will broadly follow the current definition and will be set out in secondary legislation later this year.
I think I have answered the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but I will make a few points again about the impact on the public sector. The fiscal inheritance demands tough choices in order to fix our public services to create long-term growth and investment that will support businesses, but we have sought to mitigate the worst impacts of these choices. It would not be fair on businesses if we excluded the public sector from the higher multiplier.
In relation to the points made by noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I repeat, in particular, that the Government will work to ensure that, as far as practically possible, local government income from business rates is unaffected by business rates tax rate changes. The Government are making good on the promise to reform the local government funding system. I talked about this on the previous group. We will pursue a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government in partnership with the sector and with the principle of giving councils early notice.
There has been a wide-ranging debate on this group. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope the Committee will understand, as we consider these amendments and those in the three groups that follow, that we should not seek to carve out certain properties from the higher tax rate or bring other properties into eligibility for the lower multiplier. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments for the support, some of it qualified, for the amendments that I have put forward. I do not wish to labour the point, especially as the temperature in this Room seems to continue to drop and my feet are getting extremely cold.
To pick up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—that the size of hereditament does not equate with ability to pay—some of our most marginal and most valuable operations operate right on the limit. I hear what the Minister says about the difficulties of dealing with this; I have to say that I do not share his view. We already have two lists: we have a general rating list, and we have a central rating list, and there is no reason why the Government could not split it into more than that if they chose to do so. As I said earlier, when it comes to a digitised list, one can fiddle around with it in all sorts of ways. We are talking about 16,500, or some such number, of entries with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. I would have liked to have had a pointer that the Government sort of get this and want to move more rapidly to, first, making the present system more flexible and responsive and, secondly, that we can have some pointer to where this is going in terms of reforming the whole business rates system. However, that is clearly an argument for another day.
My last point, an entirely frivolous one, is that the contents of the various groups of amendments gets smaller henceforward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Pinnock’s amendments to page 3, line 37, page 4, line 6, and page 4, line 17, would have the effect of retaining the standard multiplier for hospitals, medical and dental schools, or any other healthcare setting to be determined by regulations.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on the impact of the higher multiplier on hospitals, clinics and other larger health institutions. Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox, and the other three amendments, Amendments 20, 23 and 39, are consequential amendments. The Minister has spoken several times this afternoon about being “fair and sustainable” and also, just latterly, about “tough choices”.
I have looked down the list shared by the Minister of those properties with rateable values above £500,000. There are some notable exceptions. I could not find Buckingham Palace. Tough choices? Are Parliament and the Parliamentary Estate exempt? I could not find them in the list. Maybe the list is not complete; if that is the case, it would be good to hear from the Minister how much extra the Government expect the higher multiplier to cost the Parliamentary Estate.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving this amendment and outlining the unintended consequences of this Bill. The proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier is an issue that has sparked considerable debate in the wider community.
The amendments in this group propose two key changes: to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier; and to expand the definition of healthcare to include hospitals and medical and dental schools. These changes seek to address the concern that critical services in the healthcare sector could be disproportionately affected by the Bill’s provisions. These amendments address very real concerns that services could be disproportionately affected through this legislation, revealing further unintended consequences of this Government’s Bill.
Amendment 6 is particularly important as it seeks to remove healthcare from the higher multiplier, directly responding to concerns raised by hospitals and other healthcare providers that are already under significant financial strain. Exempting healthcare from this additional tax burden could protect vital services, ensuring that they can continue delivering essential care without being further impacted by this Bill’s provisions. The National Pharmacy Association has warned that pharmacies across the country are at risk and may be forced to cut hours because of the Government’s triple whammy of increased business costs this April. It cannot be right that access to healthcare is threatened by the Government’s appalling tax policies. Will the Minister give the Committee a commitment today that the Government will change course on their tax policies if it is proven that access to healthcare will be reduced as a result of their policy?
Amendments 20 and 23 seek to clarify and broaden the definition of healthcare, ensuring that medical and dental schools are included in these protections. Given the importance of these institutions in training future healthcare professionals, it is worth considering whether their exclusion from such protections could affect the quality and sustainability of the healthcare workforce—particularly at a time when the sector is facing increasing demand. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to outline exactly how the Government will safeguard the future of our healthcare workforce in the light of these concerns.
Finally, Amendment 39 repeats the proposal to exempt healthcare from the higher multiplier, reinforcing the argument that this sector should not bear the weight of a tax system that may further stretch its already-limited resources.
I would like to touch on the cliff-edge nature of the £500,000 threshold; this has been mentioned in previous debates by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lady Scott. A local health facility might want to add one consulting room. If that pushes it over the £500,000 threshold, it may no longer be affordable. We need to think carefully about the cliff-edge nature of this measure; I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some additional thought on it and come back to us.
In conclusion, these amendments ask important questions about the impact of this Bill on healthcare sectors. Although the Bill seeks reform, we must ensure that essential services are not disproportionately affected by the higher multiplier or excluded from necessary protections. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has brought forward a compelling case for the need to reconsider the treatment of healthcare in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to clarify how the Government plan to address these concerns and ensure that vital healthcare services are not unduly burdened; I look forward to his response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. In the previous debate on the amendments in group 4, just a few moments ago, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. Of course, the same considerations apply here. This Government fully support the healthcare sector, but it would not be fair to exclude some and not others. To sustainably fund the lower multipliers, we must ensure that we can raise money from higher multipliers; the only fair way to do this is to apply it to all hereditaments at £500,000 and above.
As I said in the debate on the previous group, it is important to look at the facts. The Valuation Office Agency’s statistics show that, of the 16,780 properties caught by the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health subsector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 and we do not have separate data on medical or dental schools. The impact on this sector is therefore limited and, where it applies, much of it falls on the NHS. The Autumn Budget fixed the spending envelope for phase 2 of the spending review, which will deliver new mission-led, technology-enabled and reform-driven budgets for departments. We will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments in the round, including any impact of the higher multiplier, when setting these budgets.
On the questions about the Bill creating more cliff edges in the system, the new higher-rate multiplier will apply to properties above £500,000, which will fund and support the high street in a sustainable way. However, the discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget highlights that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the system may disincentivise expansion. It committed to explore options for reform. The Government have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform, and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform. That is open until 31 March 2025.
On the specific question about examples of properties that the noble Baroness mentioned, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the rate bills of specific ratepayers, especially as one of them is a domestic property. To conclude, set in the context of these facts and assurances of how we will approach the issue in the spending review, I hope the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the amendments that I have tabled to try to persuade the Government to think again. The Minister talked about an agnostic approach to the application of the higher multiplier. Now, agnostic approaches are all very well until we see what we catch in the trap. What we have exposed this afternoon is that the Government intend to apply higher costs to the very public services for which they are desperate to have higher funding. They cannot, on the one hand, say that they wish to provide higher funding for some of these important public sector services when, on the other hand, they take some of the funding away. That is the consequence of an ill-considered agnostic approach. I urge the Government to think about having a more targeted approach that includes in its catch more warehouse distribution services and fewer public sector providers of important and valuable public services. At the minute, that is not what is happening.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt businesses that open for longer than 18 hours a day because they are often the only retailer in the local area.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 8 I will also speak to the rest of the amendments in this group. They focus on protecting the essential services that are provided up and down the high street.
Amendments 8 and 25 in my name seek to exempt community shops that are open for more than 18 hours a day. Within local communities, there is often a shop that is open for longer hours than general retail premises. Often, this can be a garage forecourt which is open 24 hours and has essential things for people working in the night-time economy, who may be on a different clock to us. These shops provide essential services for those living in that surrounding community. Without them, there may be fewer customers on that high street, which we believe would begin to damage the surrounding shops and businesses. People often rely on these stores with longer opening hours, so exempting them from the higher multiplier would ensure that they can continue to provide a vital service to local people.
My Amendments 9 and 26 seek to exempt hereditaments that have a post office on the premises from qualifying for the higher multiplier. A post office does not make the same level of profit as the shop, but it provides essential services that many people rely on. Does the Minister agree that it would be unacceptable for shops providing these services to close because they are inappropriately hit by the higher multiplier?
Amendments 10, 17, 27 and 35 seek to exempt premises shared with banking hubs. Less than two weeks ago, many in this House discussed the importance of banking hubs in a debate on bank closures and the particular impact on rural communities. The shift to online banking inevitably brings to light issues of accessibility. While digital banking services are convenient for many, they are inaccessible to others, particularly those living in rural areas. The elderly and the disabled are often significantly impacted by the lack of physical banking services. Age UK has found that over 4 million over-65s in the United Kingdom with a bank account did not manage their money online, placing them at a high risk of financial exclusion. Bank closures have also been found to negatively affect those with disabilities, with a Which? survey concluding that 50% of respondents would be negatively impacted by not having access to a physical service.
The previous Conservative Government recognised the detrimental impact of bank closures on groups in our society and collaborated with the banking industry to establish shared banking hubs. Operated by both the Post Office and banks, these hubs offer essential banking services, including cash withdrawals, deposits and in-person consultations. We must continue to look to mitigate cases of financial exclusion, and I draw noble Lords’ attention to my Amendment 26.
This group of amendments deals with a matter of utmost importance for millions of people across the UK who rely on these essential services. I therefore encourage the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised in the debate.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is another example of the blunt instrument in operation. We have talked about increasing tax on public services, some of which have the ability to recover the money via new burdens, while some do not. But these services are offered by private sector organisations, and we know for a fact that they will not get recompense from the Government for this, which will increase their costs, reduce their profit and may eliminate their viability altogether. When post offices and Crown offices are retreating from the high street, this is not a good time for those businesses.
In a moment we will talk about flagship operations. I put it to noble Lords that banks and post offices are flagship operations. People travel to towns to visit a post office and banks, and then they spend their money on other things, so by denuding or putting in peril those sorts of operations, we are removing the attraction of town centres. We are making sure that they do worse rather than better. That is the first point.
Secondly, I have a relative who owns a shop in a country town—I do not have an interest in that shop—and one of their biggest difficulties is banking their money. They have to drive 20 miles twice a week to take bags of money to bank it because there is no longer a bank. The removal of a banking hub would make that even harder. It also drives shops to go fully digital, which means that people who do not want to use digital and want to keep using cash are no longer facilitated by those businesses. I have seen businesses that can no longer handle cash simply because they no longer have the necessary banking facilities.
Once again, we are looking at the RHL sector, but these businesses serve the RHL sector and make their lives operational. I am happy to support the various amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how taxing post offices and banking hubs will help the RHL sector in our town centres and high streets.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I will say a few words in support of the excellent Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. It had not occurred to me but is worth saying here that, just as an anchor is critical to the economic health of the high street and the social contribution that comes with it, so are these very small and vital retailers—if that is the right word—for banking facilities, as well as the small facilities open all hours, 18 hours a day or whatever it may be. They are critical. In fact, they should perhaps be considered in a conversation about revising the use classes order because, as we heard with the good examples given, they are essential to the health of the local community.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in her contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she hoped the Minister listens very carefully. Just to reassure her, I always listen very carefully and with great interest to everything that the noble Baroness says, as is the case for all noble Lords in this debate.
Six of these eight amendments seek to change the Bill to remove certain high street services from the higher multiplier. In the previous debates on the amendments in groups 4 and 5, I explained why the Government have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and have not excluded any sector or type of property. The same considerations apply here and I will not repeat them.
As regard detail, it is worth being clear what type of retail properties on the current rating list would be caught in the higher multiplier. The Valuation Office Agency’s published data shows that, of the subsector of shops that are at or above the £500,000 threshold, 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves only 900 other shops at or above £500,000 across England, and of these 630 are in London and the south-east. For most regions, the number of shops affected, excluding supermarkets, large food stores and retail warehouses is fewer than 50. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.
In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned petrol stations, and amendments would support petrol stations but, in reality, from the Valuation Office Agency’s data, the number of petrol stations above the higher multiplier threshold of £500,000 is fewer than five.
The danger with these carve-outs from the higher multiplier is that the benefit could, in part, flow to large businesses in thriving and valuable locations, reducing the ability for us to support smaller businesses and less valuable locations through the lower multiplier. We understand the importance of facilities such as post offices or banking hubs for local communities. The average post office has a rateable value of only £16,000, so we do not anticipate that the higher multiplier will apply to very many premises used by post offices, and post offices are eligible for the existing retail, hospitality and leisure relief.
We understand that Amendments 17 and 35 seek to add to the lower multiplier hereditaments that host banking hubs. In the debate we have just had on group 4, I explained why we feel it necessary to target the lower multiplier on RHL. These amendments could easily widen the lower multiplier to other settings and introduce a loophole to the Bill. I assure the Committee that the Government will continue to work closely with high street banks to ensure that communities and local businesses have access to the banking services they need. I hope the Committee is assured that the Government remain committed to banking hubs. With these facts and assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported these amendments. This group has dealt with high street services, in particular, post offices and banking hubs. While it goes unnoticed, a post office remains an essential street service, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. Its use extends well beyond a mail service, and for many, particularly those without internet access, it plays a critical role in ensuring that individuals can pay their bills, collect their pension or access other financial services that a bank would traditionally offer. Indeed, they are the backbone of many of our British high streets, notably those in rural areas. As we enter a digital age, physical banking services offered by bank branches are incredibly hard to come by. When branches close, the impact extends far beyond just customers. It impacts on the whole local economy, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Many small retailers—farmers and other independent traders—continue to rely on cash transactions. When a bank closes, cash withdrawals become harder, credit becomes less accessible and many face greater financial insecurity. In fact, bank closures may be yet another a blow to small businesses, with the Federation of Small Businesses warning that they could result in reduced
“ability to manage cash flow and productivity”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to exempt anchor stores because they drive business on the high street.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 11, 28 and 36 in my name, which seek to exempt anchor stores from the scope of the proposed changes in the Bill. These amendments are crucial for safeguarding the health and vitality of our high streets particularly in the context of the ongoing challenges facing retailers and small businesses. I thank all noble Lords who, throughout this debate, have acknowledged the importance of these businesses.
As we are aware, anchor stores play a vital role in the commercial ecosystem of any high street. They act as a significant draw for foot traffic, attracting customers not only to their own establishments but to the surrounding smaller retailers and businesses. It is no exaggeration to say that, without anchor stores, many high streets would be devastated. They are the backbone that supports the smaller independent shops that contribute to the unique character of our local economies.
However, while the higher threshold for non-domestic rates is a well-intentioned measure to ensure that out-of-town warehouses and large-scale online retailers contribute their fair share, we must pause and consider the unintended consequences of this approach. The so-called Amazon tax may be designed with online giants in mind, but the current proposals would also capture larger businesses operating on our high streets—businesses that, in many cases, are anchor stores.
It is a very real concern that these stores become subject to increased rates. They may choose to relocate to out-of-town retail parks where rates are more favourable. This would exacerbate the very problem we are seeking to address—the decline of our high streets and the hollowing out of our town centres. We must ask ourselves what the impact would be on our communities if these anchor stores, which currently act as magnets for footfall, were to disappear from our high streets. Would we see a chain reaction where smaller businesses, already struggling under the pressure of rising costs and changing consumer habits, are left without customers and forced to close? How many small businesses would be driven to the brink if the larger retailers that currently support them were to move away, taking their foot traffic with them? These questions are not just theoretical; they are deeply practical and must be considered carefully if we are to protect the future of our high streets.
Amendments 11, 28 and 36 seek to exempt anchor stores from the broader measures in the Bill and offer a way forward that ensures that we do not punish those businesses that are essential for the economic vibrancies of our town centres. They are about striking the right balance. We must ensure that we support businesses that are critical to the future of our high streets and town centres. Exempting anchor stores from this measure would help to achieve this balance. I ask the Minister to consider whether the current proposals risk harming the very high streets that we all seek to protect. We cannot afford unintentionally to undermine the businesses that are central to our local economies. Exempting anchor stores is a sensible, practical step to ensure the long-term health of our high streets, and I urge the Government truly to reflect on this before moving forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this group of amendments which seeks to exempt so-called anchor stores from high streets.
We could do with a definition of an anchor store and, indeed, of a high street, but we will come to that in a later group. High streets vary enormously from small town high streets and market town high streets to larger town centres and city centres. When there is a new retail development in a town or city centre, the phrase “anchor store” often comes into play. It is very clear in the business sector that retail works better if there is one major store, which is a sun around which the satellites of smaller shops and businesses operate. This is the description that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, provided. However, that is just for a group of retail businesses, often in a new situation—such as an out-of-town retail park, a new retail development within a larger town centre or an existing large business in a town centre, for example a Marks & Spencer or a John Lewis store that has a multitude of operations within it. That enables other businesses to exist and thrive from the footfall that the big name store attracts.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the importance of these so-called anchor stores, although I would like to see whether the Government have a definition that can be applied. I agree with her argument that smaller businesses develop and thrive as a result of the draw of a so-called anchor store and, equally, the argument that she makes that, because anchor stores are critical to the business environment for the totality of large, medium and small businesses—retail, leisure, hospitality or otherwise, within the sector—it is important to think about whether those often large retail businesses are exempt from the higher multiplier.
I am thinking of a local town high street where the Marks & Spencer closed and moved out some years ago. It was absolutely clear that that was the focus of shoppers going to that town. Once it went, it caused the closure of a whole section of shops in that town and very difficult situation for the businesses that were left. The town will require government money for regeneration to get back on its feet. That is what happens.
So it is important that the Government, in thinking about the Bill and the impact it will have on businesses, think about the consequences of what they are doing. In a previous group, I raised the consequences for public sector-funded businesses, but this is as important for the future health of our town centres. If you take out the key store around which others, like satellites, are drawn because its business sums no longer add up, the whole area will be on a downward spiral.
I will give the Committee an example from some figures that I remember, so they may be wrong. Take John Lewis, which is a big store. It knows that much of its business will move online. I think its business plan expects 60% of its business to move online. If we put an additional cost, as would happen under the large multiplier, on the remaining 40% of its business, I expect that one of the consequences would be that a greater proportion would move out of the high street to online to reduce those costs. That is not what this Government want to happen. They have argued for the importance of the health of our town centres for all sorts of reasons, not just to support small businesses but to support the community which goes there to meet and so on.
It is important that the Government think about the unintended consequences of this rough and ready Bill because it will potentially have very rough consequences on our high streets, particularly those which depend on a big store as the holder of the rest of the businesses around it. I look forward to what the Minister says, but I hope that he does not use “tough choices” and “fair and sustainable”.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I will briefly add a few comments. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has clearly illustrated what happens to a town centre when the anchor departs and the economic health of the shopping environment dies.
The problem we have is that of definitions. When a comprehensive town centre development is designed by developers, it contains, without fail, something called an MSU—a major space unit. That is the anchor, the John Lewis or the Marks & Spencer. When that goes, the only possible replacement, generally speaking, is a supermarket.
If the supermarket becomes the anchor of the economic health of the high street, at the back of a shopping centre, filling the space of the department store that was there before, the supermarket really has to be described as an anchor. I do not disagree with the concept, but it makes the problem one of definitions and gets back to the question of use classes, which we will perhaps be able to speak about with the Bill team at another time.
I agree with the principle of this amendment, but I think it is more complicated. We need to get to the bottom of it, but it is one of definitions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to change the Bill to remove anchor stores from the higher multiplier. I apologise for being repetitive, but as I explained in the debates on the previous three groups of amendments, we have taken a sector-agnostic approach to the higher multiplier and not excluded any sector or type of property. This is the fairest option.
We have also ensured that the Valuation Office Agency has published data on those properties currently falling within the threshold for the higher multiplier. This shows that the impact on high street shops is very limited. I will not repeat those numbers at this time but encourage noble Lords to look at that information.
Alongside noble Lords, we of course appreciate the role anchor stores can play in the high street, but it should be acknowledged that anchor stores are often part of large retail chains that will also have a number of properties with a rateable value of below £500,000. Where retail properties’ rateable value is below £500,000, they will benefit from the lower tax rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure from April 2026.
The amendment would also be difficult to operationalise and would require the Government to define the meaning of an anchor store. It would be very difficult to define these stores in the way that the noble Baroness is thinking. There are anchor stores in almost every out-of-town shopping centre and retail park, and what is an anchor store beyond a large shop?
While I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, I do not think it follows that we should exempt anchor stores from the higher multiplier, nor do I think that this can easily be done without, in effect, removing all shops. Some very difficult decisions have been made, and we need to ensure that the system is long-standing and continues in a fair manner. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and all others who have mentioned this issue throughout the afternoon. There is an important role for anchor stores. To the definition, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I suggest that they should ask communities and their residents what would be an anchor store in their local town centre and ask the sector to discuss that as well. As a former leader of a council for many years, and knowing many council leaders, as I do, I know that they know exactly what an anchor store at any one time would be for the size and type of the high street they are trying not only to protect but to keep being a high street for any length of time. Many leaders of councils across this country have spent many hours working with the sector to get exactly that in order to make sure that they have a good thriving and surviving high street for their local communities.
As we have said, we all agree that these stores play a crucial role in the vitality of high streets and town centres. We know that they drive footfall, support local businesses and contribute significantly to the economic and social fabric of our communities. That is why it is important that we find a definition and a way through this. Without them, many of our high streets will struggle to survive, let alone thrive. I have spoken to the sector, and these businesses will leave the high street and go out of town where it is cheaper. Not only that, but they may even go out of business and, as we are seeing, go permanently online. That will not help our high streets.
As I have said, the changes in the Bill could inadvertently harm these vital businesses and place an undue burden on them, pushing them out of our high streets. The Bill follows several other damaging decisions that businesses are having to fund. This one at the end of it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Not only will it likely leave anchor stores paying higher business rates; they will also be paying increased staff costs, as we talked about earlier.
These decisions will have a cost, and if the Government continue to make them, we are worried that there will be no businesses left in the high street to tax. I urge the Minister to carefully consider the concerns raised by many noble Lords today. We just want a fair and equitable business rates system—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
And equitable. We must not overlook the specific need, as we have all said—across parties—to protect our high streets for our communities for the future. We believe that exempting anchor stores from these changes is a measured and practical way of safeguarding the future of our town centres. I hope to have further discussions with the Minister on this before Report but, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
(a) as shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues,(b) for assembly and leisure, or(c) as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe what hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality or leisure.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 16, 34 and 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox seek to provide a much-needed definition for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which is sadly missing from the Bill. We keep being told by the Minister that one will be provided, but here is one that he might like to use.
These three amendments propose that the hereditaments defined as retail, hospitality and leisure should be
“shops, restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments, cinemas or live music venues”,
and those used
“for assembly and leisure, or … as hotels, guest and boarding premises or self-catering accommodation”.
We believe that that probably covers the gamut of RHL hereditaments and hope that the Minister will agree that it is an inclusive list. We hope that he will accept it so that the Treasury does not have to define one.
We have to understand that it is really important to local businesses to have certainty about their costs. This aspect of the Bill has not been touched on yet today. I speak to businesses in my locality, and they are concerned about potential increases in their costs. They need to plan ahead—not just one year but a couple of years at least, and, for cafés or restaurants, even further to be able to plan business costs and make sure that they end the day on the right side of the red line.
It is not helpful to the business community that it is not clear what the definition will be. If, as some of us suspect, it is the same definition as was provided under the rate relief over Covid, then let us understand that. If it will exclude some businesses included in that rate relief, that needs to be clear as well. Time is of the essence here, because the Covid rate relief, as we have heard, is declining considerably and businesses need to know how that will impact their bottom line.
That is the purpose of the first three amendments in our names—to get some certainty so that businesses, particularly small businesses, which this element of the Bill focuses on, understand what additional costs are coming their way. We still do not know, unless the Minister tells us, the consequence of, on the one hand, reducing the Covid relief and, on the other, the business rate changes. That is important. A few thousand pounds here and there can make the difference for a small business between survival and closure, so it is important for this Committee and for businesses to understand.
Amendment 51 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox is slightly different. It tries to put some definition around these fabled “high streets”. The Government have said that they wish to protect high streets and lower the burden of costs on them while increasing the costs for big distribution warehouses. With that I concur, but it is important that we understand what is meant by “high streets”.
In the National Planning Policy Framework, there is a requirement to define what a high street or, more appropriately, town centre should be. When local planning authorities produce their local plans for a strategic approach to planning in their area, they are required to put a boundary around their town centres, because they often have particular importance for grant funding, transport and the consequences of all sorts of operations.
So there is a way of defining a high street or a town centre that encompasses the so-called high street. By “high street”, I believe the Government mean the essential businesses in a town centre. There is an ability for local authorities to use the NPPF to provide that definition. The Government could then enable all businesses within the boundary of a town centre to have a reduced multiplier, which would enable a thriving and prosperous town centre. That would benefit not only those businesses that operate within the town centre but the community that they serve.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, all of which address the lack of detail provided by the Government on their intentions with this Bill.
Amendments 16, 34 and 42 probe what types of hereditaments will be included in the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure. I am inclined to assume that the definition will remain the same as that which we used to define the requirements for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, and these are indeed the criteria listed in the noble Baroness’s amendments.
These may be unnecessary amendments, given that eligibility for retail, hospitality and leisure relief is already set out in the Government’s guidance for the scheme. However, we discussed our concerns about the power of the Treasury to define this in an earlier group. Crucially, businesses that are already worried about this Government’s plans need certainty and to be able to plan for the future. The Minister said that they need certainty; would not putting a clear definition in the Bill be a good way of delivering that? I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response, as we are likely to return to this part of the Bill on Report.
Amendment 51 seeks to probe the intended application of the Bill in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework. I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s confusion because, in the Labour manifesto, the Government promised reform of the business rates system and explained that such reform would include a larger burden on online businesses that operate from out-of-town distribution warehouses. Contrary to those statements, the Bill will actually have negative consequences on the high street. The noble Baroness is right to question whether the Government intended the higher multiplier to affect the high street in the way it will or whether, despite knowing what the impact would be, they chose to proceed anyway. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that there will be further clarity from him on the application of the Bill.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I rise quickly to support Amendments 16, 34 and 42 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to reiterate my point about clarity for businesses. Businesses want to plan two or three years ahead but cannot. We have a limbo at the moment for about 18 months to two years, and this Bill leaves us in that position. I ask the Minister to go back to the Government and ask for some clarification—that is, some sorts of figures so that businesses can plan for the future.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their Amendments 16, 34, 42 and 51. I understand the intention of these amendments is to understand further, first, what hereditaments will be included in the definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties; and, secondly, the intended application of the new multipliers to high streets.
The definition of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be set out via secondary legislation later this year, as I repeated earlier. However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this broadly to follow the definition that is used for the current RHL relief; I note that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are familiar with this definition, as their amendment draws on the guidance published by the Government. When introduced from 2026-27, the new multipliers that this Bill makes provision for will apply to all relevant hereditaments, regardless of their geographical location.
It is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower RHL multipliers: one for RHL properties with a rateable value of between £51,000 and £499,999; and another one for RHL properties with a rateable value of below £51,000. All qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be eligible for these new multipliers. This approach will best ensure that support is targeted towards RHL businesses based on the high street while working within the existing business rates architecture. We are moving from a stopgap, ad hoc, year-to-year relief scheme to a permanent lower multiplier that provides greater certainty for business.
It is also the Government’s intention to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above—a point that I have made previously. Again, this will affect all properties that meet that criterion, regardless of their geographical location. It is the Government’s view that this is the fairest approach and that trying to restrict the application of the different multipliers based on geography would create unintended consequences and would likely drive perverse incentives.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for introducing the use of the relief definitions. If I have got this wrong, I am very happy for him to tell me so, but my understanding is that the bottom level of below £49,000, I think, were not paying business rates at all. Is that correct? Will they now be classified along with everyone else and pay business rates with the appropriate reduction put on to them, in which case they will go from paying no rates to some—albeit less than the full rate, as we would have seen it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just to clarify, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has got it wrong because the zero, as in no business rates, is for rateable values—£12,000 in particular—and it is then tapered, so the relief decreases as it goes to £15,000.
Lord Fox (LD)
Do they now come into the system or do they continue to have a zero rate under the proposals of this Bill?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just to clarify for noble Lords, there will be no change to small business rate relief—that is not changing—so they will still pay tax.
It is the Government’s view that this is the fairest approach and that trying to restrict the application of the different multipliers based on geography would create unintended consequences and would likely drive perverse incentives. It is also extremely difficult to draw a line around a town centre. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made a suggestion around using the understanding of the term as per the National Planning Policy Framework, but that framework does not set a definition of a town centre. It should be noted that the framework suggests those centres identified in development plans, but this does not represent a requirement that all centres are identified. We also know that many areas do not have up-to-date development plans and that, therefore, centres that are identified may not reflect current realities.
Such an approach would essentially give local planning authorities the power to determine where multipliers should apply and could restrict their application from smaller retail centres that might be essential to particular neighbourhoods. Furthermore, it could result in the higher multiplier not being able to be applied to large warehouses used by online businesses or other properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or above if they are not located in a town centre, as these would fall outside the definition of a town centre. I do not think that is the noble Lords’ intention, but it is important to clarify that point. I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify the areas of interest and provided reassurance on the Government’s policy in this space. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord de Clifford, for their supportive comments, as the Minister was not so helpful. Businesses require clarity and certainty. To tell us that secondary legislation will be needed to set out the definition of RHL means that clarity and certainty will be pushed further down the line. The Minister shakes his head, but I wrote down what he said: secondary legislation will set out the definitions. By definition, that will be after this Bill has gone through its processes.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, in the very same sentence I said:
“However, I can confirm that the Government’s intention is for this to broadly follow the definition that is used for the current RHL”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
In which case, I apologise to the Minister. I must have missed that bit of his explanation. We have been saying right from the start that Covid relief would be the definition for RHL, and that is the clarity people need. I hope the Government will inform businesses that, if they currently get Covid relief, they will qualify under this Bill. Equally, we will be pushing the Government to expand that definition. It is not as inclusive as some of us think it should be if the aim is for small businesses to thrive or have reduced costs, as opposed to distribution warehouses and online retailers.
On the last amendment, I disagree with the Minister because the National Planning Policy Framework—which I have read—sets out what a town centre is. Local planning authorities have the responsibility to form a local plan. The Minister is right: far too many local planning authorities have failed in that responsibility. However, the Government have said that they expect local planning authorities to produce a local plan. In that case, all local planning authorities would produce a local plan in which they can define what is included within the boundaries of several town centres within their purview. That is really important because lots of issues follow from being within the purview of a town centre.
I hope that the Minister will perhaps go away and think with his officials about whether this could be used as a definition for businesses within the purview that will be set out in the local plan so that this Bill— the Government have stated that its aim is to help the so-called high street, which, as I have said, will be the town centre—will help businesses to thrive despite the growing competition that they face from online retailers, which, by the very nature of business rates, pay much less than those businesses do in town centres even after this multiplier is applied. With that plea to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, this will be the last group today.
Amendment 21
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(9D) In sub-paragraph (9B) the £500,000 threshold must be increased on 1 April each year by at least the CPI.(9E) The CPI is the Consumer Price Index percentage recorded by the Office for National Statistics for September of the financial year preceding the relevant year concerned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others in the name of Baroness Scott of Bybrook, seeks to increase the £500,000 threshold with inflation to ensure businesses don’t get drawn into the higher rate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 in this group seek to introduce a statutory index-linked uplift in the threshold for the higher multiplier in line with inflation. These specific amendments relate to the level of the threshold in future years, so I am grateful for this opportunity to have a brief and specific debate on the threshold.
We have already probed the Government over their arbitrary threshold of £500,000, but I hope that, in response to this group, the Minister will be able to explain the Government’s current plans for uprating the threshold in future. There are no measures in the Bill to prevent more businesses being caught by this threshold over time. We are told that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller high street businesses to be hit by the higher multiplier, but inflation and a fixed threshold mean that that will be an inevitable result of this policy. I remind the Committee at this point that, thanks to the Government’s Budget measures, inflation rose by 3% in the 12 months to January 2025, up from 2.5% in the 12 months to December 2024. As the hereditament valuations rise over time, more and more businesses will be paying higher business rates.
If the Minister feels that the CPI is not the correct index to tie this threshold to, we are open to discussions about that. Our goal here is to probe the Government’s willingness to explore increases in the thresholds going forward to protect small businesses that should never have been caught by the higher multiplier threshold from facing higher taxes by the back door. Can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention for smaller businesses to be hit by these higher taxes? If the Government do not intend to hit smaller businesses with higher taxes, can the Minister give us an undertaking to look at the threshold and consider including in this Bill a measure that would deliver either an index-linked uprating of the threshold or, as a minimum, a power for Ministers to uprate the threshold without having to bring primary legislation before the House again? We are generally cautious of new regulatory powers but, provided that a power was limited to uprating and excluded the possibility of lowering the threshold, that might be a way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think this might be the last group today; I would say that we have done very well to get this far. I shall speak to these four amendments. The first three make an assumption that the £500,000 threshold was right in the first place. Of course, that is really addressed by the fourth amendment, so I am going to speak to it. It is right that there should be some form of uprating, but I am more intrigued about how the figure of £500,000 was alighted on in the first place.
If we were looking at something that was broadly financially neutral, I do not know how we would know, because we do not know how the flexible upper rate will be applied, so we do not know how much money that will raise. We therefore do not know whether £500,000 was the right number to make it financially neutral. Was it chosen for a business reason? Are businesses of that size particular sorts of business that we need to factor in, in a different way, or was there some other sociological plan involved in choosing £500,000? My big question for the Minister is who chose the number. Was it DHCLG or the Treasury?
Lord Fox (LD)
Whatever it is called these days—they keep changing it, and I never normally address this particular crowd. Was it the Minister’s ministry or was it the Treasury? If it was the Treasury, I rather think we should have a Treasury Minister here to answer the question of why it was a £500,000 limit, because it seems to me that it is a very round, arbitrary number. It would have been more convincing had it been £550,000; it might have looked like some thought had gone into it. This looks like a dart-throwing exercise.
So can the Minister explain what was behind the number? Is it trying to balance the money raised? If so, how can you know when your top rate is a top rate and is not necessarily applied? If it is the nature of a business, what is it about the nature of the business? If it is from an analysis of every single £500,000 business, what criteria were used to make that analysis? In other words, where did it come from?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 21, 40 and 44 concern the rateable value threshold above which the higher multiplier may apply. This is set in the Bill at no less than £500,000, as we have heard repeatedly in contributions by noble Lords. The Bill allows the Government to set a higher threshold through regulations if they wish, but the amendments would require this threshold to be increased annually in line with CPI.
Alongside the amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, has given notice of her intention to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. It would therefore be appropriate at this point if I set out why Clause 3 should stand part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, raises a reasonable question as to whether, and if so how, the £500,000 threshold should change over time and other noble Lords have also raised this point. Of course, we would expect that, over time, the value of properties and therefore their rateable values will increase as the economy grows. As these rateable values grow, the current threshold in the Bill of £500,000 will, relatively speaking, be smaller and more properties may be drawn into that category. That is the issue that the noble Baroness is probing with these amendments.
However, I do not think these amendments are the answer to that issue. First, and perhaps most importantly, rateable values will not increase annually in line with inflation or with any other measure of property value or the economy. Rateable values are set every three years at revaluations, and between those revaluations will not change other than for matters such as physical changes to the property.
The Government have set out that our intention for the 2026 rating lists is for the threshold for the higher multiplier to be set at a £500,000 rateable value. The Government consider that this will best ensure that sufficient revenue is raised to provide for a meaningful level of support for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and will do so in an objectively equitable way.
The 2026 rating list will last for three years, and those rateable values will not increase over that period, other than if, as I have said before, the property is expanded or improved, for example. By extension, the 2029 revaluation will be the next logical moment to consider whether the £500,000 threshold remains the appropriate minimum for the new higher multiplier.
In approaching these considerations, the Government will need to examine how rateable values have changed at the revaluation but also what support is to be provided to retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, consequently, how much revenue is needed to be raised from the higher multiplier.
I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that there are several factors the Government will need to consider and balance, beyond just the changes in rateable value. More broadly, as the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government keep all taxes under review, including rates and thresholds. As such, I can assure the Committee that in relation to the proposed amendment, the Government will, as a matter of course, actively consider whether the £500,000 threshold in the relevant regulations should be amended at the 2029 revaluation, as they approach that revaluation.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether MHCLG or the Treasury decided. It was the Government who decided. As much as I love darts, it definitely was not a dart-throwing exercise.
I will now expand further on Clause 3 so that, I hope, noble Lords can agree that it should stand part of the Bill. We have discussed several amendments in relation to Clause 3 today, so I shall try to keep my remarks to the point and not go over previously covered ground too much.
Clause 3 is concerned with how we will determine to which hereditaments those multipliers should apply. It is split into three main parts, concerning occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2), unoccupied hereditaments in Clause 3(3), and hereditaments on the central rating list in Clause 3(4). Properties on the central list are typically utility networks spanning many local authority areas, such as the gas, electricity and water networks. Each of these parts of Clause 3 are essentially identical, so to save the Committee from repetition, I will explain the provisions on occupied hereditaments in Clause 3(2) only.
The most important part of Clause 3(2) is the small amendment made by Clause 3(2)(a) to existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Under those existing powers, the Treasury already has the ability to determine in regulations which multiplier applies to which property. Those powers, in respect of occupied properties, are in paragraph 10(9) and 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. Clause 3(2)(a) amends that part of the 1988 Act to extend those powers to cover also the new additional multipliers. This means that the Treasury will be able to determine by regulations which properties pay on which multiplier.
As with Clause 1, we have included in Clause 3 safeguards as to how the Treasury may use these powers. These limit the higher multipliers to hereditaments with a rateable value of £500,000 or more and limit the lower multipliers to only qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments.
Finally on Clause 3, the existing powers for determining the application of the multiplier allow the Treasury to do that by reference to a list of factors found in paragraph 10(10) of Schedule 4ZA to the 1988 Act. This is a non-exhaustive list that includes factors such as its rateable value, location or use. Clause 3(2)(c) expressly gives the Treasury the scope also to determine the application of the multipliers by reference to the description which the Valuation Office Agency puts in the rating list.
I hope that this further information provides the reassurance and clarity needed for the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and agree that Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for speaking in this debate. He actually brought today’s debate right back to the beginning: where did the £500,000 figure come from? If we could get that from the Minister, it would be very useful for our debates as we enter Report.
The answer to whether there will be any further uplifts, is, I understand, the revaluation, which is in three years, but three years could go on. I go back to the difficulty that this makes for businesses to plan when they know they are going to hit that cliff edge of £500,000 and that their business rates are going to go up considerably. I go back to the example of my noble friend Lord Jamieson, who gave the example of the health centre that wants to build an extension, which could possibly move it across; the health centre would need to think very seriously about doing that extension, and this will happen across all investment in different types of businesses, which I think is worrying.
This is something that we could resolve together by a relatively straightforward amendment to the Bill, and I hope that the Government will do the right thing in protecting these smaller businesses from being hit with higher business rates inappropriately in the future. But, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, well done—I think we have finished just before the vote.
Introduction: Baroness Caine of Kentish Town
Royal Assent
Monday 24th February 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 11 February 2025 - (11 Feb 2025)
Emergency Service Network Programme
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in delivering the Emergency Service Network programme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in December 2024, the Home Office awarded the user service contract for the emergency service network to IBM and its partners. The programme’s attention is now on producing a plan with our partners, focusing on mobilisation and delivery of key capabilities to deliver the emergency service network. Programme delivery dates with milestones will be available in the spring.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I declare my interests as in the register. Members may not know this, but this is essentially about moving the police emergency services, the fire brigade and the ambulance service from a radio network to a mobile phone network. That should have been delivered in 2017, but here we are in 2025 and we do not yet have an implementation date. The initial cost of £2 billion is now in excess of £12 billion. I wonder whether the time has come for a radical new approach. Instead of pursuing the present idea, which was a good one, of having the data and radio system on a mobile phone network, we could pursue those two avenues separately, so that we make progress and do not waste more money on a programme that has struggled to make any progress.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who will be aware that I can be responsible only for activity post 4 July 2024. There was significant time and money overspend under the previous Government. However, he is right that the service will provide for 300,000 users across Britain, 107 emergency services, 44 police forces, 50 fire and rescue services and 13 ambulance trusts, as well as 300 other organisations that use Airwave for this important purpose. I hear what he says, but we have set a course of action and a direction of travel. He will no doubt monitor that, and I want to ensure that the switchover from Airwave to the new emergency service network happens as quickly as possible. As he knows, it will take some time to bed in following the ending of the previous contract and the beginning of this contract. I hope that the House will bear with me on that delivery in due course.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this saga goes back so far that I was the telecoms Minister when this was first being discussed, in 2015. I am glad that progress has been made, but with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, setting a new course of action at this late stage would not necessarily be the right thing to do. The fundamental point is that the Home Office should not be building or contracting a mobile phone network, and I am glad that BT/EE is in charge of it. What worried me was reading that the Home Office itself is planning to build 300 masts. How does this programme correspond with the DCMS’s programme for a rural network shared between the mobile operators? It seems that the left hand and the right hand may each not know what the other is doing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Given the overspend, I do not know whether the noble Lord was the left hand or the right hand in the previous Government. But whichever he was, I declare an interest: I was the Police Minister in 2009-10, and this had not started then. The delay, obfuscation, overspend and costs happened entirely on the previous Government’s watch. However, let us put that to one side. The key thing is ensuring that our police forces, fire services and others have appropriate services. The Home Office will provide some masts because there are some security implications, which we need to examine and deliver on. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Home Office will have a grip on this and will deliver, and that it has a three to five-year plan to get the basics in place, with a handover as soon as possible.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests as listed in the register. I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges the grotesque excess expenditure and delays that are clearly the fault of the previous Government. What consideration is being given to the resilience implications of the emergency services using a mobile phone network? At the moment, if the Airwave network goes down, the police and other emergency services can use mobile phones to communicate with each other. If something affects the mobile phone network, what will be plan B?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Plan B is part of plan A, which is also to provide the 292 4G mobile phone sites that the noble Lord mentioned in his question. We have picked this up. We have made a decision to terminate the previous contract; we had a court case to do that. We are now putting in place a revised contract—we have to exit the former contract—and resilience will be built in to make sure that this is the most important service that can be provided, because this is how police, fire and other emergency services communicate with each other in times of difficulty. It is an absolute priority for the Home Office to get this right, and I hope that we will do so in the course of the next few years.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I keep hearing that the Government want us to be leaders in AI, but it is very difficult to work out how this can be when the Government have not dealt with the fact that the police are being run as an analogue operation in a digital age. It almost beggars belief that all 43 police forces in the UK use different IT systems, the majority of which do not even speak to each other.
We have just heard about the 51 year-old police national computer; that is never going to be sorted in the next, goodness knows, five to 10 years, and it stores only very basic biometric data. Many of the drones the police are using are clapped out and need to be replaced. When are the Government going to wake up to the major problem the police have got with technology and actually provide the funds to deal with this once and for all?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an extremely valid point. There are 44 police forces in total—43 plus the British Transport Police—and they have a range of different technological methods of gathering information and working. Obviously, from a taxpayer efficiency and a security point of view, we want to make sure that we get the best deal. Part of the Government’s efficiency drive will be to look at how we can work with police forces, which are independent, to do that downstream. The change we have made from the previous Government’s position will save the taxpayer £200 million per year when up and running. That is a more efficient way of getting a better service for the taxpayer.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
His Majesty’s Opposition look forward to monitoring this programme according to the timescale set out today. What assurances can the Government give that the emergency service network will ever deliver what it set out to do, especially in light of the ongoing vast expenditure of the programme?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me give the noble Lord this assurance: I am not sure how we will monitor it, but it will be better than the previous Government’s monitoring. The previous Government’s overspend and the delays—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—were all, dare I say it, on his watch. We signed a contract in December and it is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money—potentially £19.2 billion over a 28 year-period. The Home Office, with colleagues, will monitor the introduction, delivery and efficiency. As we do so, and as we have done with the previous contract that his Government signed, if it becomes inefficient, we will take action. We are now in discussions with Airwave and Motorola to find recompense for the taxpayer for the overspend that was inflicted on his watch.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Has the Minster read the latest leader in the Economist, which sets out the irrefutable case for the substantial rearmament of this country and its western European neighbours if we are to provide adequately for the security of our people? Does he accept that that is a question not just of pure military power but of national resilience, in which emergency communications play a crucial role? Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, can the Minister assure the House that this new system, whenever it comes in, will be fit for purpose in a potentially hostile environment?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. Any future Airwave system has to be resilient to potential hostile actor threats and attacks. That is built into the system, and it is something we are cognisant of. The security element of that is extremely important not just in an emergency services context but in the context of any other form of communication. The noble and gallant Lord will know that there are hostile actors who seek to do harm to the United Kingdom. Our job is to stand up to them and to provide resilience accordingly.
Domestic Abusers: Reoffending
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what programmes and interventions are used to reduce re-offending among domestic abusers in the community; and what are the re-offending rates of those who participate.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention fund currently provides funding to 27 police and crime commissioners across England and Wales to commission domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention programmes locally. Although evaluations are currently limited, early evidence about the ability of perpetrator interventions to reduce reoffending is promising. An independent evaluation of the Drive project showed that the number of Drive service users using physical abuse reduced by 82% and that the risk to the victim was reduced in 82% of cases. Further evaluation of a wide range of interventions is needed to better understand reoffending rates and what works in stopping perpetrators.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for his Answer. We know that a whole-community approach is required, such as the White Ribbon campaign, which focuses on engaging men and boys in tackling harmful behaviour. Likewise, the Hollie Gazzard Trust helps reduce domestic violence through promoting healthy relationships with training programmes in schools, colleges and businesses. This includes powerful bystander intervention training, which enables people to know why they should intervene and gives them practical techniques to do so. So what are the Government doing to promote and evaluate bystander intervention training?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an extremely important point. It is important that we do not just have interventions on perpetrators but also that those individuals who can help, intervene and support victims are both supported in how they can make those interventions and have support and training generally. She will, I hope, welcome the fact that a new violence against women and girls strategy—one of the Government’s “plan for change” manifesto commitments—will be published later this year. Prevention and education are fundamental to the Government’s approach. I will certainly take back her comments to the Minister responsible, Jess Phillips, who will be developing the strategy, and we will look at it: obviously, it will be published for this House to interrogate in due course.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate mentioned the importance of schools and of teaching young people about healthy relationships. She also mentioned the Hollie Gazzard Trust and various other charities that work in this area. But I wonder what is happening up and down the country to ensure that there are not just pockets of education but that this education is widespread among young people in our communities.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend hits on an important point. Domestic violence does not just happen when an individual reaches a certain age; it is inbuilt and ingrained over a long period of time. Therefore, in order to prevent domestic violence downstream, the way young people in primary and secondary schools and beyond are educated in mutual respect and understanding, and in non-violence, is extremely important. I would hope that my colleagues at the Department for Education, and indeed in the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, recognise that need for early intervention and resilience building to ensure that we do not create the perpetrators of the future who will then need the required investment and intervention I talked about in my earlier answers.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that 60% of domestic abuse survivors wanted their perpetrator to attend a behavioural change programme, but that only 7% could do so because of the lack of availability. We do not have enough programmes and we do not know which programmes work best. Although some studies, such as Project Mirabal and the Drive programme, show promising results, the programme evaluation overall has been painfully slow. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I mentioned in my original answer, the Government have put £20.5 million into perpetrator intervention programmes currently, and those are under evaluation as we speak. The evaluations are slow by their very nature and, again, I can only answer for post 4 July 2024. What we are trying to do is examine, with the violence against women and girls strategy, what works effectively and what interventions we can take forward. Therefore, both the points that the noble Baroness made and other considerations of intervention—and how we evaluate that intervention to make sure it has a real impact and give comfort to victims primarily—are important issues. We will be examining that during the development of the violence against women and girls strategy.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, everyone’s thoughts will be with those who have been victims of domestic abuse, and supporting such victims is rightly of paramount importance. Given that the Government have released domestic abusers early as part of their efforts to manage prison capacity, can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the risk that this policy poses to victims?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will know that offences have been excluded from the SDS40 early release scheme. Those include sex offences, irrespective of sentence length; serious violent offenders with a sentence of four years of more; and specific offences linked to domestic violence, irrespective of sentence length, including stalking, coercive controlling behaviour and non-fatal strangulation. So the noble Lord’s basic premise is, I am afraid to say to the House, wrong. Domestic violence perpetrators are not being included in the programme he referred to.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that, in a high proportion of households in which there is domestic violence, there are also very vulnerable young children. Could the Minister assure the House that the services that are tackling domestic violence will always give a high priority to the protection of children who are caught up in these very unhappy and destructive experiences?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Children should be central, because they will have witnessed domestic violence and potentially had their outlook on life, towards both their mother and father, impacted by that domestic violence, and will remain scarred by that. So it is extremely important that, as well as intervening on perpetrators, be they male or indeed female, we also have to ensure that we look at the family as a whole and what is best for individuals, particularly the children who have been impacted. I cannot give the noble Lord specific comfort today but, again, if he looks at the violence against women and girls strategy, published in due course, he will I hope see a range of mechanisms there to ensure we take a whole-family approach to this issue.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, to go back to the original question from the right reverend Prelate about bystander intervention, those of us who travel on public transport in London will be aware that there is a programme currently in operation offering very specific advice to travellers on how to intervene in circumstances where they witness the kind of abuse we are talking about. I wonder whether my noble friend has any information from Transport for London on how successful that programme is and what impact it is having.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot specifically say today that I have that information for my noble friend, but I will certainly investigate. My noble friend Lord Hendy, the Transport Minister, is sat next to me on the Bench today and will have heard the question. We will negotiate and discuss between us whether there are lessons to be learned and how that programme is of value. I will look into that for my noble friend.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
It seems to me that victims, even when the perpetrators have been caught and convicted, feel that they are the ones responsible for keeping themselves safe from the behaviour of perpetrators. There seems so little evidence of successful programmes. Would the Minister agree with me that, despite the £20 million-odd that he has already talked about, we need to invest more in research for programmes that actually work.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We do need to ensure that the programmes work. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that in 2025-26 we in the Home Office are providing an additional £90 million to police and crime commissioners to look at the very issue that she has mentioned, through the domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention fund. This will be not just for when someone is convicted of a domestic violence offence but when they are released, when there may be a need for greater support for the victim to make sure that they do not feel intimidated, stalked or damaged by the relationship that has already caused them damage.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, we have already heard about the centrality of education to make sure that we are making a difference on violence against women and girls. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether in the other place the Department for Education is working closely with our honourable friend Jess Phillips to ensure that more teachers are trained to be clear about the effects of adverse childhood experiences on the young people they see day in and day out?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can assure my noble friend that the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is a cross-government strategy. When it is published, it will include contributions from a range of government departments, not least the Department for Education.
County Lines Drug Trafficking
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle ‘county lines’ drug trafficking.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government’s county lines programme is targeting exploitative drug-dealing gangs while breaking the organised crime groups behind this trade. The programme has closed more than 400 drug-dealing lines since July 2024 alone. The Government are committed to halving knife crime in the next decade and to tackling the violent gangs who lure children into crime. We will be introducing a new offence of criminal exploitation of children in the crime and policing Bill, which will be published very shortly.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I admire the Minister’s indefatigability in addressing three of noble Lords’ Oral Questions today and I thank him for his Answer. An estimated 14,000 children are at risk of child criminal exploitation as a result of county lines drug trafficking. In 2022, it was reported that there had been 8,000 arrests since the introduction of the county lines programme in 2019; that is an average of 2,600 per year. In the last nine months, Home Office statistics appear to show that there have been around only 500 arrests. Why is this, and what are the Minister and his department planning to do about it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that I can answer only for the period from July 2024 to September 2024, which are the latest figures. These figures show that 400 deal lines were closed, more than 200 dealers were arrested and charged, 500 further arrests were made, and there were 800 safeguarding referrals for children and vulnerable people. He asked what we can do in particular—yes, roughly 14,500 children have been impacted by county lines, and first and foremost we are looking at how we can support those children.
Very shortly—in fact, tomorrow—the new offence of criminal exploitation of children will be introduced in the police and crime Bill. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on that. It will mean that we can go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime, and we will have an additional penalty for individuals who exploit and damage children as a result. So there are short-term interventions to be made, but there are long-term measures too.
I would also say to the noble Lord that the additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers will be an extremely important way of gathering intelligence, putting police boots on the ground and putting the fear of God into those people who are undertaking county lines activity.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I take it that my noble friend the Minister is aware that a fair number of children who are recruited into county lines have been excluded from school. In that connection, what liaison does his department have with the Department for Education to reduce the number of children who have nothing else to do when they are kicked out of school?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is right that we should put children at the focus of county line activity. By that, I mean preventing children from being involved in county lines, not criminalising those children who are involved in county lines but seeing them, as I think my noble friend indicated, as victims who need our support. I will take away her contribution and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Police Minister, see what steps are being taken to do that, and contact my noble friend accordingly.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, more than 27,000 suspected drug suppliers are either on bail or released under investigation due to forensic and digital backlogs. One in five of those cases has been going on for more than a year, and currently there are more than 25,000 digital devices waiting to be examined. While a government funding boost is always welcome, what is being done specifically to address the lack of regional and national co-ordination and the insufficient numbers of trained forensic personnel?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a valid point, and I will start from that premise. The Government have put an extra £1.1 billion into police forces with the police settlement that was approved by the House of Commons just a few weeks ago, and that is providing a range of functions. It is for police forces, chief constables and police and crime commissioners to determine the use of that resource locally, but she makes a valuable point about co-ordination and central management, which I will continue to reflect on because we need to ensure that there is not a backlog. The amount of digital material we have on our phones now—Twitter contents, phone calls, texts, Facebook messages and everything else—means that when someone is arrested there is a giant amount of digital information, and that is growing daily and monthly. It is important that we focus in on getting the right digital information to ensure convictions and drive up the conviction rate from the figure that I mentioned for between July and September last year, and that means tackling the backlog that the noble Baroness has rightly mentioned.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that those who conduct this awful business often seek out the most vulnerable children in the area, then supply them with drugs and get them completely dependent on them so they will then distribute these drugs around the country. Will the Minister assure the House that the Home Office and the services that are provided will do all they can to remind local authorities of their child protection responsibilities? The child and its welfare should be of paramount importance.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that the child should be central, and I will take away what he said today. I hope I can reassure him that the new offence we are introducing tomorrow of criminal exploitation of children will mean that there is another mechanism to hold to account those criminals who seek to use vulnerable children to undertake their criminal activity. When that comes to this House, I hope it has widespread support.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned this already, but can he outline what progress the Government have made towards fulfilling their manifesto commitment to recruit additional neighbourhood police and community support officers? Does he agree that tackling this type of drug trafficking requires not just tougher enforcement but ensuring sufficient police numbers on the ground?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will help the noble Lord, I hope, by saying that the Government announced £1.1 billion more this financial year than the police budget was in the last financial year, and this financial year is under a Labour Government while the last financial year was under a Conservative one. When I was the Police Minister in 2009-10, we had the highest number of police officers ever. We faced 20,000 police officers being cut between 2010 and 2015-16, and only latterly have they been built up again. I hope the noble Lord will work with us to ensure that the £1.1 billion of extra spending is put to good use. He can certainly monitor the delivery of the 13,000 officers, which will be a real improvement on the ground to help tackle county lines and other neighbourhood policing issues. That is a 6.6% cash increase and a 4.1% real-terms increase in funding, and I hope this House welcomes it.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces new offences, which appear to have no connection to immigration, of possessing any specified article that might be used in connection with any serious offence. What safeguards does the Minister think need to be in that Bill to prevent the needless criminalisation of children? Does he agree that a legal definition of child criminal exploitation might help in that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The legal definition of child criminal exploitation will be in the police and crime Bill, which will be published very shortly, almost certainly tomorrow. On immigration and criminal penalties, this is down to penalties around the supply of boats, engines and materials to ensure that the use of that material in small boats is criminalised, which currently it is not. That helps downstream and we have done some work with Germany, France, Belgium and Holland to look at how we can prevent that equipment reaching channel shores in France, Belgium and Holland, where it is used to transport people illegally to the United Kingdom across the channel.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for asking this Question. Not for the first time, a Question coming from the Opposition Benches has caused me to do some research into how the current strategy for a particular policy came about. He will know that on 9 July 2024—five days after the general election—the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Disrupting County Lines Policing Strategy 2024-2027, which presumably had been approved by the Home Office when he was then a Minister. So if it is not performing that strategy which he agreed to, I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is good that there is a piece of legislation coming forward to clear up the problems in the legacy that we got from that strategy, is it not?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
How can I not say yes to my noble friend? Let me reach out the hand of friendship to the Opposition. I know that they do not want to see county lines and drug runners in place. I know that they do not want to see exploitation of children or the crime that results from that such as car theft, theft from houses and other thefts. My hand of friendship to them is that when the police and crime Bill is published shortly, I hope they will reach out and support the measures in the Bill on child exploitation and other areas of real importance to support the ending of these county drug lines—test the measures, by all means, but ultimately support them when they come to this House.
Violence Against Women and Girls on Trains
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the passing of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, what discussions the Department for Transport has had with the Home Office about the prevention of violence against women and girls on trains.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, tackling violence against women and girls on the railway network is a priority for the department, with my honourable friend the Minister for Local Transport and officials meeting their counterparts in the Home Office regularly. These meetings have been to co-ordinate and develop plans for tackling violence against women and girls on public transport, including trains, which will be a significant contributor to the success of the safer streets mission, part of the Government’s plan for change.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister very much for his Answer. Will the forthcoming Bill relating to the creation of Great British Railways contain a clear statement of the Government’s responsibility after nationalisation for the prevention of violence against women and girls on trains? Does the Minister agree that the potential for violence against women and girls on our railways needs to be prevented by measures such as decent lighting and the better design of trains and stations, rather than being dealt with by the British Transport Police after the event?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Taking the noble Baroness’s second point first, I completely agree that it is highly desirable to design out those features of railway travel which might contribute to any opportunity for violence against women and girls. My belief is that we do not need to wait for the railways Bill to do that, only to note that Great British Railways will have increasing control over the design of trains and, in particular, standards of lighting and closed-circuit television, which I think she is referring to. That will be very welcome, because it is quite clear that, although the British Transport Police is absolutely committed to tackling violence against women and girls, designing out opportunities for such violence to happen is a real priority.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the British Transport Police has a key role in ensuring our public transport remains safe. Its funding comes, in part, from train operating companies. What discussions has the Minister had with the Treasury to ensure the British Transport Police is properly resourced as the railway moves into public ownership?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The British Transport Police is governed by the British Transport Police Authority, which is independent. There are no statutory powers that I or the Government have to intervene. Nevertheless, the authority decided that the budgetary increase for 2025-26 would be 5.9%, which is significant. Ten days ago, I met the authority and the British Transport Police—including the chief constable—along with train operators, Network Rail and Transport for London to ensure that the BTP’s independent operational plans maximise the best use of the budget in those circumstances and, in particular, contribute to reducing violence against women and girls.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the slogan “See it. Say it. Sorted.” works best when, you having seen it and said it, there is someone qualified on the train to sort it. Does the Minister agree that there should be an increase—indeed, a guarantee—of people who are properly trained, on every train, so that there is a reduction in crime?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The opportunity for railway travellers to report crime through the 61016 phone number is not limited to what is happening on the train but includes what travellers see from the time they enter the network to the time they leave it. Many trains have one such person or more on them. Equally, in the case of trains that do not generally stop frequently, there is the opportunity of summoning police or other aid to the train.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, two policies would help to tackle violence against women and girls on trains: first, a ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol on public transport; and, secondly, ensuring that railway staff are present on platforms during scheduled train services. If the Minister agrees, when can we expect to see these changes implemented?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. It was quite a long time ago, but I was responsible for the original drink ban on the London Underground, which was enacted by the second Mayor of London. It was, by and large, successful—and it still is, although enforcement is always an issue. It is not practicable to have somebody in attendance on a railway platform for every station in Great Britain. Many of them have very few travellers, and those which are busy generally do have someone. I agree with the sentiment that it is desirable to have somebody on the platform. In fact, to be frank, it is better to have somebody around the station than it is to have them in a booking office, but those are discussions that the previous Government did not manage very well. This Government will think about how to best staff stations in order to make sure that all passengers feel comfortable and safe when travelling by train.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate that the British Transport Police is responsible to an independent authority, but when one looks at its annual report, one sees many pages devoted to net zero and diversity and inclusion but nothing that I can find specifically about how it is tackling operationally violence against women and girls. Does the Minister think that the British Transport Police has got the balance right, or is there scope for improvement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I assure the noble Lord that tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for the British Transport Police. At the meeting I previously referred to with the authority and the BTP, the chief constable was vigorous in making sure that everybody knew that a significant proportion of the total resources of the British Transport Police is devoted to tackling violence against women and girls. I should be only too happy to ask the chief constable to brief the noble Lord personally about how much effort is being put into this subject. I hope he will take me up on that offer.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, made a good point about alcohol control—as the Minister said, he introduced it on the Underground—but I do not think that it needs someone at every station to prevent people taking it on-board. There are staff on many trains who could stop people drinking alcohol, and there are other people who could intervene, so I think that a ban could be effective. Furthermore, we should keep an open mind about the possibility of this suggestion. Many of the people committing these offences are recidivists, but they seem to have an unrestricted right to book a ticket on a train. I wonder what restrictions might be placed on their access to a public transport system, to prevent victims suffering as they do quite regularly.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his observations about alcohol. Travel on the railway means many different things to different people; a 15 or 20-minute journey is certainly tolerable—and probably preferable—without alcohol, but a five-hour journey, from one end of the country to the other, is probably not. There are provisions to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol on trains going to and from football matches, for example, so it has been thought through. However, it is rather draconian to prevent people on long journeys relaxing. The behaviour to which the noble Lord refers and the sorts of people he is talking about are behaviours and people that should be closely monitored in our society. I am not sure that I can easily see how one could prevent such people buying tickets, but it might be that the advent of modern technology makes their presence easier to identify, and certainly easier to identify if they commit offences, including terrible offences against women and girls.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister inform the House how the railway police and the national police service work together to co-ordinate activities to stop this on trains?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The British Transport Police covers the whole country, so its liaison is necessarily diverse across all the Home Office police forces and those in Scotland and Wales. It does a good job. A previous Question this afternoon referred to county lines drug trafficking. In recognition of the national function of the British Transport Police, it has been given £4.3 million for the next financial year by the Home Office to fund its county lines task force, which works with the Home Office police forces in the seamless identification of people travelling across what would otherwise be police boundaries, and in catching and convicting criminals for county lines and other offences.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am old enough to remember a phenomenon called the “ladies only compartment”—and I am not alone in that, I gather. I was required to travel in that compartment as a schoolgirl. Is the creation of a safety zone for women and girls on our trains something that perhaps might be considered under the “design out” approach to which the Minister referred earlier?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
With modern railway rolling stock, it is far more difficult to partition off relatively small spaces. I too am old enough to remember women-only compartments, but compartment trains were undesirable in a whole pile of ways, including due to the relative isolation of people in different compartments. These days, while open carriages might not always be welcome if you are reading a good novel, they at least allow people to be in relatively open circumstances—and, hence, you would like to think that they would discourage people. The noble Baroness’s suggestion is a difficult one, given the configuration of modern railway rolling stock. To go back to the original point of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, to design out those nooks and crannies in railway compartments and those dimly lit places on railway stations is where we ought to go to reduce the opportunities for terrible violence against women and girls.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.
Gambling Levy Regulations 2025
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 and 10 December 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instruments). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 February.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Monday 24th February 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Feb 2025)
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Cost and implementation reporting(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament four months after the passage of the Act, and annually thereafter, assessing the costs and implementation dates of provisions in the Act.(2) The report must include details on—(a) the monetised and non-monetised costs to the health and social care system;(b) the monetised and non-monetised costs to the justice system;(c) costs associated with additional training for NHS staff responsible for treatment provisions;(d) costs related to community care services and infrastructure;(e) costs for additional training for approved mental health practitioners and independent mental health advocates;(f) additional costs incurred by local authorities;(g) housing and care-related costs for individuals with autism or learning disabilities; (h) additional costs incurred by the Care Quality Commission;(i) costs for training responsible clinicians and other relevant parties involved in patient care.(3) The report must also include a monitoring and evaluation strategy for the reforms introduced by the Act, including—(a) commencement timelines for the Act’s provisions;(b) an assessment of the Act’s impact on patient outcomes including user feedback; (c) relevant data to evaluate whether the reforms are being delivered as intended;(d) assessments of the impact of new safeguards and support mechanisms on patient and carer experiences.(4) Following the publication of the first report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of—(a) a motion for resolution on the report in the House of Commons moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report moved by a Minister of the Crown.(5) If the report is rejected by the House of Commons, the Secretary of State must deliver a statement to Parliament within a period of three months which addresses the contents of the report.(6) Subsequent reports are not subject to the provisions of subsection (4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament detailing the costs and implementation assessments of the Act after one year, and annually thereafter. The first report published under this provision must be subject to a resolution motion in both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Scriven, who is unable to be in his place today. On these Benches, our view is that this amendment is essential to the success of reforms proposed in this Bill. It would ensure not only accountability but the continuous assessment of costs and implementation timelines related to the vital provisions of the Bill. In short, it is a costed plan. It is grouped with various other important amendments, some of which I strongly support.
The issue we have repeatedly encountered in both mental health policy and community care is that we end up with community but very little actual care within it. This gap leads to preventable health crises, placing individuals and services under immense strain. Therefore, we must do everything to avoid this outcome. Yet so far in Committee we have not heard the necessary reassurances that adequate provisions will be in place nor that they have been properly costed and strategically planned for community care.
At its core, this amendment champions the need for transparency in the investment and execution of mental health care, specifically within community settings, where the demand will be greatest when the changes in legislation are brought forward. We cannot afford to enact these mental health reforms without a clear understanding of their financial and structural impact on the health and social care system, the justice system, local authorities and, most importantly, the lives of those who rely on these services.
In short, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within four months of the passage of the Bill and annually thereafter. The report would provide a detailed assessment of both the monetised and non-monetised costs associated with the provisions of the Bill. Specifically, it would outline the financial commitments necessary for the training of NHS staff and approved mental health professionals, the expansion of community care services and the provision of adequate housing and care for individuals with autism or learning disabilities. Furthermore, the amendment would ensure that the Care Quality Commission was adequately resourced to uphold the highest standards of mental health provision. These are fundamental requirements, because without a clear cost framework and implementation plan, we risk leaving individuals in crisis without the support they need.
However, it is important to say that the amendment is not simply about numbers; it is about real lives. The monitoring and evaluation strategy included within this proposal would ensure that reforms were not just theoretical but delivered tangible improvements in patient care. It would require the Secretary of State to assess patient outcomes, collect user feedback and measure the effectiveness of new safeguards and support mechanisms.
If we fail to scrutinise and report on the costs and impact of this legislation, we risk underfunding critical services, delaying implementation, and ultimately failing those who are most vulnerable. Mental health services, particularly those delivered in the community, are a necessity and not a luxury. They prevent hospitalisations, support recovery and uphold the dignity of those living with mental health conditions. This amendment would ensure that these services were not only established but were adequately funded, effectively implemented and continuously improved.
I turn briefly to Amendments 163 and 164 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, which I see as complementary and mutually reinforcing to Amendment 130. In particular, Amendment 164 would ensure that mental health funding was not cut as a share of overall health service funding until this Act was fully implemented. The amendment supports the principle of parity of esteem by putting a floor under the aggregate mental health service funding share in England; in essence, enshrining the mental health investment standard in law, something that we very much support. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in speaking chiefly to my Amendment 153, I shall say briefly that I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and support, as does she, the related amendments that come after this. They interrelate with an amendment of mine that was discussed earlier in Committee about the funding of community services. Funding is the great issue right across the board, and it is essential that there is something in the Bill that addresses that. My amendment, although it looks somewhat different from the others in this group, is closely related to them, because, as the noble Baroness said, we have to be concerned about the implementation of the Bill and not just its nature.
My amendment says that for-profit companies should not deliver under the Bill. It does that in two ways. It says:
“Any new facilities or organisations created to deliver the provisions of this Act must not be operated by for-profit companies”.
It then says that within five years of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must ensure that what is now for-profit in this space is transferred to not-for-profit. Why is that essential to implementation? I shall put it into three categories.
The first is the cost of paying profits from what should be money for the provision of services. The second is quality issues associated with for-profit companies; after all, their directors and management have a duty to maximise the return to shareholders. That is the way that for-profit companies are set up in this country. The third is that there are issues of stability.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, building on many of the important points we have just heard, I will speak to Amendments 163 and 164 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their support for these two modest proposals, which are parsimoniously drafted but nevertheless potentially impactful if adopted.
The first amendment quite simply says that we will do away with “mañana, mañana” when it comes to implementing this Bill, which we have all spent so much time on and which the patients and advocates are so keen to see adopted, by putting a five-year backstop from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act through to commencement. Commencement of all its provisions must happen no later than five years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The logic for that is that we all believe that, on balance, by the time the Bill has worked its way through Parliament, it ought to be an injection of improvement for mental health services, so why would we want to delay?
Of course, part of the answer is that there are some rate limiters, which are described elsewhere, including in the impact assessment. If we go through the impact assessment and say, “All right, what are the specific things that it suggests won’t be possible or won’t have got going until year 6 after Royal Assent?”, we will find it is a relatively modest number. For those who want to take a look, it is in table 1 of the impact assessment, at page 17. There are some changes to the second opinion doctor, to the CTOs, to the CTPs and so on, but both the pound note impact and the extra staffing at year 6 and beyond are incredibly modest compared with the overall size of mental health spending that we will incur. The incremental costs beyond year 5 are somewhere between £15 million and £25 million, on a budget that runs to billions. I believe that, in the real world, if we strain every sinew, it will be possible to get this thing done within five years.
There is another reason for thinking that it is useful to have a statutory backstop to implementation in the Act itself: the unfortunate tendency that we have seen in various other pieces of legislation that, when push comes to shove, the decision is made just to kick the can down the road a little further. I think it is fair to say that both principal parties have criticised the other for doing so with legislation that has passed. I think we had some measures in the health Act that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, steered through on obesity and junk food. They never quite saw the light of day, despite Parliament deciding that they would be a good thing. The then Government were criticised for that. Likewise, we put the time in to create the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. I think the Opposition criticised the Government for delays in implementing it, despite the fact that Parliament had passed it. Of course, the cause célèbre is social care reform, where we have been happily kicking down the track legislation that has seen dither and delay for over two decades. That should not be the fate of this legislation. Therefore, this simple amendment would put in a backstop to save us from ourselves. Parliament is sovereign. If we want to get the job done, there is no reason to think that we cannot make these changes in less than the time it took this country to fight and win World War II. That is the rationale for Amendment 163.
Amendment 164 simply says that, during the intervening period while this Act is being implemented, it would be unreasonable to shrink the size of the slice of the pie going on mental health services, for all the reasons that we have heard throughout Committee. To make sure that there can be no argy-bargy on how the drafting is laid out, we have lifted the wording exactly from the health Act as it currently is on the statute book around the proportion incurred by NHS England and ICBs that, taken together, relates to mental health. It says that it
“must not fall as a share of their expenditure (taken together) on all health services”,
with a little kicker: to stop the Department of Health and Social Care marking its own homework, the National Audit Office will do a review after each year and provide a report that we can all scrutinise.
Here are some reasons why the Government should not object to this. First, it does not tie their hands on the overall sum of funding allocated to the National Health Service. That is a decision for the Executive and negotiated each year; nothing here would constrain the ability of the Government to increase or cut expenditure on the National Health Service. Nor would it constrain the ability of each integrated care board to make a judgment on its own priorities. It simply says that, in the round—taking the 42 ICBs and NHS England together—it would be unreasonable to think that the share of health service spending on mental health will go down at a time when there is an incredible gap between need and treatment, and when we are trying to implement this legislation.
Fortunately, just before Christmas the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, signalled his support for the mental health investment standard. This is the opportunity to provide legislative cover for that very welcome announcement. It is possible that the current Secretary of State will not be the Secretary of State for the totality of this Parliament—nobody has a crystal ball. Looking out five years beyond Royal Assent, it is also possible that year 5 will be the first year of a new Parliament. So it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to support the Secretary of State’s intent by legislating in the way set out in Amendment 164, not least because there are some concerning signals from around the NHS that, for the first time since the mental health investment standard was introduced, it is possible that the share of funding on mental health will go down, not up, when taken in the round. We have not yet seen the figures, but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. In any event, that simply serves to underline the acute importance of this safety net provision to ensure that the financial firepower is there to get this Act done.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my absence from earlier debates in Committee. I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments. My noble friend said that we need to save ourselves from ourselves. Actually, we need to raise aspirations to change the culture of believing that it cannot be done and thinking that it will cost too much to take a more preventive approach, to care properly for people in the community and to achieve parity for mental health outcomes. These amendments are really important to try to achieve that, so I support them.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendments 163 and 164, to which I have added my name, and particularly about the length of time, the five years.
We first started talking about the reforms to the mental health legislation eight years ago, when we set up the review of the legislation under Sir Simon Wessely, and I was the vice-chair. It reported in 2018—seven years ago—and it was not even a very radical rethink of our mental health legislation. Yes, it will make a lot of difference to a lot of people—service users are very keen for this to come about, and they certainly do not want to wait longer than five years to see all the measures come into force—but this is relatively gentle stuff. At some stage we will need a much more radical rethink of our mental health legislation. Five years is quite a long time, so I rather hope the Minister can give us some comfort by saying that most of it will be done in two years, or perhaps three years at the outside.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I have been concerned, as we have discussed this Bill, that costs are likely to spiral. I am not objecting to that, but it seems to be the elephant in the room. Unless we know, the Bill will become a white elephant because people will just say that we cannot afford to do it. It is far better to have transparency, as has been argued.
Secondly, I oppose Amendment 153. For a number of reasons, I do not think we should prohibit for-profit entities being involved in this endeavour. The suggestion is that if we remove the profit motive, all will be well. A word of caution: not-for-profit organisations are not necessarily the most efficient, virtuous organisations, as we might imagine. In the charitable sector there are some worrying trends of money being spent, rather self-indulgently, on staffing and on all manner of extraneous and sometimes politicised endeavours.
We have seen the emergence of EDI—equality, diversity and inclusion—policies, which the Health Minister, Wes Streeting, has worried about happening in the state sector, and we have seen them become absolutely rampant in the charitable and not-for-profit sector. I want us to concentrate on the people the Bill is designed to help and therefore not to have our own political idea that only the state can deliver well—I just do not believe that is true.
For example, I have done work in prisons over a period of time—that also relates to the Bill—and have worked in both private and state-run prisons. Some private prisons are awful and some state-run prisons are worse—and, by the way, I have worked in some brilliant state-run prisons and some brilliant privately run prisons. We should judge on the basis of the quality of the care or the service that they provide, not some prior presumption that because they make profit they might be useless, somehow evil or not attending to their core mission.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am right behind the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in their Amendment 130. We know, and I believe that by and large we accept, that the Bill is not intended by the Government to hold out the prospect of instantaneous changes to the delivery of mental health care. It offers a series of measures that, over a period of years, should make a material difference to the well-being of a wide range of mentally ill people who require treatment, whether in a secure mental health setting or in the community.
The Minister has spoken of the need to view these measures in the broader context of the NHS 10-year plan and, certainly from the Government’s point of view, that is a perfectly reasonable position to take. However, if that is the Government’s policy, it begs a whole mass of questions around implementation and funding. For example, what do the Government see as the immediate high-priority measures that they wish to introduce? Which measures do they propose to defer, and for how long? What are the costs associated with these changes, both to the NHS and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out, to the justice system and local government? Bearing in mind Treasury constraints, when realistically do they believe a clear timeline for change will emerge? We have the impact assessment, but how far can we rely on that?
If those questions for the time being have to remain hanging in the air, as I suspect they will, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that Parliament, in the not-too-distant future, needs to be given an account of what the longer-term future looks like in a way that reflects not only the Government’s current thinking but, as time goes on, how their thinking evolves, as it surely will. There is therefore a strong case for a report to Parliament sometime in the next few months and on an annual basis thereafter, making clear both the timeline of ambition and the timeline of what in reality is being delivered.
I am conscious that we all need to keep our remarks succinct and to the point, so I will comment only briefly on the other amendments in this group. I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 153 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I have always believed that what matters most in healthcare is not whether a service is delivered by a public or a private organisation but rather the quality of care to patients and whether good outcomes are achieved at acceptable cost.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Kamall has added his name to Amendments 163 and 164. These amendments stand absolutely four-square with the theme of Amendment 130, and on my noble friend’s behalf I express my warm support for them. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has said it all.
Just as we accept that we will not get any instant changes arising from the Bill, by a corresponding token, the Government cannot take that as a free pass from Parliament to defer implementing its provisions sine die. We cannot have a situation in which, prior to implementing the provisions, the principle of parity of esteem is quietly put to one side. I hope the Minister will have reassuring words to say on those very important points of principle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this first debate today, and I start by saying how glad I am—I am sure other noble Lords will say this too—to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her rightful place. I certainly heard her support for the amendments that we are discussing.
Before I turn to the amendments, it may be helpful to your Lordships’ Committee if I briefly set out some of the high-level plans for implementation of these reforms. I am grateful for the understanding—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made this point—that time is required. I also understand the emphasis that noble Lords are putting on pace and, of course, we try to match those two things together, but I know we are all agreed on the need to get the Bill in the right place and the Act delivering.
The first priority after Royal Assent will be to draft and consult on the code of practice, and we will be engaging with people with lived experience and their families and carers, staff and professional groups, commissioners, providers and others to do this. The code will be laid before Parliament before final publication, and I am committed to working with noble Lords to ensure that we get this crucial piece of work absolutely right. We expect that this process will take at least a year.
Alongside the code, we will be developing secondary legislation, which will also be laid before Parliament, with more detail on areas such as statutory care and treatment plans. We will then need time to train the existing workforce on the new Act, the regulations and the code. This will likely be in 2026 and 2027, and we intend to commence the first major phase of reforms in 2027.
Of course, some reforms are going to take longer, as noble Lords will appreciate. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, tempted me to go even further than five years, and I thank her for the temptation, but I know I will not be able to please her on this occasion. Of course, it takes time to train new second opinion appointed doctors, judges and approved clinicians, so, as set out in the impact assessment, we believe it will take 10 years to fully implement the reforms, but I emphasise that these timelines are indicative, and we will iterate these plans as we get more certainty on future funding and the wider workforce plans. Of course, I fully appreciate the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of this work, which is crucial, and I am committed to updating the House throughout the implementation period.
Turning to the amendments, I will start with Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, kindly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I say in response that any implementation plan, as proposed in the amendment, which would be published four months after Royal Assent, would be very unlikely to contain any more detail than is already in the impact assessment. It is important to prioritise drafting the new code and the secondary regulations after Royal Assent. I also confirm to your Lordships’ Committee that we will commission an independent evaluation of the reforms, alongside existing monitoring and reporting by the CQC.
As I have said, I fully expect to update the House during the planning and delivery of the reforms. However, a requirement in primary legislation to publish annually, and within four months of Royal Assent, would be premature.
Amendment 153, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would prohibit for-profit companies from delivering provisions of the Act. I listened closely to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, but I do not share the view that a ban on for-profit providers is the right approach, for the reasons that were set out by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Our focus should indeed be on ensuring that we have high-quality and good value-for-money services. However, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that we are already investing in a significant quality transformation programme and piloting new models of care to ensure that care is focused on the individual, with maximum therapeutic benefit. That is where our priority lies and for that reason we are resisting this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 163, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Kamall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Neuberger, for bringing this issue before the Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, I too want to see the benefits of these reforms coming into play quickly and effectively. We intend to commence the reforms in phases, because some can be implemented more quickly than others, which need more time. This is not just about money but about building system and workforce capacity. For example, the impact assessment estimates that we need over 400 additional second opinion appointed doctors and over 300 additional approved clinicians. Many of these will be consultant psychiatrists, who would already need to have commenced training prior to the legislation for us to fully implement the Bill within five years, as required by this amendment. Rather than having a fixed deadline, as is proposed, we intend to monitor the impact of investment and test readiness to commence new powers on an ongoing basis, commencing each phase when we are confident that it is safe and effective to do so.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 164, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Neuberger. I associate myself with the comments about the commitment to treating physical and mental health equally, in line with this Government’s manifesto commitments. The mental health investment standard requires ICB spending on mental health to grow at least in line with overall recurrent funding allocations. Based on total planned spend for 2024-25, we expect all ICBs to meet the standard in this financial year.
There are already mechanisms to ensure that spending on mental health is prioritised. I refer noble Lords to Section 12F of the NHS Act 2006, which requires the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to lay before Parliament an annual document setting out whether they expect NHS England and ICB spending on mental health to increase in the next year. The Secretary of State will publish this statement before the end of this financial year.
As several noble Lords said, funding for mental health spend goes beyond the scope of the Mental Health Act, which aims to improve the care and treatment of individuals who have a mental illness and need to be detained in hospital or subject to restrictions in the community. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the Act is not the appropriate mechanism for holding the Government to account on mental health spend. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very comprehensive response and all noble Lords who have spoken. It was very helpful that the Minister started by setting out some of what I think she called the “high-level” plans for implementation. It was good to hear about what is going to happen with the code of practice and about plans to bring forward secondary legislation. I hope I heard correctly that it will be 2027 when we see the first major stage of these reforms starting to happen on the ground. That is the good side of this debate; it is incredibly important, because this is one of those issues where the implementation is as important as the policy, and that is why it is right that we are having this discussion.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Mental Health CommissionerAfter section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—“Mental Health Commissioner
142C Independent Mental Health Commissioner: establishment(1) There is to be an office known as the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner.(2) The Office in subsection (1) must be established by the Secretary of State three months after the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.(3) The Office of the Mental Health Commissioner will be led by an individual appointed by the Secretary of State titled the “Independent Mental Health Commissioner”.(4) The role in subsection (3) is referred to as the “Mental Health Commissioner”.142D Functions of the Commissioner(1) The Mental Health Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the implementation and operability of functions discharged by relevant bodies and persons under the provisions of this Act and the Mental Health Act 2025, particularly regarding the provision of treatment, care, and detention of people with a mental disorder.(2) The Mental Health Commissioner is also responsible for overseeing the implementation and operability of functions discharged by relevant bodies and persons under this Act which relate to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007.(3) The Mental Health Commissioner must publish an annual report on the use of functions discharged under this Act, which must assess—(a) the quality of mental health care treatment provided by relevant services;(b) the accessibility of mental health care treatment services;(c) the relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system;(d) inequalities of mental health care provision regarding protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010; (e) the use and effectiveness of detention measures under this Act, including but not limited to Community Treatment Orders, for the purposes of therapeutic benefit outlined in section 1(2B);(f) challenges surrounding stigma of mental health conditions;(g) the accessibility of advice and support to mental health service users, their families and carers on their legal rights;(h) other issues deemed appropriate by the Mental Health Commissioner.(4) In fulfilling their duties under subsection (1), the Mental Health Commissioner may review, and monitor the operation of, arrangements falling within subsection (1), (2) and (3) for the purpose of ascertaining whether, and to what extent, the arrangements are effective in promoting the principles in section 118(2B) of this Act.142E Appointment and tenure of officeThe Secretary of State may make regulations which make provision as to—(a) the appointment of the Mental Health Commissioner (including any conditions to be fulfilled for appointment);(b) the filling of vacancies in the office of Commissioner;(c) the tenure of office of the Mental Health Commissioner, including the circumstances in which they cease to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office.142F Remuneration of roleThe Secretary of State may—(a) pay the Commissioner such remuneration and allowances, and(b) pay, or make provision for the payment of, such pension or gratuities to or in respect of them, as may be provided for under the terms of their appointment.142G Appointment of staff(1) The Commissioner may appoint any staff they consider necessary for assisting in the exercise of their functions, one of whom must be Deputy Commissioner.(2) During any vacancy in the office of Commissioner or at any time when the Commissioner is for any reason unable to act, the Deputy Commissioner may exercise their functions (and any property or rights vested in the Commissioner may accordingly be dealt with by the deputy as if vested in them).(3) Any member of the Commissioner's staff may, so far as authorised by them, exercise any of their functions.(4) The duties of the Deputy Commissioner must be determined by the Commissioner.(5) Regulations may provide for the Commissioner to make periodic or other reports to the Secretary of State relating to the exercise of their functions and may require the reports to be published in the manner required by the regulations.142H Examination of cases(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for the examination by the Mental Health Commissioner of the cases of those who are detained under this Act receiving treatment by authorised mental health care providers.(2) The regulations may include provision about—(a) the types of case which may be examined; (b) the circumstances in which an examination may be made;(c) the procedure for conducting an examination, including provision about the representation of parties;(d) the publication of reports following an examination.(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, provide for the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner to access and examine relevant data on mental health treatment provision held by NHS England and any other authorities the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) In cases under subsection (3), reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that data provided to the Office of the Mental Health Commissioner is anonymised.(5) Regulations may, for the purposes of enabling the Mental Health Commissioner to examine or determine whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with, make provision for—(a) requiring persons to provide the Mental Health Commissioner with information, or(b) requiring persons who hold or are accountable for information to provide the Mental Health Commissioner with explanations or other assistance, for the purpose of an examination or for the purposes of determining whether any recommendation made in a report following an examination has been complied with.(6) For the purposes mentioned in subsection (3), the Mental Health Commissioner has the same powers as the High Court in respect of—(a) the attendance and examination of witnesses (including the administration of oaths and affirmations and the examination of witnesses abroad), and(b) the provision of information.(7) No person may be compelled for the purposes mentioned in subsection (5) to give any evidence or provide any information which they could not be compelled to give or provide in civil proceedings before the High Court.(8) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Mental Health Commissioner of sums in respect of expenses or allowances to persons who attend or provide information for the purposes mentioned in subsection (5).142I General powers(1) Subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, the Commissioner may do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of their functions.(2) This may include—(a) collaborating with health services, public authorities, charitable organisations, and other entities deemed necessary by the Mental Health Commissioner that are responsible for the provision of mental health care across the United Kingdom, including, but not limited to NHS bodies, the Care Quality Commission, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman;(b) making recommendations to the Secretary of State regarding treatment and detention provisions contained in this Act;(c) ensuring that authorities and public bodies with responsibilities for enforcement under the Mental Health Act 1983 have the necessary capacity and resources to undertake duties; (d) promoting mental health wellbeing;(e) ensuring access to treatment;(f) safeguarding the rights and welfare of patients;(g) other duties deemed to be necessary by the Secretary of State.142J Accounts(1) The Mental Health Commissioner must keep accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.(2) The Mental Health Commissioner must prepare annual accounts in respect of each financial year in such form as the Secretary of State may determine.(3) The Mental Health Commissioner must provide copies of the annual accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate as the Secretary of State may determine.(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify, and report on the annual accounts and must lay copies of the accounts and of their report before Parliament.(5) In this paragraph “financial year”, in relation to the Mental Health Commissioner, means—(a) the period beginning with the date on which the Mental Health Commissioner is established and ending with the next 31st March following that date, and(b) each successive period of twelve months ending with 31st March.142K Regulations(1) Regulations under section 142E or 142H are to be made by statutory instrument.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 142E or 142H may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry, it is me again. My Amendment 131 would establish a mental health commissioner for England as a new statutory office within government. I am quite conscious that it is a rather long and detailed amendment, but to my mind that reflects the importance of it to the successful implementation of the overall Act and the pivotal role that a commissioner would play. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy and Lady Bennett, for adding their names to my amendment, which gives a sense of strong cross-party support.
The Joint Committee recommended the creation of a statutory mental health commissioner to help drive the ongoing process of system reform and ensure accountability for implementation—I always felt that that was one of its seminal recommendations. I believe a mental health commissioner would provide sustained leadership for mental health, complementary to the existing roles and structures that we have, as well as monitoring the effective implementation of the Act. The commissioner would operate inside government and in the wider public sphere, giving the role real teeth.
Yes, the commissioner would have influence within government and the NHS, but they would also have the freedom to speak out when they considered it necessary to lead public debate, challenge stigma and break down boundaries and taboos. They could help galvanise action across departments and systems to improve population mental health and ensure that people living with mental illness are treated fairly and equitably in every sphere of life. In short, the commissioner could bring about a much-needed transformation in our mental health services. By establishing the role in statute, we would ensure that mental health would no longer be a topic that waxed and waned in its profile and importance within government and was reliant on either short-term interest or sometimes very hard-won attention.
Reflecting on the very important debate we had on reducing racial inequalities, I would consider that both assessing and taking action on inequalities in mental health would also be a critical role for the commissioner. Such a commissioner would be well placed to take responsibility for the oversight of a new responsible person role for addressing and reporting on racial disparities in mental health units at local level, as we discussed earlier in the debate on my Amendment 133.
We have an excellent example and model to follow in the way the Children’s Commissioner operates. From my extensive work on children’s issues over the years, I know how effective and influential that role has been, particularly during a period when there has been a change of Government. It has genuinely shifted the dial. I get the fact that it may not always feel 100% comfortable for the Government of the day, but they should embrace and welcome the additional scrutiny, ideas and recommendations that are based on engaging directly with people with lived experiences about their concerns.
That is certainly how it is happened with the Children’s Commissioner, who I think has done excellent work on children’s mental health. I know that it has proved to be empowering for children and young people to feel that their voice is being heard at the top table. I want that same opportunity to be in place for people with mental illness. It has the potential to make this Act a truly ground-breaking piece of social reform.
Mental health commissioners already exist in a number of international jurisdictions, including Scotland, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. There is some helpful research from the Centre for Mental Health that shows the value of such roles in other countries.
I feel I can already anticipate the Minister’s response. At Second Reading, the Minister said the commissioner might duplicate the work of the Care Quality Commission. I do not think that is the case, as their roles would be complementary, as the Children’s Commissioner complements the work of Ofsted. The functions of the two are clearly different: they have different powers and responsibilities that between them provide extra benefit to the public that could not be achieved by one of them alone. Both have the powers of entry to inspect services that work with children, but their roles and the outcomes they seek to provide are very different. The Children’s Commissioner has a wide advocacy role across the whole of government, as well as civil society more broadly, so they can act in a way that Ofsted cannot possibly do.
So I very much hope that the Minister will be willing to discuss this with me when we meet later this week and, indeed, with other noble Lords who have expressed support, to discuss how we can really make this fly. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 131, to which, as my noble friend Lady Tyler has stated, I have added my name. I can be brief because of the eloquence and comprehensive nature with which she introduced the amendment.
First, to note my registered interests, as this is probably the last day of Committee, the establishment of a mental health commissioner was recommended by the Joint scrutiny Committee of which I was a member. So it was a great disappointment that the Government did not include it in the Bill.
As I said at Second Reading, the mental health commissioner should be a voice at national level, promoting the interests of those who are detained and who are likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, together with the interests of their families and carers, raising awareness of their needs and challenging stigma and stereotypes. Crucially, the commissioner should be at the forefront of tracking and scrutinising the implementation of these reforms.
There is widespread support for the establishment of the commissioner, both inside and outside Parliament and from statutory, non-statutory and charitable organisations. For example, the Centre for Mental Health, for which I am an ambassador, has stated:
“A Mental Health Commissioner … would offer sustained leadership for mental health—complementary to existing roles and structures in government. They would operate both within the machinery of state and in the media and wider public sphere. They would have influence within government and the NHS, but with the freedom to speak out when necessary: to lead public debate, challenge stigma, and break boundaries and taboos”.
I totally agree with this view. However, in reply to this proposal at Second Reading, supported by many noble Lords, the Minister pushed back on it stating that there are concerns that
“the proposed mental health commissioner’s function would be potentially largely duplicative of existing bodies and functions, and nobody wants to risk diluting accountability or causing confusion”.
The Minister went on to say:
“As noble Lords will know, Dr Penny Dash has been asked by the Secretary of State to assess if the current range and combination of organisations within the healthcare regulation landscape is effective and to make recommendations of what might be needed, and I think it is important that we await her recommendations”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. 584.]
The key word here, I think, is “regulation”, and I do not agree with this view.
Since Second Reading, I have looked at the terms of reference of commissioners and regulators in various areas of public policy, and I believe that these roles are quite distinct. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler: the role of the Children’s Commissioner and the separate role of the education regulator Ofsted are a good comparison. I do not think these two roles dilute accountability or cause confusion. Further, I cannot remember if it has ever been suggested that these roles should be amalgamated or that the Children’s Commissioner should be abolished. In fact, I believe that there is widespread support, particularly from the public, for the invaluable independent work undertaken by a Children’s Commissioner.
I also think the Minister herself has made a very persuasive case for a mental health commissioner in her many constructive responses to the amendments already debated, especially today. My noble friend has noted, among other things: the complexity of the legislation and its interrelationship with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the need for significant investment in community services, the development of a skilled and complex workforce, and the number of years it will take to implement all the provisions of the Bill. This will need rigorous, robust and consistent oversight of implementation and wider health policy and service developments over the next decade and beyond.
The establishment of a mental health commissioner will ensure transparency and accountability and introduce a real force for good for the development and delivery of high-quality mental health services across the country. I hope the Minister will now agree and support this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following two such eloquent contributions, I can be extremely brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for what is clearly a major piece of work in producing this amendment. I attached my name to it because the creation of a mental health commissioner is such an important issue that it was crucial that there was a demonstration of support that was as wide as possible—a full slate of support here, even in Committee, as I am sure there will be should this come back on Report, unless the Minister says it is a great idea and she is going to go ahead with it right now.
I will add one other point of comparison, on something with which I have been a little involved myself: the comparison with the Patient Safety Commissioner. Noble Lords will remember that a case for the Patient Safety Commissioner was made from the then Government Back Benches, by Lady Cumberlege. She spent a couple of years fighting to finally get a Patient Safety Commissioner. We have seen the work that the Patient Safety Commissioner has done since the creation of the post: we have seen some very specific, detailed work on the issues of vaginal mesh and sodium valproate. Digging into the details and supporting a fight to get something done are really something that only these independent commissioner positions can do. Otherwise, very often, it falls to severely underfunded NGOs and perhaps to Members of Parliament who are enlisted in a cause but have many other calls on their time and resources as well.
We have discussed again and again how difficult it will be to bring this Bill into effect and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, to address the issues of discrimination and inequality that we know are already there. This is surely an absolutely obvious thing to do to help ensure—as so many noble Lords have been saying today and previously in Committee—that we get this done.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, before I begin my remarks, I want to say how pleased my noble friend Lord Howe and I are to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, back in her place; I am sure that many noble Lords would echo that sentiment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for moving this amendment to establish a statutory mental health commissioner. One of the motivations behind some of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe is to probe the Government on those recommendations from the pre-legislative Joint Committee that did not make it into this draft Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has said, this is one such recommendation of the Joint Committee that did not make the cut.
We did consider tabling a similar amendment ourselves, but I have to admit that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, did the job very well; there was no need to duplicate that. Having spoken to the noble Baroness and to her noble friend Lord Scriven, I know this is an issue that they and many other noble Lords feel passionate about. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has today made a very good case for a commissioner. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has also spoken of the need for central co-ordination to ensure implementation of the provisions of this Bill—something that was referred to in the last group of amendments.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord as I know that he has considerable experience in the NHS and is all too aware of the problems involved in trying to deliver at scale. However, I admit that I have some reservations about the idea of a mental health commissioner. While I understand the arguments in favour, I am, like the Minister, concerned about the creation of a new bureaucracy that could possibly duplicate functions.
In their response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the previous Government noted that
“the government does not believe that a statutory mental health commissioner would add significant value within the framework currently provided by existing bodies”.
The Joint Committee pointed out that a Mental Health Act Commission was established by the Mental Health Act 1983, which stood alongside the Healthcare Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In 2009, the then Labour Government took the decision to combine these three bodies into one integrated regulator with responsibility for all health and adult social care. I say that not as a political point but as an observation.
Since then, the CQC has undertaken the functions of the previous Mental Health Act Commission, and its remit extends to ensuring protections for those who are detained under the Act or subject to a community treatment order. To do this, the CQC has a number of Mental Health Act reviewers, who can visit patients in hospital and raise concerns about treatment or detention with managers, and then report back to the commission. The CQC also has a dedicated team that assesses complaints about the use of the Mental Health Act, including issues around detention and the use of CTOs.
I also understand that the CQC provides second-opinion appointed doctors for patients who do not have the capacity to consent to treatment under Part 4 of the Act. This Bill strengthens the safeguards around second-opinion appointed doctors, such as creating a clinical checklist that must be certified by the second-opinion doctor.
In addition to the functions of the CQC, local authorities and ICBs provide independent mental health advocates; we have debated those in earlier groups. The Department of Health and Social Care also gives funding to local authorities to commission Healthwatch services, of which I understand there are about 152 across the country. Healthwatch is another statutory organisation that gathers feedback from the users and ensures that NHS leaders listen to and, hopefully, incorporate that feedback.
As we have seen, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, alongside the CQC, supports individuals to raise complaints against the private sector, the NHS and all public health authorities.
The point I am trying to make is that there appears to be a plethora of services and public bodies that work to oversee the function of the Mental Health Act and try to ensure that patients have a voice in their care and treatment. While I appreciate that some of the proposed duties of the commissioner would be unique to that role, there appear to be elements of duplication in that role and those of existing public bodies. However, I am also conscious of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about being complementary.
So, while I hear the arguments on both sides, I am still slightly sceptical about whether we need a stand-alone mental health commissioner. To be fair, we have not completely made up our minds yet, and my noble friend Lord Howe and I are weighing up the arguments. For that reason, I ask the Minister to help these deliberations by clarifying a few points. First, will she confirm whether the CQC will take on the role of implementing the provisions of the Bill? Perhaps more importantly, how will it be able to fulfil that function effectively, given the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others and their strong feeling in favour of an independent mental health commissioner?
What action will the Department of Health and Social Care take to ensure oversight of the CQC’s role in the implementation of this legislation? If the Government remain opposed to the creation of a commissioner, can the Minister reassure your Lordships on how existing bodies will address the Bill’s implementation and accountability for its implementation, without the need for a stand-alone mental health commissioner?
I hope the Minister is able to give these assurances. Otherwise, given what was said today by other noble Lords, I am sure we will come back to this issue on Report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for tabling Amendment 131, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Murphy, and my noble friend Lord Bradley. As noble Lords are aware, I understand the intent behind the amendment. We have carefully considered the proposed functions of the commissioner that it outlines, and we recognise that improvements are needed to ensure that the system works effectively. But as noble Lords are aware, we do not feel that a new body is the answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, it may only duplicate existing functions, rather than providing the clarity and leadership that I know everyone is seeking. I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord give his reflections on the opinions of the previous Government about a proposed mental health commissioner.
Overseeing implementation of the reforms is the role of the Department of Health and Social Care, working with NHS England, the Ministry of Justice and the CQC in England, and, in Wales, with the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.
On the interaction between this legislation and the Mental Capacity Act, we are committed to keeping that under close review to minimise challenges potentially faced by front-line professionals.
The annual report by the commissioner proposed in the amendment would overlap with the CQC’s annual Monitoring the Mental Health Act report. The CQC’s annual statutory reporting reflects the views of thousands of patients interviewed each year by the CQC. Many of the issues that the commissioner would assess and report on, such as the accessibility of advice and the quality of services, are already reported on by the CQC.
It is proposed that the commissioner would examine cases of people detained under the Act. This clearly overlaps with the functions of the CQC and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, which have a statutory duty to monitor and, where appropriate, to investigate. The Act provides the regulator with similar powers—for example, to gather information to support it in exercising these powers.
The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is responsible for conducting independent investigations into patient safety concerns across England to identify ways to improve mental health care and patient safety. It has just concluded a series of investigations into in-patient mental health care and is currently undertaking further work.
With regard to the proposed commissioner’s general powers, it is the Government’s role, with NHS England, to ensure sufficient capacity and resources in the system. It is the role of NHSE’s national director for mental health and the medical director for mental health and neurodiversity, newly established last year, to oversee and take forward improvements to mental health services. It is already the role of the regulator to safeguard the rights and welfare of patients, while other organisations independently investigate complaints.
Minimising duplication with these organisations and functions would require significant remodelling of the system, interrupting ongoing programmes and responsibilities that are important to the smooth delivery of the Mental Health Act reforms. Having said that, we recognise that improvements need to be made in the quality of care and the patient safety landscape. We are committed to that goal and intend to overhaul the healthcare system to make it better for all patients.
The CQC has already begun to implement the recommendations made by Dr Penny Dash and Professor Sir Mike Richards: a new chief inspector for mental health will use their independent voice to amplify and respond to the experiences and outcomes of people who use services. Implementation of Mental Health Act reform will be at the top of their “to do” list.
On the wider landscape, we expect to hear soon from Dr Dash who, as noble Lords have said, is reviewing the broad range of organisations that impact on quality and safety, many of which I have mentioned today, and is due to report on whether greater value could be achieved through a different delivery model.
Reference was made in the debate to the role of the Children’s Commissioner, which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, particularly focused on. I want to place on record my gratitude to the Children’s Commissioner for the work done on children’s mental health. But, in reflecting on the debate earlier, I should say that the Children’s Commissioner is operating in a rather difference landscape. The proposed mental health commissioner would have a much narrower purview that, for the reasons I have stated, risks overlapping with existing organisations in a way that the Children’s Commissioner does not. I understand why the Children’s Commissioner is being looked to, but I cannot draw that direct comparison myself.
The challenges we have heard about in this debate have highlighted areas we need further to focus our efforts on. I look forward to speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about this topic this week, and I am sure that I will have further conversations about it. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 131.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and thank other noble Lords for their support: in some cases, strong support; in others, what I can only describe as support up to a point—if you know what I mean.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was right to say that we on these Benches feel passionate about this. We think it has the potential to make a real difference and transform not just mental health services at the crisis end—the detention end—but how the whole mental health landscape works.
I would just say in response that I am slightly surprised that the Government consider the current arrangements to be satisfactory. The Joint Committee clearly did not. It spent an awful lot of time looking into this and made a recommendation for a reason.
Baroness Parminter
“Notification of specialist eating disorder units having arrangements for special casesIn section 140 (Notification of hospitals having arrangements for special cases) of the Mental Health Act 1983, after “hospitals” insert “or specialist eating disorder units””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend the provisions related to the reception of patients in cases of special urgency and the accommodation of under-18s in specially suitable facilities which apply to hospitals under section 140 of the 1983 Act to include specialist eating disorder units.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, this is a very limited amendment. It aims to prompt ICBs to ensure that there are adequate placements for those with severe eating disorders—both those who are sectioned and those who are not sectioned. There is a need for this because general acute mental health hospitals are not appropriate if we are going to ensure the best outcomes for people with eating disorders, and there are far too few beds out there at the moment.
Let us address that last point first. In the UK, at the moment, there are 450 adult beds—that is a combination of NHS and private beds—and less than half that number for children. However, last year there were 30,000 hospitalisations for people with eating disorders, which is a fourfold increase on 2010, when there were 7,000. This means that people are being placed in inappropriate settings, be that in general acute hospitals, the general hospital down the road, or in out-of-area placements. All of those will deliver non-optimal recovery rates and result in more costs in the long term to the country, as well as greater suffering for individuals and their families and carers.
It is pretty obvious to most people that eating disorders require specialist staff—it is not rocket science. People with very severe eating disorders, sectioned or otherwise, will often need nasogastric tube feeding, which is a specialist skill, and there will be issues around avoiding refeeding syndrome, along with the cardiac risk. It is very clear why there is a need for specialist staff. The APPG on Eating Disorders did a recent report on this, The Right to Health, which looked at why specialist eating disorder nurses are required. Those provisions are not in general mental health hospitals, or indeed in the general physical health hospital down the road. It is pretty clear to most people that you need specialist staff.
What is probably not so clear, if you are not familiar with eating disorders, is that the physical constraints of a general mental health facility are not appropriate or optimal for people with eating disorders. If you have a severe eating disorder, you need feeding six times a day. People who are very anxious about eating will need to be supervised, one to one, in a calm environment. That is not what you get in a general mental health facility. Those people will then need to be supervised, one to one, for a period after meals, to help them to keep that food, again in a calm and spacious environment where they can be managed one to one. Those individuals will all have diets, weekly prepared especially for them, which will require a specialist canteen. Not only will you need staff to facilitate the provisions of those meals but you will need an area where people with eating disorders can be helped over a period of weeks to refamiliarise themselves with preparing food and to not be anxious about touching or preparing food—so you will need a second kitchen. The provisions in a general mental health facility are not optimal for people with specialist eating disorders. The legislation as it stands asks ICBs to focus only on general mental health facilities.
I am not making the case that eating disorder sufferers are somehow special—please do not think that. I am just making the case that they are different. For too long, they have not had a focus on their needs, which is why we have so few eating disorder beds in this country at the moment. This is probably a very poor attempt, but it is my attempt to ensure that ICBs are given a gentle nudge by the Government to do what I think the Government want to do—which is to treat the majority of people with eating disorders in the community but, for those who require beds, ICBs must at the appropriate time ensure that there are such beds. We must not rely on general mental health facilities, which will not produce the outcomes that we need. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on the particular point that she raises about eating disorders in her amendment and on a more general point.
In an earlier debate, I tried to make the case that people being diagnosed with autism by clinicians should be seen by clinicians who specialise in autism. I was reminded of this very much when the Minister, responding to an earlier amendment this afternoon, talked about parity of esteem in the health service between the physical health support provided and that for mental health. In the world of physical health, if you were to see an orthopaedic consultant, you would not necessarily see the same consultant, depending on the condition that you had. The same applies today with cardiology, whereby cardiologists now have more specialisms within that and you would therefore see the appropriate person. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the facilities that go along with such specialised treatment and assessment are very important.
I put it to the Minister, prompted by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and by the Minister’s own words, that it really is about time that, with regard to mental health as a generic term, whatever the condition, we stop—as they did even within my lifetime—locking people up in some old Victorian institution where they all get the same treatment, facilities and so on. Today, with our increased knowledge of mental health and of medication for mental health, and with the increased number of specialisms that we are now aware of, particularly around eating disorders, it is really about time, if there is truly to be parity of esteem, that mental health is treated as physical health is treated, and that the specialisms that occur and the specialists there to work within those specialisms are given weight within legislation so that facilities and specialists can be provided—because we know that they are not.
At the heart of the Bill before us is the fact that we are taking autism and learning disabilities out of the Mental Health Act 1983, in which they were all treated the same—lumped in together and treated by the same clinicians, whether they had a specialism in that area or not. This is a real opportunity for the Minister and the Government to make sure that there is true parity of esteem and that conditions such as eating disorders are respected and treated in the way in which they should be.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I remember a specific case of a friend’s 17 year-old daughter who was suffering from an eating disorder. She had to go into hospital, where she was not treated at all well; she was criticised for not eating—the very thing she had gone into hospital to get help for. She did not for quite some time get any specialised help on how to deal with her eating disorder. This amendment would deal with that issue.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for moving this amendment. Unlike in the last group of amendments, where there was limited support, we fully support her on this one. We know that the noble Baroness has tirelessly campaigned for better support for those with eating disorders. At Second Reading, she shared the experience of living with such disorders, and we all became much more familiar with some of the concerns. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Browning that it is about time we stopped treating all people with mental ill-health the same; we know that we have to look at it in far more granular detail.
The amendment speaks to the problems around the adequacy of provision of care for patients suffering with eating disorders. As the noble Baroness said, Section 140 of the Mental Health Act provides for reception of patients in cases of special emergency and the provision of accommodation and facilities suitable for under-18s, but it applies only to hospitals. I agree that there is a reasonable case to extend this to specialist eating disorder units. With that in mind, I hope the Minister will be receptive to this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for bringing Amendment 132 to your Lordships’ Committee, for raising this important issue, for sharing at Second Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, her personal experience of her daughter’s treatment and for sharing her overall experience of the provision of services today. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made the important point about different conditions needing different provision and support. That was amplified by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord.
Eating disorders are of course serious mental health challenges, and it is vital that those with them can access effective help quickly. We will continue to work closely with NHS England to improve access to the right and timely care and treatment for those with an eating disorder.
The purpose of Section 140 is to ensure that approved mental health professionals are aware of the services available to help them to locate hospital beds in special cases. The intention of the amendment is to extend the duty on health authorities to notify local authorities of arrangements for urgent cases and under-18s to include specialist eating disorder units.
Section 140 applies to arrangements for people who need in-patient treatment in a hospital. That includes specialist eating disorder units where they provide in-patient treatment in a hospital setting and are appropriate for someone to be detained in. Therefore, while I understand the points being made, it is not necessary to specify that Section 140 applies to specialist eating disorder units. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to Members around the Committee who have shared my concerns about the need for proper provision for people with eating disorders. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, rightly identified that there is a need for mental health provision to focus on the particular illnesses and to treat each appropriately.
I knew that my amendment would not be accepted; I was just desperate to find some way to raise this important issue, but I am grateful that my poor attempt has at least allowed for a debate in Committee and allowed me to share with Members a bit more about what it actually means if you are in a specialist eating disorder unit for a very long time. I would still love to see the words in the Bill, because every time ICBs and others think about provision for people with mental illnesses, including eating disorders, specialist eating disorder units should be in there, but I am not going to press the point either here or in the future. I am grateful for the support around the Committee, and I will keep trying to raise the issue whenever I can. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“General duty to secure sufficient resources for services in the community(1) It is the general duty of integrated care boards to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practical, that services in the community responsible for delivering care, treatment, or detention provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act have the necessary resources, including financial support, to meet service demands.(2) Additional forms of resource may be determined by integrated care boards in consultation with relevant local authorities or health care service providers and may include—(a) sufficient numbers of trained medical professionals;(b) purpose-built facilities for patient care;(c) community services responsible for out-patient care.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand on services to ensure that the provisions of the bill function as intended.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, yes, I am afraid it is me again. I thank my noble friend Lord Scriven and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for adding their names to Amendment 134. Of course, we have already acknowledged in many of our debates that the provisions in the Bill rely heavily on strong and effective community provision being in place, but there are real concerns within the sector that community provision is not currently sufficient to support the changes set out in the Bill. In my view, the new duties placed on local authorities and integrated care boards to ensure an “adequate supply” of community support lack teeth, and no real accountability measures have been put in place as yet to ensure that this duty is fulfilled. My Amendment 134 would place a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community had the necessary level of resource to meet demand for services.
This amendment is closely related to the amendments in group 1, already debated—indeed, I am not quite sure why this one was not included in that group; groups remain a bit of a mystery to me. It is worth noting that the Equality and Human Rights Commission recommended in its response to the Joint Committee that the Government should, in line with the recommendation of the independent review, ensure that there was
“sufficient, high-quality, appropriate, community-based mental health services and pathways to meet the needs of all adults, children and young people”.
It stressed:
“These should include therapeutic alternatives to detention, preventative support to minimise the risk of crisis, and wider community services that enable good mental health and recovery”—
something I will be returning to in a later amendment. Is the Minister able to say what consideration the Government have given to that specific recommendation?
The EHRC also felt that the Bill needed strengthening
“to ensure sufficient community-based services in practice in order to end inappropriate detentions. This was highlighted in the most recent annual review of the Mental Health Act by the CQC, which stated: ‘While we support the government’s objective to reduce hospital admissions for people with a learning disability and autistic people under the MHA, this can only be achieved by an increase in community support, including trained staff, and high-quality alternatives to admission’”.
I want to finish by focusing on the workforce aspect. Following the previous Government’s 2021 White Paper, the Royal College of Psychiatrists commissioned an independent assessment of the impact of the proposed changes on the psychiatric workforce to better understand how many additional psychiatrists would be required to deliver the reforms in the proposed year of implementation and, indeed, 10 years later. Based on that White Paper, the research found that by 2023-24, an additional 333 full-time equivalent psychiatrists would be needed in England, costing £40 million per year, and that by 2033-34, a further 161 full-time equivalent psychiatrists would be needed. While these figures may not necessarily accurately reflect the exact number of psychiatrists needed to deliver the reforms we are talking about in the Bill, or the current timelines for the legislation, they demonstrate clearly the impact on a workforce which is already understaffed and carrying high vacancy levels.
Back in March 2016, NHS England set a target to have an additional 1,040 consultant psychiatrists in post in England by March 2024. Based on these targets, as of July last year there was a shortfall of some 770 psychiatrists across England. That is a big shortfall. The impact assessment, while absolutely voluminous, is—as far as I can see—silent on where these people are going to come from. However, it estimates costs of around £99 million for alternative mental health care for people no longer admitted to hospital. It also estimates some £5.5 billion of savings from fewer overall admissions and fewer detentions for people with a learning disability or autism. It goes on to say that the benefits
“should not be understood as cashable”.
Can the Minister say what specific mechanism will be used for diverting more money into community services?
Psychiatrists are absolutely critical but are only one part of the wider mental health workforce, which also includes mental health nurses, clinical psychologists, mental health social workers, occupational therapists and others. Can the Minister say whether detailed plans to grow the overall mental health workforce will be contained in the 10-year plan and the upcoming spending review?
I am conscious that I have asked quite a lot of detailed questions, so if the Minister would prefer to write to me with her response, that is fine. I add that I am sympathetic to the aims of Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to again follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and offer support to her. I will be very brief because there has already been a comprehensive introduction.
It is useful to draw a comparison to see how we might look at some kind of composite as we get towards Report. This amendment places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the adequate levels of resource, which is why I signed it, but who gives the resources to the integrated care boards? Ultimately, it is the Government.
My earlier amendment sought a regular process of reports and parliamentary oversight, and I suggest that we need both. This is a good, strong amendment to give the duty to the ICBs. But we also need to see that there is the oversight and that ICBs have the capacity to support the duty they are being given.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Amendment 157 in my name seeks to clarify the responsibilities of integrated care boards and local health boards to find beds in a timely manner for patients admitted under Section 140 of the Mental Health Act.
This amendment goes to the heart of why we have the Bill in the first place. In large part, the practical problems experienced in obtaining proper care for people led to the introduction of the Bill, Sir Simon Wessely’s review and the work of the Committee. It reflects an important aspect of the transformation that has taken place in the understanding and treatment of mental illness. It reflects the importance of timely and effective care for people experiencing a crisis in their mental health. The Bill seeks to fill in gaps in mental health care, which can mean the difference between rapid intervention and needless delay.
My amendment to Section 140 is both necessary and overdue. It would place a clear responsibility on every integrated care board and local health board to ensure that patients who are assessed as requiring hospital admission under the Act receive it in a timely and appropriate manner. To that end, it mandates a clear line of responsibility by requiring the appointment of a designated officer charged with overseeing that these admission arrangements, as outlined in the Act, are not only established but function effectively on a day-to-day basis. This is not a mere administrative adjustment; it is an important change, aimed at addressing real world issues that affect the lives of countless individuals. Mental health crises occur without warning and do not adhere to schedules or bureaucratic timelines.
The local health boards and integrated care boards are the crucial link between community services and hospital care. Placing a clear statutory duty on these organisations will create a clear line of responsibility to ensure that no patient is left waiting whenever immediate care is needed. The appointment of a designated officer will further enhance accountability and operational efficiency. To emphasise the point, an individual with the specific responsibility of overseeing these arrangements will provide a robust mechanism to promptly address any issues that arise and to ensure that every patient’s admission is swift and appropriate.
It is important to understand the broader implications of this amendment. Timely admission to hospital is not merely a procedural matter; it is a critical component of effective mental health care. Early intervention can mean the difference between a manageable crisis and a catastrophic decline in a patient’s condition. By ensuring that patients are admitted promptly, we will invest in early treatment, reduce the likelihood of complications and, ultimately, alleviate the burden on our healthcare system. This proactive approach will lead to improved outcomes for patients, greater satisfaction among healthcare professionals and a more sustainable model for mental health service delivery.
To conclude, my amendment is a necessary step forward. It would provide clarity, reinforce accountability and ensure that our mental health system remains responsive and effective. I urge my noble friend the Minister to respond positively to my amendment, not merely as a change in policy but as a commitment to the well-being and dignity of every individual who depends on our mental health services.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 134. I hope I get the etiquette right, as this is my first contribution in Committee. I know noble Lords will put me right if I get it wrong.
People with learning disabilities and autism are generally detained because insufficient community support is available to keep them and others safe. Amending the Mental Health Act to prevent them being detained under its provisions will therefore be ineffective unless it is accompanied by serious investment in such support. In fact, without such investment it could actually be worse for people with learning disabilities and autism: if the community support is not available, doctors and social workers will inevitably look for other ways to keep them safe. They might be tempted to use the Mental Capacity Act in some cases, thereby taking away almost all agency and rights, not just those in respect of treatment, or to get the police and prosecutors involved in response to challenging behaviours, simply because the involvement of the criminal justice system means they can still use detention under the amended MHA. What an irony it would be if amendments to the Mental Health Act designed explicitly to reduce detention actually led to worse forms of detention.
Amendment 134, which would require integrated care boards to ensure that resources are made available to secure the necessary community support, is absolutely vital for the Bill to be effective. I mention here, as it is relevant, that I support the spirit of Amendments 163 and 164 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and others. If the necessary investment is made by integrated care boards, the future for people with learning disabilities and autism could be so much brighter.
I have seen what a wonderful difference this approach can make. I will never forget my work visit, in relation to children and young people with learning disabilities and autism, to a state special school in the London Borough of Islington—part of the Bridge Trust for youngsters with severe learning disabilities and autism, among other special needs—and seeing how well supported they were by integrated teams of social workers and health and education professionals. I asked the chief executive officer, Dr Penny Barratt, who had set the school up, how it started. She told me that she had been listening to the news one day and heard a report about a boy with autism whose behaviour was so challenging that he was being held down by seven people in A&E. Her background as a special needs teacher meant she knew that the next step for him was bound to be long-term, segregated detention. She was inspired in that moment to do something about it. The special school was born and, wonderfully, that young man became one of its pupils. His needs were as great as ever, with no language, but expert care and support from loving professionals meant that he was having a fulfilling life in a room with other pupils—with no detention and no segregation. Let us legislate to make it clear that this is the sort of future that we want to see for all such young people.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
In adding my support to these amendments, I welcome particularly the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.
This debate has emphasised why the pathway of care, from the community through to any kind of hospital admission and discharge, must be considered as a whole. It is not okay to separate bits off. That is why the amendments are so important: unless we put provision in place to make sure that, when admission is necessary, it is timely and to a place which has the skills to provide the therapeutic care that people require, detention and admission will in fact be longer and costlier. We cannot contemplate making legislation that does not take account of the whole patient pathway.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I have been inspired by the previous two contributions. I will briefly pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made about Amendment 134 on the availability of community services, particularly psychiatrists. I think the Minister referred to the longer training times for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals as one of the rate-limiting factors that would affect the speed with which the measures in the Bill could be implemented.
I have a request for the Minister. It is quite hard to tease out from the impact assessment what the Government think the incremental requirements for psychiatrists will be, year by year, over the implementation period. In fact, slightly perversely, they use mixed currency: the Minister responded, rightly, to Amendment 163 by saying, I think, that there was a requirement for 400 additional psychiatrists for the second opinion service; but when you look at the table in the impact assessment, it turns out that that is a headcount number driven by a number that is not a whole-time equivalent. However, for all the rest of the workforce, a whole-time equivalent number appears to be shown.
It would be good to nail down what the incremental requirement will be for psychiatrists, year by year and on a whole-time equivalent basis, so that between now and Report, colleagues can consider what the ramifications of that might be for a backstop on implementation. If that incremental requirement could be juxtaposed with what the Government think the organic increase will be in the number of psychiatrists over that period anyway, driven by the already published NHS workforce plan, that would be supremely helpful.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will try to draw together some of the strands that we have been discussing in this debate. When the Minister responds, please will she share with the Committee the department’s and the Government’s thoughts on workforce planning and the modelling they use for the prediction of demand?
As I listened to my noble friend Lady Parminter eloquently introduce her amendment, it brought to mind friends of mine. They have been in the position where their child was diagnosed with a very severe eating disorder, but they were told, “You are not sufficiently ill for anything to happen”. From that stage, nothing happened. If it were a physical illness, there would be some kind of process—although maybe not a care pathway. I am sorry, but I am one of those people who is very cynical about the use of the phrase “care pathway”; it is very overused throughout the whole of health, and particularly in mental health. People are diagnosed and then are just left, until they become so ill that they are in crisis and it is impossible to ignore them. We have seen the trends in the number of young people with eating disorders, which my noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned. What is the department doing to forecast the demand for specialists of that nature in future?
I want also to return to some of the conversations and debates that were sparked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. We know that the police are going to withdraw from being the first responders when people are in crisis. What modelling are the Government doing in terms of the community provision that is needed to deal with those people—who will still be in crisis? They are not going to stop having crises; in fact, they are probably more likely to show up in in hospitals than ever before, because that is where people go in the middle of the night when they have a crisis.
This is the sort of argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, was trying to get to in her discussion of having a mental health commissioner. Who will be the person who is in a position to take the Government to task for their planning and preparation for demands on the health service in the future? That is the kind of thing that we are trying to get to, and which all of us, in various different ways, have been trying to get to all afternoon.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
Can I just say that I did not talk about a “care pathway”? Perhaps I should have said the “patient journey”, but I was talking about the patient pathway—the actual experience of the person—which is not separated in their life.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief on this one. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for this amendment and thank all noble Lords, who made very valid points.
Clearly, this is another sensible proposal, highlighting as it does the importance of making sure that the ICBs commission sufficient mental health services in the community to meet the demand for them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, where will people go in the middle of the night? I know that we will come back to some of these issues when we discuss the group on mental well-being but I thought it was important that those points were raised now.
The Committee may remember that this was the subject of Amendment 139 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe, who spoke to it on the second day in Committee. The main difference between those amendments is, I think, that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, wishes to get ICBs focused on this very important task as soon as the Bill becomes law—and I agree with her intention on that. My only fear around the wording as it is currently drafted—I recognise that it is a probing amendment—is that
“insofar as is reasonably practical”
may provide an excuse, or, as we say, the proverbial long grass into which this duty could be conveniently kicked. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on both these amendments. I turn first to Amendment 134 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, both of whom shared real-life examples to illustrate what is being spoken about here.
This duty to consider mental health needs, as well as the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people, in the community as well as in hospital is already covered by ICBs under the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. An ICB must arrange for the provision of services to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility.
ICBs and their mental health trusts are also required to prepare a joint forward plan that describes how the ICB will arrange for NHS services to meet its population’s physical and mental health needs, and the needs of those with a learning disability and autistic people.
On the general point with regard to the long-term workforce plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned, it will report in a few months’ time, later in the year, which I hope will give a lot more substance to answer the kinds of questions that are being raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, asked about incremental requirements for psychiatrists on a year-by-year and whole-time-equivalent basis. I say to the noble Lord that the impact assessment sets out our best estimate at this point, but the plans need to be seen as somewhat iterative. With regard to further specific questions, including those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I will indeed be glad to write.
Turning now to Amendment 157, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies and spoken to by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, as we have already discussed in relation to Amendment 134, there is already a duty on ICBs to provide sufficient hospital and community services under the National Health Service Act 2006. Furthermore, chapter 16 of the Mental Health Act code of practice already states that local authorities, NHS commissioners, hospitals, police forces and ambulance services should have local partnership arrangements in place to deal with people experiencing crises in mental health.
We accept that there are issues with bed capacity and patient flow, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I will resist using the term “patient pathway”, but I certainly agree that they are part of what happens to a patient and they are indeed linked—whatever form of words we choose to use. That is why, in the recent NHS planning guidance, we have tasked local systems with reducing the length of stay in mental health wards and have committed £26 million to improve mental health crisis care, with a further £75 million to reduce inappropriate out-of-area placement. All this is already in train and does not suggest a requirement for primary legislation. So, for these reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister yet again for her response. We have had a number of discussions so far this afternoon in this broad area, and indeed, as was alluded to, on previous Committee days. They are interrelated, so it is sometimes hard to separate the individual groups. I think at the very heart of all of our discussions is concern about two things: first, how we ensure that there is sufficient provision within the community to provide the sorts of services we all hope to see and which are fundamental to the successful implementation of the Bill; and, secondly—I think this came out very clearly—the need for really good workforce planning and understanding it on a year-by-year basis.
I was encouraged to hear from the Minister that we can expect to see the long-term workforce plan—I think she said—in a few months’ time. I very much look forward to that. I hope it includes some of the workforce planning and modelling of community provision that my noble friend Lady Barker referred to, and I hope, above all things, that it is slightly clearer than the impact assessment, which, I have to be honest—it may just be me; it might have been late at night when I was looking at it—I found somewhat on the opaque side. I am really hoping for greater clarity when we see the long-term workforce plan. This issue is not going to go away. In what form we return to it at Report, I am not quite sure, but, for the moment, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Mental Health Crisis Breathing SpaceAny person detained under sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 must be offered support from the mental health crisis breathing space debt respite scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that MHCBS, a debt respite scheme, is offered and available to patients detained under sections 3, 37, 41 and 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
In moving Amendment 135, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Neuberger, and I will be a little disappointed if I do not get some support from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
This amendment would require that the established and successful procedure, the mental health crisis breathing space, is offered automatically to those detained under longer-term Sections of the Mental Health Act. This is the final one of a set of three amendments to the Mental Health Bill in my name that have addressed the financial implications for people who struggle with their mental health. In these debates I have previously referenced that I am on the advisory board of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. This amendment is based on the institute’s work.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her engagement on my Amendments 59 and 121, which sought to ensure that routine enquiries on financial matters are embedded in care and treatment plans and advance choice documents. I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement and understanding on these issues.
Amendment 135 calls for mental health crisis breathing space to be automatically offered to those detained under Sections 3, 37, 41 or 47 of the Mental Health Act. Of the three amendments in this set on financial issues, this one perhaps has the greatest scope for reducing the financial harms that people experience when they are facing a mental health crisis. The mental health crisis breathing space mechanism is a vital tool that can protect people in a mental health crisis from the impacts of problem debt by pausing enforcement action and contact from creditors, and freezing interest and charges on any debts. These protections are provided for as long as the treatment lasts—plus another 30 days.
When people access this scheme, it can be life-changing. It can be the difference between people leaving hospital after a mental health crisis to find that bills and debts have escalated, thus putting their recovery in jeopardy, and having the space that they need to get back on their feet. I share the words of one of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s research community members who has personal experience of accessing the scheme:
“Breathing space … has totally changed my experience from feeling hounded and persecuted to supported and valued”,
taking away
“much fear and sleepless nights coupled with dire days of depression”.
However, in its current provision, use of the scheme is significantly below its potential and the numbers that were forecast by the Government. When introducing the scheme in May 2021, the Treasury anticipated that 27,000 people would use it in its first year. Yet the most recent figures from last November show that only 4,404 people have accessed it in total. This underutilisation is due not to a lack of demand or need but to how the scheme is designed and delivered.
Existing NHS guidance on acute in-patient mental health care already states that wards should offer mental health crisis breathing space to those who need it. This is well-intentioned but does little to drive take-up of the scheme. In practice, thousands of people who would benefit from the support of this tool are missing out simply because nobody asks. On top of this, awareness of the mechanism is extremely low among mental health care professionals, meaning that, even when financial difficulties are spotted, it does not always result in people accessing the protections that the mechanism affords.
My proposed addition to the legislation would ensure a statutory obligation to offer this mechanism to those who need it most, requiring services to be more thorough in its implementation, with greater levels of accountability. Specifically, automatically offering the breathing space to people detained for potentially longer-term conditions would ensure that those whose incomes are likely to be adversely impacted by extended admissions can be supported. This intervention would target the core group that the mechanism was intended for.
To outline the possible reach of such a targeted intervention, in 2023-24 there were almost 11,000 detentions under the relevant Sections of the Act, representing a fifth of all detentions. Formalising the automatic offer of mental health crisis breathing space to this targeted group would go a long way towards ensuring that the mechanism supports the number of people that the Treasury forecasted it to serve. Crucially, after the breathing space period has ended, people would have the opportunity to be offered formal debt advice, with specialist support for those who need it, to ensure that financial difficulties are resolved on a longer-term basis. Legislating for the scheme to be automatically offered to those detained under the longer-term provisions of the Act would be genuinely transformative in preventing more people from experiencing the acute financial harms that too often accompany a mental health crisis. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and to offer the strongest possible support. These are issues that the noble Lord and I—the noble Lord very much in the lead and me following along in support—have engaged with on financial services and markets Bills previously. They are crucial issues for people’s well-being and the well-being of our whole society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was talking on the last group about the patient journey. For someone who has become ill, who is seeking treatment and who has the weight of debt sitting on their shoulder, it is worth thinking about how damaging that weight of debt can be to the whole experience of the patient journey. It is worth thinking about how this interacts with issues around discrimination and unequal outcomes that we have looked at regarding other parts of the Bill in terms of the intersectional pressures that people can experience.
In preparing for this, I was looking at the middle of last year and mental health awareness week. The Women’s Institute was focusing particularly on the impact of energy debt, and 14% of the people in the study were at that stage in debt to their energy suppliers. Nearly a third said that they were worrying seriously about this. A fifth said that they had suffered sleepless nights. For the people who are suffering under debt pressures—single parents, very often women, or people from disadvantaged communities that are already economically disadvantaged—all these things feed in together. This is simply a measure for that. “Breathing space” is so evocative of the sense of taking off that pressure and allowing people the chance to focus on their own recovery and their own treatment, rather than just worrying away about that debt. I cannot see why the Government, or why anyone, would oppose this very modest measure.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I should have declared interests before, as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of Whittington Health NHS Trust. I also was a vice-chair of the review of the Mental Health Act, which reported in 2018 and is relevant, because I very strongly support this amendment to which I have added my name. It is something that the review did not address. We should have done. We did not have it raised sufficiently strongly with us by service users to whom we talked a great deal. That was an omission. It is very important that we do this. I hope that the Minister can say that this will be included in the legislation in its final form, and that she will accept this amendment or something redrafted along its lines.
I am very grateful to the wonderful Money and Mental Health Policy Institute—I pay full tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley—for its briefings. When, in 2022, it conducted a piece of research looking at the finances of 200 people who had received care from secondary mental health services, it found that, quite unsurprisingly, a majority of the people who responded had experienced an income drop while receiving support from mental health services and struggled to pay their mortgages or for food, or missed a payment on energy, rent, council tax, or whatever it might be. This was a problem that kept coming back and they kept talking about. But the majority also expressed real support for the idea of making plans, ahead of time, for how to deal with their finances and how this would all be managed when they were unwell, as many people have episodic periods of being unwell. It seems to me that that piece of work is a cast-iron argument in favour of using breathing space to tackle these financial issues. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to support this.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to add my support to this amendment. I have been very pleased to add my support to all three of the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has tabled in this area of financial inclusion. I remind your Lordships’ Committee of my interests as a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and president of the Money Advice Trust.
I have always been a strong supporter of breathing space. It is a really important debt respite scheme, which has made a huge difference to the lives of many people struggling with debt. The idea of automatically offering this to people who are detained under the Act is absolutely the right thing to do. There is just so much evidence about the links between people spiralling into mental health crises and then into financial crises, which makes their recovery so much harder. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies, talk about the sort of debt advice which might also then be available.
Everything that needs to be said about this amendment has already been said, so I underline my support for it and, like other noble Lords, very much hope we might hear some encouraging words from the Minister.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I very much support this amendment and do so for an additional reason to those already given, which is that it will reduce the time staff have to spend discussing debt with severely ill people in a time of crisis. One thing we need to do is improve productivity in the health service—I declare my interests in relation to that—and free up clinical staff to really support patients. I believe that this intervention would actually enable that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in raising this issue in this House and through his work with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said he hoped that he would get my support; I can assure him of that. Today, and in previous groups of amendments related to advance choice documents, the noble Lord spoke powerfully about the need to understand the link between financial problems and mental health problems. It also reminded us that while this may not be seen as a priority for people detained under the Mental Health Act, it is not difficult to imagine why they might neglect their personal finances—obviously, not their first priority. During this time, their bills will not be paid, debts will grow, and this could lead to debt collectors or bailiffs being called in, making the situation far worse.
I was particularly struck by the personal testimony that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, read out, in the earlier group of amendments, from the person who was helped by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, about not being asked whether there was anyone who could open their mail and keep on top of their day-to-day living. For them, as the noble Lord told us, it was a spiral of going in for treatment and coming out to find that their finances were in a bigger mess than before. What would that do to someone who was suffering from mental health issues? It was a bigger mess, leading to terror, shame and guilt, and in fact it undid the work of the treatment that they originally went in for. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said, the phrase “breathing space” is very evocative of what we are asking for here.
It is worth repeating that this amendment does not require health and care professionals to offer financial advice. We are not asking them to be financial advisers or to deal with issues that they are not experts in. It is about empowering them to identify people in need and refer them to the appropriate existing support. As the noble Baroness said earlier, this will improve productivity and save all that time that would be wasted. It need not cost much money, or indeed any money in some cases, but could save the patient from financial and mental distress and save taxpayers’ money. For this reason, we are supportive of this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for raising what is a very real issue, among many we are debating today in Committee. I thank him for Amendment 135, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Neuberger and Lady Tyler, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I certainly agree that breathing space can indeed be what could be described as a lifebelt for people in problem debt, especially where this is worsening or is indeed a trigger for their mental illness, as my noble friend Lord Davies spelled out and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, endorsed.
Individuals who are detained in hospital for assessment or treatment under the Mental Health Act are eligible for this scheme, as are those receiving crisis treatment in the community from a specialist mental health service. Approved mental health professionals can refer eligible individuals to protect them from debt enforcement. These professionals are often the first on the scene when a person is in crisis and are responsible for arranging assessment for treatment under the Act. Therefore, when a person is admitted to hospital, they may already have been enrolled in the scheme and, if not, NHS England guidance sets out the financial support, including referral to breathing space, that should be offered to patients receiving acute in-patient mental health care, whether detained or voluntary. I can say to your Lordships’ Committee that we do intend to make this an explicit requirement in the Mental Health Act code of practice.
I feel that is particularly important as my noble friend Lord Davies raised the point about uptake. Certainly, I recognise that uptake has been lower for the scheme than originally anticipated. While we do not believe this is a representation of the scheme significantly underperforming, I assure my noble friend that we will continue to keep the scheme under review to ensure that it is working effectively for those who need it, and needed indeed it is. It is for these reasons that I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate; the case was made clearly by everyone. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for the additional point about the pressure on clinical staff. This issue was, of course, raised in the earlier amendments about the code of practice and the treatment plan; they are all of a piece. I will consider carefully what my noble friend the Minister said, and perhaps we will have some discussions, and we will see where they go. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe
“Accessibility for children with physical disabilities(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.(2) In section 131A (Accommodation etc for children), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Where a child who is accommodated under this section has needs arising from a physical disability, the managers, in determining the suitability of the environment in which the child is accommodated, must ensure that such reasonable adjustments to the environment are made as they consider necessary.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure improvements in accessibility for children with physical impairments who are accommodated in mental health inpatient units.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 142, I will speak to Amendments 143 and 144 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. These amendments are about one critical issue that has proved seemingly intractable despite best efforts for many years: the way the mental health system looks after child patients. I am not talking just about child patients who have been compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act, although they are the subject of Amendment 143; I am referring also to children admitted to a mental health unit as in-patients for any reason at all. That is the subject of Amendment 144.
Noble Lords who are veterans of the last Mental Health Bill in 2007—I can see one or two—will remember that the late Lord Williamson of Horton, former Convener of the Cross Bench Peers, made this issue his crusade with, unfortunately, only limited success. We are still living with the problem. The current Mental Health Act code of practice says that it is government policy for under-16s not to be admitted to an adult ward, which is fine as far as it goes—although, in my book, when we talk about children, we should include young people aged 17 and 18.
The Government promised to eliminate the inappropriate use of beds in adult wards, but that has not happened. Last year, the CQC reported that 196 children were admitted to adult mental health units in 2022-23. This is not a trivial matter. The patient group Blooming Change, which I have mentioned before, has provided me with some first-hand accounts from children and young people who have been placed on adult mental health wards and who have been through some harrowing experiences. One has said:
“As a child I spent over 50 days in a mixed gender crisis unit … There was some very scary stuff that happened … During my first day on the unit, I witnessed a team of police dressed in riot gear with riot shields and dogs doing a drug search … At one point my bedroom was next door to a man who broke a student nurse’s nose and smeared his own bodily fluids over his bedroom wall … I was constantly scared and on edge and the ward was constantly unsettled. The staff on the ward were not trained on child restraint, so I often ended up really hurt … it would be, like, really big men who were used to going up to forensics to restrain people and then coming to restrain me, a little girl at the time, basically. It was horrific”.
That may be an extreme case, and one trusts that it is, but there are many cases that fall not far short of that level of emotional damage. It certainly is not that extreme as regards the complete absence for a child of any therapeutic benefit.
Another witness said:
“The worst thing about adult wards is you can’t access any intervention at all. No art therapy, no psychiatrist, because you’re under 18, so they say they don’t have the appropriate training to work with you. When I was on an adult ward, all my medication went unreviewed. I wasn’t allowed to ask for anything, not even allowed outside”.
What is the best way of solving this problem? The approach I have taken in these amendments is to say that, when a person aged under 18 is in desperate need of in-patient mental health treatment, the clinical decision-making around admitting that person to a mental health unit should be as rigorous as it can be to avoid, as far as humanly possible, admitting that patient into an adult ward. There surely to be a determination around best interests. There also need to be procedural safeguards so that, if it is decided that an adult ward is the only available option in a particular case, there is appropriate transparency around that decision, such that the local authority is informed of the fact and the hospital itself publishes statistics in its annual report recording the number of instances during the year when this has occurred.
I also suggest that a report to the local authority is equally appropriate in a situation where a child is accommodated in a hospital or mental health unit situated outside the local authority area in which the child is ordinarily resident. In one of our earlier debates, we talked about the particular vulnerability of children who are treated in a hospital far away from home. Alerting the child protection officer working nearby would go some way at least to mitigating the risk of the child self-harming.
There may be some Members of the Committee who think I have been far too lily-livered in tabling these amendments and who feel I should have tabled much stronger amendments proposing the outright abolition of placements involving children on adult wards. I quite deliberately have not done that for the reason we touched on in earlier debates: we have to work with the world as we find it, not as we would ideally like it to be. We have to recognise that, in a few cases—sometimes desperate cases—a temporary stay on an adult mental health ward could be the only way of saving a child from death or serious injury and, in those cases, I suggest that it is not for us in Parliament to prohibit the practice outright.
On Amendment 142, a child being treated in a mental health in-patient unit who also has a physical disability can sometimes get a very raw deal. If the unit they are on has areas that are, in practice, inaccessible to that child, that simple fact can have a huge impact on their access to treatment. One member of Blooming Change has said:
“I am physically disabled, and for me, the room to speak to the psychologist was upstairs in the unit, and there was no way for me to access that space. I kept being told she would come down to see me somewhere else during my stay, but it didn’t happen, so for me, my physical impairments meant that I didn’t get equal access to the support”.
This is not the sort of amendment I would choose, in the normal way, to bring back on Report, but the questions it raises are important enough for me to ask the Minister whether the department and NHS England are sufficiently aware of that kind of problem and what, if anything, is being done to address it. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 159 and 160. Amendment 159 is similar to Amendment 143. It merely proposes a different notification procedure where a child has been present on an adult ward, but it also requires notification to the local authority and applies to out-of-area placements, which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howe. It is important that that information is given to the local authority, as it has the duties to safeguard—particularly children in need. I will speak to this on Amendment 160.
I join with my noble friend’s comments on how the Bill treats those who are 16 and 17. We have raised the issue in relation to other areas of the Bill that, in law, they are children, and they are treated as children by the professionals, as outlined in the example of the psychiatrist saying, “I don’t have the training to do this”. Under-18s are treated as vulnerable young people and children. One can also draw attention to the fact that under-18s are no longer allowed to marry in our country. We are increasingly coming into line with the fact that you are a child, and have the protection of the law as one, until you are 18.
Amendment 160 relates to “children in need” under Section 17 of the Children Act. Recommendation 117 of the Wessely review said:
“Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 should be amended to clarify that any child or young person admitted to a mental health facility is regarded as a ‘child in need’ so that parents can ask for services from their local authority”.
That will, obviously, be particularly important if the child has been placed out of area.
That recommendation was rejected by the Government in their published response to the review, but I note that the review also asked for this provision to be if the child is admitted—that means as a voluntary patient, of course, as well as just being admitted under the Act. I have laid this amendment to clarify the Government’s response to this. That response stated that, basically, it is not necessary to amend the Children Act because disabled children, which includes children suffering from a mental disorder, are already deemed to be “children in need”, so there is no need for this recommendation.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to add my support to Amendments 143 and 144, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I added my name to these amendments. I am also very sympathetic to the other amendments in this group, both Amendment 142 and the two amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just spoken to.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, introduced these amendments in an incredibly compelling, moving and, indeed, comprehensive way. In a way, I do not feel that there is very much for me to add. I did have to think quite hard—there was part of me that wanted an outright prohibition, but I recognise the state of the mental health services we have at the moment. Unfortunately, there are times—hopefully, in only a few desperate cases, as the noble Earl said, and for a very short time—when these measures have to be taken. As undesirable as I think it is, we need to recognise the world in which we live.
I would also like to underline—because most of the debate so far has been about children in adult wards, which is clearly hugely undesirable—the importance of considering children placed out of area. That is, so often, when there is no suitable or available bed. It goes back to the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Parminter about eating disorder beds. It is hugely detrimental for children and young people to be placed out of area, away from their support networks—their family and friends who they so desperately need as part of their recovery at a time of real crisis—so I want to underline the importance of that, as well as the importance of real transparency and rigour when a child is, very unfortunately, placed in an adult ward, hopefully for a very short period of time.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I come to this totally uneducated, so what I have heard this afternoon I have found very shocking. I agree with what has been said already, and I was particularly shocked by the comments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I would like to underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has said about the fact that these are children. They may be 17 and a half but, under the Children Act 1989, they remain children and, across all legislation dealing with children, “best interests” comes in.
From what I have heard, it sounds as though adult wards do not understand that these are genuinely children and have to be treated separately but, much more importantly, that their best interests are not necessarily, or almost certainly not, the same as those of adults. I wonder whether it should not be permeating all establishments, private and public, that, if they have to take into an adult setting those under 18, they have to deal with them in a special way. I remain horrified by what was said and I hope that the Minister, who is a particularly sympathetic person, will pick this up and take it across the board.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I am only marginally less shocked than the noble and learned Baroness. The reason for that is that I regularly visited a friend in an adult ward, suffering, funnily enough, from eating disorders, among other things. So I support Amendment 144 most strongly. What shocked me was that, over several years, there were two children I saw. They were witnessing not only acts of violence but sexual acts too that were quite clear—I will not go into the details, but it was completely inappropriate for a child to be witnessing this.
The final point I want to make hinges on what we have also heard: that there is only so much we can do. Of course, the reason for that, and it is another reason why these experiences are seared into my mind, is the state of funding for mental health. No one can turn that switch on immediately, but the root problem here is that this is a sector that is somehow pushed to the side. Therein lies a fundamental reason why we have to take a completely different attitude to mental health, and I am sure that the Minister feels quite strongly about that herself.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I will turn first to Amendments 142, 143 and 144, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and joined by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on Amendment 143 and 144. I will also address Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way in which he introduced this subject and for the understanding and shock shared by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sure we all share the thoughts and views that they have expressed. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his reference to Blooming Change. I certainly recognise the important work that it does. The way he introduced its observations and experience really highlighted the reality of what we are here to deal with.
On Amendment 142, it is crucial that people with physical disabilities have equal access to mental health services. Under the Equality Act 2010, those providing mental health services, including under the Mental Health Act, must make reasonable adjustments to ensure that people with disabilities are not at a disadvantage. Therefore, the aims of this amendment are already covered by existing legislative requirements. I heard what the noble Lord said about an example of where this was not the case. I can only add my own comment to say that this is, of course, not acceptable and not at all how legislation would expect a provider to act.
We will review the guidance on how to support individuals with a physical disability, including children, when we consult on the revised code of practice and as part of NHS England’s new service specification, which will set out requirements for children and young people’s mental health services. I hope that will be helpful to meet the points raised in Amendment 142.
I turn now to Amendments 143, 144 and 159. The policy of NHS England is clear that children and young people should be able to access the right type of service, as close to home as possible and in the least restrictive environment. We do not want to see children and young people on adult wards or placed far from home. We are working to secure the necessary investment to expand community-based support and specialist beds to prevent this from happening. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for referring to the need to deal with where we are rather than where we might like to be. That is what we intend to do.
There are already provisions in the Act that seek to limit inappropriate placements for children and young people. Under Section 131A, hospital managers must ensure that the patient’s environment is suitable, having regard to their age. We believe that the careful consideration and nuance involved in determining any circumstances where it is in a child’s best interest to be treated on an adult ward or in an out-of-area placement fits better in a revised code of practice rather than legislation, which would apply fixed rules that could not be adapted to individual circumstances or service provision.
We will provide additional guidance on the process to determine, and review throughout a child’s detention and treatment, that the environment in which they are accommodated continues to be in their interests. Such matters can be addressed through the new service specification for specialised children and young people’s mental health services.
I assure the Committee that there are already clear operational processes in place to identify and monitor children and young people in inappropriate placements. It is a statutory requirement for the CQC to be notified within 48 hours if a child or young person is placed on an adult ward. The CQC reports on the number of people under 18 admitted to adult wards as part of its Monitoring the Mental Health Act reports.
The CQC project on improving regulation for children inappropriately placed will identify what CQC can do to prevent children being cared for by providers who cannot meet their needs and to reduce their risks of being exposed to poor-quality care. I assure the Committee that we will review the process for who should be notified, and in what circumstances, in the new service specification for specialised children and young people’s mental health services, and in the revised Mental Health Act code of practice.
I turn to Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on the extension of Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to include children detained under the Mental Health Act. Section 17 places a duty on local authorities to provide support for children who are unlikely to reach or maintain a satisfactory level of health or development, or where their health or development would be significantly impaired without the provision of services—or where the child is disabled.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate and grateful for the support that they have expressed for the amendments, both mine and the others in this group. My noble friend Lady Berridge drew my attention to an inadvertent slip of the tongue that I committed in my earlier contribution. When I sought to define a child, I meant of course to say that we should include young people aged 16 and 17. In that regard, I was particularly grateful for the powerful interventions from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, citing their own experiences.
I much appreciate the Minister’s comments in response to these amendments, particularly Amendments 143 and 144. I believe, from what she said, that she and I are on the same page when it comes to age-appropriate settings for child patients. It was reassuring to hear from her what is contained in the current code of practice and what is intended to be included in the revised service specification. I am also pleased to hear that the CQC has it as part of its role to report on these very important issues.
I will study what she has said in Hansard and consider what is best to do between now and Report, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
“Recording of use of force on mental health patients(1) Each NHS facility must keep a record of any use of force on a patient who is at that facility for the purpose of treatment for mental disorder or assessment for mental disorder, by staff who work in that facility and in relation to the patient’s diagnosed or suspected mental disorder, in accordance with this section.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in cases where the use of force is negligible.(3) Whether the use of force is “negligible” for the purposes of subsection (1) is to be determined in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. (4) The record must include the following information—(a) the reason for the use of force;(b) the place, date and duration of the use of force;(c) the type or types of force used on the patient;(d) whether the type or types of force used on the patient formed part of the patient’s care plan;(e) name of the patient on whom force was used;(f) a description of how force was used;(g) the patient’s consistent identifier;(h) the name and job title of any member of staff who used force on the patient;(i) the reason any person who was not a member of staff in the facility was involved in the use of force on the patient;(j) the patient’s diagnosed or suspected mental disorder;(k) the relevant characteristics of the patient (if known);(l) whether the patient has a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorders;(m) a description of the outcome of the use of force;(n) whether the patient died or suffered any serious injury as a result of the use of force;(o) any efforts made to avoid the need to use force on the patient;(p) whether a notification regarding the use of force was sent to the person or persons (if any) to be notified under the patient’s care plan.(5) The facility must keep the record for 3 years from the date on which it was made.(6) In subsection (4)(g) the “patient’s consistent identifier” means the consistent identifier specified under section 251A of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.(7) This section does not permit the facility to do anything which, but for this section, would be inconsistent with—(a) any provision of the data protection legislation, or(b) a common law duty of care or confidence.(8) In subsection (7) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).(9) In subsection (4)(k) the “relevant characteristics” in relation to a patient mean—(a) the patient’s age;(b) whether the patient has a disability, and if so, the nature of that disability;(c) the patient’s status regarding marriage or civil partnership;(d) whether the patient is pregnant;(e) the patient’s race;(f) the patient’s religion or belief;(g) the patient’s sex;(h) the patient’s sexual orientation.(10) Expressions used in subsection (9) and Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 have the same meaning in that subsection as in that Chapter.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require NHS facilities to keep a record of any use of force on a patient who is at that facility for the purpose of treatment for mental disorder or assessment for mental disorder.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 146 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall. On the previous group of amendments, I cited the experience of a child held on an adult mental health ward being subject to restraint, where undue force was applied by the staff involved, causing unnecessary pain and distress to the patient.
In fact, the incidence of restraint being used on children being treated in mental health settings—and, indeed, general hospitals—is alarmingly high. This fact was recognised in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, which came into effect in 2022. However, despite the provisions of that Act, not only has there been no drop in the number of restrictive interventions that children are subject to but there has been an increase.
In 2023-24, a total of 84,626 restrictive interventions were carried out on children, which is a 51% increase on the year before. That is the highest number of restrictive interventions recorded since figures were made available in 2019, despite what appears to be a drop in the number children being treated in mental health units. It is not only that restraint is being applied in these cases; all too often, because there is a physical struggle involved in the process of restraining someone, that patient ends up with an injury.
What lies at the root of this? Blooming Change believes that restraint amounting to abuse is entrenched in the system. Unfortunately, that rather depressing view was borne out last August by the Independent newspaper, which reported that children in a mental health in-patient unit in Coventry were captured on CCTV
“being dragged across the floor”
by the staff. There surely has to be something here about the need for staff in all mental health settings to receive training in the different techniques for de-escalating a crisis, with physical restraint being regarded as a last resort.
In fact, with the two very welcome principles set out in Clause 1, “least restriction” and “therapeutic benefit”, the training of staff in appropriate techniques of control will, one hopes, become an even more important priority than before. I hope the Minister can let me have some reassurance on this very troubling set of issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest and my experience as a retired psychiatrist, working for the majority of my career with people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
In 2019, the then Secretary of State for Health asked me to oversee an important review of the use of another restrictive intervention, long-term segregation, known as LTS, for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Government published the oversight panel’s report of that review simultaneously with their quite positive response to its recommendations in November 2023.
Amendments 155 and 156 in this group address critical issues highlighted in the report about the use of LTS and the measures needed to eliminate its use for people detained under mental health legislation. The amendments aim to improve oversight and accountability in its use, while pointing to the urgent need for appropriate community services to prevent delayed discharges. The proposed changes are not merely administrative; they are a necessary response to urgent human rights questions raised by the use of LTS, and indeed these other restrictive interventions covered by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whose amendment I support.
The report, aptly titled My Heart Breaks, found that the mental and physical health of children and young people and adults detained in long-term segregation deteriorates as a direct consequence of enforced isolation. In medicine, we call this iatrogenic harm, and it is unacceptable. LTS is often used in association with other restrictive practices. There is substantial research evidence pointing to the harms of such enforced social isolation, including in conditions of solitary confinement. Nor does it have therapeutic benefit. Oversight panel members considered that LTS should actually be renamed “solitary confinement” to avoid the normalisation of the practice in healthcare settings. Currently, rather less clear terminology is used, perhaps to disguise what is really happening in practice.
It is interesting to note that not all psychiatric hospitals have rooms in which to detain people. The type of accommodation used is sometimes totally unacceptable, with people being detained in rooms with no natural light, with a mattress on the floor and no toilet facilities.
Amendment 155 would require notification of LTS to the CQC within 72 hours of its commencement. It would require that the CQC must initiate an investigation if LTS was used for more than 15 days within any 30-day period, and if it were used for a person under the age of 18, or for a disabled person whose condition would be exacerbated by its use—for example, an already psychologically traumatised person who would be further traumatised by the sensory and social deprivation caused by its use, which is probably most people.
The amendment would require that the code of practice introduced minimum standards for LTS, including access to natural light, outdoor space and meaningful human contact. As I am sure most noble Lords would agree, these are basic necessities for dignity and well-being. Psychiatric hospitals still using LTS would be required to appoint a responsible officer to review and report on its use to the CQC. They would also be required to comply with recommendations from independent care (education) and treatment reviews, known as ICETRs, as they relate to LTS.
Amendment 156 seeks to ensure that therapeutic alternatives to LTS have been properly considered by requiring independently chaired reviews for any person detained in LTS. Since the end of the Department of Health’s programme of ICETRs in 2023, which reviewed 191 cases between 2020 and 2023, the CQC was commissioned to restart the programme. The new programme includes that the independent chairs must follow up to see whether the recommendations have been implemented, but funding has been committed only to the end of this current year, while LTS continues. These reviews must be kept in place until the use of LTS comes to an end, or for as long as it is in existence, so the amendment would require ICETRs to be continued, and it outlines the role, responsibilities and authority of the independent reviewer. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that the continuation of these independent reviews will be funded.
By limiting the duration of LTS, mandating independent oversight and requiring therapeutic alternatives, we could protect people’s rights and lay the groundwork for effective rehabilitation and reintegration back into their communities. Meeting minimum standards and reclassifying such segregation as “solitary confinement” would rightly underscore its appalling and often inhumane nature. I know many clinicians dislike that term because it is equated with punishment, but it describes the conditions that we sometimes saw.
The excuse is often given that LTS is the last resort for a person, but in fact it is usually the first resort and the first response, because no appropriate care and support have been provided. I have seen systemic failures that are leaving individuals in restrictive settings due to insufficient community-based support. While commissioners and clinicians often act with good intentions, they lack the co-ordination, resources and expertise needed to deliver the care that is needed to keep people safe.
The amendments simply aim to ensure therapeutic care close to home. They require that, by monitoring the continuing use of LTS and understanding the barriers to eliminating its use, the CQC would be able to identify the themes, trends and changes that are taking place over time in the use of this restrictive intervention. I urge the Minister to support the amendments.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 155 and 156, to which I have added my name. If they were approved, the Care Quality Commission would be required to ensure independent reviews of the suitability of continued segregation, with a particular focus on the potential for community support to be preferable. The amendments would also increase transparency and set minimum standards, both of which I am sure noble Lords will wish to support.
When I chaired, from 2017 to 2020, NHS England’s transforming care steering group for children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health problems and challenging behaviour, I heard heartbreaking testimony from parents whose teenage and young adult children were segregated for weeks and months on end, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. For example, I visited a non-NHS provider outside London that had kept one young adult woman—whose story appeared in social media at the time, noble Lords may remember—in segregation, in a room with no window and no natural light, and passed food to her through a hatch. She was completely alone.
As I and other noble Lords have already argued, investment in the right type of community support is the only humane way forward. To ensure that proper use is made of this investment, we should send out a clear message that we expect community services to be used wherever possible, rather than segregation. The way to do this is for the Care Quality Commission to oversee a process of independent review in any case of segregation of a young person under 18, anyone with learning disabilities or autism, or anyone whose segregation exceeds 15 days.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I too was pleased to add my name to Amendments 155 and 156 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She has already spoken on this subject, and it would be remiss of me not to say that the title of the report she mentioned, My Heart Breaks—which is of course in her name and authorship—was chosen for a purpose. This is a heartbreaking situation, and on the piece of paper I am holding in my hand, headed GOV.UK, it says: My Heart Breaks—Solitary Confinement in Hospital Has No Therapeutic Benefit for People With a Learning Disability and Autistic People.
As we have heard, it is not just that it is not therapeutic; it is actually harmful. On the terminology, other speakers have already spelled out why they have dumbed down the real raw facts of the language that they use to describe this type of incarceration—for that is what it is. It reminds one of prisons. Look at the legal structures needed to put somebody into a prison, yet people who are ill are treated in the same way as prisoners.
I remember visiting a school for autistic children many years ago. It had a single room where they took children who were having a meltdown. It was a padded room, and they felt that was the appropriate treatment for children. We know, from the many debates in this House about people who have been held for extended periods in mental health hospitals, the damage it does and the difficulties when these practices are in place.
Ironically, this does not happen everywhere. You have to ask why it happens in some institutions and not in others. There is an answer to that. It is not because of a different profile of patients in these two different types of settings but because in some places they understand the problem and have sufficient training and resources. Training of personnel, particularly senior personnel, is key. If the person in charge says, “This is what we are going to do”, very few people in the structure below them are going to challenge it, so that is what they do and it becomes the norm.
Fifteen months ago the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, produced this report, which now bears government approval and GOV.UK and the Department of Health and Social Care on it. It is now really time for the Government to adopt the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her recommendations. It is a wealth of experience that we can only admire, and I urge the Minister to please accept these recommendations. They come from the very highest level. We are very lucky in this House to have the expertise of my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly and on a slightly related topic. I want to talk about a different group of people who are in long-term segregation who are not sectioned and often do not get mentioned—prisoners. Long-term segregation is used when very mentally ill people in prison are not transferred to hospital and nobody knows what to do with them. They are put into isolation and left there, psychotic, delusional and forgotten—dumped, in effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, alluded to prisons, but even prisoners should not be treated like prisoners sometimes. The confusion and conflation of punishment and treatment outside prison is no less shocking when it is inside prison. You are not meant to punish somebody doubly because they are in prison and happen to get ill.
The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, has made the point that the segregation units are completely unsuitable for people who are severely unwell. They are also a significant drain on the hard-pressed staff, because very often the restraints are of people literally going out of their mind. They are not getting any medical intervention at all. According to the chief inspector, it requires multiple officers to unlock the cells even just to deliver meals.
Is it possible for the Minister to give any thoughts on that? Also, in a way, this is an appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—if she takes this amendment forward—to bring that into the situation, even though I know I am slightly squeezing it in because I have Amendment 160A on reviewing prisons.
On Amendment 146 and the use of force, I absolutely agree with the mover of the amendment in relation to the need to keep records. That is obvious. I suppose the nightmare for us all is the misuse of force. It is horrifying—the stuff of nightmares—when people are ill.
I do not want to be naive. I know that when people are very ill and very psychotic, sometimes appropriate force is necessary; I just think it needs to be recorded. When I say force, I obviously do not mean violence or anything not within the realms of professional intervention. Sometimes I think we forget how ill people can be and how violent and how difficult it is for the people who work with them. We should record every instance of the use of force but be wary of demonising or damning every use of it, because it is not quite as simple as that.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support all three amendments in this group but make the point that a lot of NHS care is now commissioned into the independent and charitable sectors. It is vital that records are kept in any care setting that is paid for by the NHS, not just by NHS facilities. I also believe that recording will reduce these kinds of behaviours because it will make people think much more carefully, particularly in long-term segregation. As you get to 10 days, people will be thinking, “How can we change the care we are delivering to avoid that 15-day reporting sanction?”. It really is imperative that we do this. We are treating some of the people who have the greatest needs in our society really badly.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches offer our support to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her two very thoughtful amendments and the way in which she introduced them. However, I want to turn our attention to Amendment 146, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I was a colleague of Norman Lamb, who was formerly a Minister in the department. He was one of the people who was, as a Minister, most active in addressing the issue of the overuse of force in mental health. This is a campaign that he has continued to develop in his chairmanship of South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. It is a subject that I am very glad we are focusing on again.
Anybody who has visited a mental health facility in which there are people who are having acute episodes will know that there are times when, for the safety of the person and the safety of others, it is necessary sometimes to use restraint. However, as I think the noble Earl was alluding to in his introduction, the overuse and frequent use of force is often an indicator of substandard care. Therefore, it is very important that incidences of use of force and the reasons for it, as in his carefully crafted amendment, are recorded.
There are two things that I want to pick up with the noble Earl. His amendment is very carefully crafted. In his introduction to it, he referred throughout to children, but his amendment relates not just to children but to all mental health patients. For that reason, I wish to concentrate on proposed new subsection (9). It says:
“In subsection (4)(k) the ‘relevant characteristics’ in relation to a patient mean—”,
and then lists all of the protected characteristics within the Equality Act, with one omission: gender reassignment. I therefore wish to ask him simply why people undergoing gender reassignment do not merit the same protection as everybody else.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Let me first turn to Amendment 146, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
The amendment largely replicate duties under Section 6 of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 for all patients in NHS mental health units. We recognise that the data suggests that the use of force for children and young people is still far too high, and we are working with NHS England to address this. Although the section I have referred to has not yet been commenced, the guidance is published and the data is already being recorded and reported, and we plan to commence the duty formally later this year. The amendment as drafted would capture a much broader range of patients than the use of force Act does—for example, all patients who are being treated for dementia or delirium in an acute hospital. Furthermore, it is not clear what use will be made of that data. Therefore, the volume of new data collection processes could be significant, but the benefits that would result from this are somewhat unclear.
I turn to Amendments 155 and 156, which have been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, regarding long-term segregation. The amendments are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey, both of whom made important contributions to the debate.
Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her work on this issue over many years, including her significant report, My Heart Breaks, which the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, rightly referenced. We are here today, I believe, in no small part due to the tenacity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others who have fought for better outcomes for people under the Mental Health Act. I thank them all.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
There seemed to be an assumption that long-term segregation would continue and that perhaps ICETRs are not effective, but one thing that emerges from an independently chaired review is some learning about the barriers in place and the reasons why LTS is being used, rather than more therapeutic options. That is the reason for this kind of oversight being necessary. It is not necessarily that the ICETR itself will lead to recommendations being implemented; in my report, we found that the recommendations were not being followed—they were made and then not followed through. There needs to be much more effort to try to learn from what is happening and begin to change the culture of LTS as an okay response to somebody’s distress.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that point, and the noble Baroness makes it very well. I simply refer her to the points that I made about needing to look at evidence, the outcomes and the value of those reviews, and whether that is the right approach for everyone. I take on board her point, but my comments probably tell the Committee that we feel that there is more work to be done in this area.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, once again, I express my appreciation to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I highlight in particular the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I found extremely powerful and persuasive, as did other noble Lords.
It strikes me that this is an especially appropriate grouping of amendments. The overuse of restraint in mental health settings and the use of completely untherapeutic long-term segregation are equally pressing and emotive concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pulled me up slightly on the issue of protection for those undergoing gender reassignment. The concern that I had in drafting the amendment was to cover protected characteristics across the piece, but she has drawn my attention to a lacuna, and I am very grateful.
I was somewhat disappointed with the Minister’s reply on the issue of restraint applied to mental health patients, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, is an issue affecting adult patients as well as children. The amendment was drafted with precisely that in mind. The point that I sought to make was that, despite the statute law to which the Minister referred, the incidence of restraint on children in particular has rocketed, which raises questions about clinical practice, staffing and training around the code of practice. To my mind, it was a pity that the Minister had little to say about those possible areas for practical follow-up.
I shall read again what the Minister said about my amendment between now and Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Keeley
“Human Rights Act 1998: provision of treatment for a mental disorder as a public function(1) This section applies where—(a) a patient is receiving after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983,(b) a patient is accommodated in a hospital for the purpose of being given medical treatment for mental disorder, or(c) a person’s health or social care arrangements in connection with their mental disorder give rise to a deprivation of their liberty, within the meaning of that term as under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.(2) The provider of treatment or care under subsection (1) is to be taken for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) to be exercising a function of a public nature, if the treatment or care is arranged by or paid for (directly or indirectly, and in whole or in part) by a local authority in England, Wales or Scotland, or by an NHS Health Board, an NHS Integrated Care Board, or by a Health and Social Care Trust.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Human Rights Act 1998 applies when people receive outsourced mental health treatment or after-care, or are deprived of their liberty in connection with a mental disorder. It addresses a gap in human rights protection exposed by Sammut & Ors v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 2265 (KB).
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to explain the significance of Amendment 149 in my name, which aims to ensure that the Human Rights Act 1998 protects individuals whenever the NHS, local authorities or other state bodies outsource mental health treatment or aftercare to private providers. It also seeks to secure human rights protection whenever people are deprived of their liberty, in connection with mental disorders, by private health or social care providers. I start by saying that I am not in any way a legal expert, so I thank Dr Lucy Series and Professor Luke Clements for raising the need for this amendment. I also thank them for their help in drafting the amendments and providing notes and briefings on the issue, and for working with a number of noble Lords and the Bill team on it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her support for the amendment and adding her name to it.
A growing proportion of mental health treatment and most social care is now commissioned from the private sector by the NHS and local authorities, but human rights protection does not necessarily follow. When Parliament enacted the Human Rights Act 1998, it was intended to apply to private organisations delivering public functions on behalf of the state. However, the courts have narrowly interpreted public functions.
In the 2007 case YL v Birmingham City Council, the House of Lords ruled that private care providers, being commercial operators working for profit, were not performing public functions, even when providing state-commissioned and funded care services. That interpretation appears contrary to Parliament’s intent, but it remains legally binding. Parliament partially addressed that issue with Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and later with Section 73 of the Care Act. These provisions state that private care providers commissioned by local authorities under the Care Act 2014 or equivalent legislation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are performing public functions as defined by the Human Rights Act. This ensured that individuals whose care is arranged by the Care Act are protected by the Human Rights Act, regardless of whether their care is provided directly by the local authority or outsourced to a private provider.
However, the recent High Court case of Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd shows that mental health patients and many other users of outsourced health and social care services were still not protected. Mr Sammut had schizophrenia and, after being discharged from hospital, he was placed in a private mental health nursing home, using Section 117 aftercare. He developed constipation, a known complication of the antipsychotic medication he was taking. After his death from bronchopneumonia, large intestinal obstruction and faecal impaction, his family alleged very serious clinical negligence and brought a claim arguing that his human rights were violated. However, their claim was unsuccessful, as the judge held that the Human Rights Act did not apply because Mr Sammut’s care was arranged under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, not under the Care Act.
This judgment highlights the narrow limitations of the Human Rights Act as a remedy for those using outsourced public services, such as private care provision or mental health treatment. This raises concerns about the human rights protection of thousands of other people who are deprived of their liberty in private health and social care settings in connection with their mental disorders.
This amendment addresses gaps in human rights protection for three groups of people: patients like Mr Sammut receiving mental health aftercare from private providers; any patient receiving in-patient mental health services, whether subject to the Mental Health Act or not; and anybody who is deprived of their liberty in connection with a mental disorder by a private provider of health or social care. It has not been possible in this amendment to include all the other groups whose lack of rights are now exposed by the Sammut case, so it does not include children’s social care, as it is not within the scope of this Bill, or people receiving NHS continuing healthcare or other outsourced health or social care not arranged under the Care Act.
However, the amendment would ensure better protection for people with mental disorders in private care settings. I know that Dr Series and Professor Clements are also working on raising the issues that I just mentioned in relation to other Bills, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, so that they will also ensure human rights protection for those who draw on outsourced treatment, care and support. I commend this simple but important amendment, and I hope it can be supported.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for my not having been able to speak at Second Reading and for seeking to intervene on one amendment only in such an important Bill. That is the amendment from my noble friend Lady Keeley, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I declare an interest as a council member of Justice, the NGO that will no doubt have sent briefings to many Members of the Committee on this important amendment.
Amendment 149 is a no-brainer, which warrants support and adoption by the Government and welcome from every political tradition represented in your Lordships’ House. It is no surprise to the Committee, I am sure, that I am a supporter of the Human Rights Act and the way in which it has protected vulnerable people and their families, including in mental health facilities. Those are some of the most potent stories about the Human Rights Act over the last near-quarter of a century.
Contracting out services will always be a matter of high politics in a democracy. It is literally the meat and drink of left-right debate over social and economic management. This was amply demonstrated in contributions on an earlier group by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Fox, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend the Minister. However, no one in that debate ever advocates for either public or private provision on the basis that vulnerable people should be less well treated or protected.
It is my contention that everyone in the Committee should support Amendment 149, which would ensure Human Rights Act protection for publicly arranged mental health care, whether delivered by a public or private provider. No social democrat or liberal can approve of public authorities being able to contract out of constitutional protection, and no conservative can approve of public authorities being able to avoid responsibility for negligence or harm to individuals and their families, especially where coercive power is involved. Finally, I am sure that all Members of this Committee believe in equality before the law.
This amendment closes not so much a loophole as a glaring omission in legal protection as exposed by the case law and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and I agree with every word spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I am here today because I have an interest to declare, which is that I acted—unsuccessfully—in the case that caused the problem. In YL v Birmingham City Council, I was the unsuccessful counsel for YL, although I take comfort from the fact that of the five members of the Appellate Committee who sat on that case, the two who dissented were Lord Bingham of Cornhill and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale—a formidable combination indeed. The noble and learned Baroness summed up the point in her dissenting speech in the Appellate Committee. She said that it is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act when it is performed pursuant to statutory arrangements, when it is performed at public expense, and when it is performed in the public interest. It is as simple as that. I agree with her, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and I very much hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is usual in your Lordships’ House for the people with their names on the amendment to speak first; noble Lords will understand why I stood back, given the previous two speeches. I understand how the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, felt, having the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in his corner. I do not want to repeat anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, has said, because she summed it up extremely well.
We are very lucky; we get to talk to lawyers of calibre and fame. But I want to stand up for the solicitors, lawyers and independent mental health professionals who, day in and day out, go and see the people who are in real distress or are forgotten about, who nobody else is terribly interested in. They make it their business to make sure they are treated like human beings, wherever they are. I simply take the occasion to say this, because right now, we have to take every opportunity we have to defend the Human Rights Act and the application of universal human rights. It is no good having human rights that you pick and choose and apply to the people you like. It is why I picked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, up on his previous amendment.
We are very bad at explaining the importance of the Human Rights Act to people in the community; it is fair game for every newspaper hack or whoever wants to take a go at it, but it is about making sure that vulnerable people are treated as full human beings in our society. Therefore, I hope that even if we have not managed to fashion the exact perfect amendment, the noble Baroness will agree that this deserves to be in the legislation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I came in today particularly to support Amendment 149, as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have clearly done. What we are asking for is either for the loophole to be closed or for clarification. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, the view that the judges produced a somewhat narrow definition of the situation. I agree with everything that has been said, and I do not want to repeat it, but with a narrow interpretation by the courts and with some lawyers here in Parliament and others who have put things so beautifully, Parliament can put right what is happening. That is what I am here to support: Parliament putting right what at the moment is not clear, is a loophole and needs to be put right.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I should like first to speak to Amendment 160BC standing in my name. Although it may not look like it, this is a probing amendment. I have tabled it because I have been made aware of concerns that there is a serious lack of clarity around one aspect of the Mental Health Act 1983 that would greatly benefit from a clarifying statement from the Minister.
Let us imagine a patient who is detained in a mental health hospital under the Act and who requires urgent treatment in another NHS setting, such as a general hospital. The treatment, let us further imagine, is kidney dialysis—that is just a random example. Unfortunately, in this case, the patient is deemed to lack decision-making capacity for his own health and well-being, and the doctors therefore agree that if he is transferred to the other hospital, he will need to be restrained during the time that he is receiving the treatment, because if he is not, there is a likelihood that the treatment will not be deliverable.
The question then arises: in that particular situation, does the Mental Health Act 1983 allow for the patient to be deprived of his liberty in a setting other than a mental health hospital in order for necessary life-saving treatment to be administered? I am aware that there are contrary opinions among lawyers and clinicians as to the answer to that question. Some believe that, in that example, it would be necessary for the managers of the mental health hospital to apply to the court for a deprivation of liberty order under the Mental Capacity Act, which the court could grant under its inherent jurisdiction. I understand that this is standard procedure in a number of mental health hospitals. By contrast, other experts are clear that Section 17(3) of the Act already provides authority to place the mental health patient into the custody of the managers of the acute hospital and that there is therefore no need to apply for a DoL order under the Mental Capacity Act in order to achieve this.
Section 17(3) of the Mental Health Act says:
“Where it appears to the responsible clinician that it is necessary so to do in the interests of the patient or for the protection of other persons, he may, upon granting leave of absence under this section, direct that the patient remain in custody during his absence; and where leave of absence is so granted the patient may be kept in the custody of any officer on the staff of the hospital, or of any other person authorised in writing by the managers of the hospital or, if the patient is required in accordance with conditions imposed on the grant of leave of absence to reside in another hospital, of any officer on the staff of that other hospital”.
Those words appear to confirm the opinion that I have just set out—that the responsible clinician can authorise “leave of absence” in another hospital, with the patient being kept in custody so long as this is seen to be in the patient’s best interests.
Unfortunately, it also appears that there is more than one way of interpreting Section 17(3). There are those who maintain that what one might call the carte-blanche interpretation is too broad a reading of Section 17(3), which they insist needs to be read with Section 63 of the Act. Section 63 says:
“The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering, not being a form of treatment to which section 57, 58 or 58A above applies, if the treatment is given by or under the direction of the approved clinician in charge of the treatment”.
Taken together, those two sections say that the Mental Health Act authorises treatment only for mental disorders and physical disorders that are part and parcel of the treatment for the mental disorder; in other words, for treatment of physical disorders that are not directly connected to the mental disorder, a court would need to make the appropriate order under the Mental Capacity Act. Who is right? I should be very grateful if the Minister would use this opportunity to bring some clarity to bear on this area of the law, around which there appears to be a veil of fog. Whatever the answer, will she ask NHS England to examine the guidance contained in the relevant part of the code of practice to ensure that it is as clear as possible about what the current law permits?
Finally, I shall comment briefly on Amendment 149, which the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, has tabled jointly with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I fully support this amendment. At the same time, I regret that it appears to be necessary, and I say that with some personal feeling. The issue addressed by this amendment is precisely the same as the one which in 2014, as a Health Minister, I endeavoured to close down by means of a government amendment to the Care Bill, which now forms Section 73 of that Act.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his reflection on both the Almighty and our legal friends, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on these amendments.
I turn first to Amendment 149 and thank my noble friend Lady Keeley, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, not just for tabling the amendment but for the time and attention they and their expert advisers have given to this. It has been much appreciated. I take this opportunity to express my condolences to the family of Paul Sammut for the tragic loss of their loved one.
We recognise the concern around unequal coverage and rights to redress under the Human Rights Act. The Sammut judgment highlighted the need to clarify the position of private health and care providers under the Human Rights Act when providing care arranged and paid for by the NHS or local authorities, something that has come up a number of times in our debates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their good humour and their expert contributions on this matter. We are actively considering this matter and I look forward to engaging further with my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, ahead of Report.
On Amendment 160BC in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, deprivation of liberty for the treatment of a physical health disorder is always an important decision. We are concerned that this amendment would, in effect, remove the need for a separate authorisation where physical health treatment is needed. We do not think it is right to undermine the protections available under the Mental Health Act to patients who are already, as we have heard, in a vulnerable position.
Furthermore, the situation this amendment applies to is rare and, where it does arise, there are already frameworks in place to authorise a deprivation of liberty. These include: Section 17 leave under the Mental Health Act; deprivation of liberty safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act; and, in certain circumstances, the High Court. The safeguards provided by these frameworks are different, and decision-makers must use their professional judgment to decide which is most appropriate for the individual. We feel that retaining this flexibility is important.
While we recognise that there is, at times, confusion among clinical professionals around which legal framework to apply—it is a point well made—we do not believe that this amendment would bring the necessary clarity. We feel this is best clarified using the Mental Health Act code of practice. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I will reflect on the detailed points that he raised and will be happy to write to him further on them. For all these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I thank her very much, but I wonder whether she could include some of the rest of us in her correspondence with the noble Earl? We are back to the same issue of the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. We need to keep coming back to this to get more clarity on it, because nobody understands it now. Whatever the Minister comes up with will be only a sticking plaster until the point at which we recognise that these two pieces of legislation continue to rub up against each other and cause confusion. They need to be addressed together.
So, would the Minister please include more of us in the correspondence, including the noble Baroness, Lady Browning? A number of speeches she has made throughout our deliberations have indicated that this is exactly the sort of issue that she is concerned about, too.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes indeed, I will be pleased to include the noble Lords referred to.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who has supported the work we have done on this, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and Justice, which I should have mentioned earlier. I am very thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for bringing their expertise. I thank my noble friend the Minister for her positive response and I look forward to talking to her more about this and taking forward this amendment. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:58 - Division on Lord Clement-Jones’s amendment - Ayes: 86 / Noes: 55 - Amendment agreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 December 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must set thresholds for three categories of service: category 1, category 2A and category 2B. The services that fall into each of these categories must comply with additional duties, with category 1 services having the most duties placed on them. These duties are in addition to the core duties which apply to all user-to-user and search services in scope, including illegal content duties and child safety duties.
All categorised services must comply with transparency reporting duties. They must also have terms on parents’ ability to access information about how their child used a service, in the tragic event that their child dies. Category 1 and 2A services also have additional duties to tackle paid-for fraudulent advertising. They will also have to comply with enhanced risk assessment and record-keeping duties.
The most additional obligations will fall on category 1 services. These are the services with the most users, and which spread content easily, quickly and widely. To the extent it is proportionate to do so, category 1 services must give adults more choice about who they interact with and the content they see. That includes suicide, self-harm and hate-inciting content. Additionally, category 1 services must protect journalistic and news publisher content and content of democratic importance. The duties will also hold these companies to account over their terms of service, making sure that they keep the promises they make to their users.
The Act requires that specific factors must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding the thresholds for each category. The threshold conditions for user-to-user services, categories 1 and 2B, must be set on user numbers, functionalities and any other characteristics or factors related to the user-to-user part of the service the Secretary of State deems relevant. For category 2A, they must be set on the number of users of the search engine, plus any other factors or characteristics.
For category 1, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on how quickly, easily and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service. For category 2A, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the search engine on the level of risk of harm to individuals from search content that is illegal or harmful to children. For category 2B, the key consideration is the likely impact of the number of users of the user-to-user part of the service and its functionalities on the level of risk of harm to individuals from illegal content and content that is harmful to children disseminated by means of the services.
These considerations formed the basis of Ofcom’s independent research and advice, published in March last year, which the Secretary of State had to consider when setting threshold conditions. Once in force, these regulations will enable Ofcom to set up a public register of categorised services, which it expects to publish this summer. Ofcom will then consult on the remaining draft codes of practice and guidance, where relevant, for the additional duties.
In laying these regulations before Parliament, the Secretary of State has considered Ofcom’s advice and decided to follow it. I know that this decision will not please everyone, so let me set out why it was made.
Ofcom’s research concluded that, as the number of users of a service increases, so does how widely content spreads. The statutory consideration of category 1 under the Act is
“how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service”.
Therefore, it was concluded that user numbers should not be ignored. Setting thresholds for category 1 that take into account the size and reach of services is also essential to make sure we avoid inadvertently categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services.
I turn now to the regret amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled before the House. It is disappointing that a regret amendment has been tabled. I understand that it is because of the noble Lord’s view that risk should be the main consideration for category 1. He would ideally like to see so-called “small but risky” services, such as small suicide forums, brought into scope.
I also want to acknowledge that the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, made it possible to create threshold combinations by reference only to functionalities and any other factors or characteristics. However, in practice this was difficult to do at the time.
In setting the threshold conditions, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework, which means he still must consider easy, quick and wide dissemination of user-generated content for category 1. He must also act within the powers afforded to him in setting the thresholds, which does not allow for sub-delegation to outside parties, such as coroners or Ofcom.
Unintended consequences were considered, including unintentionally categorising hundreds of small, low-risk services. I want to be very clear through this that the Government did consider options to bring small but risky services into scope, including those proposed by many thoughtful people on this complicated issue, but ultimately a workable and robust condition for capturing small but risky services was not found.
Lord Clement-Jones
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations do not impose duties available under the parent Act on small, high-risk platforms where harmful content, often easily accessible to children, is propagated; calls on the Government to clarify which smaller platforms will no longer be covered by Ofcom’s illegal content code and which measures they will no longer be required to comply with; and calls on the Government to withdraw the Regulations and establish a revised definition of Category 1 services.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see the Minister back in her place. I thank her for her introduction to this statutory instrument. Her disappointment at my tabling this regret amendment is exceeded only by my own disappointment at the SI. However, I hope that she will provide the antidote to the Government’s alarming tendency to pick unnecessary fights on so many important issues—a number of them overseen by her department.
Those of us who were intimately involved with its passage hoped that the Online Safety Act would bring in a new era of digital regulation, but the Government’s and Ofcom’s handling of small but high-risk platforms threatens to undermine the Act’s fundamental purpose of creating a safer online environment. That is why I am moving this amendment, and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who are present and to those taking part.
The Government’s position is rendered even more baffling by their explicit awareness of the risks. Last September, the Secretary of State personally communicated concerns to Ofcom about the proliferation of harmful content, particularly regarding children’s access. Despite this acknowledged awareness, the regulatory framework remains fundamentally flawed in its approach to platform categorisation.
The parliamentary record clearly shows that cross-party support existed for a risk-based approach to platform categorisation, which became enshrined in law. The amendment to Schedule 11 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—I am very pleased to see her in her place—specifically changed the requirement for category 1 from a size “and” functionality threshold to a size “or” functionality threshold. This modification was intended to ensure that Ofcom could bring smaller, high-risk platforms under appropriate regulatory scrutiny.
Subsequently, in September 2023, on consideration of Commons amendments, the Minister responsible for the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—I am pleased to see him in his place—made it clear what the impact was:
“I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her continued engagement on the issue of small but high-risk platforms. The Government were happy to accept her proposed changes to the rules for determining the conditions that establish which services will be designated as category 1 or 2B services. In making the regulations, the Secretary of State will now have the discretion to decide whether to set a threshold based on either the number of users or the functionalities offered, or on both factors. Previously, the threshold had to be based on a combination of both”.—[Official Report, 19/9/23; col. 1339.]
I do not think that could be clearer.
This Government’s and Ofcom’s decision to ignore this clear parliamentary intent is particularly troubling. The Southport tragedy serves as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of inadequate online regulation. When hateful content fuels violence and civil unrest, the artificial distinction between large and small platforms becomes a dangerous regulatory gap. The Government and Ofcom seem to have failed to learn from these events.
At the heart of this issue seems to lie a misunderstanding of how harmful content proliferates online. The impact on vulnerable groups is particularly concerning. Suicide promotion forums, incel communities and platforms spreading racist content continue to operate with minimal oversight due to their size rather than their risk profile. This directly contradicts the Government’s stated commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and protecting children from harmful content online. The current regulatory framework creates a dangerous loophole that allows these harmful platforms to evade proper scrutiny.
The duties avoided by these smaller platforms are not trivial. They will escape requirements to publish transparency reports, enforce their terms of service and provide user empowerment tools. The absence of these requirements creates a significant gap in user protection and accountability.
Perhaps the most damning is the contradiction between the Government’s Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for Online Safety, published last November, which emphasises effective regulation of small but risky services, and their and Ofcom’s implementation of categorisation thresholds that explicitly exclude these services from the highest level of scrutiny. Ofcom’s advice expressly disregarded—“discounted” is the phrase it used—the flexibility brought into the Act via the Morgan amendment, and advised that regulations should be laid that brought only large platforms into category 1. Its overcautious interpretation of the Act creates a situation where Ofcom recognises the risks but fails to recommend for itself the full range of tools necessary to address them effectively.
This is particularly important in respect of small, high-risk sites, such as suicide and self-harm sites, or sites which propagate racist or misogynistic abuse, where the extent of harm to users is significant. The Minister, I hope, will have seen the recent letter to the Prime Minister from a number of suicide, mental health and anti-hate charities on the issue of categorisation of these sites. This means that platforms such as 4chan, 8chan and Telegram, despite their documented role in spreading harmful content and co-ordinating malicious activities, escaped the full force of regulatory oversight simply due to their size. This creates an absurd situation where platforms known to pose significant risks to public safety receive less scrutiny than large platforms with more robust safety measures already in place.
The Government’s insistence that platforms should be “safe by design”, while simultaneously exempting high-risk platforms from category 1 requirements based solely on size metrics, represents a fundamental contradiction and undermines what we were all convinced—and still are convinced—the Act was intended to achieve. Dame Melanie Dawes’s letter, in the aftermath of Southport, surely gives evidence enough of the dangers of some of the high-risk, smaller platforms.
Moreover, the Government’s approach fails to account for the dynamic nature of online risks. Harmful content and activities naturally migrate to platforms with lighter regulatory requirements. By creating this two-tier system, they have, in effect, signposted escape routes for bad actors seeking to evade meaningful oversight. This short-sighted approach could lead to the proliferation of smaller, high-risk platforms designed specifically to exploit these regulatory gaps. As the Minister mentioned, Ofcom has established a supervision task force for small but risky services, but that is no substitute for imposing the full force of category 1 duties on these platforms.
The situation is compounded by the fact that, while omitting these small but risky sites, category 1 seems to be sweeping up sites that are universally accepted as low-risk despite the number of users. Many sites with over 7 million users a month—including Wikipedia, a vital source of open knowledge and information in the UK—might be treated as a category 1 service, regardless of actual safety considerations. Again, we raised concerns during the passage of the Bill and received ministerial assurances. Wikipedia is particularly concerned about a potential obligation on it, if classified in category 1, to build a system that allows verified users to modify Wikipedia without any of the customary peer review.
Under Section 15(10), all verified users must be given an option to
“prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service”.
Wikipedia says that doing so would leave it open to widespread manipulation by malicious actors, since it depends on constant peer review by thousands of individuals around the world, some of whom would face harassment, imprisonment or physical harm if forced to disclose their identity purely to continue doing what they have done, so successfully, for the past 24 years.
This makes it doubly important for the Government and Ofcom to examine, and make use of, powers to more appropriately tailor the scope and reach of the Act and the categorisations, to ensure that the UK does not put low-risk, low-resource, socially beneficial platforms in untenable positions.
There are key questions that Wikipedia believes the Government should answer. First, is a platform caught by the functionality criteria so long as it has any form of content recommender system anywhere on UK-accessible parts of the service, no matter how minor, infrequently used and ancillary that feature is?
Secondly, the scope of
“functionality for users to forward or share regulated user-generated content on the service with other users of that service”
is unclear, although it appears very broad. The draft regulations provide no guidance. What do the Government mean by this?
Thirdly, will Ofcom be able to reliably determine how many users a platform has? The Act does not define “user”, and the draft regulations do not clarify how the concept is to be understood, notably when it comes to counting non-human entities incorporated in the UK, as the Act seems to say would be necessary.
The Minister said in her letter of 7 February that the Government are open to keeping the categorisation thresholds under review, including the main consideration for category 1, to ensure that the regime is as effective as possible—and she repeated that today. But, at the same time, the Government seem to be denying that there is a legally robust or justifiable way of doing so under Schedule 11. How can both those propositions be true?
Can the Minister set out why the regulations, as drafted, do not follow the will of Parliament—accepted by the previous Government and written into the Act—that thresholds for categorisation can be based on risk or size? Ofcom’s advice to the Secretary of State contained just one paragraph explaining why it had ignored the will of Parliament—or, as the regulator called it, the
“recommendation that allowed for the categorisation of services by reference exclusively to functionalities and characteristics”.
Did the Secretary of State ask to see the legal advice on which this judgment was based? Did DSIT lawyers provide their own advice on whether Ofcom’s position was correct, especially in the light of the Southport riots?
How do the Government intend to assess whether Ofcom’s regulatory approach to small but high-harm sites is proving effective? Have any details been provided on Ofcom’s schedule of research about such sites? Do the Government expect Ofcom to take enforcement action against small but high-harm sites, and have they made an assessment of the likely timescales for enforcement action?
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement on this issue, not just with me but with Members across the House. It has been very much appreciated, including when she was not here because she was dealing with her own health issues.
When I talk about what we do here in the House of Lords, one of the great successes I point to is the scrutiny that we gave to the Online Safety Act. We did it in a cross-party way, eventually managing to persuade the Government, as well as Ofcom, about the changes that were needed. Those changes were then taken back to the House of Commons, and Ministers there conceded them. As a result of that working together, we ended up with a much stronger Bill that will do much to protect vulnerable and young people and those most at risk of harmful content online. So it is a matter of great regret that, the first time we are debating a statutory instrument of substantive interest under this Act, we—all of us, I suspect—have to say that we are deeply disappointed by the drafting that we have seen.
On 19 July 2023, I moved a very small amendment and was grateful to the House for its support. I said at the time that one change of one word—from “and” to “or”—made for a small but powerful amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out brilliantly and comprehensively why that change was so important, so in the time available, I will not repeat what he said. The House clearly voted for change and the Minister’s own party supported that change, for which I was deeply grateful.
The other interesting thing is that Ofcom said to me that it did not object to that change. However, in its note today—I am sure that it sent the note to other Members—Ofcom talked about the harms-based approach that it is following when recommending to the Government how they should legislate under the Act. But that harms-based approach rings hollow when—through Ofcom’s interpretation, which it has given to the Government—it has ridden roughshod over looking at the risk of the small but high-harm platforms.
The draft statutory instrument is based on the number of users, and this House in its amendment made it very clear that, with harmful platforms, it is not just about the number of users they have but absolutely about the content, the functionalities and the risks that those sites will raise.
As the noble Baroness set out, Ofcom is relying on paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 11, looking at
“how easily, quickly and widely regulated user-generated content is disseminated by means of the service”.
But that paragraph says that the Secretary of State “must take into account” those things, not that the Secretary of State is bound solely by those criteria. Our criticism tonight of the statutory instrument is not just about the fact that Ofcom has chosen to take those words—I would say that Ofcom in not objecting to my amendment was being disingenuous if it already knew that it was going to rely on that sub-paragraph; the bigger question for the noble Baroness tonight is the fact that the Secretary of State did not have to accept the advice that Ofcom gave them.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked, as no doubt others will, about the risk and the harm that we have seen from platforms. We will talk about the fact that for the Southport victims it needed only one person to be radicalised by a site that they were looking at to cause untold misery and devastation for families. This House voted recently on the harm caused by deepfake pornographic abuse. Again, it does not take many people to utterly ruin a victim’s life, and what about those platforms that promote suicide and self-harm content? It is not sufficient to say that this Act will impose greater burdens on illegal content. We all know from debates on the Act that there is content which is deliberately not illegal but which is deeply harmful both to victims and to the vulnerable.
As Jeremy Wright MP said in the debate on these regulations in Committee in the House of Commons, the Government are going to want or need these category 1 powers to apply to smaller, high-harm platforms before too long. Indeed, the Government’s own strategic statement published last year specifically says:
“The government would like to see Ofcom keep this approach”—
that is, the approach it has to small, risky services—
“under continual review and to keep abreast of new and emerging small but risky services, which are posing harm to users online”.
The Government and the Secretary of State already know that there are small but high-harm platforms causing immense risk which will not be caught by these regulations. As we have also heard, the flight therefore to these small, high-harm, risky platforms absolutely will happen as those who want to punt out harmful content seek to find platforms that are not bound by the most stringent regulations.
I will stop there because I know that others wish to speak. I will support the regret amendment tonight should the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, decide to put it to a vote. It has taken far too long to get to this point. I understand the Government’s desire to make progress with these regulations, but the regret amendment states that it
“calls on the Government to withdraw the Regulations and establish a revised definition of Category 1 services”.
I ask the Minister to take that opportunity, because these regulations absolutely do not reflect the will of this House in that amendment. That is a great source of disappointment given the cross-party work that we all did to make sure the Online Safety Act was as comprehensive as it could be.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights and as adviser to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford. I wholeheartedly agree with both the previous speakers, and in fact, they have put the case so forcefully that I hope that the Government are listening.
I wanted to use my time to speak about the gap between the Act that we saw pass through this House and the outcome. What worries me the most is how we should understand the purpose of an Act of Parliament and the hierarchy of the instructions it contains. I ask this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, have already said, the Government of the day, with the express support of Members of this House, including the Front Bench of the Labour Party, agreed that categorisation would be a question of risk or size, not simply size. That was the decision of the House, it was supported in the other place, and it is in the text of the Act. So, it would be useful to understand, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, whether the text of an Act and, separately, a statement made by a Minister from the Dispatch Box, have any authority. If they do, I cannot understand how Ofcom is allowed to overturn that, or how the Secretary of State, without taking action to amend the Act, has been able to allow it to do so.
It is essential to get a clear answer from the Minister about the status of the text of the Act, because this is a pattern of behaviour where the regulator and government appear to be cherry-picking which bits of the Online Safety Act are convenient and ignoring those they consider too difficult, too disruptive, or—I really hope not—too onerous for tech companies. Ofcom has similarly determined not to observe the provisions in the OSA about functionalities contained throughout the Act; for example, at Sections 9(5), 10(4) and 11(6)—I could go on; on extended use, at Section 11(6)(f); and on the requirement to consider the needs of children in different age groups which, like functionalities, run through the Act like a golden thread.
Ofcom’s own illegal harms register risk management guidance states that
“certain ‘functionalities’ stand out as posing particular risks because of the prominent role they appear to play in the spread of illegal content and the commission and facilitation of … offences”.
Ofcom then says its regulatory framework is intended to ensure service providers put in place safeguards to manage the risks posed by functionalities. It lists end-to-end encryption, pseudonymity and anonymity, live-streaming, content recommender systems, and, quite rightly, generative AI, all as functionality that it considers to be high risk. Specifically in relation to grooming, functionalities Ofcom considers risky include network expansion prompts, direct messaging, connection lists and automated information displays.
Despite acknowledgement that functionalities create heightened risk, a clear statement that addressing risk forms part of its regulatory duties, and the clearly expressed intent of Parliament and the wording of the Act, Ofcom has failed to comprehensively address functionalities both in the published illegal harms code and the draft children’s code, and it has chosen to overrule Parliament by ignoring the requirement in Schedule 11 to consider functionalities in determining which services should be designated as category 1 services.
Meanwhile, paragraph 4(a)(vii) of Schedule 4 is crystal clear in its objective of the Act that user-to-user services
“be designed and operated in such a way that … the different needs of children at different ages are taken into account”.
Ofcom has chosen to ignore that. Volume 5 of its draft children’s code says
“our proposals focus at this stage on setting the expectation of protections for all children under the age of 18”.
Any child, any parent and anyone who has spent time with children knows that five and 15 are not the same. The assertion from Ofcom in its narrative about the children’s code is blinding in its stupidity. If common sense cannot prevail, perhaps 100 years or more of child development study that sets out the ages and stages by which children can be expected to have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand something could inform the regulator—and similarly, the age and stage by which we cannot expect a child to understand or have the intellectual capacity to deal with something.
The whole basis of child protection is that we should support the children on their journey from dependence to autonomy because we know that they do not have the capacity to do it for themselves in all contexts, because of the vulnerabilities associated with ages and development stages. Ofcom knows that the Act says that it should reflect this but somehow feels empowered to ignore or overrule the will of Parliament and, just as with categorisation, the Government appear to condone it.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this is a regret amendment, and the conduct of Ofcom and the Government on this matter is surely deeply regrettable, for all the reasons that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Kidron. The treatment of small but high-risk services in these regulations simply frustrates the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to Schedule 11, which was approved by this House and accepted by the Government in the Commons. It contradicts what the Minister, Mr Scully, said in the Commons when he accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, approved by this House, and it fails to address the mischief in this context, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others have clearly identified. I, too, would like to see or even to understand what possible legal advice has led to this lamentable position. The impact of the service does not—it cannot—depend only on the number of users. That was the whole point of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
The Minister suggested two arguments, as I understood her, but it is not good enough for her to say—if I may respectfully say so—that small services are still unable to act in an illegal manner. The Act is, of course, designed to provide further regulation—especially so because the criminal law is, regrettably, a blunt and slow instrument. Nor am I persuaded by the Minister’s suggestion that it is simply too difficult to draft regulations to address small but high-risk services. I simply do not accept that the expertise of the department and parliamentary counsel cannot come up with an appropriate regulation to address this mischief.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to Wikipedia in particular. Noble Lords who took part in Committee on the Bill will recall that on several occasions I asked the Minister at the time—now my noble friend sitting on the opposition Front Bench—whether Wikipedia would be in scope of the regulation and, if so, whether it would have consequences which would make it impossible for Wikipedia, a charity, to continue with its existing model. My noble friend was unable at the time to say that; he said it would be a matter for the regulations and, indeed, for the regulator. Now here we are, nearly two years later, and we have some regulations, and I have the same question to put to the Minister on the Front Bench today. It appears to me—I must say that I have no interest to declare other than that I am an inveterate user of Wikipedia—and as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, that we are still left in a state of confusion about this. Regulation 3 says that for large sites—those with more than 34 million users—two criteria have to be met. One is that it has that number of users or more, and the other is that it
“uses a content recommender system”.
In paragraph (2), a content recommender system is broadly defined; for example, it says that it is not simply algorithms by means of machine learning but algorithms by machine learning or “other techniques”. The verb is not simply “determines” but
“determines, or otherwise affects, the way in which regulated user-generated content of a user, whether alone or with other content, may be encountered by other users of the service”.
Wikipedia indeed uses techniques for sending people articles and information that relate to what they have shown an interest in in the past. Would it be caught or not? What are the consequences of Wikipedia being caught? There are many, but I would like to test one out on noble Lords. I do not claim that this is definitive law, because, I suspect, much of the Act will need to be determined in the courts before we know what the definitive interpretation is.
Let us take as an example the case of some loathsome foreign dictator or other such character whose article on Wikipedia is less flattering than he might wish it to appear and he has a complaint about this. Wikipedia will consider it and then probably throw it in the waste-paper basket. If he seeks by some means to change the content of the article, of course, the editors of Wikipedia, who are a distributed network largely of volunteers, will intervene to change it back and try to ensure that it still reflects what is known to be reality. But under Section 64 of the Online Safety Act, one may apply to become a verified user. Obviously, I do not expect the loathsome person himself to apply to become a verified user; there will be some stooge, some student, some trainee or some character somewhere willing to register on their behalf who could then change the article, but because they are a verified user, under Section 15(10)(a) of the Act, they would acquire immunity to peer review. What they wrote on Wikipedia could not then be changed by the editors, because they were a verified user and had that protection.
I offer that as a genuine possibility. Noble Lords know that I am not a lawyer. This could be tested in the courts and found otherwise but, on the face of it, it appears that this sort of consequence would accrue. So I come back to the same question that I have been asking to no real effect now for two years. Perhaps when she comes to reply, the Minister can give me a definitive answer. Is Wikipedia in scope of this regulation? Is it covered by Section 3 or not? We would like to know.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, often in this House one is tempted to wander down memory lane and is filled with wonderful memories of good times and shared experiences, but none so present as the one that was referred to by the noble Baroness when she spoke earlier about the Online Safety Bill. I felt resonances up and down my back as I remembered the moment at which I decided that there was no point in reading my speech at Second Reading, which was full of sound and fury, full of anger, full of things that I was determined to see in the Bill, but realised that we all agreed about it and that the best thing was to say simply that we would work together to get the best Bill that we could out of the resources available across the House—and they are significant. As we have heard today, that worked—or it did until today.
I am very sad that I feel I will have to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in only my second appearance against my party. I felt very strongly that we had an agreement in the last Parliament, signed, sealed and signified by both Houses and agreed to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who is in his place. It bound any successor Government to operate within the terms of that Act. I find it egregious that the Government are seeking a way of not doing that, for reasons that I can only guess at but seem to be more about winning friends in strange places across the Atlantic than seeing the best for our people, particularly our children, in the United Kingdom.
There is an irony in that there would have been a way of avoiding this. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, again, but we adopted towards the end of the Bill what I called the Parkinson rule, and rightly so because I felt that he was brave in proposing it. It was not the convention of the time, nor a structure or system that fit well within our current procedures in this House. The intention was to recognise the complexity and difficulty in the Online Safety Bill, now Act, and to invite the Government to share with the Select Committees of both Houses —the SIT Committee in the Commons and the Communications and Digital Committee in the Lords—draft material relating to the Online Safety Bill because we had a hunch that there would be issues that would need to be hammered out more clearly and more effectively than the arrangements for dealing with secondary legislation in this House currently allow. That might change, but until it does there is no way in which we can debate and discuss except through a regret amendment—or, as one might have been tempted to do on this occasion, through a fatal Motion—to an instrument which clearly has come out wrong, does not reflect the wishes of the House and may do damage which ultimately will end up in people’s lives. The responsibility will lie with the Government if they do not listen to what we are saying today.
The Parkinson rule was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I quote from Hansard, although not entirely because there are some reservations which I want to skip over, though I am sure that they can be checked out. He said that the Government would
“ensure that the relevant committees have every chance to play a part in that consultation by informing them that the process is open”—
which is good—and that they would
“where possible, share draft statutory instruments directly with the relevant committees ahead of the formal laying process … on a case-by-case basis, considering what is appropriate and reasonably practical”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; cols. 2351-52.]
That system has not been implemented by the Government.
I wrote to my noble friend the Minister while she was ill, and she has very kindly responded to me. She says she feels that the spirit of the agreement has been carried out in how the Government told both committees that there were statutory instruments on the way and that this was sufficient to meet the implications of the Parkinson rule. Given that three days’ notice was given before they were laid, that does not meet the requirement.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to illustrate why we are as concerned as we are. One of the platforms that would not come under the categorisation that we would wish it to is Telegram. Last month, on 16 January, a 19 year-old man, Cameron Finnigan, a member of a Satanist extremist group called 764, was sentenced to six years in prison on charges including encouraging suicide and possessing indecent images of a child.
764 originates in the United States; Telegram has been used to disseminate it across the Atlantic. The FBI describes 764 as
“a network of violent extremists who seek to normalize the production, sharing, and possession of child pornography and gore material to desensitize and corrupt youth toward future acts of violence. Members of 764 gain notoriety by systematically targeting, grooming, and extorting victims through online social media platforms”,
particularly the small ones. It continues:
“Members demand that victims engage in and share media of self-mutilation, sexual acts, harm to animals, acts of random violence, suicide, and murder, all for the purpose of accelerating chaos and disrupting society and the world order”.
On that basis, you can understand completely why Ofcom thinks this is fine.
This is unacceptable and the Government really should look at this again. Above all, it is incumbent on Ofcom to recognise that to, apparently wilfully, diverge from the clear stated will of both Houses of Parliament, and what is written in the Act, is not simply inappropriate but, as other noble Lords have suggested, may well be illegal, and that should be looked into.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will be incredibly brief, having not been part of the collective of Peers who worked on the parent Act to this statutory instrument. The key question that has been highlighted is, what is the Government’s interpretation now of the powers in the Act? The Government’s and the Official Opposition’s interpretation at the time it was passed was that it had the power to include in category 1 providers on the basis of risk, not size. I am incredibly concerned because, in the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that
“as things stand, the Secretary of State does not have the power to include them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 16.]
That was a reference to small but risky providers, and actually the Minister seemed slightly outraged at the implication that they were not acting where they should otherwise be doing so. So can the Minister clarify for this debate whether it is the Government’s position that they would like to include them and that that is the intention that they thought the Act had given them, but they cannot under the law as it is written; or that they do have the powers but have chosen not to, which is our understanding of their decision-making?
The reason that is so important is that the Minister has committed to reviewing these thresholds in future, but such reviews will have very little power if the Act itself is faulty and does not give them the ability to designate on the basis of risk, or the review is pointless because they already have the powers and the evidence of the risk of these providers but are choosing not to act.
I have another point on legal advice. In the debate in the Commons, the Minister committed to writing, including a letter from government lawyers, setting out in great detail what she was saying
“in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State in setting the categories”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 19.]
In other words, the letter would clarify for people what the interpretation, which has so shifted from the original debate, is from the Government. I may have missed that letter—maybe it was placed in the House of Commons Library—but perhaps the Minister could say whether the letter was written and share its content with this Chamber also, because I think that gets to the heart of what we are regretting today from the Government.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I just want to say very briefly that, having served alongside my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the Front Bench during the passage of this Act, I want to thoroughly endorse what he has said. I am very proud of the work that we did together—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—to try to create a piece of legislation that could work in a very complex area, and I think we did a good job.
My fear now is that, now that Ofcom, the regulator, has published its road map, it is like a juggernaut: it has just got on with delivering what it was always going to deliver and has ignored what we in this House amended the Bill to do. In that respect, it is treating us with contempt and it is important that we express our regret in one way or another this evening about the way that we have been treated. I came in wanting to be convinced by my noble friend the Minister; I am afraid that so far she has not done it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations and to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling his amendment and for moving it in the way that he did, because it has given us the opportunity to have this very important debate on this landmark Act of Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes was right to begin her remarks by reminding your Lordships that the passage of that Act was a shining example of this House doing its job very well indeed, giving careful, considered and non-partisan scrutiny to legislation before us. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly recalls the cross-party spirit that he did so much to foster from Second Reading, and it was a pleasure working with noble Lords from across the House in that spirit to make sure that the Act found its way to the statute book in the improved way that it did.
We are here tonight because of a number of amendments made to the Bill as it went through this House. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended in its report on the Bill that the first regulation for the category 1 thresholds should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I was glad to accept that recommendation when I was the Minister taking the Bill through, and I am glad to be here for the debate on it, albeit speaking from a different Dispatch Box.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, does indeed embarrass me by citing the Parkinson rule. I said at the time that Cyril Northcote Parkinson has the better reputation for Parkinson’s laws. But that undertaking was an important one that I was happy to make to ensure that Parliament had the ongoing scrutiny. We all recognised as we passed this law that this was a fast-moving area of technology, that legislatures across the world were struggling to keep up, and that it would be important for the post-legislative scrutiny to take place in the same agile and consensual way in which we sought to pass the Act.
We are also here because of an amendment made to the Bill on Report by my noble friend Lady Morgan. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were too gracious to recall that it took me a little longer to get there. That amendment was made despite my arguments to the contrary. My noble friend pressed her amendment, defeated me and the previous Government and changed the Bill. When the Bill was in another place, the Government accepted her point.
I was helped along the way in that legislative journey by clear exhortations from noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench who were then in opposition. In our debate on my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment on 19 July 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, who I am glad to see in his place, albeit now on the Back Benches, said that my noble friend’s amendment was a “no-brainer”. He pointed out that the Bill, as it stood,
“requires Ofcom to … be mindful of size”,
but argued that:
“We need to be more nuanced”.—[Official Report, 19/7/23; col. 2344.]
and that it was right to give Ofcom leeway or flexibility in the categorisation and to bring providers into the safety regime.
Those points were echoed in another place by Alex Davies-Jones, the Member of Parliament for Pontypridd, who is now a Minister at the Ministry of Justice with responsibility for tackling violence against women and girls, rape and serious sexual offences, child sexual abuse and many other very serious matters. In opposition, following that debate, she made the point that:
“Categorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean that the Bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/22; col. 168.]
I wonder what Ms Davies-Jones says now that she is at the Ministry of Justice.
I am very grateful to Ofcom. I had a helpful phone call last week with Robert Brown and Mark Bunting of Ofcom to understand its approach. My criticisms are directed at the Government, not at Ofcom. Without wanting to rehearse my old job, I will help the Minister by pointing out that many of the concerns raised are covered by the Bill.
The Bill is very clear that the duties to act on illegal content and to protect children apply to services of every size. Some of the points made, including the very moving and harrowing examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, may well be covered by the illegal duties and the protection of children duties, and the Minister was right to point that out. But there is a shift in approach from the commitments I made at the Dispatch Box when I was a Minister and the decision that Parliament took in backing my noble friend Lady Morgan’s amendment. I am interested in why the Government have changed their mind, particularly having been so strongly in favour of making those changes to the Bill when in opposition.
In her opening remarks, the Minister used the ubiquitous phrase “unintended consequences”. She mentioned that the Government did not want unintentionally to categorise hundreds of small and non-risky services, but would that necessarily be the case? Surely a granular case-by-case categorisation would not bring in so many hundreds. It seems that she and the Government are leaning rather heavily on other parts of the Act that talk about the quick, easy and wide dissemination of material online. I wonder whether the “and wide” part of that is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Is that what is making the Government make the connection to the size? Is the width of dissemination driving the policy decision here? And it is a policy decision. The Government are not bound to follow the advice that Ofcom has provided; they can disagree with it.
In the debate in another place on these regulations, my right honourable friend Sir Jeremy Wright, a former law officer, said it would not be right to ask the Government to provide the legal advice they have had on these matters, but like the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I would be very interested in seeing that. I wonder whether the Minister is able to say a bit more about the legal basis on which they have decided that they are unable to disagree, or are not inclined to disagree, with Ofcom on this. I hope she will be able to give a very clear answer to the very clear question posed by my noble friend Lady Penn, who put very well the question about legal advice and the Government’s room for manoeuvre here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge all the hard work, and the cross-party consensus, that went into creating the Online Safety Act. For all the questions that noble Lords are raising today, it is still seen as being a global leader on online safety, so it is certainly nothing we should be ashamed of. I still believe it will be transformative when it is rolled out in the next few weeks and months, when it really will begin to have an impact. I pay tribute to those who did all that work at the time.
There has been a suggestion that we have just kowtowed in some way. I cannot tell noble Lords for how many hours, days and weeks my office and the Secretary of State’s office have pored over the detail of this to make sure that we feel we are doing the best we can to implement the Act in the way that was intended. Noble Lords who have read the draft statement of strategic priorities, which we sent to Ofcom, will see that we are reiterating a lot of the issues that colleagues around the Chamber are raising today. They are our priorities as well. It came down to the practicalities of some of the issues we were being asked to enforce. I hope that in my responses now I can address some of those questions.
I should be specific about the user number thresholds that have been chosen. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and others, just to put it on the record, I note that Ofcom recommended category 1 threshold combinations of either: user numbers of more than 7 million UK users in addition to the functionality of forwarding or resharing user-generated content and the characteristic of a content recommender system to be met; or user numbers of more than 34 million UK users and a content recommender system to be met.
Ofcom specifically set out in its research and advice, published last March, that it considered but discounted a recommendation that allowed for the categorisation of services for category 1 by reference exclusively to functionalities and characteristics. That was because the research indicated that user reach has an important role to play in content dissemination. Ofcom made a regulatory judgment on where to set the user number thresholds, based on an assessment of what comprised targeted and proportionate regulatory action. Ofcom also undertook sensitivity testing on the thresholds.
In this debate it has been clear that some, such as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, think there will be services—particularly, as we have been debating, small but risky services—that evade the core duties of the Act. I want to assure noble Lords that the legislation does not allow for that. All regulated user-to-user services and search engines, no matter what their size, will be subject to the existing illegal content duties and, where relevant, the child safety duties; the categories do not change that.
The codes on illegal content duties, which were laid in Parliament, have passed the objection period and may now be issued by Ofcom. The duties should be in effect next month. They will force services to put in place systems and processes to tackle illegal content and require services to name a senior person accountable for compliance. If a service is likely to be accessed by children, the child safety duties will require services to conduct a child safety risk assessment and provide safety measures for child users. We expect that these duties will come into effect this summer, on the basis that the codes for the duties will be passed by then. Together, the illegal content and child safety duties will mark the biggest material change in online safety for UK citizens since the internet era began. By Ofcom’s own assessment, the Act may cover up to 100,000 services of various sizes, showing that the legislation reaches far and wide to ensure important protections for users, particularly children, online.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Kidron, asked why category 1 thresholds are not risk-based. I will now turn to that.
The decision of the Secretary of State to set the categorisation thresholds as per Ofcom’s recommendations, rather than deviating from its research, was as follows. When the OSA was introduced, category 1 thresholds were due to be assessed based on the level of risk of harm to adults from priority content disseminated by means of the service. As noble Lords will know, this was removed during the passage of the Bill by the then Government and replaced with consideration of the likely impact of the number of users of the service, its functionalities, and how easily, quickly and widely user-generated content is disseminated. This was a significant change and, while the risk of harm may be seen to be a more relevant factor, this is the position under the Act as it now stands.
As I have already acknowledged, the successful amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Parkinson—did make it possible to require threshold conditions on functionality and characteristics to be met without user numbers. However, as I have set out, the considerations within the Act, Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences have meant that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting a threshold for category 1.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
The Minister is setting out a clear case, with which I, and I think many others in this House, disagree. To cut to the chase, the Minister has just said that the Government understand the amendment passed in this House on 19 July 2023 but have decided, on the advice of Ofcom, that that amendment does not work and therefore should be ignored. We should be clear that that is what has happened. The Government should own that decision and the House, when it votes on the amendment tonight, will decide whether it thinks that is an acceptable way to behave or an unacceptable way to behave.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only reiterate what I have already said: we took Ofcom’s advice after a great deal of scrutiny of why it had come to that piece of advice. Its advice was that the key factor to be taken into account was how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated. That is the basis on which we made that decision.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Sorry to interrupt but, to return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is it the Government’s position that, although the law says it is permissible, and indeed was expected, that in making their decision about category 1 the Government would require Ofcom to ensure that both reach and risk were taken account of, the Government have decided that only reach will be taken account of?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Ofcom’s advice was that how easily, quickly and widely content is disseminated are the key factors that it needed to make the judgment. I cannot say anything more than that.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt, but maybe this would be a good moment to answer my question about the hierarchy of text in an Act versus the regulator’s advice. It was my understanding, when the House agreed to that amendment, that it was an instruction to the regulator rather than something “nice to have” if it decided later that it did not like it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The SI before us today, based on Ofcom’s advice, is the best way that we can find, in terms of practicality, of enforcing what was written in the Act.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to follow Ofcom’s advice, and that the Government have a separate decision-making moment—a process—to consider that advice and reach their own decision? So it is not on Ofcom; it is on the Government. It is the Government who think it is the correct way forward to ignore what was previously in the Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that that is a factor that we considered. The Secretary of State received Ofcom’s advice, duly reflected on it, looked at all the evidence and decided that we would abide by Ofcom’s advice on the issue. It was the Secretary of State’s decision, and that is why we have this SI in front of us today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister heard the example that I gave and is aware of the harm that was done as a result of using the small channel Telegram. For harm to be done, the material does not need to be widely disseminated; it is disseminated through a very small group of hardcore believers in some of these strange cults, and that is how the harm is done. The fact that it is not widely disseminated is completely irrelevant. One person taking that onboard and then doing something unmentionable should be against the Act as it was written and as we understood it would be legislated for, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The breadth and extent of dissemination and the number of users are irrelevant.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the whole “small but risky” issue that the noble Lord is raising is hugely close to our heart. We have engaged with Ofcom and pressed it to take more action on the sort of small but risky services that he is talking about. Our view is that they do not necessarily have to be dealt with under the categorisation process; there are other ways. Ofcom has assured us, in the way that it has come back to us, that there are other ways in which it is addressing them.
It is not as though they have been discarded. It is an absolute priority for this Government that we address the “small but risky” issue, and we are doing so. We are working with Ofcom to make sure that that is followed through. As I said when I opened this debate, the fact is that we have worked with Ofcom and it is setting up a task force to look at this, while separately we are looking at these issues. What more can we do? On the position at the moment regarding the rollout of the SI and the categorisation, the reality is that Ofcom’s research and advice, and the risk of unintended consequences, means that it is not currently workable to ignore user numbers when setting category 1 and so on.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Minister rightly said “currently” and, even if that is the case, why are the Government closing the door to having this option available to them and Ofcom later? She is right that Ofcom is doing a lot of work in ways other than categorisation, but surely she and her colleagues in government can see that this is a useful tool to have in the armoury in the fight against the sorts of harms noble Lords have been raising. Why are the regulations written so tightly as to close that off and avoid taking the concession that was so hard won by my noble friend Lady Morgan and others when the Bill went through Parliament?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I can only say what I have already said on this. We are looking at “small but risky”. Ofcom is working hard on this, and we are working hard on this. We can review whether the categorisation process is working. As I have already set out, that option is available to us further down the line. But, at the moment, as with other parts of the Online Safety Act, we felt we needed to get on with it and put these measures into place. Already, the categorisation provisions will take another year or 18 months to come into effect, so it is not as though that is the most imminent part of the implementation of the Act. I hear what noble Lords say. None of these issues are off the table, but we just wanted to get the Act rolled out in as quick and as current a form as we could.
If I could move on, in response to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Parkinson, I am not able to share the legal advice, but, as I have said, the Secretary of State must act within the legal framework. The current thresholds are legally valid and have been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In addition to small but risky services, even though in principle there is a provision that allows a user number threshold not to be met, it does not for example allow for sub-delegations to other parties such as coroners, which was another concern of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
The decision on the categorisation thresholds has led, as I have just been saying, some to assume that certain small high-risk services are being overlooked by the legislation. However, this is not the case, as they will be subject to the stringent illegal harm and child safety duties. I know that Members are aware that the categorisation of small but risky services would also not prevent or deter users who were determined to access harmful content on dedicated forums. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the question of small but risky services evading the core duties, such as the terms of service and user empowerment. Services that exist solely to host abusive or pro-suicide content, for example, will not have terms of service banning such content, so enforcing those terms would be ineffective in reducing harm.
In addition, the user empowerment tools will enable adult users of category 1 services to avoid certain types of content, such as harmful suicide content. We anticipate that these duties will be most beneficial when services have commercial incentives to prohibit harmful content and where users wish to avoid content they may otherwise see, but not where users are actively seeking out harmful content.
I hope that begins to explain the Secretary of State’s decision. I have to say, and have said, that it was a difficult one and, while we acknowledge the possibility of deviating from Ofcom’s advice and utilising the option to set threshold combinations without a user number, this would not have had the effect of meaningfully reducing harm on small but risky services but would risk regulating hundreds of small low-risk services.
Regarding Ofcom’s small but risky supervisor task force, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about, I am confident that Ofcom can effectively use that task force to address these issues. Ofcom already had plans to ensure compliance with the first duties that go live under the Act. These include using targeted enforcement action against small risky services where there is evidence of a significant ongoing risk of harm to users, especially children, and an apparent lack of safety measures in place. In serious cases, Ofcom can seek a court order imposing business disruption measures if there is evidence of continued non-compliance. This could mean asking a third party to withdraw from the service or asking an internet service provider to limit access.
I hope that, as the child safety and illegal content duties come into force this year and the work of the task force begins, those in this House who are concerned will be able to see how these services will not evade their responsibilities under the Act.
Regarding Wikipedia, in response to the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, the Government are not in a position to confirm which services will be designated as category 1. Indeed, this is Ofcom’s statutory obligation once the regulations have passed and are in force. It is worth noting that many of the duties on categorised services are subject to the principle of proportionality. This requires Ofcom to consider measures that are technically feasible to providers of a certain size or capacity. Where a code of practice is relevant to a duty, Ofcom must have regard to a principle of proportionality. What is proportionate for one kind of service might not be proportionate for another.
The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan, also queried how Ofcom could make assessments against the definitions of certain functionalities, characteristics and user number thresholds in the statutory instrument. Once the regulations have been approved by Parliament, Ofcom will issue requests for information and will start assessing services against the threshold conditions.
I also understand that there has been concern that small low-risk platforms, such as local community forums, are being overburdened by the Act and its duties. I must reiterate that these platforms, often run by a small number of users, will not be captured by the categorisation thresholds debated today. At the same time, I acknowledge that the new illegal content and child safety duties will require some additional work from these types of services.
I assure those here today that the principles of proportionality and risk are embedded into the duties on services and Ofcom in relation to the codes of practice. This means that small and low-risk services should not be overburdened by the duties in the Online Safety Act. In efforts to ease the process for small services, Ofcom is providing support to online services to help them to understand their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. These can be found on Ofcom’s website.
My noble friend Lord Stevenson raised the question of engagement with relevant committees. I agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act and welcome the expertise Members of both Houses bring. The Government agree that it is vital that regulators are accountable for their services, including through existing annual reports and reporting requirements. We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as any other parliamentary committees that may have an interest in the Act. I am more than happy to meet my noble friend Lord Stevenson to discuss how that could be progressed further.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, I want to put on record that a letter was shared with the Delegated Legislation and Regulatory Reform Committee in response to concerns raised during the Commons debate.
I must again stress that the Secretary of State will be holding these thresholds and the wider regulatory framework under review going forward and the Government will take whatever action is necessary to tackle risky services of any size.
I would finally like to thank all those who have contributed today: the noble Lords, Lord Clement- Jones, Lord Pannick, Lord Moylan, Lord Stevenson, Lord Russell and Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Kidron, Lady Penn—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who continues to put valuable work, expertise and energy into making the UK a safer place, both online and in the material world. I specifically thank user safety groups that have engaged with the Government on this matter and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his dedication to his work on these issues.
I recognise that there are some who would like to see changes to this instrument and some who believe that the decisions of the Government do not align with the intentions of the Act. I hope they understand that every decision made by this Government is made with the intention of bringing about the Act in an important and timely way. For too long, children and adults in this country have had to grapple with an unsafe online environment, and the instrument that we have debated today shows real progress.
I do not shy away from the challenge we face in navigating the ever-changing online world. I recognise that the Act is imperfect. However, it is not the destination but a significant step in the right direction. There will always be more that we can do. Years of delay and lack of progress have come at an unfathomable cost for vulnerable children and adults, with lives cut short and families’ worlds turned upside down. It is time to deliver change. I hope noble Lords will consider the time pressure and the fact that we have to get on with the rollout of the Act. I urge noble Lords to approve this vital legislation today.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I raised a number of questions and I would be grateful, if the Minister is not going to answer them in the moment, if she could write to me about the Joint Committee, the hierarchy of the Act and statements from the Dispatch Box versus this decision and other decisions.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, if I have not covered any issues, I will of course write to noble Lords to clarify any matters that are outstanding.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, used the expression “emotions raised”. That is exactly what this regret amendment has done. There is real anger about the way in which this statutory instrument has been put together. I think many noble Lords who were involved in the Act were extremely proud of our work, as has been expressed.
The Minister has made a valiant attempt, but I am afraid that she has been given a hospital pass. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State did not have to accept the advice from Ofcom. Its advice about functionalities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made absolutely clear, and the evidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, put forward, not to mention the evidence from the anti-Semitism foundation, all indicate that there is considerable belief around this House that we are not dealing with the high-risk but smaller sites such as Telegram, 8chan and 4chan.
In these circumstances, as I believe is accepted by many noble Lords across the House, the Government have got this completely wrong and it needs rethinking. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Monday 24th February 2025
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Feb 2025)
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Review: impact of this Act on the prison estate(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of provisions in this Act related to the treatment and care of mentally disordered persons on—(a) under 18s in youth offender institutions,(b) IPP prisoners,(c) female prisoners, and(d) any other such persons they deem appropriate.(2) In the review, the Secretary of State must assess whether, in their view, the Act provides adequate support for ongoing treatment and care of mentally disordered persons in a prison setting.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of the provisions of the Act on prisons and to assess whether the Act provides for adequate support for ongoing treatment and care in these settings.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, after all that excitement, I fear I may be a bit of an anticlimax, but I will carry on regardless—and let people walk out. My Amendment 160A calls for a review of the impact of the Act on the prison estate and the ongoing treatment and care of mentally disordered people in a prison setting a year after the Act passes. We have all welcomed the Bill’s commitment to ending the use of prison cells as so-called places of safety, but as some of us noted in the debate on an earlier group, the promise of, for example, a transfer to hospital for prisoners facing acute crises within 28 days is widely viewed by criminal justice stakeholders as unlikely to happen. We need to review whether such cynicism is merited, because the prison reform aspects of the Bill are not minor. They should not be treated as Cinderella clauses: they are, to my mind, crucial.
We cannot pass this Act and leave prisoners who ought to be in hospital beds abandoned in squalid conditions in jails. Additionally, it is not fair to prison staff because, to quote Andrew Neilson from the Howard League:
“Our overcrowded prison system that has been asked to do much, with too little, for too long, is ill-equipped to help people who require intensive support for their mental health”.
I recently visited Five Wells prison in Wellingborough with my Academy of Ideas hat on. The new leadership team at Five Wells is doing some fantastic work on purposeful rehabilitation activities, and we hope to do a joint project of Debating Matters Beyond Bars with it there. I chatted more generally to the team members, who have worked in a variety of prisons over the years, and they all noted that the time and emotional strain on staff when dealing with psychotic and very poorly prisoners—they gave gory examples of prisoners eating their own faeces or making very bloody attempts at self-harm, et cetera—have been totally demoralising for officers. It may have been one of the reasons for the use of the segregation units I talked about earlier. But these things have also had a destabilising and frightening impact on other prisoners. Sharing space with those with paranoid delusions and who present a violent threat to themselves and others is no joke; it makes prison difficult for everyone. So it is crucial that we get this right in the context of an overstretched prison crisis, and a specific view would focus minds.
I also think that we cannot let the Bill pass into law without acknowledging that there is considerable public disquiet about the relationship between criminal justice and mental health care. What do we do about the detention of those convicted of serious crimes due to diminished responsibility, where professionals see secure hospitals as more appropriate than prison? I am sure we can all recognise that, for many victims and their families, this hospital option can feel like an injustice.
I am, of course, thinking of the high-profile and controversial case of Valdo Calocane. According to the recently published independent investigation, it was repeated failures to treat Calocane’s paranoid schizophrenia and violent outbursts that left him free to kill Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates in June 2023. More pertinently in relation to the Bill, the families of these tragic victims fear that Calocane may have been spared prison due to incomplete evidence presented in court, especially about his mental capacity. This is now exposed in the 302-page investigative report, and the families have concluded:
“This was a man who actively avoided his medication and treatment, knowing that when he didn't take his medication he would become paranoid and violent”.
This is interesting for our deliberations, because we now know that the doctors responsible for Calocane’s case repeatedly ignored the nurses treating him in the community, who begged for him to be put on a CTO to ensure that he took long-acting anti-psychotic drugs. Why were they ignored? It seems that the clinical team at Nottinghamshire Healthcare Foundation Trust made decisions “influenced” by the draft Mental Health Bill 2022. Those medics were very conscious of legislation down the line that seeks to raise the threshold of detention and reduce the use of CTOs, and of the call for a reduction of compulsion in medicating patients in the community. Then there is the issue of patient rights, in Calocane’s reluctance to take medication because he did not like needles. Staff were, we are told, acutely aware of the Bill highlighting the “disproportionate” use of restrictive practices on black African or black Caribbean patients—and so on and so forth.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I had not intended to come in on this group, but, having just heard the very powerful—and, in places, very alarming and harrowing—speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I will just ask the Minister whether he can explain what plans the Government have to assess and evaluate the impact of the provisions of the future Act on prisons and the criminal justice system, even if they are not planning a formal review. We need to know how the impact will be assessed.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of this Bill, both the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who is not in his place, have spoken passionately about people with mental health issues in prison. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to Valdo Calocane, and I know that the Government have instigated an inquiry. That particular case was the motivation for Amendments 160BA and 160BB in a later group, to which my noble friend Lord Howe will speak.
During the earlier debates on this, both at Second Reading and in Committee, I was particularly struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on Chief Inspector Charlie Taylor’s graphic description of seriously mentally ill people in prisons being akin to a Victorian nightmare. After that debate, I read some of what Charlie Taylor had said, particularly about his visit in 2022 to Eastwood Park, where he witnessed
“bloodstains on the floor and scratch marks on the walls—evidence of the levels of distress of the women being held there”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also told the Committee about the experience of prison staff, saying that one of the most difficult things is the danger that prisoners with mental health issues pose to themselves, other prisoners and staff. In fact, Charlie Taylor gave an example of an incident when staff were
“unable to stop one inmate from repeatedly running into a brick wall due to a lack of suitable training”.
These are very important issues that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are raising.
Given all this and its importance—I know that one of the reasons the Minister was appointed to his position was his experience and passion for prison reform—it seems reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of this Act on prisons and to assess whether it provides for adequate support for ongoing treatment and care in those settings, including adequate staff training. I am sure this will be of help not only to the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care but to the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. This amendment would introduce a new clause, making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact and assessment of the provisions of the Act that relate to care and treatment of mentally disordered persons in prisons— this includes under-18s in young offender institutions, IPP prisoners and female prisoners—within 12 months of the day it is passed.
The aim of the criminal justice reforms is to speed up access to specialist in-patient care and ensure that offenders and defendants with severe mental health needs are able to access effective and timely support in the most appropriate setting. We are committed to understanding the impact of these provisions as we monitor any available data. However, these reforms will not come into effect until at least 18 months post Royal Assent. This is to ensure that the necessary operational improvements have been made to enable them to be safely implemented.
We are working closely with health and justice partners to ensure that there is a robust implementation plan in place, and we will scope the feasibility of assessing the impact on all prisoners, including under-18s in young offender institutions, IPP prisoners and female prisoners. Our expectation is that the numbers of these cohorts affected in a prison setting will be small and are unlikely to show up in administrative datasets. However, I reiterate that everyone in our care is important—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his comments about the importance of this to me. We are committed to supporting everyone’s rehabilitation, working to ensure that people stay out of prison by leaving in good health.
I am pleased with the feedback on the noble Baroness’s visit to HMP Five Wells. I too have seen some very ill prisoners in HMP Five Wells and many other prisons. That is why the Bill, and the work we are doing to improve our prisons and the chances of prisoners leaving with a one-way ticket, not a return ticket, are so important.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that there is already a robust scrutiny landscape in place. We are accountable to several key stakeholders and bodies, including His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, independent monitoring boards, the Care Quality Commission and the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. We are committed to learning from what works and where we can improve support for vulnerable offenders with severe mental health conditions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Briefly, I say thank you very much to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who obviously has an intimate and empathetic relationship with the prison estate and the issues that I was raising. I appreciate that he and I share very similar concerns. The difficulty is—I do not think it is just the hour—that the Bill says it will resolve things in relation to prisons but, actually, the discussion around prisons has been rather neglected. I understand why.
The reason I mentioned Mr Calocane is that a lot of the issues in the community and a lot of the public debate about mental health concern the notion of people being ill, wandering around, not being safe and so on and so forth, and I could not think of another way of raising that here. That then affects the prison estate, because people phone the police and then people get taken to prison—or they have been let out of prison when they are mentally ill, and so on and so forth. That is one thing. It requires much greater scrutiny and debate, not just through this Bill but in general in Parliament: that is the first thing. I also think that we have not got public opinion our side on this, in many ways. People are not sure why people are sent to prison in some instances and to hospital in another. I do not expect the Minister to reply, but I think that needs to be acknowledged.
Secondly, I note that, even though I used the example of Five Wells prison, if all the awful things were not happening there, it was based on prison officers’ experiences in many places. I do not want in any way to put the prison into any difficulties, because it is actually doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. I will just say that I think that, on paper, this Bill will make a small impact, but I think there is much further that it could go. I am glad to hear that different groups will be taken seriously. I withdraw the amendment, but I think we have a long way to go and I will keep pursuing this. I thank noble Lords who spoke in support; I really appreciate that.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Duty to promote mental health well-beingAfter section 142B of the Mental Health Act 1983, insert—“Duty to promote mental health well-being(1) It is a general duty of local authorities and any body in carrying out functions under this Act or the Mental Health Act 2025 to promote mental health well-being.(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to—(a) the prevention of mental illness,(b) the promotion of positive mental health,(c) the reduction of stigma and discrimination associated with mental health conditions, and(d) the provision of accessible and appropriate support services to individuals experiencing mental health challenges.(3) Local authorities and commissioning bodies must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty under subsection (1), including an assessment of—(a) progress in improving mental health well-being in their area for persons affected by the provisions of this Act, and(b) any barriers to promoting mental health well-being for such persons and proposed actions to address them. (4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1), and local authorities and commissioning bodies must have regard to such guidance.””
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, there has been discussion throughout Committee about whether this Bill and our deliberations should stick strictly to detention under the Act or range wider. I know that there are different views on this issue. I have said consistently throughout our debates that we need to see what more we can do to prevent people reaching the point where the only option is being forcibly detained.
I feel that a key omission is a power around prevention. Given the cost of statutory in-patient admissions under the mental health legislation, and the stated intention of the Secretary of State to reduce hospitalisation through prevention, I find this surprising. Therefore, I have brought forward a simple amendment that would give relevant authorities the power to promote mental ill-health prevention in their communities, while of course being realistic about current financial realities.
My Amendment 160B seeks to explicitly grant relevant bodies, including integrated care boards, public health bodies and local health boards in Wales, the power to promote mental ill-health prevention within their communities. It would also empower organisations such as social care and the voluntary sector to take proactive steps in reducing the likelihood of individuals reaching crisis point and requiring detention under the Act.
I was pleased recently to have the opportunity to discuss this with the Approved Mental Health Professional Leads Network, which is very much involved in this. It expressed its support for such an approach. I think we all understand that the causes of mental health issues are complex and can be as much around societal issues, such as employment, housing and poverty, as clinical issues. That is clearly recognised in the AMHP’s role, which acknowledges that while a clinical perspective is always appropriate, other perspectives can be equally valuable. As was explained to me, at the core of the approved mental health professional’s role is a responsibility to explore less restrictive alternatives to detention for individuals in crisis.
As has been quoted a number of times in this Chamber, recently the Secretary of State said that the Government will publish a 10-year plan early next year setting out how they will deliver three big shifts in the focus of the NHS,
“from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention”.
I see this legislation, and indeed this amendment, as an opportunity to make a reality of that statement in relation to mental health. While there will always need to be provision for statutory interventions for those who present a severe risk to themselves or others, it is surprising to me that, in this journey from hospital to community and sickness to prevention, there is no explicit mention of the promotion of good mental health within the Bill.
There is plenty of evidence of the links between prevention and reducing detention. I was going to give some examples, but the hour is late and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am not going to. There are also plenty of examples of alternative approaches to detention, such as crisis cafes and safe spaces, community crisis response teams, mobile mental health and social care professionals who respond to individuals in crisis, peer support networks, sanctuaries and respite services. All these have been shown to be effective in reducing the need for hospital admissions.
To conclude, by formally giving relevant bodies the power—it is a power, not a duty—to promote mental ill-health prevention, this amendment encourages a proactive rather than a reactive approach to mental health care and support, thereby, I hope, reducing reliance on crisis interventions, including involuntary detention. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for introducing this amendment. It is quite clear that noble Lords across the Committee agree with the Government’s commitment to move the emphasis from sickness to prevention. This amendment is clearly aimed at that, as the noble Baroness has said.
During my time as a Health Minister and since, I have met a number of community and civil society projects, charities and mental health professionals who have shared the amazing work being done across the country to improve the well-being of local communities. I put on record my thanks to the late Baroness Greengross and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing me to the wonderful world of creative health and to the National Centre for Creative Health. Its work addresses the theme of earlier amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the overprescribing of antidepressants and looking at alternatives. We are not saying that medication is a bad thing necessarily. It is very appropriate in some cases, but there are alternatives, such as social prescribing.
The late Lady Greengross introduced me to a wonderful organisation called Intergenerational Music Making, and I put on record my thanks for its work. It invited me to take part in one of its intergenerational music hubs in Guildford last December and, despite being handed a guitar to play along, I found it inspiring to see the difference that music can make in improving well-being and bringing people of all ages together, including some children from a local learning disability charity.
Noble Lords will also know of the equally amazing work done by many social prescribing organisations, using music, art, drama and green spaces. A career in creative health also opens up new opportunities for budding actors and rock stars who can train as drama and music therapists while waiting for their big break. But many do not wish to be stars and actually find their work, combining their passion with improving mental well-being, fulfilling in its own right.
However, one criticism I hear is that, although there is amazing work on well-being in different primary care settings or in different trusts and integrated care systems across the country, the challenge is how we spread the best practice across our system of health and care, while recognising that what works in one area may not always be an off-the-shelf solution in another locality.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler —which says that
“Local authorities and commissioning bodies must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken to discharge their duty”
to promote mental health and well-being—may be a way to address this concern. Given that, I hope it is an amendment that the Government will consider. If not, perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships how the Government intend to encourage the sharing of best practice in improving mental well-being across our system of health and care, particularly across different communities with different needs and different constraints, in order to improve the mental well-being of the nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for tabling Amendment 160B. We recognise the importance of local organisations taking collective action to promote mental well-being and prevent mental ill-health. However, turning to the amendment very specifically, we do not feel that this amendment suggests the best approach, as there is potential for introducing unnecessary burdens on local authorities and commissioning bodies. It may also be duplicative of other existing duties, such as the Care Act duty, to promote individual well-being.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall—whom I also thank for his contribution—may be interested to note that the existing prevention concordat for better mental health, a voluntary agreement signed by local authorities and integrated care boards across the country, does involve, for those who sign it, a commitment to take
“evidence based preventive and promotional action to support”
population mental health and well-being.
Through the NHS 10-year plan, which the noble Baroness referred to, and as noble Lords are aware, we aim to encourage stronger partnership working between local government mental health services and the voluntary and community sector—which, as we know, plays a vital role, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, described—in order to galvanise that shift, which we all seek, from sickness to prevention. On the basis of the reasons outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister for her remarks and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his. I am interested to hear about the prevention concordat and hope to hear more about that; I think that could be a useful way forward. Overall, I remain of the view that having something about prevention in this Bill—we have not got it yet—sends out an incredibly important signal.
I am very happy to accept that the way it is currently worded may not be the best and that we could find other ways of doing it. But I would be really disappointed if, in the final piece of legislation, we do not, in some way or another, have something that underlines the importance of prevention. I am not going to go over all the arguments again. I can see us returning to this on Report and, on that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Earl Howe
“Duty to publish investigations(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.(2) After section 54A insert—“54B Duty to publish the outcome of investigations(1) Integrated care boards, hospital managers and the relevant authority must, if requested to do so by the court, publish any report, review or investigation that they have undertaken in relation to a relevant patient.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant patient” is a patient who–(a) has received treatment under this Act,(b) is currently receiving treatment under this Act, or(c) has been detained under this Act, andhas been sentenced for a “specified offence” under section 306 of the Sentencing Act 2020.””
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 160BA and will speak to Amendment 160BB. These amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kamall, stem directly from the harrowing case of the murder of three people by Valdo Calocane in Nottingham. The Minister and, indeed, other noble Lords may question the propriety of referring to an individual case in this way. However, I believe that this is one occasion on which it is legitimate to do so.
The amendments I have tabled were drafted in the light of the facts that have emerged from the full independent investigation into the care and treatment of Valdo Calocane in the months leading up to the tragic events of 13 June 2023. There have also been press articles on a report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the IOPC, which identified 11 mistakes in the run-up to that fateful day. There is a great deal about the case that is known and not disputed, and, given the magnitude of the tragedy, it would be remiss of this Committee not to spend at least a little time considering its implications.
Before I go further, there are two things I need to say. The first is to acknowledge that the Government have agreed to a judge-led public inquiry that will start in a matter of weeks. Secondly, on that account I will do my utmost to avoid saying anything that would undermine that inquiry.
There are a number of issues arising from the treatment of Valdo Calocane that are directly relevant to the Bill because they are of wider application. The report of the independent investigation recounts the timelines associated with Calocane’s treatment. His first contact with mental health services was on 24 May 2020, when he was arrested for criminal damage and a Mental Health Act assessment was undertaken. That assessment indicated that Calocane was experiencing the first episode of psychosis brought on by sleep deprivation and social stressors.
During that first contact, he was not detained for treatment as he acknowledged that he required help for his condition. However, after returning home, Calocane was arrested again and, on admission, was considered not to have capacity to consent and was consequently detained under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act. After that episode of treatment, he was again detained on 13 July 2020, this time under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Upon discharge, he was
“considered to have a primary diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and was to continue with antipsychotic medication”.
During the course of 2021, Calocane was detained again under Section 2 of the Act and continued treatment in the community. He began missing appointments with his care co-ordinator and mental health care team from July 2022. On 4 August, the care co-ordinator attempted to make a home visit, but the given address was incorrect. On 17 August, the care co-ordinator attempted to reach Calocane at a new address, which received no response.
The report then states:
“On 23 September 2022 it was documented that as no contact had been made with VC, a decision was made at an MDT meeting on the 22 September to discharge VC back to his GP due to non-engagement. A letter to VC’s GP was written the same day, outlining non-contact and that VC had been discharged”.
The key aspect of all this is the problematic last line:
“There was no contact between VC and mental health services or his GP between this date and the tragic incidents in June 2023”.
For a whole nine months prior to the killings there was no contact between any health service and Calocane. What this demonstrates is that the co-ordination of the community aspect of Calocane’s care was clearly inadequate. After he began to miss appointments, it appears that there may not have been sufficient attempts at outreach. There were evidently issues with maintaining contact between mental health services and the patient.
It is this issue that my Amendment 160BB tries to address. The amendment takes the form of a report on continuity of care, to ensure that all options can be explored. I do not profess to have the answers but, as proposed subsection (2) in the amendment makes clear, such a report must include discussion of the possibility of creating some form of duty, placed on ICBs and/or hospital managers, to
“maintain contact with patients known to have a mental disorder”.
This is not too far from one of the recommendations of the independent investigation, which said:
“NHS England and other national leaders, including people with lived experience, should come together to discuss and debate how the needs of people similar to VC are being met and how they are enabled to be supported and thrive safely in the community”.
The point is that, somewhere along the line, the mental health care system failed Valdo Calocane and ultimately his victims and the wider public. As we debate this Bill, we have the opportunity to address these potential failures, in the hope that we can make progress towards minimising the number of patients who slip through the net in this way.
The second issue to arise from the case relates to the publication of the investigation. Noble Lords will remember that controversy arose when the NHS trust responsible refused to publish the full version of the independent investigation into the treatment of Valdo Calocane, due to patient confidentiality. We all know that the NHS did subsequently publish this investigation—I have just referenced it above—but this was not without significant public and political pressure.
There are questions to be answered about whether patient confidentiality rules should apply in cases such as this, where there is a significant public interest. Of course, there should always be adequate safeguards to ensure that a patient’s medical records are protected, but, as my Amendment 160BA sets out, where there have clearly been significant institutional failings regarding a patient who has been treated under the Mental Health Act and who has then gone on to commit a violent offence, it may very well be in the wider public interest for such investigations to be published in full.
I am under no illusion that this amendment is the absolute best solution to the problem. But I hope it at least starts a conversation and pushes the Government to review their approach to publication. There are obviously a number of concerns raised by these harrowing events. We obviously must do better. In the light of the published report, does the Minister believe that there are any measures that could and should be taken now, prior to the report of the judge-led inquiry? I thank the Minister in advance for the considered answer that I know that she will give. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise quickly to say that I am very sympathetic to the aims behind these two amendments. They have been set out very powerfully and comprehensively by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I feel, particularly, that an obligation to publish a report of an investigation of the type we have just heard about is absolutely essential if we are to avoid a repetition of these terrible events. There must be a way of learning lessons from this, and transparency and publication are an important part of that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was pleased to see these amendments as well. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained why they are important. He has conceded—I tried to imply the same in my own amendment—that it is not necessarily clear how best to raise these issues, but that we need to. If we are seen by the public discussing a mental health Bill, going through the whole thing and refusing to acknowledge one of the big controversies of recent times, which was a mental health issue, it will discredit the Bill when it becomes an Act.
In relation to the reluctance of the NHS trust to publish its investigation and the use of patient confidentiality, I note that the families of the victims saw this very much as an excuse and were very angry about that. It does not help us to have a discussion with the public about mental illness because it then seems as though murder was committed but, somehow, mental illness was used as an excuse. We have all heard that argument being used; that is why I referred to the fact that there was some dispute about whether Calocane should be sent to prison or to hospital. The more openness that we can give this, the less stigma and confusion there will be. We need to have this debate out in the open.
Finally, I have a question on the judge-led inquiry and what we now know from the investigation by the trust. How will that impact this Bill? How, practically, will we be able to incorporate what we have learned from that into our discussion on a whole new piece of legislation on mental health? It would seem that we need to be able to take on board some of the recommendations of the inquiry and what we now know from the investigation by the trust.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for tabling Amendments 160BA and 160BB, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Fox.
I say at the outset that I understand the deep concerns raised today by noble Lords. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences, and I am sure those of the whole of your Lordships’ House, to the families of Grace O’Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber and Ian Coates. The Secretary of State and I have met the bereaved families following these horrific killings, and, rightly, important actions have been taken, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about. Indeed, we have to look at what improvements must be made, both at the trust and across the country.
To take this further, NHS England and the Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust have accepted all of the recommendations made following the Section 48 CQC review into this incident, and action has started on implementation. The recently published independent investigation into the care and treatment provided to Valdo Calocane makes a series of recommendations, which NHS England and the Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust have accepted. I reiterate that the Government expect to see swift action to ensure that the recommendations are implemented as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, and as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, acknowledged, there will be a judge-led, statutory public inquiry into this tragic incident.
I now turn specifically to the amendments, and first to Amendment 160BA. We recognise the importance of transparency when there are concerns around a patient’s care, to enable a full understanding of what went wrong and how learning can be applied as a result. The courts already have legal powers to request, and where appropriate compel, disclosure of relevant reports, ensuring judicial access to relevant information. In criminal and civil proceedings, courts can make orders that particular information be provided, or issue witness summonses, while coroners can obtain documents as part of an inquest. There is no clear evidence that courts face systemic barriers in accessing necessary information.
There are also existing mechanisms to provide robust oversight and transparency. NHS England’s patient safety incident response framework sets out clear guidelines for responding to serious incidents involving patients who are detained under the Mental Health Act. Additional scrutiny is provided through investigations by the Health Services Safety Investigations Body and oversight from the CQC.
If information is not disclosed, interested parties already have mechanisms to access information, including judicial review, freedom of information requests and the coronial process for deaths in detention. While courts have the powers set out in the amendment, we absolutely recognise the importance of openness in mental health services, which is why officials are working with NHS England to ensure that information from investigations is as transparent as possible—something that all noble Lords have rightly referred to.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. While the Calocane tragedy provided the trigger for these amendments, there are messages sent out from that case that are of wider and more general application that it would not be inappropriate for the department and NHS England to think about now, and I am glad that such consideration is being given as we speak. I recognise that there are established processes set out in the community mental health framework, among other places, but those processes clearly failed, which is why the Calocane case is such a seminal one.
The inquiry will no doubt shed further light on who bears responsibility for what happened, but that is not my concern today, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate. My concern is that practical steps could be taken, perhaps in the areas of professional training, updating the code of practice and the revision of standard referral protocols—the Minister has spoken broadly about those sorts of things, which I very much welcome. I will give further thought to this very vexing set of issues between now and Report but, for now, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 160C and 160D in the name of my noble friend Lord Scriven. These amendments would ensure that any changes to this primary legislation implemented through secondary legislation were properly considered by Parliament before they took effect.
Amendment 160C makes it clear that certain provisions in subsection (5) should not be included under the general powers in Clause 51, and Amendment 160D then strengthens parliamentary oversight by requiring that any statutory instrument amending or revoking this primary legislation be approved by both Houses before it comes into force; that is, by using the affirmative procedure.
This is a matter of proper scrutiny. Primary legislation is carefully debated before it becomes law, as we have demonstrated throughout this Committee stage, and any later changes to it should not be made too easily or without full consideration. If a statutory instrument can amend or remove part of an Act without Parliament’s approval, there is a risk that important legal protections could be altered without proper deliberation.
This is particularly important in the context of mental health legislation, where the law directly affects the rights, personal liberties, and treatment and care of highly vulnerable people. I hope that the Government will recognise that these amendments, which are completely in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, simply ensure that when primary legislation is changed, it is done with the same level of scrutiny that was given to it in the first place. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will keep this brief since I can do no more than back the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in every word that she has said in support of these two amendments. We are dealing here with a Henry VIII clause that is surely far too permissive given the great sensitivity of the Bill’s entire subject matter and, as the noble Baroness said so well, its momentous significance for the health and well-being of very vulnerable people.
The absolute minimum that Parliament can expect is that Parliament be consulted in the exercise of these powers. The affirmative procedure is therefore entirely appropriate for any statutory instruments made under this clause and I hope the Minister will not disagree with what is proposed.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling Amendments 160C and 160D, which were introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
The proposal in the amendment, as was referred to, was a recommendation in the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I hope that your Lordships’ Committee will welcome that we are actively considering this proposal and will publish our response to the committee’s recommendation ahead of Report.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the statement we have just heard from the Minister. I think it is a good point on which to finish our deliberations tonight and I thank her very much. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“Power of Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision that is consequential on this Act.(2) The only provision that may be made by virtue of this section is provision that would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation passed—(a) before this Act, or(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.(4) In this section “primary legislation” means—(a) an Act, or(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.” Member's explanatory statement
This confers a regulation-making power on the Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision that is within devolved legislative competence. The Secretary of State has an equivalent power under Clause 51.
Baroness Merron
29(2)
34(1)
(3)(b)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for certain provisions currently commenced by regulations to be commenced two months after Royal Assent (and vice versa).