Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We recognise the recent challenges for the industry, and we are continuing our support with the video games expenditure credit, providing £5.5 million for the UK games fund next year. The UK is home to some amazing companies and developers, and we want to continue to support them as they grow and develop world-leading games.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
The Secretary of State is right: the video games industry is a great British success story. It contributes £6 billion a year to our economy and 73,000 jobs, many of which are outside London, from Dundee to Brighton—it really is right across our nations. However, there are growing concerns that the UK is losing its competitive edge. Our tax relief rates have dropped below those of Ireland, France, Australia and Canada—all our biggest competitors in this sector. What is the Secretary of State doing to really push the Treasury to ensure that our video games expenditure credits and everything else are up to date so that we retain our competitive edge in this vital sector?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady will know that there has been a global slowdown in the video games industry as a whole. That is one of the reasons why we have stepped up to provide additional support. We always keep our tax relief regime under review and we are aware that this is an intensely competitive area—not just in video games, but in film, TV and other areas. The video games industry is part of a wider ecosystem that needs support, and we are determined to provide the fullest support we can so that our industry can thrive.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I am glad to say that we have a thriving TV industry in Wales. We have not only our own broadcaster, S4C, but phenomenal studios, including Dragon Studios just outside my constituency, where “Willow” was produced with the magnificent Warwick Davis. And, above all, we have “Gavin and Stacey”.
I know that it is completely out of order, Mr Speaker, but can I say thank you to Dawn in the Tea Room, who is retiring today?
Ann Davies
Diolch, Mr Llefarydd. Only 41.9% of my constituency of Caerfyrddin has gigabit availability, compared with the UK average of 78.5%. In fact, 2.6% of my constituency has very little broadband at all. While more and more people use on-demand and internet-based TV services, many still have to rely on terrestrial TV to watch their favourite Welsh programmes. Will the Minister support the TV industry in Wales and reassure viewers in my constituency that broadcast TV will remain available for them all to enjoy?
Chris Bryant
I think it is a three-part series, Mr Speaker. I commend the hon. Lady on managing to get gigabit-capable broadband, which is my other responsibility as a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister, into this session. We are determined to try to make sure that across her constituency, everybody is able to take part in the digital future. Incidentally, that is why we published a digital inclusion strategy yesterday, which I very much hope all Members will support.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
We are absolutely determined to reach our goal of 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. I am very hopeful that the electronic travel authorisation system will be simpler and make it easier and safer for people to visit the UK in the coming years.
Liz Jarvis
Our travel, tourism and hospitality sectors continue to face huge challenges, yet the Home Office’s own impact assessment of the 60% increase in electronic travel authorisation fees concluded that it could reduce the number of tourists wanting to come here and result in a loss of revenue to the wider economy of £734.7 million over five years. If the Government are to succeed in achieving the inbound tourism target of 50 million by 2030, would an agreement between the EU and the UK to facilitate easier travel not be a good place to start?
Chris Bryant
I am absolutely delighted that even the Liberal Democrats are citing our target of 50 million international visitors by 2030; we have got that into this session three times now. The hon. Lady is right—of course we have to bear in mind all the issues that could affect those numbers. I do not know whether she has seen the recent video produced by VisitBritain, “Starring GREAT Britain”, which includes film clips from James Bond, Tom Cruise and many others, but we are determined, through the visitor economy advisory council, to make sure that we reach those numbers. We will work with the Home Office to try to mitigate the problems that we may have.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
According to VisitBritain, the estimated value of inbound tourism in 2024 will be in the region of £31.5 billion, so it is a huge economic contributor to the United Kingdom. When speaking to tourism businesses that rely on seasonal tourism, alongside the rising cost of ETAs, they express great concern that the reduction in national insurance thresholds and the rise in employer national insurance contributions mean that many more workers will be caught in a damaging tax trap. It will mean that businesses have to reconsider how many people—many of them young, and many of them in their first jobs—they can employ while remaining profitable. Does the Minister have an impact assessment of the effect of those NI rises, and what does it say about how many jobs will be created or lost as a result of Labour’s jobs tax trap?
Chris Bryant
One of the problems with the Conservatives is that they want us to endlessly spend more money on things, but they do not want to find the money that enables us to afford that expenditure. There are lots of things that affect the tourism industry in the UK —incidentally, I think the hon. Gentleman mistook his millions for his billions in what he said—but it is really important that we look at how we can extend the season in the UK and make sure that more international visitors do not just come to London and the south-east, but go to places across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is precisely the kind of thing that I hope we will be able to incorporate into our national tourism strategy this autumn. It will be the first time that the UK has ever had one.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We are proud to have introduced the Football Governance Bill, which will establish an independent football regulator to protect the financial sustainability of English football clubs, and we recognise the key role that lower league football clubs play at grassroots level.
Warinder Juss
Given the financial challenges faced by lower league football clubs such as AFC Wulfrunians in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, which also has an excellent boxing gym catering to the local community, can the Secretary of State confirm what steps the Government are taking to ensure that clubs such as AFC Wulfrunians have access to sustainable funding models to secure their long-term financial stability, so that they can continue to foster community relationships, increase local engagement and develop young talent within our communities?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he has done in supporting his local clubs. Across all sports, Sport England invested over £57,000 in Wolverhampton West in 2023-24. The Government are committed to continuing to support local clubs through investment in the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, as well as through Sport England, which invests over £250 million of lottery and Government funding each year.
Yuan Yang
The Sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), was kind enough to meet me and Reading football club fans last year to discuss the urgent need for an independent football regulator. Since then, the legislation has been held up in the other place by Conservative peers, and I was appalled to hear that the Leader of the Opposition sees an independent regulator as “a waste of money”. Fans and staff in Reading will be able to tell the Secretary of State the importance of the need for a regulator, so will she visit the stadium in my constituency to meet them in person?
Lisa Nandy
I would be delighted to support my hon. Friend as she continues to fight the good fight for football fans in her constituency. Like her, I was appalled by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. The independent football regulator began life under the last Government; it was in the Conservative manifesto, it was in our manifesto, and we were elected to deliver it on behalf of millions of football fans. I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) will disassociate himself from the Leader of the Opposition’s appalling comments.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a serious matter that the Sport Minister has had to apologise to people running clubs in the most popular league in the world, after writing an article saying that critics of the football regulator were “promoting untruths”. Will the Secretary of State now engage actively and constructively with the people running football, and explain why the Government have repeatedly rejected proposals in the other place to impose a growth duty on the regulator?
Lisa Nandy
Both the Sport Minister and I meet every premier league club and Premier League executives on a regular basis, and we have a very constructive relationship with them, including on pursuing the Government’s No. 1 mission, which is to grow our economy after 14 years of stagnant economic growth and decline. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are always happy to clarify who our comments are intended towards, as we were in this instance, but if he seriously thinks that it is acceptable for Conservative Front Benchers to extinguish the hope of millions of football fans who were made promises by his party that it never delivered on, he might want to explain that to football fans in his own constituency.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Women’s football clubs earn a small fraction of the revenue of men’s teams, so the financial gap between men’s and women’s football continues to be a barrier to growth. After the fantastic performance by the Lionesses to beat the world champions Spain at Wembley last night, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that continued investment is available to make women’s sport more established, accessible and sustainable?
Lisa Nandy
The Sport Minister has met the Football Association this week to discuss the women’s game and to promote the campaign to support women’s football. We, like the hon. Lady, have been absolutely inspired by the success of the Lionesses, but more importantly, it has inspired young girls in every part of this country to come forward and want to take part in football. That is why we are investing in grassroots sports facilities to make sure that they get every bit as much opportunity not just to dream big, but to have a plan to get there.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government recognise the value and importance of grassroots sports clubs in London and across the country, and the role that their facilities play in getting people active. Sport England invests more than £250 million of lottery and Government funding each year in the communities that need it most. On top of that, our multi-sport grassroots facilities programme has invested £123 million across the UK this year.
Henry Tufnell
Haverfordwest County AFC is a fantastic football club in the wonderful constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. The club works with local schools to facilitate football sessions for all pupils, and it provides a healthy breakfast and lunch for participants. It also runs a fantastic walking football club. Will the Minister outline what the Labour Government are doing to support the work of our brilliant local clubs, such as Haverfordwest County AFC, in making sport more accessible? Will she join me in wishing Haverfordwest County the best of luck for the rest of the season?
Stephanie Peacock
First, I pay tribute to Haverfordwest County AFC and the many grassroots clubs across the country for their important work in making sport accessible to communities. The Government are committed to continuing to support local clubs through investment in the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. I join my hon. Friend in wishing Haverfordwest County AFC the very best of luck with the rest of the season.
Luke Taylor
My fantastic local football club, Sutton United, provides excellent opportunities in grassroots sports through its junior, women and disabled teams, and it even has a walking football club for those of us, Mr Speaker, who need a gentler pace of play. However, it tells me that it desperately needs access to more training facilities to ensure there is year-round football for all players. The training pitch the club uses in the local park is often waterlogged and unusable. Will the Minister support Sutton United in securing a new all-weather pitch? Will she meet me and the club to discuss potential sources of funding to make that a reality?
Stephanie Peacock
Those are issues that I have heard in my own constituency. I would be delighted to meet him and will perhaps set up a meeting with the Football Foundation too.
Lee Pitcher
Last week, I met the fantastic Thorne Colliery club in my constituency of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, which is working with the Football Foundation on potential investment for its pitch, which is based on the Moorends welfare site. While that is a fantastic example of the support available for grassroots facilities, many clubs still face uncertainty due to governance and financial challenges. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to ensure that football governance reforms provide greater security for grassroots clubs and the facilities that they rely on?
Stephanie Peacock
I agree with my hon. Friend that local grassroots clubs have a crucial part to play in delivering wider societal benefits, fostering social cohesion and building a strong sense of local identity. The Football Association is responsible for good governance at this level, and its new grassroots strategy, launched in the autumn, looks to set clubs up for success.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
We should be supporting sports facilities across the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government provided the Scottish Football Association with more than £20 million to build and improve football facilities between 2021 and 2025. Do the Government have any plans to invest further in grassroots football in Scotland?
Stephanie Peacock
I have outlined the funding that this Government are investing. I look forward to visiting Scotland very soon, and I meet my counterpart there regularly.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
One year ago today, I announced that the Conservative Government were investing a further £120 million into the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme for that year, building on the £186 million we had already invested over three years. Today, the Minister has claimed that it is this Government who are making that same investment. In reality, this Government are scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities programme, and uncertainty remains around more than half a billion pounds of funding from the primary school PE and sport premium, the holiday activities fund and the school games organiser network. Will the Minister tell us what the Labour Government are actually doing to support grassroots sport?
Stephanie Peacock
As I have stated, £123 million has been invested across the UK this year. That has led to the building or upgrading of 637 facilities to date.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The creative industries are one of the industrial strategy’s eight priority sectors, and they play a critical role in driving growth across the country. In January, we named West Yorkshire as a creative industries priority region, with funding to be devolved to support growth in the region. That is a sign of our belief in West Yorkshire and the role that it has played, and will continue to play, in the heritage, culture, arts and cultural life of our nation.
Dr Sandher
Local theatres, art centres and galleries enrich our lives and our local economies. Each job in the creative sector creates two elsewhere in our local economy. In my constituency of Loughborough, we are building the Generator, an arts and community hub, restoring a disused building to do so. I could not be prouder of the people who have made that happen, including Jill Vincent, a local alderwoman and former councillor; Jonathan Hale; the late Kev Ryan; and many others. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating them on getting the project going, and will she come and visit me when the Generator opens later this year? If she does come, I will buy her a pint— I have about 60 left on my tour.
Lisa Nandy
Mr Speaker, you will know that I have never willingly turned down a pint, so my hon. Friend tempts me with his offer. I congratulate him on the work that he is doing to support cultural life in his constituency. Last week, we announced the Arts Everywhere fund in memory of the legacy of Jennie Lee, who was the first ever Arts Minister; 60 years ago this year, she published the UK’s first ever arts White Paper. We have provided £85 million for precisely the infrastructure that my hon. Friend describes. It was left to crumble under the last Government, but we are determined to support it.
Anna Dixon
I thank the Secretary of State for her earlier response. This year, Bradford is the UK city of culture. This is a fantastic opportunity to show off the creative talent of our wider district, including the Shipley constituency, and it could be the springboard for unleashing the economic potential of our city and area, which for too long has been unrecognised. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the Government will help to secure the legacy of Bradford 2025 and support our creative industries to fuel economic growth?
Lisa Nandy
May I say to my hon. Friend what a delight it was to visit her constituency with her, and to celebrate Bradford being the city of culture with Mayor Tracy Brabin and others recently in Bradford? My hon. Friend will know that we have committed £15 million for Bradford 2025. As part of that, we expect 6,000 training opportunities and 6,500 jobs to be created. I am sick and tired of seeing jobs created in parts of the country where children just down the road can no more dream of going to the moon than of getting those jobs. That is why we are investing in young people and the next generation so that they can become the storytellers of the next chapter of this country.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In a statement released two months ago, the Government claimed that Bradford city of culture will generate £700 million of growth for the district by 2030, and that 6,500 new jobs will be created. About £40 million of taxpayers’ money has already been allocated to Bradford city of culture. Forty million pounds is, of course, the same as the financial black hole that Bradford council faces as it cuts services to children with special educational needs and sells off local assets. The Centre for Cities says that the Government have massively overstated the economic benefit that being the city of culture brings. In the interests of transparency, will the Secretary of State release the impact assessment that was made to reach the £700 million figure and the job growth that they say will be created?
Lisa Nandy
As the hon. Gentleman should know, the impact assessment was done under the last Government. I am slightly confused: is he against the city of culture, or does he just think that Bradford does not have a full contribution to make to this country’s cultural life? We believe in Bradford. We believe in its people, its history, its heritage and what it can contribute to the UK in the future.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Much like Loughborough and Bradford, Chichester is a city that punches well above its weight with its creative and cultural offering. Much of the local authority funding that supports organisations in my constituency—such as Chichester festival theatre, the Pallant House gallery and the Novium museum—comes via the district council. Local government reorganisation puts such funding streams at risk, especially when combined with an authority that is struggling with the cost of, for example, social care and highways. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that these vital organisations are protected during this reorganisation?
Lisa Nandy
We are in touch with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we are absolutely joined up in our approach. Earlier this week, I met mayors from across the city regions and I also recently met the Local Government Association to ensure that every part of the country, including the hon. Member’s incredible city, receives the full benefits of the work we are doing in government.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
Artificial intelligence is a significant innovation, but our media and creators are innovators, too. Almost the entirety of those in the creative sector say that Government proposals are not fit for purpose. They would allow AI companies to scrape content without creators getting paid. UKAI has said that Labour’s plans would damage public confidence in the AI industry and hinder the industry. In that light, will the Secretary of State admit that the Government’s approach to AI and copyright is a mess and that Government proposals are not fit for purpose? Is she as disappointed as I am that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology admitted on the radio this morning that he has not even met those in the creative sectors?
Lisa Nandy
I can tell the shadow Secretary of State that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is also a joint Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, meet those in the creative industries regularly. We are crystal clear that the creative industries have been powering the British economy for decades, and as our future economy moves towards high consumption, the creative industries will be even more critical to our future success.
I also say gently to the shadow Secretary of State that this is an issue his Government failed to grip for a long time. We are delivering certainty through a copyright regime that provides creators with real control and transparency, and that helps them to license their content, while supporting AI developers to access high-quality material so that they can train leading AI models in the UK. We are working with our fantastic creative industries to get that balance right. We are not prepared to do what his Government did for 14 years, which was to leave this country with uncertainty, drift and low economic growth.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Touring performers contribute hugely to the creative industries, but, sadly, Best for Britain estimates that, since Brexit, the number of UK performers touring in the EU has fallen by a third. Elton John and David Furnish back the Cut the Red Tape campaign, which asks for an exemption to the trade and co-operation agreement. Touring performers are “still standing”, but they should not be asked to make a sacrifice imposed by the previous Government’s failed Brexit deal. Will Ministers show me that they do not have “a cold, cold heart” by agreeing to meet me and representatives of the campaign, and will they promise me that it will not be “a long, long time” before touring performers get the support they deserve? I am pleading with Ministers: “Don’t go breaking my heart”.
Lisa Nandy
All I can say is that the hon. Member is lucky that I am answering this question, not my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore, or we would be here for several hours. My hon. Friend met the EU commissioner on precisely this issue yesterday. We firmly believe that closer co-operation with our friends and allies across the European Union is not just in our interests, but in their interests, and we are seeking closer agreement on this issue.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
We are absolutely committed to supporting small and large theatres across the UK. It is one reason why we have specifically announced capital funding, as the Secretary of State has said, of £85 million for theatre and other cultural infrastructure across the UK.
Josh Newbury
I thank the Minister for that response. In my constituency, formerly represented by the great Jennie Lee, the council-owned theatre and museum are due to close in just two months’ time. Passionate members of our community have come together to form the Cannock Chase Theatre Trust and the Chase Heritage CIC to save these precious venues. Will the Minister join me in thanking those groups for all their efforts, and will he set out how the Government are supporting such community groups to take on culture and heritage venues at risk?
Chris Bryant
I commend my hon. Friend and all those who have engaged as volunteers to try to take over the theatre and run it in an effective way. I look forward to the first production; after all, “The play’s the thing”— I saw “Hamlet” last week, and “Richard II” twice. The most important thing is that we try to ensure that young people have an opportunity to act and have a creative education in their school, and that there are local theatres and other venues where they are able to see really high-quality live entertainment, such as in the theatre he is talking about. I am very happy to ensure that officials meet his volunteers.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On Monday, I met the director of Salisbury playhouse. She warmly welcomed the £85 million creative foundations fund, which she thought would be highly applicable to Salisbury playhouse, one of the few producing theatres in the south-west. She also told me about the 5,600 local children who were given subsidised tickets up to Christmas, and about her commitment to go out and raise funds from local investors in the arts. Will the Minister ensure that the value of the £85 million is maximised by combining it with visionary leaders like Rosa Corbishley at Salisbury playhouse, who will go out and get more money for the arts in our community?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman used to be in the Treasury, so he is very good at making financial bids and I think he has just made a bid on behalf of Salisbury’s theatre. We warmly commend the work it is doing. As I have said, it is brilliant if we can get lots of kids coming into theatres. I want every single child, as part of their education, to be able to see live theatre and live music, because that is a part of what stirs their creative opportunities in life. Yes, we are looking at whether there are other ways of bringing in not only commercial money but philanthropic money to try to match-fund the funding that can come from government.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and motor sport, the hon. Member is a keen supporter of motor sport in the UK, and I pay tribute to him for all his work. Last month, I met with Formula 1, and I congratulate it on its 75th anniversary.
Greg Smith
Formula 1 is a world championship, but it is a predominantly British success story. Would the best way for the Government to join its 75th anniversary celebrations not be to get behind the efforts of Susie Wolff and others to get more women into the sport, and to back the Hamilton Commission in getting more people from more diverse backgrounds to participate in motor sport at all levels?
Stephanie Peacock
I pay tribute again to the hon. Gentleman for all his work. The milestone provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on the sport’s long history in the UK and the huge contribution that it makes. I echo and agree with his comments about diversity. F1 also has a significant economic impact. Seven out of 10 Formula 1 teams are based in the UK, collectively generating £1.9 billion in turnover in 2022.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Since the House last met, we have been delighted to announce £270 million of funding to breathe life into our arts, culture and heritage institutions across the country. We have made significant progress on the Football Governance Bill in the other place, which is bringing hope to millions of football fans. We are celebrating a wealth of British talent, from the BAFTAs to the Brits, and we will shortly announce the biggest national conversation with young people in every part of the country, which will inform the first national youth strategy in over a decade.
Torcuil Crichton
May I tempt the Minister on a voyage to a far-off island? St Kilda is almost 50 miles off the coast of Lewis, and it comes within my constituency and within the Minister’s remit as one of those rare things, a UNESCO double world heritage site. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Uig community in Lewis who want to build a global interpretation centre, a template for remote viewing these vulnerable sites? The meeting could be here in Whitehall, in Uig in Lewis, or on St Kilda.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I would be absolutely delighted to come to St Kilda. I think there are quite a lot of Members who would quite like to send me to St Kilda for a very prolonged period. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is nice to unite the House, isn’t it? You’re so cruel!
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The archipelago of St Kilda is unique. Since the last 36 people left in 1930, it has been run by the National Trust. As he says, it is a double UNESCO world heritage site and we want to ensure that we make the best of it—
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
At the end of last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) stated the importance of greyhound racing to the nation’s culture and economy, but last week Labour in Wales announced its intention to ban greyhound racing as soon as practicably possible. Will the Secretary of State tell us who she agrees with, her Sport Minister or the Deputy First Minister, and will she make clear whether she is planning to ban greyhound racing across the UK?
Lisa Nandy
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly: I agree with the Sports Minister. We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
Having been through my own club, Wigan Athletic, going into administration in recent years, my heart absolutely goes out to my hon. Friend and all the fans working together to try to save a social asset that means so much to people in the community. I wish him every success. He will know that sport is a devolved matter and that the football regulator will apply only to English clubs, but we will work with the Scottish Government on best practice to help, support and sustain clubs across the United Kingdom. Unlike the previous Government, we seek a respectful and constructive relationship with the Scottish Government—we think that is in the interests of his constituents.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
We would be happy to look at the hon. Gentleman’s specific case, if he wants to supply the Department with details. The maximum of two interventions is an important principle to ensure that the maximum number of communities feels the benefit of the funding we are able to award. He will know that the Sovereign Centre in Eastbourne has been awarded £91,000 in funding as part of phase 2 of our swimming pool support fund. If he sends me the details, I will ensure that we take that seriously.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
Yesterday I met people from LIVE, and we are still very keen on trying to ensure that there is a levy on arena tickets to make provision for small music venues across the UK. That is where most young people will have their first experience of live music. We are determined to get there as soon as possible.
I would just like to correct the record, Mr Speaker. I said earlier that the £85 million would apply across the whole of the UK. I was wrong, of course—it is only England.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Chris Bryant
As the Secretary of State referred to, I had that conversation yesterday, and I think a lot of people in the European Union and Commission are keen to reset their relationship with the UK, in particular in this regard. I will not name the European Minister, but when I sat down opposite him and asked, “What’s the most important thing I can do for you?”, he replied, “Get me tickets for Oasis.” I think it is very important that people are able to see our great musicians touring across the whole of Europe.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Chris Bryant
I think Kate Bush was running up that hill, too. Look, the truth of the matter is, as I have said many times, that we will not progress in this area unless we are absolutely certain that we will secure more licensing of content by British creatives, rather than less. That is absolutely key to what would be success for us. I hope that people will take us at face value on that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
We were astonished when we took office back in July to discover that there was no national youth strategy to help shape and grip the challenges facing a generation. We are determined to change that. We have moved at pace to set up the youth steering group that is imminently launching a consultation. It will be the biggest conversation that we have ever had with this nation’s young people. We are also allocating more than £85 million-worth of capital funding to create welcoming spaces for young people through the new Better Youth Spaces fund. I can assure the hon. Lady that the young people remain our top priority.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order! Look, I cannot get people in. I have all these people who wish to ask a question.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for his support not just for his local club, but for the Football Governance Bill that this Government have introduced? The Bill will ensure financial sustainability in the game, put fans back at the heart of decisions that are made about their own clubs, and ensure that fit and proper owners are in charge of these vital social assets.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
We heard about the financial crisis facing football earlier, but there is also one facing Rugby Football Union. No one likes the RFU, not least because of the whopping bonuses that it hands out. Can the Secretary of State please let me know what conversations she is having internally about the crisis facing English rugby in this country?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend the sports Minister has recently met representatives from the Rugby Football Union. We appreciate that there are serious challenges in this area and we are determined to grip them.
Mr Speaker
I am sorry, that is all that we can get in. I suggest that Members get on to the Government, because I really think that, with so many people wanting to contribute, we need an hour for these questions.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church of England has more than 10,000 churches in our towns and villages in rural areas. In addition to their regular processes of prayer and worship, parish churches play an important role in the life of our rural communities.
Charlie Dewhirst
In my constituency of Bridlington and The Wolds, rural parishes face huge financial pressures to maintain their historic church buildings. Their costs often run into tens of thousands, yet they receive no funding from the Church of England or the Government. The Church of England’s buildings comprise more than 50% of the country’s listed buildings, but all the money needed to maintain them has to be raised locally. This maintenance will soon be beyond the ability of our local churches in rural areas, so will the hon. Lady make representations to the Church of England to ensure that there is more financial support for local churches so that we save this wonderful part of our heritage?
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate the hon. Member on being a true champion for his constituency and also for the need for additional resources that will ensure that our churches can truly stand the test of time. I shall certainly raise these issues and write to him about what steps he can take at a local level. It is also worth pointing out that representing rural communities and dioceses, bishops do meet regularly on a quarterly basis to look at best practice and other ways that they can support their diocese better.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
As I set out in Church Commissioner questions in January, the listed places of worship scheme is an effective way to deliver transformational benefits to local communities. The Government’s extension of the scheme is very welcome, but there are a number of unanswered questions about the impact of the changes to the scheme.
Blake Stephenson
The extension of the scheme will be welcome news to those involved with churches such as St Botolph’s in Aspley Guise in Mid Bedfordshire. People there have told me of their concern about the lack of certainty for longer-term projects that may need support beyond 12 months. Will the Church Commissioner join me and other colleagues in pressing the Chancellor to provide longer-term funding certainty?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Member has raised this issue at Church Commissioner questions previously, and he is right to continue to do so. Although the scheme is being extended until March 2026, we do not have a long-term plan or solution. It is only right that the Government should set out their plans. We know that in larger-scale projects costing over £125,000, not all the VAT can be returned. It is important that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport comes up with a solution to ensure that the listed places of worship scheme can continue.
Jack Rankin
Holy Trinity church in Sunningdale has served the parish for 185 years. It wants to build on that legacy with a community hub, complete with new facilities, including a volunteer-run café for the wider community. The £25,000 cap on VAT relief may be enough to sustain smaller projects, but this one will cost well over £1 million; that means that another £250,000 in donations will be needed, which cannot stretch that far. I understand that the Government are encouraging churches to apply for lottery funding, but Rev. Jon Hutchinson has raised the fact that the scope of that funding is too narrow to cover the project. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner meet me to discuss how we can get this project over the line?
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Member makes an important point, and raises an issue that affects many churches. The £25,000 cap works for smaller projects, but it will not go far enough for larger projects, such as the one in his constituency. The church that I attend, Holy Trinity in Clapham, is experiencing similar challenges. I am happy to meet him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The capping of the listed places of worship grant scheme has left many churches in physical ruin, such as the Belfrey in York, which will lose £1.5 million, even though it has done everything that was expected of it. Clearly, we need to find a solution, and the suggestions from Government have been insufficient. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Church Commissioners co-ordinate a meeting of all churches that are mid-project, to ensure that they can complete the works that they have undertaken?
Marsha De Cordova
I will take my hon. Friend’s question back to see if we can set up a meeting. As she highlighted, many churches will be missing out on vital funds to carry out necessary repairs, particularly those that have already started work. If that work extends beyond the March 2026 deadline, they will not be able to reclaim any VAT. It is important that we find a long-term solution. I will be happy to take that forward.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Officials are working to ensure that Portcullis House continues to function effectively. Projects and maintenance are under way on heating, cooling and ventilation, and to upgrade equipment that is reaching the end of its life. There is planned maintenance of toilets and will be more regular cleaning of them, and there will be refurbishment of lifts and escalators, and improvements to lighting and blinds in Members’ offices. Work is also under way on a longer-term solution for the PCH roof.
John Lamont
Lifts that do not work, toilets that do not flush, taps that do not work, leaks in the roof, heating that leaves rooms either too hot or cold, and escalators that break down—by any standard, Portcullis House is not working as it should. My concern is not for right hon. and hon. Members, but the staff who work for us in Portcullis House. It is clear that it is no longer fit for purpose. Can we have a further update from the House of Commons Commission on its work to make Portcullis House fit for the 21st century?
Nick Smith
I am really glad that the hon. Member has shone light on this important topic. There is much wear and tear in Portcullis House. On Tuesday of this week, the Administration Committee toured Portcullis House, looking at the nuts and the bolts holding the building together. We have asked officers to please come forward with a plan of action for the Commission to consider, in order to improve services in that lovely building in both the short and long term and make it a much better place for us all to work in. I will come back to him on his question.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The right hon. Member is a true champion of cathedrals, and particularly the one in his constituency. It was a pleasure to meet him to explore issues that he has raised. Research by the Association of English Cathedrals has shown that cathedrals’ 9.5 million visitors contributed around £235 million in additional expenditure to cathedrals and local businesses. I understand that Salisbury cathedral, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, featured in nearly nine in 10 visits by tourists to Salisbury.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her reply. I want to make her aware of a cross-party group that has been set up in Parliament, supported by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and others who represent cathedral cities. We want to help the Second Church Estates Commissioner by providing greater evidence of the economic contribution of cathedrals. The first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund helped many cathedrals, including Salisbury. I hope that she will consider making representations for the creation of something similar to support our cathedrals in future.
Marsha De Cordova
Nobody can deny that working cross-party is one of the best ways to get things done, so I am happy to support the right hon. Member and others in their endeavours. I am also happy to meet the group.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Newcastle’s beautiful cathedral is an important part of our economic life, as well as our cultural and religious life, but it receives very little funding from the Church of England and does not benefit from any significant endowments or property ownership, unlike other cathedrals. With 80% of England’s cathedrals predicted to post budget deficits, what discussions has the Second Church Estates Commissioner had with the Church of England regarding the financial sustainability of cathedrals?
Marsha De Cordova
As I say, the Church of England meets regularly to look at the impact of costs on cathedrals, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend about the issue.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Marsha De Cordova
The pastoral and closed churches department of the Church Commissioners has recently consulted with the Church of Scotland on the experience of managing parishes and small congregations.
Christine Jardine
Scotland’s Churches Trust estimates that the Church of Scotland could lose 30% of its churches in the coming years. St Andrew’s in Clermiston in my constituency could be one of them. It celebrated its 70th anniversary this year, but could face closure because of declining congregations and lower incomes. That threatens a valuable community space that is particularly used by vulnerable and elderly people. Can the Second Church Estates Commissioner outline how the Church of England could work with the Church of Scotland to share best practice on managing churches with smaller congregations to preserve those valuable community spaces?
Marsha De Cordova
The National Church Institutions and the Church of Scotland signed the Columba declaration, committing to joint dialogue on a range of issues. I understand that they meet regularly to discuss these issues. It might be useful for her to reach out to the Church of Scotland on that, and if she is unable to do so, I am happy to put her in touch with it.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Marsha De Cordova
The situation in Gaza and the west bank is devastating, and the Church continues to support the diocese of Jerusalem through prayer, financial assistance and advocacy. The archbishop’s appeal for the diocese continues to provide much-needed support for Church organisations and bodies, whether that is in Gaza or the west bank.
Kate Osamor
On the west bank and in Jerusalem, the security situation and the economic conditions are worsening, with increasing violence and a decline in the number of pilgrims visiting. That has led to a rising level of emigration, as many Christians leave the Holy Land, where generations before them had lived. Will my hon. Friend outline the work the Church is doing to assist the diocese in supporting its dwindling congregations in these difficult times?
Marsha De Cordova
There is no safe place on the west bank, including in East Jerusalem, for Palestinians. The attacks on the Christian community there are focused on seizing land and property, and have been increasing in recent months, with Armenian churches bearing the brunt. The Christian community faces a co-ordinated and aggressive move to drive these living stones of our faith to leave the region. Bishops have frequently visited the region over the past 16 months; they have regularly met the Archbishop of Jerusalem to discuss how best they can help the diocese to respond to the many appalling attacks. It is important that we hold up the people of Palestine in prayer for their safety and security. Violence is not the answer to any of this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A year and a half ago, I met the Archbishop of Jerusalem. He outlined some of the things the Church was doing on education, jobs, and opportunities for young people to do apprenticeships. Those things can only happen if there is money available. What discussions has the Church Commissioner had with the Archbishop and the Church on helping to retain young people in Jerusalem?
Marsha De Cordova
I mentioned funds in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor). I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about the discussions that have taken place with the Archbishop of Jerusalem, if he would find that helpful.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend will know that I do not answer for the Church of Scotland, and that heritage and culture is a devolved matter, but when a parish church is to close, the Church of England tries to secure a new home for its instruments, working with local authorities, the diocese and national heritage bodies. I believe that the Church of Scotland is taking similar steps.
Patricia Ferguson
St Margaret’s, Church of Scotland, in Knightswood in my constituency is closing, much to the detriment of its congregation and the wider area. The church is home to a significant pipe organ, built by the renowned maker Henry Willis. In some countries in Europe, there are protections in law for historical instruments such as that one, to prevent them from being destroyed or abandoned when a church becomes redundant. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a scheme should be established in the UK?
Marsha De Cordova
Again, my hon. Friend highlights the importance and significance of preserving instruments, particularly the one at St Margaret’s. I would be happy to write to her to suggest organisations that may be able to help the congregation. I would also be happy to put her in touch with the Church of Scotland to see how it can best take the matter forward with her.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The restoration and renewal programme is in the preparatory stage. To date, key cost drivers have included design work and programme and project management costs for surveys. On delivering the work for the Palace, three delivery options are being developed, along with their costs, and the intention is to publish that information before the end of the year.
Tom Collins
The three options for delivery works seem to represent various degrees of compromise between shortened timescales, the associated reduced overall costs, and the continued presence and functioning of Parliament within the Palace of Westminster. It is wise to seek ways to negate the need for such a compromise. What possibilities for decantation into Westminster Hall might yet be explored? Would the Minister meet me and members of the project team to discuss those possibilities?
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend’s professional background offers him insight into the choices that we will have to make. I understand that the possible use of Westminster Hall as a host for the Chamber has been considered, but there were concerns about the impact on the oldest part of the palace. The northern estate is the favoured location. I will ask senior officers of the restoration and renewal team about his idea, which I am happy to discuss further with him.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)
The first and current strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission was published by the previous Government in February last year. The commission passed its report to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission this week, setting out how it has had regard to the statement as required by law. The commission will publish that report in due course.
Joe Powell
The Elections Act 2022 passed by the previous Government imposed a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission, undermining its independence for some confected agenda about voter fraud, and eroding trust and confidence in the commission. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the best course of action would be not to publish a further strategy and policy statement until such a time as the legislation can be reviewed?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the commission’s view. He will know that the commission remains opposed to the principle of a strategy and policy statement, and views such a mechanism as inconsistent with its independent role.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is estimated that only 3% of the 3.5 million British citizens abroad participated in the last general election. What action can the Electoral Commission and my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that people who are eligible to vote can do so in future general elections?
Sir Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is right that more can always be done to ensure that all those eligible for the franchise, which now includes a substantial number of overseas voters, understand what they are entitled to, and that we offer them all the assistance we can to participate in the process.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Crown Nominations Commission, chaired by Lord Evans, will oversee the appointment of a new archbishop. A public consultation is under way— I encourage all hon. Members to submit their thoughts; they have until 28 March to do so—and an announcement is expected before the end of the year.
Rosie Duffield
Recent headlines about safeguarding failures have badly eroded trust in the Church. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom I have had the pleasure of working closely, resigned his position in recognition of that so that the Church could move forward. I congratulate the Second Church Estates Commissioner on her powerful speech at the most recent Synod. Does she agree that those selecting our next archbishop must not be implicated in safeguarding failures of any kind?
Marsha De Cordova
I thank my hon. Friend for her fantastic and poignant question. Historical and recent safeguarding failures have eroded trust in the Church. To rebuild and restore that trust, the Church must show that it is serious about keeping people safe. That must include holding to account those who are responsible for failures—no one, no matter how senior, can be above scrutiny and accountability.
I agree that those responsible for selecting the next archbishop must inspire confidence and trust, both among the public and among victims and survivors, who have been so badly let down. Next Monday’s Adjournment debate will be on safeguarding in the Church of England. There will also be a question and answer session on safeguarding with the Archbishop of York and other senior members of the Church. I am pleased that that will take place, and I encourage hon. Members from across the House to go along to those sessions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The restoration and renewal programme has engaged extensively with staff of both Houses. There is a legal duty to do so under the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. In the past two years alone, the programme has held over 420 workshops with parliamentary subject experts, engaged over 1,200 staff in group briefings, and taken over 700 staff members on R&R tours of the palace. That includes staff who work for Members, in addition to those who work for both Houses. Enabling staff to engage is vital, and the programme team will continue to ensure that there are opportunities to do so.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Member for his answer. As he says, there are 7,000 staff working here who support 650 Members of this House and 836 in the other place. As he recognises, it is essential that the needs, wisdom and experience of the people who make the estate a success are heard and fully considered. Will he commit to continuing to run that full consultation and maximising efforts to do so in a way that will ensure the strongest attendance and the best engagement?
Nick Smith
The hon. Member makes an important point: the whole Westminster village needs to be engaged in this important topic, which affects all of our workplace.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The best way that we can support staff in this building is to ensure that their health and safety is paramount. The three options that are being proposed have radically different health and safety implications. When those options come to the House, will my hon. Friend ensure that the health and safety information is categorically laid out, and can he confirm when the House will vote on those options?
Nick Smith
Our timetable says that we remain on track to bring the proposals forward by the end of 2025. Those proposals will detail costs, timescales, risks and benefits, and of course my hon. Friend’s point about safety will be foremost in our minds.
Gaza: BBC Coverage
(1 day, 2 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
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the coverage of Gaza by the BBC.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the House will be aware, Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. It is my view and the view of this Government—I hope it is shared across the whole House—that Hamas is a terrorist organisation guilty of heinous acts of terrorism over many years, including the appalling terrorist and antisemitic attacks carried out on 7 October 2023. That is a position I set out clearly in public in the media this week.
That tragic day and the conflict that followed have had real-life impacts on communities across the UK, playing out on our streets and overseas, and every one of us has a duty to take the utmost care not to exacerbate the situation. That is why I have discussed editorial guidelines with the BBC director general in recent days. The BBC has clear editorial guidelines to report Hamas as a terror organisation proscribed by the UK Government. That was its policy under the last Government, and that remains its policy now.
I held discussions with the BBC director general earlier this week at my request in order to seek urgent answers about the checks and due diligence that should have been carried out ahead of the screening of a recent documentary on Gaza, and about the commissioning, the payment and the use of licence fee payers’ money. I also sought cast-iron assurances that no money paid has fallen into the hands of Hamas and that the utmost care was taken to ensure that that was the case. I expect to be kept informed about the findings of the internal BBC investigation, and I will be happy to update the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and colleagues across the House on its progress.
Across all the issues on which the BBC may report, the BBC’s operational and editorial independence from the Government is an important principle that we intend to uphold. As a former Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member will be aware that it is for Ofcom as the independent regulator to ensure the BBC fulfils its obligations under the charter and broadcasting code. Nevertheless, as I have set out publicly, it is essential that the BBC maintains the highest standards of reporting and governance, as the public rightly expect. I have made those views clear to the BBC. That is crucial to ensure that the BBC retains the confidence of the public.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. The documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” was broadcast by the BBC on 17 February. It purported to show what everyday life was like for people in Gaza—a topic of huge sensitivity. As the UK’s public broadcaster, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information, which is particularly important when it comes to coverage of highly sensitive events. In this case, it is clear that the BBC has fallen far short of those standards.
Shortly after it aired, reports emerged that the documentary was narrated by the son of a senior Hamas figure. Initially, the BBC defended the programme as an “invaluable testament” to the conflict and kept it available on iPlayer. Only after a significant public backlash did the BBC decide to withdraw it. Then we learned that on at least five occasions, the words “Yahud” and “Yahudy”—Arabic for “Jew” and “Jews”—were changed to “Israel” and “Israeli forces”, or were removed from the documentary; and then we learned that up to £400,000 in public funds might have indirectly supported a terrorist organisation.
However, I regret to say that the Government’s response to these allegations has been just as concerning. On Monday the Secretary of State refused to say whether Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, should be described as such by the BBC, but I was glad to hear her comments today. On Tuesday the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for addressing threats related to terrorism, said that she did not “know the details” surrounding this case, despite allegations that £400,000 in public funds may have indirectly supported this organisation. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the director general of the BBC requesting a full independent inquiry to consider this and wider allegations of systemic bias against Israel.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response to my correspondence on this matter. I understood from her letter that she had raised these concerns about the documentary with the director general—and she has just confirmed that—and it was right that she did so, but I must press her further on the letter’s contents. Did she make it clear that, in this case, the BBC has fallen far short of the standards expected of the UK’s public broadcaster? Did she receive any assurances from the BBC that taxpayers’ money has not been funnelled to Hamas? Did she support our calls for a full independent inquiry into the documentary? What commitment did she receive from the BBC that this will never happen again, and if a criminal investigation has to take place, what will happen?
Mr Speaker
Order. That should have been two minutes. Please will everyone measure how long they have? It is unfair, because we have a lot of business to get through.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House, and also for raising it with me. As he knows, I have a long history of taking antisemitism extremely seriously—for instance, when it poisoned my own party—and I will always speak out without fear or favour when I see it raise its ugly head. I am, however, deeply disappointed by his attempts to pretend that the Government have been anything other than robust on this. He will know that in the media interviews to which he referred, I made it crystal clear that the UK Government and I believe, and have believed for a long time, that Hamas is not only a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK but a terrorist organisation, and we will continue to describe it as such. He will also know that in one of those interviews I made it clear that I had requested a meeting with the director general of the BBC to discuss the matter.
“Of course, the BBC is not there as an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests, in seeking to build the trust that is so fundamental to its core purpose.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 103WH.]
Those are not my words but the words of the last media Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), whom the right hon. Gentleman served alongside. He was a Minister in that Government. The hon. Lady is now the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. If he disagrees with her, I suggest that he take that up with her, but this is far too important an issue to be treated as a political football.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Along with several other Members, I visited Israel and the occupied west bank last week, but there was no access to Gaza for us. In fact, the closest we got to it was viewing the utter devastation of Gaza City through a telescope. Over the last year during the war, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 162 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza, and the BBC and other journalists have had no access to Gaza whatsoever. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is as unacceptable as any attacks on the independence of the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. The duty to report on what is happening to people in Gaza is absolutely fundamental, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of journalists, access and protection and safety a number of times. That is why the Government believe that the BBC and others have the utmost duty to exercise care and due diligence in the way in which they report on this conflict. It is in no one’s interests for the public not to have confidence in the information that they are receiving.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for her response to the urgent question; we agree with the position being taken. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a Palestinian child in Gaza. In the first six months of the war alone, 2% of the child population was killed or injured, and tens of thousands more will have been orphaned or left homeless. Given this humanitarian catastrophe, many in this House today will find it deeply disappointing that, due to errors made in the production of this documentary, we are instead discussing why it was pulled, rather than the pressing matter at hand. Many of us will share the regret that we have ended up in this situation. Clearly, innocent Palestinian children have suffered terribly over the past 16 months. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of children in Gaza?
Lisa Nandy
Yes, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his careful and considered words on this. In the last year I met with the British families of some of the children in Gaza and the stories are absolutely horrifying. We have a duty to ensure that those stories are told, and that people can have confidence in what they are being told.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for getting to grips with this issue so quickly and acknowledging that what happened on 7 October and what happened subsequently in Gaza is of huge significance; her understanding gives me hope. Will she commit to coming back to this Chamber and updating us on the outcome of whatever happens with the BBC investigation?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to say to my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest and has been a real champion for children in Gaza for many years, that I will be more than happy to keep colleagues updated as this progresses and to update the whole House at the earliest opportunity.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The BBC has definitely got questions to answer here, not just on the dealings over this film but on the wider concerns about the representation and reporting of the Gaza conflict. As the Secretary of State said, Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation yet they are referred to as such in just 7.7% of instances of reporting by the BBC. It took four days after broadcast for this programme to be taken off iPlayer, and at that point the BBC said there had to be further due diligence with the production company. It is not the first time that the BBC has had issues with its due diligence, but in subject matters as sensitive and incendiary as this, language matters, and treating issues like this with detail, sensitivity and impartiality matters especially. The BBC board is meeting today. How confident is the Secretary of State that the board is providing the necessary challenge to executives to maintain that due diligence and to maintain the trust in the organisation?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the BBC board plays the critical role in ensuring that the BBC reaches the highest possible standards, which she and I, and indeed all Members of this House, expect. They will have heard her words and mine loud and clear: we expect them to play that role. They must do that, and part of my job is to hold them to account for what they do and do not do in relation to this.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome this statement because I think it is important that we talk about our tone in public life. I worry that sometimes the public outside the Chamber do not see this House as being the best arbiter of appropriate tone. In fact, in recent days I have heard jokes about suicide, I have seen sexism and so much more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should lead from the front and set a good example in this House on how we police our own boundaries and language?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend, as always, has taken care to strike the right tone, and I thank him very much for raising that. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was not relevant to what we are discussing; that is the problem.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and welcome her clear criticism of this documentary, but may I return to some of the—at best—mistranslation that happened during the documentary that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referenced? Instances of the Arabic words for “Jews” were changed to “Israeli” and, possibly worst of all, one interviewee praised the Hamas leader for his “Jihad against the Jews”, yet the BBC translated that to “fighting Israeli forces”. That is not an error in Google Translate; it is clearly a deliberate attempt to completely misinterpret the approach towards Hamas and the situation in the middle east. Can she give me an assurance that she will be robust in challenging those translations, because those terms are clearly antisemitic and take a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist viewpoint?
Lisa Nandy
I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I discussed the precise use of language with the BBC director general earlier this week. On the question asked by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I also discussed the use of the full term “a proscribed terror organisation” by the UK Government and the frequency with which that term is used by the BBC. I made it clear that I, as the Secretary of State, believe that it is incredibly important that the BBC adheres to its own guidelines.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Hamas are a proscribed organisation and that is as it should be. The Israeli military has banned international journalists from Gaza and at least 162 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza in the last 500 days. Does the Secretary of State agree that BBC and all media coverage of Gaza can only benefit from journalists being allowed in to report on the ground, a point raised with me by some constituents in the past few weeks? Does she further agree that journalists must be protected from harm, in line with international law?
Lisa Nandy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has done over many years, including as the director of Medical Aid for Palestinians. She knows better than anyone in this House what is happening in Gaza—I think she may be the only Member of the House who has recently been in Gaza to see the conditions that many hon. Members have described. I very much agree with her point about journalistic access and safety. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that us setting the right tone in this House is essential.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am sure that Members across the House all agree that the most important issue is the maintenance of the ceasefire. Hostages need to go home, aid needs to get in and a peaceful future needs to be built. What more can this Government do to ensure that the stories of those affected are heard, to continue the international determination for the maintenance of the ceasefire?
Lisa Nandy
When I met British Palestinians whose family members are in Gaza and when I met the families whose loved ones had been taken hostage by Hamas, and had been held or continue to be held in Gaza, I made a commitment to them that, in opposition and in government, we would continue to use every opportunity to shine a spotlight on what is happening to them. I think they will be very encouraged by the words of the hon. Lady. It is a particular to tribute to the House that Members from every political party are raising these issues and ensuring that we continue to tell those stories.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Since the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, tens of thousands of Gazans have been killed by Israeli forces, and hundreds of thousands more have been subject to unimaginable suffering. It is essential that their stories be told and it is unacceptable that the BBC should have chosen to tell them through those connected to Hamas. We understand that the BBC is not allowed into Gaza, so will the Secretary of State confirm where this programme was subcontracted and to whom? On the issue of translation, does the BBC not have a translation guide? Is that publicly available? If not, should it be? Finally, when Israeli Ministers and others call for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza or for the elimination of the Palestinian people, surely that must be reported in a way that highlights that that is illegal and the cause of immense distress to many in this country?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the careful use of language and the way in which we all have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards on that. On her specific question, having had discussions with the BBC, I can confirm that this was not a BBC programme; it was commissioned by an external organisation. That in no way absolves the BBC from the responsibility to undertake due diligence on a programme that it airs. When it is aired by our national broadcaster, it is granted the legitimacy of our national broadcaster, and that is why these standards matter. I will take away her suggestion about a publicly available translation guide, which might help to assuage some of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), and discuss that with the BBC.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is essential that the editorial independence of the BBC is protected at home and abroad. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether she or anyone in her Department had contact, formally or informally, with the Israeli embassy about the documentary before it was pulled from iPlayer? And will she say when contact was first made between her and the BBC, between the programme being airing and then being pulled from iPlayer?
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her very clear statement. The bigger picture that the Opposition are missing here is that the British media at large have greatly suffered from a lack of access in Gaza during the deadliest war on record for journalists. My former colleagues have variously been denied entry and had unnecessarily prolonged and risky exits, and our Palestinian contributors have been stuck in a living nightmare. Will the Secretary of State ensure that she continues to safeguard British media interests and their reporting abroad and work with Foreign Office colleagues to enlarge access for journalists in Gaza?
Lisa Nandy
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said in answer to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised this issue, and he and I are working very closely together on it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the BBC World Service plays a critical role in ensuring that free and fair information is available all over the world, which is why we rightly expect the highest standards from the BBC.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust view on the BBC. However, the problem is that the BBC does not refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation, as it should. Indeed, the problem is that David Collier, an investigative journalist, could actually go through the documentary and identify all the errors that were made while sitting at his computer. If the BBC cannot do that, something is seriously wrong, particularly when it is in the position of commissioning this documentary, not doing it internally. Can the Secretary of State make sure that when she talks to the BBC, it makes extra efforts to ensure that if it commissions these sorts of documentaries, they are actually accurate and not using terrorists and potentially funnelling money to terrorists?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That was part of the discussions I had with the BBC director general earlier this week. I would expect an organisation like the BBC already to have robust systems in place on that, and I have been assured that that is part of the internal review.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that across all the issues that the BBC may report on, its operational and editorial independence from Government is an important principle that should be upheld?
Lisa Nandy
Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, not least because it is the role of broadcasters to hold a mirror up not just to society, but to the Government, and to hold us to account. That is why I very much agree with the words of the media Minister in the previous Government, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who said that the BBC is not
“an instrument of Government. Ministers seeking to interfere with editorial decisions or the day-to-day running of the organisation would be in nobody’s interests”.—[Official Report, 27 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 103WH.]
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Once again, the BBC has got it badly wrong, since 7 October, with its treatment and description of Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Once again, we are told that lessons will be learned. Does the Secretary of State think that the BBC is incompetent, negligent or just riddled with antisemitism?
Lisa Nandy
I have been absolutely clear with this House that I think the BBC has serious questions to answer. The director general was very clear with me earlier this week that it has serious questions to answer and that it intends to answer them in full, and I will make sure that is the case.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is quite clear that the BBC has not shown the standards of journalistic integrity that we expect of it in the case of this documentary or through its coverage of the 7 October attacks and the war that followed. Danny Cohen, the former BBC director of television, says that the BBC is “institutionally hostile to Israel”. Can we have an inquiry into not only this incident, but the BBC’s relationship with Hamas, the independence of its reporters in Gaza from Hamas and its wider coverage of Israel? If there is evidence of BBC funds reaching a proscribed terrorist organisation, will the Secretary of State join me in saying that there should be a full criminal investigation?
Lisa Nandy
Ensuring that no money has fallen into the hands of Hamas is the duty of all of us. The last Government were very clear about that in relation to the aid budget, and we are very clear about that too. The BBC needs to be as clear, or there must be consequences.
I also reassure the hon. Gentleman that in December I convened a roundtable with the Jewish community to discuss antisemitism in the arts and the creative industries more generally. I was appalled by what I heard at that meeting, which was convened by Lord Mann and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. We are working very closely together to stamp out the many unacceptable practices that we have seen creep not just into the BBC, but across broadcasting and the arts more generally since this appalling conflict began.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer to the urgent question. We all agree that the genuine inaccuracies and misrepresentations in this documentary, and in all reporting, must be addressed, and that steps must be taken to prevent them from reoccurring. We also all agree that there is no place for antisemitism or any other racism anywhere.
The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza, and criticised for its lack of accurate, evidence-based journalism. The letter, sent to the BBC’s director general and chief executive officer, said:
“Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”
Its signatories included more than 100 anonymous BBC staff and more than 200 people from the media industry. The letter also said:
“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians.”
What steps—
Iqbal Mohamed
My apologies, Mr Speaker. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to investigate and address the unacceptable and biased anti-Palestinian and pro-Israel reporting by the BBC since 7 October, so that it can be trusted by those in this House and by the licence fee payers who fund its existence?
Lisa Nandy
The views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed show what a contested and difficult area this is to report on. While this Government believe it is essential that we shine a spotlight on what is happening to people—particularly children—in Gaza, there is no excuse for antisemitism, or for the sorts of practices that have been alleged against the BBC in recent weeks in relation to this documentary.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust response from the Dispatch Box today, and thank her for it. This is an egregious example, but the problem is the pattern of behaviour; for example, the BBC has spent £330,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal fees to cover up the 2004 Balen report into coverage of this conflict. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are valid questions as to why the BBC has refused to submit to an independent inquiry? Does she agree that the findings of the Balen report have been suppressed, and will the Government urge the BBC to publish that report?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are valid questions to answer. The BBC is a treasured national broadcaster; it plays an important role in our public life and, indeed, in the whole ecosystem of the creative industries in this country. That is why we are determined to hold it to the highest possible standards, and we expect that it will do nothing less itself.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. We all agree that the BBC’s impartiality is imperative and that antisemitism is abhorrent, but is it not enough that we have stood by as 48,900 Gazans have been killed, including 17,400 Gazan children? Is it not enough that we have stood by as 320 aid workers and 162 journalists have been killed? Does the Secretary of State agree that children, and the narrator of this show specifically, cannot be held accountable for the actions of their parents, or is this just an extension of Netanyahu’s policy of collective punishment of the Gazan people?
Lisa Nandy
Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman that children cannot be held responsible for relationships that they have but, to be clear, if the child in question is related to senior Hamas officials, that is important context for viewers to understand. Not to inform the public about that context falls way short of the standards we would expect of our national broadcasters.
Can I also say to the hon. Gentleman that we as a country have not stood aside while over 47,000 people have been killed in Gaza? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made this his top priority—he has been in the region several times in recent months—and just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development announced £17 million in humanitarian funding for Gaza to ensure that we support its people. Notwithstanding the very difficult decision that the Prime Minister announced at this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, we are committed to continuing to support the people of Gaza.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The days when people gained their news from the BBC and ITV are long gone. We now have a whole range of media outlets, many of which do not have the same editorial standards as we expect from our national broadcaster, so does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that we can trust our national broadcaster and that it maintains the highest possible standards?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member makes an important point, which I do not think anybody has made yet in this debate, which is that we expect more from the BBC, because it is our treasured national broadcaster. There is a media landscape out there, and we have got to make sure that all our broadcasters meet the highest standards, especially when it comes to this conflict.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to the urgent question. The BBC has publicly funded status and therefore has an obligation to report impartially, but that has been called into question since the 7 October atrocities. Will the Minister act to hold the BBC cameraman and the staff accountable for their failings? Furthermore, what measures will be introduced to ensure that the BBC’s editorial standards are raised to prevent the dissemination of misleading, biased and unverified content?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will have heard that I raised a number of issues around this particular documentary and the reporting of this conflict more generally when I met the BBC director general. I expect the highest possible standards. I heard from the director general that he expects the highest possible standards as well and that the review will cover all the areas that the hon. Member rightly raises.
Business of the House
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Jesse Norman
Touché, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I say to the gorgeous and brilliant Mr Speaker that I will.
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 4 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.
Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (first allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and the Department for Business and Trade. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by general debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on a motion on political finance rules. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include:
Monday 10 March—Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day one).
Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day two).
Thursday 13 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 14 March—Private Members’ Bills.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure what mental obfuscation is filling my head this morning, but I thank you again. It is my happy task to open by saying that today sees the retirement of Dawn, a stalwart of the Tea Room. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing her a very happy retirement.
On a very different note, this week also marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We wish the Prime Minister every success in his meetings at the White House today. The Government have come in for some fairly punishing criticism from me at the Dispatch Box in recent months, and rightly so. They came to power loudly advertising their virtue and careful planning, but instead, as the House will know, we have seen a series of entirely avoidable resignations, blunders and mishaps. The Government have talked about growth, but their decisions have managed to reduce the Bank of England’s forecast from 2% to 0.75% growth for this year. It is little wonder when one considers the £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions and the imposition of an Employment Rights Bill with an up-front cost estimated at £5 billion, among much else.
Most bizarre of all has been the lack of foresight in financial planning. The Chancellor talked grandly in her Mais lecture last year about “securonomics”—whatever that is—and the importance of economic security, but as many commentators have noticed, her fiscal rules and other decisions have left her very little room for manoeuvre. After all, it was obvious in the autumn that there could be tariffs on trade and, as Ministers have since acknowledged, an inevitable rise in defence spending. It is almost as though Labour never imagined, or perhaps never wanted to believe, that President Trump would be re-elected. As a result, the Government may be forced to have a mini-Budget next month and then a spending review, which has been so delayed that they will have gone a full year from their election without having any settled spending plans. Meanwhile, they prefer to import oil and gas from abroad, rather than use less expensive domestic energy supplies. Forget securonomics; this is a recipe for insecurity, as well as increasing carbon emissions.
However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. I reported in December that genuine signs of reality were starting to break through in the Government’s so-called plan for change. In it, the Prime Minister said:
“In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.”
He said that the UK needed
“a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become so comfortable with failure”.
Finally, and most notably, he said that
“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”
The Prime Minister was right on all three counts, and he is right now to increase defence spending. It is not untrue to say that he is visibly becoming more conservative before our eyes.
Unfortunately, the real numbers in the defence statement were in fact half what he claimed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies quickly made clear, and I am sorry to say that the statement was insulting in other ways to this House. It appears to have been leaked to the media, who ran the headline before the Prime Minister had even stood up. Perish the thought that the statement was deliberately redacted so that MPs would be kept in the dark and could not hold the Government to account. The Prime Minister has emphasised all the planning that was involved in this decision. Even so, he was repeatedly unable to answer the simple “yes or no” question of whether funding for the Chagos Islands deal was included in the total.
What is worse is that, in his statement, the Prime Minister tried to aggregate the intelligence services budget into the defence budget. That is grossly misleading, because those budgets are, and have long been, kept separate. What is worse still is that the Prime Minister’s claim that the combination of the two budgets would be 2.6% of GDP seems to imply a cut, not a rise, in the budget for the intelligence services, which currently stands at over 0.15% of GDP. This cannot be correct. Even if the Leader of the House cannot address my question now, I would be grateful if she could write to me with the details in order to answer it for the record and for the benefit of this House.
Lucy Powell
May I, too, welcome the retirement of Dawn from the Tea Room and wish her well? Let me also say that we have had an excellent couple of ten-minute rule Bills this week—first from the shadow Leader of the House, who brought forward a very important Bill on cleaning up the River Wye, which I know is of real importance to his constituents, and then from my brilliant Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), who introduced a Bill to crack down on ghost number plates on cars, which is a very important issue. They are in good company with each other this week.
As the Prime Minister attends a very important meeting with President Trump today, I know that he has the support of the whole House behind him in the national interest. The peace and security that we have enjoyed in recent generations has shifted significantly in the last few years, not least because of Russia’s aggression and its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Prime Minister has shown determined leadership on the world stage to ensure that our national security is protected in the long term.
The whole House has also come together once again this week to show our unity and strength in supporting Ukraine. Three years since Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, we stand in solidarity with its people. We support their bravery and their democratically elected President, and we stand firm for their sovereignty and lasting security, free from threats from Russia. The cross-party unity on display this week, which I know will be on display again this afternoon, shows this House at its best and gives the Prime Minister great strength in his negotiations and discussions.
As the shadow Leader of the House said, the Prime Minister also announced this week—to Parliament first—that to respond to the changing and growing threats we face, defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and grow to 3% in the next Parliament. This marks the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, going further than commitments we made in our manifesto. It is vital not just for our own capabilities, but for maintaining peace and security beyond our shores. Other European countries must also step up at this crucial juncture. I was really pleased that the announcement of the increase to 2.5% was universally welcomed across the House.
The right hon. Gentleman yet again raised the Government’s economic record. Let us have a look at that record once again, shall we? Interest rates have come down three times in a row, mortgage rates are also going down, wages are going up, and the lowest-paid will receive a big pay rise from 1 April. He may not be interested in pay and work as dignity and security, but this party is, and we are not ashamed to say so. He talked about energy prices, and he will know that this country, under his Government, was uniquely and specifically exposed to global energy markets. The only way for us to get lower bills in the long term—sustainable lower bills—is to make sure that we have clean energy generated in this country, and that is what this Government are embarking on.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman wants to open up a difference on defence spending, but I gently remind him that the last time we spent 2.5% on defence was under the last Labour Government. His Government made promise after promise on the never-never, but it never happened and it was not a credible plan, so I gently remind him of that.
It is another week of business questions, and another week that the shadow Leader of the House has failed to say anything supportive about his own leader. I keep giving him ample opportunity to do so at these sessions each week. I thought he might want to highlight some of the recent speeches and interventions she has made, given that they have had so little coverage. She advised us to stop hiding behind “vapid statements”. I am not sure that we are making vapid statements; I think that may be her. Was he not taken with her claim that only the
“Conservatives are the guardians of Western civilisation”?
I know he takes his history very seriously, so what does he make of that claim?
Did the right hon. Gentleman not want to take the opportunity to restate the claim that the Prime Minister’s big moves this week were all down to a letter he received from the Leader of the Opposition, or does he, like the rest of us, realise that that is obviously absurd? What about her suggestion that her leadership stint is akin to that of Donald Trump in his second term? I mean, come on! I think we can all see that it is not quite going the way the Conservatives hoped. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is a card player, but I am sure he agrees with me that they are not really holding the Trump card, but more of a busted flush.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Unaccountable power carries significant risk, as we have seen in this place and across our public services, but when it is in the NHS it can lead to the death of patients. The complaints systems in the NHS are not functioning: they are defensive and they are not trying to solve the issues. Can we have a debate about NHS complaints to keep our constituents safe?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. As constituency MPs, I am sure we all recognise the point she has made. I have heard the Health Secretary speak about these issues many times, and I know he is committed to ensuring that the NHS is accountable and responsive, takes complaints very seriously and does not in any way try to cover up or hide problems in the service.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Climate Change Committee has published advice in its seventh carbon budget that sets out a new pathway to decarbonisation, including on how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Climate Change Committee has already reported that the UK is behind in meeting its climate targets, and it has criticised the Government’s decisions to go ahead with the coalmine in Cumbria and oil and gas fields in the North sea.
On top of that, Ofgem has taken the decision to increase the cap for the price of energy bills by 6.4% in April 2025, which is higher than the 5% increase that even those in the sector expected. This is the third increase since October 2024. The latest price rise means that households will be forced to pay about £600 a year more for their gas and electricity than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
The Liberal Democrats have been gravely concerned about the Government’s delays to tackling poorly insulated homes over this winter and to implementing the new future homes standard. As a result, an estimated 6 million households are still in fuel poverty.
It is clear that to tackle the joint issues of climate change and ever-increasing energy prices, the Government must be bold. The Liberal Democrats want a 10-year emergency upgrade programme to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat, including free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss what more can be done to support those struggling to stay warm, in a way that also supports decarbonisation?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for that important question and contribution. I know that she and her party take this issue as seriously as the Government, and I welcome her raising it here today. She is absolutely right that energy bills and the soaring costs of energy over recent years are a huge worry to people and are unaffordable for many. That is why we have a mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030, which will not only help to keep bills lower for longer, but drive growth and tackle the climate crisis. She will know, I am sure, that this country was particularly and uniquely exposed to global energy prices, and that is still affecting the energy price cap this year.
I am sure hon. Lady will agree that the only way to tackle the issue is to ensure that we have home-grown, cheaper renewable power and that we reduce demand, as she says, by the better insulation of our homes, which account for a huge amount of our energy use. Household energy prices are lower than they were last year, but we need to go further and faster. We announced an extension of the warm home discount scheme, which means an extra £150 for nearly 3 million additional people, and we have committed £3.4 billion over the next three years for home insulation. We will continue to go further and faster, and I will ensure that she and the House are kept updated.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Recently, a burst Thames Water pipe left thousands of my constituents in Anerley, Crystal Palace and Penge without water for up to five days. The response from Thames Water has been completely unacceptable: it put in only one bottled water station, which was an hour away for some residents; it failed to deliver water to people on the priority services register; and its complete lack of communication has left my constituents in the dark. To make matters worse, the only thing it communicated effectively to residents that week was an increase in water bills. I have called on Thames Water to give me clear answers on the compensation it will pay my constituents. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging Thames Water to provide clarity on that, and agree to a debate on changes to the compensation scheme?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I welcome him to his first outing at business questions. He raises serious issues with the performance of and services provided by Thames Water. They are raised with me many times during these sessions and elsewhere in the House. Frankly, some of its actions have been unacceptable and it needs to be brought to account. That is one of the reasons why we brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but we also have an independent commission on water governance looking at these issues at the moment. I will ensure that he and the House are kept fully up to date.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. We had 11 applications, covering nine Departments, for the estimates day debates. All of them could have been chosen, but we had the difficult decision of choosing three. We will try to accommodate those that were not chosen when we have the main estimates day debates in May. May I ask the Leader of the House to provide the date of those estimates day debates as early as possible, so that we can facilitate them?
In addition to the business the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 13 March in the Chamber, there will be a debate on the future of farming, followed by a debate on mental health support in educational settings, and on Thursday 20 March, if we are given that date, there will be a debate on knife crime among children and young people, followed by a debate on coastal communities. In Westminster Hall, on Tuesday 4 March, there will be a debate on the cultural heritage of market towns, and on Thursday 6 March, there will be a debate on the financial sustainability and governance of English football, followed by one on ambulance service response times. There will be debates in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 11 March on the governance of English rugby union, and on Thursday 13 March on educational opportunities for young carers.
Yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran is getting very, very close to having enriched uranium, which will enable it to have an atomic weapon. This is obviously a direct threat to peace in the middle east, British interests and those across the world. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are currently in the United States, but I hope we can have a statement next week on the actions the Government will take to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to confirm that snapback arrangements will, if necessary, be put in place, with the necessary implication of ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, as it would destabilise the entirety of the middle east and beyond if it did.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for announcing a number of debates that will be widely welcomed. Many of those issues get raised with me in these sessions, so I am glad his Committee has accommodated them. I would say, however, that I am sure you would be a lot happier, Mr Speaker, with a debate on rugby league, rather than rugby union— perhaps the hon. Gentleman could bear that in mind next time.
The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the continued threat that we face—not just in this country, but to our near neighbours and around the world—from Iran and its increasing aggression and actions. The Government are taking this matter very seriously and are taking action; there will, I am hoping, be a statement on this matter imminently. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Just to warn the House, business questions will finish at 12.25 pm. I do not want a repeat of last week, when Members of Parliament were complaining to the front office—it is not acceptable. My deputies are doing their job. I do not expect complaints today. You are all aware of the time, so help each other out. Let’s have a good example from Leigh Ingham.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, residents of Parkside in Marston Grange are at a complete standstill. Years of roadworks have completely overwhelmed their roads; my constituents’ children cannot get to school safely because of dangerous crossings, and businesses are losing business daily. They were told that roadworks were going to finish this spring, then summer, and now autumn. I am not the first Staffordshire MP to raise the lack of adequate communication from Staffordshire county council—my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) raised it just before recess. Can we have a statement on what steps the Government are taking to hold to account councils like mine that refuse to communicate with their residents?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) did raise this matter with me before recess. As I said then, I know that when roadworks are constantly delayed and are not delivered, it can have a huge impact on local people and on local businesses, schools and hospitals. I reiterate what I said before: Staffordshire county council is clearly making a mess of this issue. It needs to get a grip, get it sorted and get these roadworks cleared, so that the businesses and people in my hon. Friends’ constituencies can get back to work.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I understand that the Home Secretary is visiting Calais today. I hope that she will not only see the beaches from which illegal immigrants depart for the United Kingdom, but visit the facility that I saw myself a week ago today, with Michael Keohan and Jack Valpy from BBC South East, where we discovered some 800 migrants from Sudan living in total squalor, with no sanitation of any kind. I hope that the Home Secretary will have raised this matter with the Mayor of Calais, with the député for Calais, and with her counterpart, the Interior Minister of France. I appreciate that Monday is likely to be a busy day, with the Prime Minister returning from Washington, but will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement on what she has found?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Member is absolutely right: the situation in relation to the small boat crossings continues to be intolerable in many regards. This country cannot sustain what we are seeing. The situation in Calais, including the steps that are being taken, or not, is not acceptable either. That is why we have brought forward the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and are working very closely with France not just on what is happening in Calais but further upstream, to ensure that those migrants do not arrive in Calais and then on these shores in the first place. The right hon. Member makes a very good point about ensuring that the House is kept up to date. I know that the Home Secretary takes that incredibly seriously, and that she is very forthcoming on these matters. None the less, I will certainly ensure that she has heard what he has said.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I really enjoyed having a kick-about with Derby County women and the Sport Minister at our fantastic new football facilities at the Derby racecourse hub. Next week, the hub will host 14 Derby schools that are taking part in the biggest ever football session aimed at expanding football opportunities for girls across the country. Does the Leader of the House agree that women’s football is going from strength to strength, so can we have a debate about supporting grassroots football for women and girls?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Women’s football is going from strength to strength. What we have seen from the Lionesses in recent years has inspired a whole new generation. It is great to hear what is happening at Derby racecourse, which is in her constituency, and I am keen to support her in that. I am not a great player of football myself, although I think I am a pretty good tackler in some regards, but I agree that this would make a very good topic for a debate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently visited Bath’s Roman Boxing Gym—anybody who wants to see my amazing right-hand swing can watch it on social media. More seriously. In connection with the question that the Leader of the House has just answered, how can we support community organisations, such as the Roman Boxing Gym, which provide incredible opportunities for young people to compete internationally and nationally, and also provide important diversionary activities? Can we have debate in Government time on all these activities that are so powerful in our communities?
Lucy Powell
I will take a look at the hon. Lady’s left hook—or right hook; however handed she is, I am sure she packs a powerful punch! She makes a really good point. I know from my own constituency how important boxing, boxing clubs and sport activities are in general. That is why this Government are committed to a curriculum review, to ensure that schools and organisations, such as Bath’s Roman Boxing Gym, are able to provide young people with these kind of opportunities. It is also why we are giving local government the biggest boost to funding that it has had in many years, because many of these organisations rely on local government funding. None the less, she is absolutely right: we need to do more to ensure that young people, such as those in her constituency, have the opportunity to access sport, culture and other activities. I am sure that it would make a good topic for debate.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
When the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was Chancellor, he said that he had diverted public money away from deprived urban areas. In Ilford South, our local Redbridge council has been ranked among the most cost-effective council in the country, yet my neighbours are still suffering from the inequality of the politically motivated Conservative funding formula. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on local government funding formulas to ensure that all areas receive their fair share of funding to deliver for local people?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the previous Government did change the funding formula, taking funding away from some of the high-needs local authorities in our country. That is why we are looking again at those funding formulas, why we will be doing three-year settlements for local government, and why we have given local government the biggest funding boost that it has had for many years, but we need to go further on these matters, and it is important that we do so. We regularly have debates on local government funding, but I will ensure that there is one coming up.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a pleasant surprise after my brief admonishment.
Nick Timothy
In Suffolk, we are moving towards a unitary council as part of local government reforms. I put on record my discomfort that our local elections, which were due this year, have been postponed. The danger of the reforms, however, is that power will be taken further away from local residents. I want parish and town councils to be empowered to take responsibility for problems such as speeding and road safety. Can we have a debate on how we empower towns and villages to get things done directly for local residents?
Lucy Powell
Although I hear the hon. Gentleman’s worry about the elections—the delay is only by a year, so that in areas such as his, we do not hold unnecessary elections this year ahead of mayoral elections next year—this is about devolving a huge number of powers to local areas, and those local areas have to be of a size to cope with those powers. I know from my own area in Manchester that, ward by ward, that is being felt. The devolution revolution is having a huge positive impact in my area, and I am sure that it will in his as well.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Before the recess, thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, I led an excellent debate on coalfield communities. It was subject to a time limit, being immediately oversubscribed, and I had no time to wind up. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time for us to further unpick how we can secure the investment, seize the opportunities and deliver the change that coalfield communities such as mine in Newcastle-under-Lyme and those up and down our country desperately deserve?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right that coalfield communities make a huge contribution to this country. This Government have supported them very quickly in a number of ways just in our first few months in office. I understand that his debate was oversubscribed, and I am sure that there would be a great appetite for a further debate, so I will consider carefully his question.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
ADHD assessment waiting times are too long, leaving patients and families in limbo as they are left without crucial treatments. Alongside existing medication shortages, that undermines the right to choose. Not requiring improvements in local NHS provision of ADHD assessments would be incredibly shortsighted. Will the Leader of the House hold a debate in Government time on the crisis in ADHD services, and will she ask her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to write to me to confirm that there will be no deterioration in waiting times in Wokingham and across England?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, which is raised with me regularly. I am sure that he will appreciate that we inherited a broken system for ADHD assessments. There are currently unacceptable delays, as he outlined. I understand that NHS England has established a cross-sector taskforce to look at the ADHD service provision. As soon as that is ready to report with recommendations, I will ensure that it comes to this House for proper scrutiny.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Constituents in Kirkby have endured a foul stench from Simonswood industrial estate in west Lancashire for years, making some physically sick. My constituent Gina Griffiths says that it is giving her child a persistent sore throat, while Joanne Day and her husband are having breathing problems because of the Simonswood stink. Enforcement from Lancashire county council and the Environment Agency, which are responsible for the site, has been unacceptable, despite repeated efforts by Shevington’s Labour councillors, MPs and Knowsley council. Can we have a debate on tackling lack of enforcement for waste management plants?
Lucy Powell
I am disappointed to hear that this awful matter is taking so long to be resolved, despite representations from my hon. Friend and her colleagues. She is absolutely right that the Environment Agency has the powers that it needs, and it should take all necessary regulatory steps to ensure that such operations comply with permit conditions. I encourage it to do so at pace, and I will write to her with an update.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This week, farmers from across the UK, including from my constituency, were in London for the National Farmers Union conference. I am sure that many of us saw the thought-provoking display of toy tractors very close to this place—a stark reminder that the farm tax could destroy farms and farming futures. Without farmers, there is no food. At a time of such global uncertainty, when we should be actively supporting our farmers and not driving them out of production, can we have a debate, please, on the importance of improving and increasing UK food security?
Lucy Powell
This Government are very committed both to farming and to providing food security. That is why we are investing a huge and record amount of £5 billion in the farming budget, whereas the Government that the right hon. Lady served under underspent the farming budget by £300 million. We have set out a 25-year farming roadmap, which the National Farmers’ Union has welcomed as long overdue, and we are taking other steps, such as extending the seasonal worker visa route for five more years, which has also been welcomed. I noted that the official Opposition had an Opposition day this week and they chose not to make one of the debates on farming, so she might want to take that up with her Front Benchers.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
My question is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), but it speaks to the NHS. The Financial Times reported that there has been a 92% increase in whistleblowing cases between 2015 and 2023, including in the NHS. My constituency has in it the headquarters of the Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust, whose former chair Dr Max Mclean, a decorated police officer, maintains that he has been forced to take legal action after being removed from his position following a decision to raise concerns about governance and patient safety. The trust argues that chairs, non-executive directors and governors are not workers under whistleblowing legislation, potentially leaving them without the same protection as other NHS staff when reporting patient safety and governance concerns. Given the serious implications for NHS transparency and accountability, will the Government commit to reviewing the issue and provide clarity to the court, as well as allocating time for Parliament to debate better protections for whistleblowers?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises important issues around whistleblowers and how their complaints should be taken very seriously. I support and welcome her in that, as I am sure the whole House does. As I said in answer to a previous question, I know that the Health Secretary takes such matters incredibly seriously. I also point my hon. Friend to the fact that we are bringing forward a piece of legislation on duty of candour later this year, which will support that agenda.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
This morning, I had the pleasure of attending Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, because I was hoping to highlight two important issues to my constituents. I wanted to express my gratitude to the team at NK Theatre Arts, who empower young people and help them amplify their voice at Romiley’s Forum theatre. There are worries, though, about the long-term future of the theatre because there is reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the roof. I was also cheekily seeking a bit of support for my campaign to make Marple locks a world heritage site. At the end of the session, however, many Members were left without an opportunity to ask their question. I am sure that the Leader of the House agrees about the importance of culture, media and sport, both to our constituents and to the House. Will she consider extending the time for future questions sessions so that more issues can be raised?
Lucy Powell
May I, first of all, support the hon. Lady’s work around the theatre in Romiley? I know it well—I think I went there as a brownie, when I was a youngster, to see a pantomime—and it is a very good example of a regional theatre. Marple locks are also a great tourist attraction in our region as well, and I support her in that campaign.
The hon. Lady makes a good point. In my time as the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I felt strongly about those matters too. We keep under constant review the allocation of oral questions with Mr Speaker and the most appropriate division of that, so I will certainly take on board what she says.
Mr Speaker
In fairness, I have never been asked. In my personal view, I would give an hour to culture, media and sport. I just say that. Let us see where we can go.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Colleagues will be aware that I am a former journalist. Old habits die hard, so I have some breaking news to announce: Rochdale has this morning been announced as Greater Manchester’s town of culture for 2025-26. Starting from April, the year of events will celebrate our international reputation as the birthplace of co-operation and the home to 35 thriving arts organisations. I know that the Leader of the House is a culture vulture, so will she congratulate everyone involved in the winning bid and maybe pop up the road to see our magnificently restored town hall and partake of the Rochdale renaissance?
Lucy Powell
I very much look forward to taking up my hon. Friend’s invitation, and I join him in congratulating Rochdale on becoming Greater Manchester’s town of culture. It has a fantastic cultural heritage, and I am sure that he and everybody across Rochdale will seize the opportunity to showcase what a brilliant town it is.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The increased pace of Government decision making on refugee applications is discharging growing numbers of people into the responsibility of local authorities. On top of that, my constituents in the London borough of Hillingdon face an additional £1.2 million council tax cost to support Chagossians displaced to the UK by the uncertainty created through the Government’s stance on the Chagos islands. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the impact of asylum, refugee and border policy on our local authorities?
Lucy Powell
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the asylum backlog that the Government inherited was absolutely shocking and appalling. It was a huge backlog, and no one could be processed, so the backlog built up more and more. We were paying to house more people in asylum hotels, which I know he would have found unacceptable for his constituents, as I did for mine. We are taking steps to deal with that backlog. We have record numbers of returns; that did not happen under his Government. I am confused about what he is saying about Chagos. Does he want long-term certainty about British activity in Chagos or not? If he does, I am sure that he will welcome and support the plans that we have taken forward to ensure that.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I have had the pleasure of meeting my constituent Mark Hughes, who kindly shared his experience of a terminal diagnosis. Would the Leader of the House join me in commending Mark on his hard work on his successful “Scrap 6 Months” campaign? As a result of that campaign, those who receive a terminal diagnosis of 12 months or less to live can now have their benefits application fast-tracked. Additionally, will she assist in arranging a meeting between the Department for Work and Pensions and Mark Hughes to discuss next steps in supporting anyone with a terminal diagnosis?
Lucy Powell
I echo my hon. Friend’s admiration and thanks to Mark Hughes for a brilliant campaign for a measure that has come into effect, and which ensures that those with a terminal illness that gives them 12 months or less to live get their benefits fast-tracked. I will ensure that he gets a meeting, or a response from the Minister.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On 4 February, I met Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the national valproate campaign, In-FACT, the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust. Later that week, the hon. Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish), and for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) raised these matters at business questions. It is a year since the publication of the patient safety commissioner’s Hughes report, which highlighted the devastating impact of valproate and pelvic mesh on thousands of women and children. Given my experience of the infected blood compensation scheme, and what I learned from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) when she was in opposition, please can we have some time to discuss the matter? Further delays would cause not only enormous additional anxiety, but expense to the taxpayer. We must move on this matter.
Lucy Powell
I respect the right hon. Member’s work on the infected blood scheme—he has a great deal of experience to offer on these matters. He mentions an important issue to do with the Hughes report and the valproate and pelvic mesh scandal, which was a big issue in the last Parliament. As he said, colleagues raised that with me before the recess. I know that the Minister has met families and is considering the report in great depth. I will ensure that the House is given a full update on those matters at the earliest opportunity, but I look forward to him continuing to raise the matter with me from the Back Benches if that does not happen.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Constituents driving to Hastings down St Helen’s Park Road are confronted by the sight of a dilapidated London double-decker bus that has been left by the side of the road for years because local councils have refused to do anything about it. Some residents of St Helen’s Road are forced to live opposite that monstrosity. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Hastings borough council and East Sussex county council to knock heads together, grasp the nettle and get that bus moved?
Lucy Powell
I know how unsightly and disturbing such things can be for the people who live around them, so I join my hon. Friend in those calls. Hastings borough council is run by the Green party. There are no Green Members present, but perhaps they could pull their finger out and get the bus moved.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently met volunteers who run the Harrogate Competitive Festival for Music, Speech and Drama, a charity that has been going for almost 90 years. It has over 250 different classes and categories, 800 entries to its competitions, and more than 1,300 children taking part every year. I heard about how it gives confidence, and boosts people’s skills and ability to speak and perform in front of large audiences. The charity used to receive funding from the local authority, but that has been stopped since 2016. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting the performing arts?
Lucy Powell
I know how important festivals such as the Harrogate festival that the hon. Gentleman describes are for young people, giving them the opportunity to try out their performing arts skills and be assessed. As he says, many of those festivals are funded by local government, which has seen its budget stripped to the core in recent years. That is why we boosted local government funding in the recent Budget, and why we are looking at three-year settlements, which will give local government the chance to fund such things. We are also considering how we can support culture and the creative curriculum for young people. I am sure that he welcomes that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
This House has rightly marked the three-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we are all steadfast in our support for the Ukrainian people. Last weekend, I spent a morning with Ukrainian refugees settled in my town of Redditch, at their regular breakfast event. I spoke with parents and children who were forced to leave their home because of the fighting about the impact that that has had on their mental health. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the Redditch residents who have opened their homes, offered support, and harboured in safety the people who needed it the most, in their biggest time of need?
Lucy Powell
As we mark the three-year anniversary of the awful illegal invasion of Ukraine, the whole House agrees that the Homes for Ukraine scheme is one of the proudest contributions that this country has made. I support the work that my hon. Friend has been doing with Ukrainians in his Redditch constituency.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Leader of the House will recall that after many months of non-committal communications with the Government, I came to business questions on 23 January to raise the case tragic case of John Cross, a Bromsgrove pharmacist who very sadly took his own life after complications arising from the covid vaccine. I would like to put on the record that John was a pharmacist and believed in the importance of vaccines. John’s family believe that he took one for the team, and have been seeking justice in his memory. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her correspondence with me immediately afterwards, but although she promised on the Floor of the House a meeting with the Cross family, my subsequent correspondence with Government has promised only a meeting with me. The Cross family desperately want to meet Government, so that they can see justice delivered in John’s name. It is disappointing that I have to come here; it is a little embarrassing for the Government; and, frankly, it is cruel for the Cross family to have their anguish drawn out. I believe the Leader of the House to be a very honourable Member, and I hope that she will agree to a meeting with the Cross family and make it a priority today.
Lucy Powell
I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has struggled to get the meeting that I hoped he would get, and which the family of John Cross deserve. I will take that forward after this question time. At the very least, I will meet them myself, but I hope that a Health Minister will meet them, which would be the most appropriate thing.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
This week, I was contacted by a constituent who had received the phone call that every parent dreads. Her son had been hit by a car as he got off the bus on his way home from Caldicot school. Fortunately, he was not seriously hurt; thank goodness it is still a 20 mph road. The council had been asked to review the limit, but decided to keep it at 20 mph for that road, which is commendable, because otherwise things could have been so much worse. The Undy and Caldicot school community are determined to push for a crossing to be installed on that stretch of road, which I will, of course, support. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on road safety for young people, particularly at entrances to villages, for example, where speed limits can suddenly change?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of my hon. Friend’s constituent being involved in a road traffic accident. As she says, that is the phone call that any parent dreads receiving, but I am glad to hear that things were not as serious as they might have been. She is right to use this session to raise the issue of speeding, the need for crossings and other matters in her constituency, and I think a debate on this topic would be very popular and well attended.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last week I visited the owners of a local business, who expressed their concerns about the pEPR regulations—the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024. These regulations shift the cost of managing packaging waste from local authorities to producers. That represents yet another burden on businesses at a time when they face no end of other increased costs. Could the Leader of the House ensure that the appropriate Minister comes to the House and explains what assessment has been made of the impact of these regulations?
Lucy Powell
I pride myself on knowing about most things the Government are doing, but I have to say that I am not that familiar with the pEPR regulations, though I will certainly find out about them. This Government are taking steps to ensure that we have a circular economy, and that packaging waste is kept to a minimum. I know the Minister has been to the House a few times to debate some of these matters, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a detailed response about that.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the emergency services crews from Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service, Warwickshire police and West Midlands Ambulance Service, who this week attended a tragic and fatal fire in my constituency? Public servants such as these rush towards their fellow citizens in their time of need, and often rush towards danger. They show professionalism, compassion and often bravery, and so deserve our appreciation and continuing support.
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the tragic fire in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I join him in commending the amazing work that our emergency services do, and the professionalism and bravery with which they do it, putting their own lives at risk in doing so.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my constituent Philip Jackson a very happy 100th birthday. In a very varied life so far, Philip joined the Royal Army Service Corps during the second world war and was involved in the liberation of Cherbourg, but perhaps one of his most harrowing contributions during his period in service was being one of the first to enter the notorious Nazi Bergen-Belsen concentration camp when it was liberated in 1945. Can we have a debate in Government time to celebrate those from our veterans community who have gone above and beyond throughout their life in the name of peace and freedom for us all?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Member in wishing Philip Jackson a very happy birthday. What an amazing 100 years. He is right in what he points out. As we enter the 80th anniversary of VE Day, and of the liberation and freedom that came about from those who first went into Auschwitz and other places, we are reminded that that generation will not long be with us. It is good that Philip is still with us, so that we can hear his stories, and thank him for all his amazing work and the life he has lived.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be surprised that I am not talking about Doncaster Sheffield airport today; I would instead like to land some terrific news about primary schools in my area. First, Crookesbroom primary academy has ranked first among the schools in Doncaster for its English and maths results. Secondly, I visited Wroot Travis school on Monday and heard the children read their letters, which made my heart melt. Thirdly, I am really chuffed to hear that Bawtry Mayflower primary school has been selected as one of the first of the 750 schools to offer breakfast clubs as part of the Government’s new scheme. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those outstanding primary schools, and acknowledge the significance of the breakfast club programme?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend still managed to get Doncaster airport into his question, and I congratulate him on having secured an Adjournment debate on the airport, so he still has the title of Mr Doncaster Airport as far as the House is concerned. I join him in commending the outstanding work of primary schools in his constituency and the new breakfast club programme unveiled this week by the Education Secretary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If we keep the questions pithy, I will get everybody in.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate about the importance of keeping our roads and highways clear of litter and rubbish? I recently spent time with Ronnie and Darren from Scottish Borders council, who do a tremendous job emptying bins and keeping the A1 in Berwickshire clean and tidy. They are supported by many volunteers, including Candy Philip and Alison Currie from the Berwickshire Anti Litter Group, who spend many hours a week cleaning litter from lay-bys and grass verges. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Ronnie, Darren and the volunteers who do this important work keeping our countryside clean and tidy?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Ronnie, Darren, Candy and Alison on keeping his area’s countryside safe. He is right that it should not be up to volunteers to have to deal with and tackle littering. It should be a responsibility of every good citizen to make sure that they do not litter our countryside in the way that they seem to be doing in his.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
The Loughborough Rotary Club does brilliant work in my constituency, as I know the Rotary Club does across this country. In my community it has provided more than 200 warm coats and 500 boxes to families being rehomed. Will the Minister please put on record her thanks to the Loughborough Rotary Club in my constituency and Rotary Clubs across the nation?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking Loughborough Rotary Club and all the Rotary Clubs around the country for the work they do and their amazing volunteering work, in his case supporting people with coats and homeless people.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On Saturday I joined the 1st Newbold Verdon Scouts group for part of their celebration of 70 years of scouting. They chose 22 February because it commemorates the birth of Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts. It was a testament to the Scouts to see the kids there delivering speeches and the strength of character that they have learned through the Scouts. May we have a debate to celebrate the 70 years of the Scouts and to thank the volunteers—the likes of Steve Dowell and his team—who give up their time to support young people in getting the skills they need for future life?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the scouting movement for the amazing work it has done over 70 years. It provides a great opportunity for young people, and many of us in this House will have been through that movement. I just want to put on record that I do not think I am related to the Baden-Powells, but I might be; maybe I will have a look into it.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The recent announcement that Prudhoe community high school will be closed for a lengthy period due to cracks in the building’s infrastructure is deeply concerning, particularly given that the building was only recently opened, in 2016. Students have already experienced vast disruption due to the covid pandemic and they deserve stability in their education experience; I am deeply concerned for their welfare. Can the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with an Education Minister to discuss how the students can receive the best support to ensure their education and upcoming exams receive minimal disruption and they can continue their education in peace?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the closure of Prudhoe community high school. That is absolutely devastating for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency who will be missing out on education and all that time in school brings. The Department for Education is working closely with those responsible for the building, but I will absolutely ensure that he gets a ministerial meeting.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
UK food resilience is more delicate than ever. The country’s ability to withstand future crises has been brought into question by the National Preparedness Commission’s recent report, yet family farms that support the provision of the nation’s food security, including the several hundred in Glastonbury and Somerton, are, in the words of the National Farmers Union president, “taking a battering”. May we have a debate in Government time about national preparedness, food security and resilience?
Lucy Powell
This Government are committed to food security, farming and our rural communities. We are putting in extra money—£5 billion over two years—to support farmers, and we have a 25-year farming road map and a new deal for farmers. So there are a whole range of measures, but food security underpins our farming plans, and I will ensure the hon. Lady is updated on these important matters.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the ongoing tribunal case of Sandie Peggie, a nurse at my local hospital in Kirkcaldy. Women’s sex-based rights are hard fought and we give them up at our peril. The UK Health Secretary is right to support the need for single-sex spaces and sex-based rights for women in the NHS. Of course, every citizen must be afforded safety, respect and dignity in the work place. While the Leader of the House may not want to comment on an ongoing tribunal, does she agree with me that single-sex spaces must be protected, and will she make time for a debate on how we can best do that?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right that I will not comment on this particular case, but I absolutely support what she says about the importance of single-sex spaces. This Government are clear that everybody deserves to feel safe and treated with respect at their workplace, including in the NHS. Although health is a devolved matter, the Equality Act 2010 applies to Scotland and is very clear about rights and protections for women.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past two months, there have been an increasing number of attacks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the Lubero territory, 70 Christians, including women, children and the elderly, were found dead, bound and beheaded in a Protestant church. They were captured from their homes, before being killed by suspected Allied Democratic Forces militants, linked to Islamic State terror groups, who have displayed explicit animosity towards Christians. Since last Christmas, attacks by Islamic State Central Africa Province, the March 23 Movement and CODECO have killed hundreds, and militants are moving swiftly across the country. Will the Leader of the House press the relevant Minister for immediate and long-term interventions, so that the UK Government and international stakeholders can work together to prevent further extremist-led massacres, while ensuring sustainable security and humanitarian support in that region?
Lucy Powell
The Government remain deeply concerned by the Daesh-affiliated group the Allied Democratic Forces, which continues to increase attacks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We will ensure that those messages are relayed very strongly and that the Minister updates the hon. Gentleman on these matters.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The visit to Scotland by the Prime Minister within 48 hours of the general election was widely welcomed. That priority for Scotland stands in stark contrast with the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, who after 116 days in post has still not ventured north of the border, leaving Scots confused as to whether they should be dismayed or relieved. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate to discuss which party in this House truly stands up for Scotland and for the Union?
Lucy Powell
Constituents, including those of my hon. Friend, should probably be relieved that the Leader of the Opposition has not yet visited Scotland. I am not sure we need a debate about which party stands up for the interests of Scotland: we are all very clear that it is the Labour party.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Last week, Ashby netball club, in my constituency, completed 75 hours of non-stop netball at Ivanhoe school, a feat that is well worth applauding on its own, but the club also raised £54,000 for Kids’ Village, a charity that provides care and respite holidays for children with critical illnesses. It also broke two world records and set an entirely new one. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ashby netball club and its players, who come from the surrounding community, for those incredible accomplishments?
Lucy Powell
When my hon. Friend told me about this incredible act of charity fundraising by Ashby netball club, I could not believe that they had played continuously for 75 hours—that is a remarkable achievement. I join her in congratulating the players and I wish them the very best in their efforts.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Last month, along with approximately 20 local employers, I attended Cumbernauld academy’s world of work event, where I was able to engage with more than 100 13-year-olds about the skills needed to be an elected politician and how to work for one. It was a crucial part of their preparation for choosing which subjects they wanted to take at national 4 and national 5 level. I really got put through my paces on all that, and it was an absolutely fantastic event; I commend the school on doing that. It is important that we further debate the importance of careers advice for young people.
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I support my hon. Friend in that endeavour and on giving young people careers advice. I am not sure that I would necessarily join her in advising young people to want a career in elected politics, but perhaps she could give some of her colleagues the training session that she gave there.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
On this day 125 years ago, the Labour party was founded by Keir Hardie to be the political wing of the trade union movement and the voice of working-class people in this Parliament. Labour has transformed the lives of millions of people since. Does the Leader of the House agree that we have another Keir who is transforming lives for working people today, 125 years on from 27 February 1900? Will she pay tribute to all of our fellow activists over the years?
Lucy Powell
What a lovely question. I absolutely support everything that my hon. Friend says. The Prime Minister was named after Keir Hardie, and I think he is absolutely living up to his namesake.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last month I met with Colin, who runs The Toaster, a fantastic local café on South Street in Bishop’s Stortford. Colin’s business has been plagued for three and a half years by a pothole on the street outside. Rainwater collects in the pothole and is then splashed on to his business—just this week, he has had to clean his shopfront four times. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Hertfordshire county council to take full advantage of the £35 million provided by this Government to fix potholes across Hertfordshire, including in Hertford and Stortford, as well as the pothole plaguing Colin’s business?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend describes how awful potholes can be and the impact that they have on businesses such as Colin’s. I join him in imploring Hertfordshire county council to use the money that the Government have now given it to fix potholes such as that one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The last question goes to the ever-present and most patient Mark Sewards.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We know that mass transit systems have enormous benefits for local economies. In Nottingham, a tram line was able to generate £100 million in investment for local businesses. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have indicated their support for a mass transit system in West Yorkshire and in Leeds, because we have been waiting far too long for one. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the urgent need to get that mass transit system built so that we can have investment in our businesses and benefit from economic growth across our region?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. As an MP for and resident of Manchester, I know how vital mass transit schemes are for growth, for providing job opportunities and for boosting tourism—everything that Leeds deserves to have. I am really pleased that the Chancellor has indicated her support for that. We have set aside some funding, and we are working with the West Yorkshire combined authority to make sure that those plans become a reality.
War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.
I have been working on Ukraine with many colleagues in all parts of the House for a considerable time—we have shared that work. The reality in this Chamber, which may mark us out slightly from other countries, is that we have been completely united in our support for Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their freedom as we have had to do in the past. We therefore recognise their sacrifices and the risk that they have taken. To anybody who assumes that that is of no relevance, I say that the only relevant issue that pervades this debate is that we should always be on the side of those who believe in freedom and democracy. That is what we exist for.
I recently came back from another trip to Ukraine. I have done a few trips there, helped by a charity called HopeFull. What it has done is quite remarkable and is another example of how people in Britain see things sometimes slightly differently from the rest of the world. When Russia invaded Ukraine and there was a serious danger of it taking Kyiv in those early weeks, the charity—which had been working in Scotland, in the area around Dundee, helping to support people in difficulty and in poorer circumstances—upped sticks and decided that its real cause was now to help those fleeing from the Russians at the border of Poland, which it did. In fact, the charity turned up two weeks earlier than even Oxfam managed, simply by getting trucks and driving across. That is a very British way of doing things.
Eventually the charity crossed over the border, and over the past three years it has supplied many people, organisations, towns and cities with food. The way in which it has done that is to take pizzas in pizza trucks to feed them.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable.
The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war.
It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did.
On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them.
I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that.
There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem.
Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Factually, the article 5 mutual defence clause of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once in its history. That was by the United States after 9/11, when President Bush ruled that America had been attacked and NATO in Europe—particularly Britain—came to its aid. Does my right hon. Friend think it is worth bearing that in mind as these very important discussions take place in Washington?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Of course it is. Article 5 has been the reason that western Europe has been able to grow and settle, and America has also been able to pursue its own ends because of the mutual defence pact that exists between us. I remember that Sir Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister at that stage, did not waste any time; he came out immediately to support America, so much so that he was able to get into the debate that took place in the Congress and was welcomed as a friend, which was quite right. The reality is that the UK was the first to push for article 5 to be invoked, and George Robertson was the head of NATO at the time and moved it for the first time. That was very much the right thing to do, and that is what underpins this.
Before I continue, I want to come back to some of the after-effects. I went to see those who are looking after, and are responsible for, prisoners of war in Kyiv. What is fascinating is that the abuses that are taking place in Russia trash the Geneva convention on support for prisoners of war. Russia spends its time moving Ukrainian prisoners of war around and does not allow the Red Cross full access at any stage. That is against the convention, and the Red Cross has complained—although I do not think it has said it loudly enough—that some Ukrainian prisoners of war are being used as human shields. Some are being used to clear mines in certain areas, which is also against the rules.
We also know that in a number of cases, after serious interrogation of those prisoners of war, which is also illegal, their families in Ukraine are being bullied and threatened. They are told that unless they start spying or carrying out damaging acts in Ukraine, their loved one—their husband, son or daughter—in the prisoner of war camp, if such a thing exists, will be tortured and dealt with. This is going on quite regularly now and has been discovered by the Ukrainians. It is illegal under the Geneva convention, and I urge the Government to speak seriously to the Red Cross about making a much more public statement about how prisoners of war are being treated, because it really is quite shocking. There is a lack of accountability on this and the Red Cross needs to do much more.
We must not underestimate the fact that there has been a change of regime in the United States, and that President Trump has made it very clear that he wants the war to end and that we have to drive to that. I think all of us in this House would support that position; we want to see an end to war. In fact, the Ukrainians want to see an end to war. Nobody wants to carry on fighting if there is a possibility of a good peace deal that, as I have said, contains justice and freedom for the Ukrainians. However, President Trump sees this as a sideshow; he says that he is more focused on China, Taiwan and other issues, and I think he wants to make savings on the United States’ spending in some of these areas, which is reasonable.
However, the problem is that, for all our support for Ukraine, the reason why this war has gone on for three years is that we, the allies, quite honestly have dragged our feet on supplying the weapons and equipment that Ukraine needed from day one. In fact, there was a period in 2023 when Russia was on the rack and having real problems. It was short of munitions, it had lost territory to the Ukrainians—certainly in the east, around Kharkiv—and that was the moment at which Ukraine might well have been able to deal properly with Russia and push it back.
Strangely enough, at that stage two things seem to have happened. First, I do not believe that the attack on Israel by Hamas was just a stand-alone item; I think that Iran, China and others had realised that Russia needed a distraction. The Americans, of course, immediately moved to support Israel—which is what they will do—and supplied arms to the Israelis. I was in the Congress around that time, looking to see whether America could get the money through. Some of the Republicans did not agree with the Bill and were blocking it. We did manage to persuade a few and they did push it forward, but my point is that they said, “The war in Israel is our war; Ukraine is your war, not ours; and we are keenly concerned about Taiwan.”
The point I made to those Republicans, which I make again now, is that, in reality, we cannot separate Taiwan from Ukraine, or in a way from Israel. My personal view is that China’s hand is in all of this, and that distraction—that moving of equipment—has meant that Russia has been able to regain its strength and reach a rapprochement with North Korea. Interestingly enough, the scale of weapons that North Korea is now supplying is breathtaking—I think that well over 5 million artillery shells have been supplied since it signed the agreement with Russia. It now has thousands of troops in Russia who are defending the Russian position, and it is planning to supply even more weapons and missiles. This is a chain of totalitarian states that is working to support each other, and we are losing on this, because we ourselves do not focus on that linkage between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
I give one small warning. It is something the Americans need to face, and I hope that the Government will raise it with them. It is simply this: Russia in reply is giving significant technology to the North Koreans, particularly for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The security services here know about that, but it is a serious and significant shift. If the North Koreans have that technology, they will be able to take their nuclear weapons out to sea, which will bring all the American continent directly under target from those missiles. That will change the whole nature of the Pacific in terms of how we see geostrategic defence. It is a major change, and Russia has been giving the North Koreans that technology. It would be useful for the Government to say that this matter is not separable. Ukraine is the reason for that move. The road to Taiwan runs right through Ukraine, and we cannot and must not separate them.
I make the simple point that when we speak about the money, it is a huge amount. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) will want to speak on this, but the reality is that we have had debates before on the huge amounts of money we have sitting here. Those are assets belonging to Russians—not just the oligarchs, but also the state. Some $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen within the G7 and the EU. Some $25 billion of Central Bank of Russia reserves are frozen in the UK alone. That is managed by Euroclear, and there is Euroclear money in Canada and other countries.
The Government said the other day that they are prepared to use the money earned from that capital for Ukraine. I argue that if they are to use the money earned from the capital, they also have a right to use the capital. We should not just freeze the capital sitting in the banks, but seize it and use it for reparations, damage repair and the work that is necessary. I think we would see a major change immediately.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Can the right hon. Member explain why there seems to be a certain reluctance among western leaders to use this capital—the $300 billion or so of Russian state assets in western banks? It could be powerful as part of potential peace negotiations.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree. I can understand that reluctance. I think it is twofold. Those who have financial services markets are worried that if they leap out and do this without full agreement, all those other countries will say, “That is the last time we will ever invest money in that capital market. We will move it to the other countries that do not do that.” I can understand from the Government’s standpoint that it has to be agreed across at least the G7, as its members controls most of those capital markets. That would mean there would not be any country for an oligarch or totalitarian leader to go to.
We have had a long time to get this right. Canada has made the strongest statement of all. I am told that America was okay under the last Administration. I am not sure now, but I would hope that President Trump realises this money is there. We should make this agreement as fast as possible. There can be no peace deal without money attached to it, and that money is necessary for Ukraine and must be used for Ukraine, and it is a huge sum. If we think we can use the earnings from the capital, we can use the capital too, because there is no definition or delineation between them. If we own the earnings, we own the capital.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman and I have organised debates on this topic in the past. Does he share my view that we now need to get a lot faster in seizing this money, not only to pay for the munitions needed to win the war, but crucially, then to win the peace in Ukraine, making good the horrific scale of damage that Russia has inflicted on that great country?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I cannot put a piece of paper between the two of us. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He now has the capability to push the Government over this issue through his Select Committee. Whatever he chooses to do, I assure him that Opposition Members will support him in that pursuit.
We need to get these decisions made now, because that will put pressure on Russia. If we make the decision to seize this money, Russia will then be under pressure to reach a reasonable agreement, because the Russians do not want to lose all this money in the meantime. There is a whole line of pressure that we should be bringing to bear on the Russians.
We have allowed certain things to take place, and I do not blame just this Government, because it also happened under the last Government. The Foreign Office is always slightly reluctant to pursue sanctions with quite the aggressive nature that I would want. We recognise that. Everything has always got to be, “Well, Minister, you know, we must take into consideration a huge number of factors here, such as, ‘Why, when and who?’ These need papers, Minister.” I would say to them, “Forget the papers, let’s get to the facts.”
The fact is that we have been allowing a shadow fleet carrying liquefied natural gas to come from Russia—even in the past few months—and deliver to the UK and other countries. How can it do that? The answer is simple, and I have raised this with the Government previously. The Americans have stepped in and said that any country that takes this gas will be sanctioned, and that stopped it overnight, but we could have stopped it, because we have the major marine insurers in this country. It was British companies that were insuring this shadow fleet to take Russian gas elsewhere. In what world do people sit there, watching that, and string out questions about what they should do?
All we had to do was to say that we would sanction any marine insurer that insured one of those vessels. That would have been the end of it, because the marine insurer market is here in the UK. It would have killed that practice stone dead. America has now moved on this, and we can see some of these ships anchored off such places as India and even China, because they dare not take the gas, because of the sanctions.
I urge the Government to drive their civil servants to be quicker, faster and more determined to follow the money and to stop it. As I say, that is not a criticism alone of the present Government; it is also a criticism of the Government of my party that was in power before.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many things we have to address in this debate, one of which is the atrocities that the Russian forces carried out against Ukrainians where they butchered, maimed, raped, abused and burned alive. Those things cannot be forgotten about, because the families still want justice. They want those who carried those atrocities out to be accountable. As this process of peace moves forward, that justice has to be part of the peace process, as it was in Northern Ireland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That justice will take time, but part of the point that I made is that we cannot have a peace, if it is a peace without justice. Justice has to prevail, because if it does not, we encourage everyone else to think, “Whatever we do, we will get away with it next time, because they do not have the courage to pursue the justice angle of peace.” We know that, and we have known that over the past 60 or 70 years. It is what the Nuremberg trials were all about, where the idea was for the first time to pursue the aggressors. That stands in the hon. Gentleman’s case. I served in Northern Ireland, as he knows, and I lost good friends. I still wonder what happened to them, even to this day. Justice for Ukraine will take a long while, and I accept that.
The most interesting thing about the sanctions is that some of the LNG shipments were done by UK firms. I see that Shell was involved, which made it peculiar why we did not step in earlier.
I will bring my speech to a close, because I know that others wish to speak. The problem is that there is an incorrect view and assumption about the importance of defending Ukraine that has got lost in the back-and-forth row that took place over the past week and a half. The idea that just meeting Putin’s demand for territory that he may or may not have at the moment will somehow appease him and satisfy his requirements is completely wrong. I note that in the telephone call between President Trump and Putin, that is what President Trump said was important. The truth is that Putin is an ex-KGB man. Once KGB, always KGB. He is not interested in territory; he is interested in sovereignty, which is a key difference.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful speech. I am originally from West Germany, as most people know, and I remind everybody that I would not be here without the US presence in Germany. Is it not a shame that, despite living memory, people seem to have forgotten the powerful status of the US in western Europe? We need to remind the American President of that.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I think President Trump is being reminded of that now in America, because arguments are taking place about this issue, but I do not think that he has forgotten. What we have to get lined up is the real nature of what Putin wants. It is not territory, but sovereignty. We know that he has always wanted to recreate the full borders of the old Soviet Union in a greater Russia. The war with Ukraine is not about getting 20% of its territory. For him, it is about getting all of Ukraine. If we have a peace deal that is not stable, he will be back. He will build up his armed forces, which he can do quite quickly now with the support of countries like North Korea, and he will be back in double-quick time.
Who is to say that Ukraine will be in any fit state to be able to defend itself? It was only able to defend itself because in the period between the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the war, we and the Americans set out about training and arming Ukrainian troops in a way that made them much better when the Russians came in the next time round, which is why they did not take Kyiv and were driven back. That was because we had got ahead of the game with the Ukrainians, who had much better armed forces than they did when Russia walked into Crimea.
The reality for us is that there need to be guarantees on anything that happens, and I do not think that we can separate the Americans from the guarantees. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) says, America is the ultimate guarantor at the end of the day. By the way, I agree with the Americans that the west has ridden on the coat tails of the United States for far too long—we have been guilty of that. We have lived a life that has allowed us to say, “We’ll claim that defence spending is this amount,” but it is not really. That is one of the reasons why President Trump is angry about the idea that the Americans should be expected to take on this matter, so we have to step up.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister has started the process, and I wish him all the best in Washington, but increased defence spending absolutely has to happen. The last time we spoke, I pointed out to him that we faced the greatest threat that we have ever faced when the Soviet Union put SS-20 missiles in Europe. It was Reagan and Thatcher, supported by Helmut Kohl and others, who helped lead western Europe to take the tough decision to put Pershing and cruise missiles in order to counter the threat. That was a brave decision by the leadership, and it centred on the UK and the US. The Prime Minister needs to remind President Trump that when the UK and the US come together for a just cause, the world is a safer place. When we are divided, it is less safe—I do not care what anybody else says. That relationship is critical to peace and justice in the world, and I hope that he succeeds in achieving that.
We know that President Putin is keen only on sovereignty, and the reality is that this is critical for our understanding of what peace would amount to. We must not lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is important. It is important to the Americans in a way that sometimes I do not think they fully understand. I spoke earlier about the road to Taiwan and the threats to Taiwan. The war in Ukraine has damaged the global economy, at a cost of about $1 trillion, but any seizure of Taiwan would cost the economy nearer $10 trillion. To those who say, “Why should we in this country be worried about Taiwan?”, I say that 72% of everything produced in the world today is made in the area around Taiwan. People cannot tell me that Taiwan is not as important as Kent is to the United Kingdom—it is exactly the same.
Why does the road to Taiwan run through Ukraine? It is because if we fail Ukraine and it gets a terrible deal, China will look at the situation and say, “Do you know what? They’re never going to step in here, because it’s too far away. They won’t do it—they never do. They fell out of Afghanistan. They didn’t do anything when Crimea was taken. They’ve given in completely over Ukraine, and they will do the same over Taiwan.” That is why the road goes to Taiwan, and we will be left behind, because we will not have taken the right decision.
I hope the Prime Minister reminds President Trump that if we fail on Ukraine, it will open up the world again to the rule of totalitarian states, which will come again and again. As Churchill said, the
“bitter cup…will be proffered to us”
again and again. Every time we fail, and every time we do not stand up for those who struggle for freedom, democracy or justice, they will take that and move on. We have learned this lesson so many times, but we seem to forget it and have to learn it again.
We must stand with the brave Ukrainian men and women, who have lost so much and are going to lose even more. If we are not with them and do not find a way for Ukraine to remain a free nation of free people and of choice, we are not worth the thousands of years of experience that we have gained from the fights that we have put up previously. All will become naught, because totalitarianism will rule the day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As you can see, quite a few people wish to contribute, so I will have to put in place a time limit of five minutes to begin with.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and his team for securing this important debate. I know that he has long been a champion of Ukraine’s fight against Russia.
Members on both sides of the House have loudly supported the Ukrainian cause and have made excellent contributions in debates prior to today, and I look forward to hearing their contributions in this debate. I know that many Members have recently returned from the country and have seen at first hand the horror that has been inflicted on the Ukrainian people. Having visited the country in September, I vividly remember my experience. The cardiology hospital in Kyiv had been hit while children were on the operating table. I visited the cellar of a school in Chernihiv oblast, where over 300 villagers, including women and children, were rounded up and held captive in March 2022. Valery, a former captive held at the school, will forever be haunted by what he saw and experienced. Over 100 people were stuffed into a room so crowded that people were gasping for air, including a baby who was less than two months old. I asked Valery how he had the strength to go back there and revisit the site with us. He said that the story had to be told, and that people needed to understand the Russian soldiers’ lack of humanity. That school will forever be a marker of the Russians’ brief occupation of the village.
It is remarkable that three years after the start of the full-scale invasion, civilians can still sit in cafés and restaurants in Ukrainian cities, where life appears normal—that is, until the air raid siren sounds. It is a haunting reminder that the Ukrainians are sacrificing a great deal not just for themselves but for us, our values and our freedoms.
Regardless of whether it is our predecessors standing with Churchill or the creation of NATO under the stewardship of Ernest Bevin, the Labour party’s record on defence has stood the test of time. I am so proud to live in a country that has stood up and stood tall in the face of Russian tyranny and imperialism—not only through supporting the Ukrainian military, but through our welcoming those fleeing the war. The United Kingdom has welcomed over 218,000 people who fled the conflict through the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. In the east midlands, we have taken in 8,739 Ukrainians, with my local authority of Amber Valley welcoming nearly 250.
I do not want to spend more time restating the words and sentiments of those across this House who are supporting Ukraine. I am sure that many on the frontlines are not paying much attention to our platitudes and tributes while waves of Russian assaults pummel them, and nor will those in cities sheltering from what, only a few days ago, was the largest drone attack of the war be comforted by words alone. No matter how beautiful our rhetoric, Ukrainians do not sleep any better at night for those words.
I welcome the decision to bring forward the 2.5% spending commitment to 2027, and this money cannot come soon enough for the people I met in Ukraine. I also welcome the further money allocated to our intelligence agencies to protect this country from the various threats Russia poses, including cyber-attacks. I welcome the Government leading the way, whether with the latest round of sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned that—or the Defence Secretary chairing the Ukraine defence contact group at NATO a few weeks ago. There is of course much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to consider how the abducted children, who were also mentioned, can be returned from Russia.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for calling this debate. I was very pleased to support his application to the Backbench Business Committee.
Before I start the speech that I have written, I want to say something about the Ukrainian people. No one, least of all Vladimir Putin when he launched his illegal invasion three years ago, understood what they were taking on with the Ukrainian people. With their spirit, ingenuity and incredible ability to innovate and make the most of every single asset at their disposal, they have faced up to a new form of warfare. At the same time, they have faced not only the old school of tanks, trenches and almost hand-to-hand combat but the high tech of drones, digital and modern equipment. It shows beyond doubt—a cautionary tale for others who may be thinking of invading a sovereign nation—how far people will go and how hard they will fight for their friends, neighbours and families, and how desperately they will defend their homeland, independence, language and identity. We should all take a moment to reflect on that, and we should pay tribute to them for their incredible bravery.
I also pay tribute to the British people, who have reacted to this dreadful situation with so much warmth, and of course to the Government. Our Government and the Opposition were united, and we acted very swiftly in the first days of the unprovoked and illegal invasion. Prime Minister Johnson led from the front in his defence of Ukraine, and of the Ukrainians’ right to sovereignty and independence. He set the pace for other European countries to follow, and he had the backing of the British people, who care about this. We care about this in my area of Gosport because we have skin in the game. It is an area with a very proud history of serving our armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy.
It was so typical of the generosity of spirit of Gosport people that so many Ukrainians made Gosport their home. I must declare an interest, because one of those homes was, and still is, mine. I saw the Russian tanks rolling into Donbas and towards Kyiv, and I could not stand by and do nothing, so my husband and I joined the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I have never spoken publicly about that before. Gosport welcomed over 300 Ukrainians to our area, and a few weeks after we signed up to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, my family and I were boosted by two women. They are still with us, and I now refer to them as my Ukrainian wife and my Ukrainian daughter. They and many others have been in the UK for almost three years.
Wera Hobhouse
Many of the refugees that the hon. Lady describes have three-year visas, but those visas are running out. Is she worried, as I am, that the Government need to look at the extension scheme, and ensure that all the Ukrainians we have welcomed have the ability to plan for the long term?
Dame Caroline Dinenage
It is almost as if the hon. Member had read what I wrote on my bit of paper. It is miraculous. I want to know her lottery numbers for next week. She is exactly right. My own Ukrainian family —and I call them family, because they are now part of my family—have made lives for themselves in this country, and they have become an asset to our community.
In the event of a sustainable peace deal, Ukraine will of course want and need its brightest and best to return to rebuild the country, but so many of them simply do not have anything to go back to, such is the devastation that has been wrought by Russia in destroying 167,000 civilian buildings. UNESCO says that almost 500 cultural sites have also been lost as a result of Russia’s attempt to erase Ukrainian heritage, and so many of the communities that Ukrainians have fled just will not be the same. They will not have anything to go back to, and they will miss the familiar landmarks, meeting places and, most importantly and most sadly, the people they wanted to go back to.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
On the point that the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made about visas for Ukrainian refugees, do they recognise that the Government have already extended the visa scheme by 18 months? That decision was made this month, and it has been welcomed at least by the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
Yes, that is very welcome. A lot of people from the Ukrainian community want certainty about what to expect and about the security of the world around them.
To follow on from an earlier comment, we hear a lot about planning for the war, but I want to know a little more about the Government’s planning for the peace and working towards a day when many Ukrainians will be able to return to their home country. What about those here under the scheme who have made homes, relationships and jobs here and are contributing to the economies and communities in which they live? Will they be able to stay indefinitely? People are beginning to ask that question, and as much as we understand that Ukraine will want its brightest and best back, there are some who simply do not have anything to go back to.
To conclude, contrary to the messaging coming out of the Munich security conference, there are values that we all share as European countries, which we must now pay to defend. However, we must not just use words; we must show action and we must show solidarity. I suppose I want to give the Minister, who I know cares about this very deeply, the opportunity to affirm the Government’s commitment that, as the geopolitical weathers change, our dedication as a nation—and as a Government and an Opposition—to Ukraine, its incredible and indefatigable people, and their democratically elected President, will never waver.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for calling this debate. I was proud to support his application. I was with him on the trip to Ukraine a few weeks ago, with that fantastic charity, HopeFull, which he mentioned. If someone had told me a year ago, “A year later you will be stood with the Conservative Sir Iain Duncan Smith in the snow, cooking pizzas, in Ukraine,” I would never have believed them. It was a fascinating visit and an important one.
The visit highlighted the cross-party nature of the support for Ukraine that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—I will call her my hon. Friend—has pointed out. It is so important, particularly in comparison with other countries. There is also a role for Back Benchers across the parties to put pressure on our respective Front Benchers to ensure that we work together on this issue into the future.
We are marking the three-year point of this absolutely terrible war, started by Vladimir Putin. It is an illegal war, and one of brutality and barbarism, and a conflict in which Ukraine is literally fighting for its life—for its existence as a free and independent nation state. However, as the first line of the national anthem of Ukraine says:
“The glory and freedom of Ukraine have not yet perished”,
despite the best efforts of the dictator Vladimir Putin.
We heard earlier about the scale of the war and the destruction it has wrought. We have heard about the hundreds of thousands of deaths of young men and women on all sides of the conflict; the thousands of civilians—women, girls and boys—killed and the many millions injured; and the almost 7 million Ukrainian refugees, and many more internally displaced people. The longer they are away from their home, the less likely it is that they will return. Civilian casualties rose by 30% in the last year of the war. Russia has increased its use of aerial bombs, drones, missiles and loitering munitions.
We heard about the Ukrainian hospital in Kyiv—their version of Great Ormond Street hospital—which has been visited by many hon. Members. What kind of a regime deliberately targets a hospital? Landmines now contaminate 139,000 sq km of Ukraine, posing a real risk to civilians and the future of the country. In the last 12 months, there were 306 attacks on medical facilities and 576 attacks on schools—nearly double the number in the previous year.
We talked about the rules of war not being followed by Vladimir Putin’s armed forces. Disgracefully, the UN has recorded an alarming spike in the number of Ukrainian soldiers executed by Russian armed forces. There are credible allegations of at least 81 executed in the past six months. People made reference to Ukrainian prisoners of war who are subjected to appalling crimes—torture, sexual violence, and much, much more.
Then there are the children. Vladimir Putin faces a warrant from the International Criminal Court for abducting thousands of children. The Yale School of Public Health humanitarian research lab says, conservatively, that there are at least 6,000 children held at camps in Russia at the moment. There has also been the incredible spectre of North Korean troops fighting on this continent for a terrible dictatorship.
I want to talk—very briefly, because time is short—about the security guarantees that Ukraine needs. As the discussion about peace in Ukraine develops, one of my concerns is the way that Vladimir Putin suggests that there should be limits on the Ukrainian armed forces after a peace. The best security guarantee is the one operating at the moment: a well-equipped, well-armed Ukrainian armed force—the brave men and women of Ukraine who have held back Vladimir Putin’s evil army. The first principle in any discussion of security guarantees or peace is “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. A further principle in those negotiations has to be the need to understand the character of the man we are dealing with. He is a compulsive liar who breaks his word at every opportunity. That is why the guarantees are so incredibly important.
After Munich, and the destabilising comments made by some characters in foreign Governments, it is natural to be cautious in this place. We should be hard-headed, and should talk realistically about what Britain needs to do.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman find it ironic that the conference at Munich seemed like the shadow of a previous conference at Munich, at which the Sudetenland was given away, and which made it certain that the second world war would take place? Does he think that we may end up in the same position, if we are not careful?
Tim Roca
I do. One interesting thing to note after Munich and recent discussions is that some of this stuff is not new. The United States has been telling Europe to pay for its own defence and to step up for many, many years. If the commitment to 2%, made in Wales in 2014, had been kept by all the countries that signed up to it, we would have spent another £800 billion on our collective defence since that time. Countries need to step up and ensure that they meet their commitments.
We need to be realistic about our role. We are a leading European partner, a leading member of NATO, and a leading ally of the United States. I worry that in the past two weeks, some people have been very quick to throw out 80 years of important transatlantic alliance, but it is crucial for the security of this country, and the security of our continent.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. Does he agree that talking about the end of NATO is a very dangerous way of putting things? We in Europe cannot continue with NATO without the United States in it, and it is important to remind the United States of that.
Tim Roca
I completely agree, and that is why I have been reassured by the Government talking about our having a NATO-first defence policy; the Prime Minister reaffirmed that this week. Given all the drama in the past couple of weeks, it has been reassuring to see the steady hand and leadership that the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Government as a whole have shown on these issues. They have reacted calmly and coolly to the challenge that has been posed. Yesterday we saw the whole House give the Prime Minister its good wishes, and offer him good luck with his urgent task of convincing President Trump of the importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe. There is also the very important link, referred to earlier, with dictatorships across the world; we should not allow the principle of “might is right” to succeed, because then we go down a very dangerous road indeed.
When this country was fighting for its life—there is a dangerous tendency for British politicians to always refer back to that time; I am going to fall into that trap—Harry Hopkins, President Roosevelt’s great personal friend, was here in the UK. He gave a speech in Glasgow, to reassure Churchill in those dark days of December 1940, which he finished with a quote from the Book of Ruth:
“‘Whither thou goest, I will go and where thou lodgest I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people…’ Even to the end.”
That should be the attitude of Britain, Europe and the United States to Ukraine—solidarity, unyielding support, and remembering that the glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate, and for giving me the opportunity to support it.
The third anniversary of Russia’s latest full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a point at which we must all reflect not just on the war, but on what is at stake for all of us. Last week, I attended a gathering in my constituency, where I met Ukrainians who, I am happy to say, have found a home in Lewes and across Sussex. Many of them arrived in the UK fleeing war, but they have done far more than rebuild their life. They have formed support networks, kept Ukrainian culture alive—their singing is really beautiful— and sent aid back home, including Christmas presents for children in Ukrainian hospitals, children whose lives have been shattered by Russian bombs.
I often think of the children still in Ukraine, children just like mine. Three years ago, they would have gone to school in the morning, come home and played with their friends and siblings, had a bit of dinner and gone to bed, only to be woken up in the night by air raid sirens and their parents rushing them to underground bomb shelters, where they will have listened to Russian missiles smash into their homes above their heads. That is the reality of this war for innocent people—families and children whose only crime was living in a country that Putin decided to target. As we can all see, Ukrainian resistance has been nothing short of heroic. For three years, against the odds, the Ukrainian people have proudly stood their ground, fighting not just for their own freedom, but for the kind of world we all want to live in.
Britain must be clear: we stand with Ukraine. From day one, the UK has not only provided military aid and training, but put economic pressure on Russia. British families have opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees. Today, however, the west’s commitment is being tested in ways I never thought I would witness. With President Trump peddling Russian propaganda directly from the White House, the future of US support is uncertain. Let me be clear: if America wavers, then Britain and Europe must step up. That entails action, not just words. Ukraine must have the necessary weapons, economic support and long-term investment to not only survive, but win. That means going even further, defrosting and seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets stashed in London, Paris, Berlin and elsewhere, and converting them into a financial lifeline for Ukraine.
The threat is not limited to Ukraine. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green mentioned Taiwan and how heavily that part of the world is affected by this situation, but I draw attention to Russia’s hybrid warfare closer to home. It is targeting and destabilising countries such as Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Belarus. Kremlin-backed elites such as Belarus dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko and Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili are working to undermine democracy and pull their countries back into Moscow’s orbit. Britain cannot allow Putin’s cronies to operate unchecked. We must follow the US and the European Parliament in sanctioning those enabling his war machine.
If Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine, he will not stop there. He will redraw Europe’s borders by force, and other tyrants will be watching. This is not just about defending Ukraine’s sovereignty; it is about defending the liberal, rules-based international order that safeguards us all, an order our nation helped to build to constrain great powers from exploiting the less powerful by, for instance, extracting valuable raw materials at the point of a gun. Some say Britain should step back, abandon our allies and retreat from global leadership, but history will judge the choices we make now. Do we appease aggression, or do we stand firm in the face of tyranny? As previously mentioned, we all wish the Prime Minister well in his discussions on these issues with the US President today. There is no middle ground: either we let Putin tighten his grip on Europe, or we push back.
Looking to the future, any peace deal must be just that, and not a temporary ceasefire that allows Putin’s forces to rest, rearm and go again. It must be backed with real security guarantees and clearly state that Russia started this war, and that it bears responsibility for the consequences. Some speak about picking sides in the new geopolitical landscape, but there is only one side that the UK can back: the side of freedom, the rule of law and the liberal international order—the side that reflects the values of this country and, I believe, this House.
So, as I said, there is no middle ground: either we let Putin tighten his grip on Europe, or we push back. We must push back by arming Ukraine, crippling Russia’s war economy and standing unwavering in our commitment to Ukraine’s victory, because its fight is our fight, too. This is a battle for freedom and justice, and a battle we cannot afford to lose.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for bringing forward this debate. I am happy to support it.
Like some colleagues in the Chamber, I spent Sunday evening in an underground bomb shelter in Kyiv as Russia launched a massive drone attack on the city and many others across Ukraine. While it was a terrifying experience, I was proud to join the UK’s cross-party delegation to Ukraine to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion. It is, of course, a grim milestone in a conflict that has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians and displaced many, many more.
As the only female MP on the delegation, it would be remiss of me not to tell the House about the vital role that Ukrainian women are playing in this conflict. As James Brown once said, it’s a man’s world, but it would be nothing without a woman. Strength and bravery take many forms, and Ukrainian women have shown extraordinary resilience in not just defending Ukraine against Russian aggression, but rebuilding a nation that refuses to be broken.
As the House will know, when Russian forces invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, President Zelensky ordered that all able-bodied men aged 18 to 60 were to remain in the country to bolster Ukraine’s defences, but Ukrainian women also stepped up. Today, more than 50,000 women are signed up to the Ukrainian army. One in 10 of those women holds a senior position, and more than 4,000 are engaged directly in frontline combat. This week, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the women who have served on the frontline. There was no mandatory conscription for Ukrainian women, meaning that every single woman who has signed up has done so voluntarily, driven by their immovable resolve to defend their home.
However, women are also playing a vital role off the battlefield, and have been vital in sustaining the economy against Putin’s war machine. Ukraine has changed the law so that women can fill labour gaps in mining, transportation, logistics and agriculture, ensuring those critical sectors continue to function in the face of bombardment and destruction from Putin’s forces. Today, one in every two new businesses started in Ukraine is started by a woman. I met women this week who are camped out in drone factories, making the kit that is being sent to the frontline. Ukrainian women are doing all this while many of them have lost their fathers, brothers and husbands.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. There are times in this place when it is very difficult to keep one’s composure when speaking—she is doing a fantastic job. All our hearts go out to those Ukrainian people, and they certainly deserve all our support.
Johanna Baxter
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.
While those Ukrainian women are fighting and sustaining their country, they are also the mothers to the 19,546 children who have been kidnapped by Russia. I want to tell the House why the fourth point of President Zelensky’s peace formula is so vital to ensuring a just end to this war. When Russian forces invaded the eastern oblasts in Ukraine, they deported and forcibly removed children from Ukraine to Russia. This is genocide in international law as we know it. In one case, a child only eight months old was taken by Russian forces. His new name and date of birth are unknown. Russia has consistently denied the existence of this child and thousands of others. Some of these children end up in Russia’s youth military, conscripted to fight a war against the country they were born in. This is a war crime. Before any ceasefire, the 19,546 stolen children of Ukraine must be returned home.
Talk of tanks, bullets, drones and machine guns is unlikely to move the minds of people who live so far from Ukraine. It is the stories of the women who are playing an essential role in this war that will move those minds—it is their story, their fight for survival and their fight for the values of democracy that we in this House hold so dear, and must support with all our might. Slava Ukraini.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and saluting him for the incredible work he has done in leading on this issue. As always, it is hugely heartening to see so many colleagues from across the House in the Chamber. It serves as a timely reminder of the united approach that we have taken on this issue and of our resolute and undiminished support for the Ukrainian people. In my constituency, we have welcomed many Ukrainian families, and I am always touched and moved by their stories of resilience in the face of the greatest hardship.
Many Members have spoken before me—not just in this debate, but through the course of the week—about the importance of the Government’s welcome announcement of increased defence spending and the need for our allies also to step up to the plate. While I do not intend to repeat those arguments today, I will add that we alone do not determine our defence spending: it is our enemies too, but it is also our allies. With the United States announcing a potential step back from their support for Ukraine, it is clear that we as a nation have an overriding obligation not only to Ukraine but to our citizens and the wider world to step up and keep Putin’s war machine at bay. If we fail to do so, we will be opening the gates to totalitarian regimes across the world. The reality is that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are fit for peace. However, over the past eight months or so, we have entered a much more dangerous arena, and we need to be ready for any outcome.
In the time available to me, I want to raise two further points. First, I reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the increasingly pressing need to release the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to aid the Ukrainian Government in the rebuilding of their country. Secondly, I want to pick up on my right hon. Friend’s comments about what we can and must learn as an armed forces from this conflict and from the heroic efforts of the Ukrainian military, with many making the ultimate sacrifice in defence of the sovereignty of their country.
The war has shown a clear shift in the nature of warfare and in the nature of each serving person’s working realities. War is now in a much more hybrid state, fought not only in traditional land and maritime realms, but back in bases in remote locations, yet we still follow traditional medical guidelines setting out who can serve and who does not have the opportunity to do so. This where I feel we can learn from Ukraine, which, very early on in the conflict, amended and adjusted many of the medical requirements for its serving personnel. In our military, there is often a mindset of “soldier first”, which may well exempt someone who has suffered a knee injury while playing sport at school, anyone with Raynaud’s phenomenon, for example, or anyone wearing glasses over a certain prescription.
Rather than making a generic medical exemption list for the whole force, I invite the Minister at least to consider tailoring the medical requirements to the position being applied for. For example, what are the chances of a person’s glasses being blown off if they are operating from a chair in a drone centre hundreds of miles away? What is the reality of an intelligence officer in a remote location looking at satellite information losing the feeling in their fingers due to the cold because of Raynaud’s phenomenon? What are the chances of a Royal Navy dental officer not being able to complete a check-up because of pain in his knee? We need to be much more flexible. Although I accept that there is a certain degree of hyperbole in my argument, the point I am making is a serious one. If we are to turn the tide on our recruitment policy and difficulties in this country, we need to tailor the medical requirements to the specific role.
We must become more versatile and adaptive as a fighting force—like our friends in Ukraine. As a country, we are often guilty of preparing for the war that we have had, rather than the war that we will face in the future. As we reflect on the three years since Putin’s illegal invasion, I say to the Government that we should not waste any more time or waste what we have learned at the cost of so many thousand Ukrainian lives.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate and all those who have spoken today.
It was Václav Havel who said that the best defence against tyranny is to live in truth. On this third anniversary, we have the opportunity to repeat some truths to this House—that Ukraine is a democracy, that democracies need defending, and that the best way to defend democracies is for democratic nations to come together with a unity of purpose around our values. We should not have to remind the world that Ukraine is a democracy, but some have impugned that. We in this House know that, at times, all democracies face challenges. Let us be honest, this country once had to suspend elections during the height of world war two. Gosh, I am even old enough to remember when thousands of people invaded the United States Congress because they wanted to overturn a democratic election and nullify the result and the election of President Biden.
Let us send a clear message from this House that we do not regard President Zelensky as a dictator. We regard him as a hero of democracy, and we in the west should have his back. We must also remember that, at times, democracies will need defending, especially against dictators —especially when it comes to Russia. President Zelensky is on the frontline of an effort to re-contain Russia on behalf of us all. Russia is a country that invades its neighbours time and time again. It has been invading its neighbours since the days of Ivan the Terrible. It has invaded its neighbours on eight different occasions since 1945—on average, that is once every decade since the end of the second world war.
Faced with that threat, why on earth would we make concessions now? Some 700,000 people have been lost in this war in Russia. Russia now faces a NATO that is bigger and stronger. Russia will run out of T-80 tanks in April, and it has lost more artillery systems in the past year than in the previous two years put together. Russia, at the height of the war, controlled 19.6% of Ukrainian territory; today, it controls 19.2%. In the face of that weakness, why on earth would we make concessions now to those who want to make Russia great again? We should confront them with strength, not weakness, because that is how peace is secured.
Finally, it is vital for us across the west to unite around our values, to celebrate those values and not to attack each other. I am worried that what began as political improvisation in the United States has now become, under the new President, a political project. I am worried that some of the noises that I hear sound like the report that Thucydides made of the Athenian threat all those centuries ago, which is that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. In this country, we know how that story ends. When we talk about the rules-based order, we do not mean the rules of the poker table, or even the rules that we set out at the end of world war two. We believe not simply in a rules-based order, but in a rights-based order. The rights that ensure our freedom were enshrined in the UN’s universal declaration of human rights at the end of world war two and in the Council of Europe’s European convention on human rights, co-authored by this country, based on Churchill’s great vision of a great charter. Those are the rights that we should be celebrating, because they mean freedom for all of us.
Those rights, values and freedoms must be defended with strength, so the Prime Minister’s decision to increase defence spending was right. This House will need reassurance that that money can be well spent, but, crucially, given the cuts that are to be made to the aid budget, we must think hard, creatively and quickly about how we now lead a great multilateral effort to increase the amount of aid spending around the world. We need to think in this 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods institutions about how we reinvent the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for new times, so that they are bigger and better in the world to come. That is the way that we become evangelists for the rights that are now being defended so valiantly by Ukrainian forces on the continent of Europe.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate. I recognise that, quite rightly, the debate has focused on our responsibility to support Ukraine’s war effort against Putin’s unprovoked and illegal attack in Ukraine, but I wish to talk about our continued commitment to Ukrainians here, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) both mentioned.
Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, more than 218,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under the Ukraine family and sponsorship schemes. I am incredibly proud of my constituency of Chichester, which has taken more Ukrainian refugees than any other city in this country, and those refugees have now become a valued part of our community. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly with our Ukrainian friends, both in defending their sovereign territory and in ensuring that those who are here can live safely and comfortably.
The original visa scheme, as the Minister will know, was for three years, and with the three-year anniversary being marked this week, many visas are now expiring. The Government have asked Ukrainians to apply for the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which will extend their visa for a further 18 months. However, they are allowed to apply for that extension scheme only when their visa has 28 days or fewer left on it. This is causing myriad difficulties for that community, including in their ability to renew employment contracts, extend leases or set up new leases on rented accommodation, or commit to education opportunities.
I had the opportunity to visit Bishop Luffa school in Chichester last month, and met a group of Ukrainian students, who have not only become well-liked by staff and students, but have excelled in their studies and are expected to finish their A-levels with high grades across the board in subjects such as mathematics and the sciences. Those students are the doctors and the scientists of the future, yet there is no clear direction from the Department for Education on how they should pursue higher education—be it via the same routes as their UK counterparts with whom they have studied, as refugees, or as international students. I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Education and I hope that there will be clearer guidance in the near future for students who are desperate to study in the UK.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have spoken to many Ukrainian families who have made their homes in Glastonbury and Somerton after fleeing Russian aggression in Ukraine. Many of them are concerned about the decision to exclude time spent in the UK under the long residence route, which is different from other schemes and could be subject to costly legal challenges. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about this?
Jess Brown-Fuller
Absolutely, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the fact that the time spent here is not counting towards the right to remain or settled status. As the hon. Member for Gosport mentioned, these families have found homes and built communities here in the UK, and they just want to know either way what will happen to them in the future.
The young people I was speaking about are often cared for by one parent or by grandparents, while their other family members defend Ukraine’s sovereignty. Some families have reported that estate agents are requesting from these single-parent Ukrainian families a six-month up-front rental deposit. That is untenable across the country, but especially in areas such as Chichester, where the average one-bedroom flat is £1,200 a month. Employers are also asking for proof of visa status, which is causing families additional stress when they are waiting for a visa decision, sometimes just days before their visa expires. For those Ukrainians on zero-hours contracts, it is directly impacting their ability to earn money to contribute to UK society and provide a safe home for them and their dependants.
If the Ukrainians were given a 90-day window before their visas expired, as originally proposed by the Home Office, rather than the very short timeframe they are being given, the situation could be vastly improved. I thank Opora, the UK charity supporting Ukrainians here in the UK, for all the support that it is giving those families who are navigating what can often be a complicated, convoluted and long process of reapplying for these schemes, and for taking the time to brief me properly on the situation that these families find themselves in.
Today’s debate will rightly be dominated by what we can do for Ukraine and our steadfast support across the house, but I hope that the Minister is working closely with his Home Office colleagues so that, while we support the brave Ukrainians who are heroically defending their country, we can also continue to support the community of Ukrainians here in the UK.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Yesterday I read through a speech I made three years ago, in which I said:
“Ukrainians and President Zelensky have displayed the highest level of bravery in the face of brutal Russian aggression. In the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Ukrainians have made an unforgivable choice: they decided to be an independent and democratic country. Like all dictators, Putin is terrified of losing power”—
that did not fit with this plan of a great Russia again. My speech continued:
“Ukrainians have made their choice. They want to be a European country. They want to become a member of NATO. They want to be free to make their own choices. Make no mistake, Ukrainians are fighting this war on behalf of all of us who are part of the free and democratic world.”
I then said:
“We must support them as if the future of our country and our way of life depends on it, because quite frankly, it does.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 833-834.]
The world is watching the conflict. The dictators of the world have become emboldened over the past decade, in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Russia will push further, with Moldova seemingly next.
My speech went on to urge more action, as Ukraine was asking for help, and each day decisions were being deliberated. That should have been done much more quickly. As was said earlier, we are not fighting this properly. The world is not together. It is a big issue—it is not just a fight between two countries. It is Russia. It is Putin. He is an evil man. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, he is KGB. I thank the right hon. Member for his wonderful opening speech. Putin is inhuman.
North Korea is involved in this. China, Iran and North Korea are all working together on this. It has been planned. I agree entirely with what was said earlier. I was with some North Koreans here on Tuesday night. They are fighting—they have 100,000 at Russia’s disposal in Ukraine. When they are killed or maimed, their faces and hands are burned off so that they cannot be recognised as North Koreans. That is how evil Putin is.
In 2014, Putin took Crimea without any consequences. He orchestrated the bombings that resulted in the deaths of 300 of his own people, to start a war to take power. He had his political rivals shot for opposing war. He approved poisoning on British soil, resulting in the death of a British citizen. He pre-recorded his declaration of war on Ukraine, after which he pretended to be open to diplomacy. Putin will not stop. He cannot be appeased.
I understand why NATO could not get directly involved yet, short of that, we should have been doing absolutely everything at a much speedier pace. I do not point a finger of blame at anyone, but we are not looking at this as seriously as we should. This is as much a calamity as 1945. Last week, the world was shocked. To quote Will Hutton in The Observer on Sunday:
“The spilled Ukrainian blood counted for nothing”
as the elected president of the United States openly sided with Russia
“to achieve a peace that can only reward it for its unilateral aggression. As profoundly, the US president has launched a new era in which might is right, ‘strong’ men carve up the globe, and international law and multilateral institutions are eviscerated. Nor, as the former head of MI6 Alex Younger told BBC’s Newsnight, is there any going back.”
Our thoughts and support are with our Prime Minister, especially today. We wish him every success in his discussions later today. We all have to step up and be absolutely united. We have to grow up, if I may say so. We are talking about things, but we should be looking at other things now. We are at war. It is so very important for the world.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We in Reform stand united with the whole House in support of Ukraine and all brave Ukrainians against the monstrous tyranny of that most evil villain, Putin.
Richard Tice
I have not even warmed up! I will make a little more progress.
Just over 13 months ago, I made a donation to acquire a 4x4 pick-up truck and to fill it with first aid supplies, and I drove it with other volunteers to Ukraine to give it to those brave soldiers on the frontline. I remember meeting the extraordinary technicians who were making the drones, including brilliant, bright children who were helping to develop new drone technology. Tragically, I stood in a cemetery and watched mums weep over the graves of their sons. That cemetery has almost doubled in size in just 12 months.
The maxim of peace through strength has stood the test of time—in history, today and in future. That is why in our contract at the election we had 2.5% of GDP on defence spending within three years, and 3% within six years. That is why we supported the Prime Minister earlier this week when he made those same commitments. I hope that that 3% will be a firm commitment within five or six years.
Peace through strength is vital. As others have said, we all want peace, not least the brave Ukrainians. It must be right to try for a peace deal, however difficult. Most wars and conflicts end up in some form of negotiation —however difficult, tough or tense.
Melanie Ward
Given how the hon. Gentleman started his speech, does he agree with the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is probably not in Clacton right now, who said in 2014 that Vladimir Putin was the global leader he most admired?
Richard Tice
Putin is a vile dictator. We all know that. My leader has also confirmed that Putin is the aggressor in this war. I was just moving on, in the time allotted, to the issue of how we get to a durable peace.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s personal position, but can he explain why the leader of his party thought that the priority for President Zelensky should be to set a timetable for elections, given that Winston Churchill, when facing a dictator, did not hold elections because we were under martial law?
Richard Tice
The point about elections is a good one, because any peace deal can only work if it has the support and involvement of all Ukrainians. In the second world war, we had elections in the summer of 1945, before the war had ended, which was completely appropriate then.
At some point the Ukrainians will need to be involved in supporting a peace deal, if we get there. A peace deal, however, is only durable—it only works—if it endures. That means we need the security guarantees to ensure that the aggressor will never, ever attack again. It is those security guarantees that we must focus on, all be involved in and ensure that they are a strong, robust deterrent. If we get those security guarantees right, hopefully Putin and Russia will never try such a monstrous activity and invasion ever again.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I, too, like many hon. Friends and Members across the House, returned from Ukraine only last night, after the monstrous 24-hour journey. I am mentally and physically exhausted after the experiences, and I cannot sum up in five minutes what I experienced—I could talk about it for days, really.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and the UK Friends of Ukraine and B4NZ—Bankers for Net Zero—for the visit they organised. It was truly fantastic to be there, but also deeply emotional. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Ukrainian people; for their stoicism and resolve in getting through this illegal war. They just keep functioning as though it is normal life. The buildings get bombed but they do not just leave them crumbled on the ground; they rebuild them. The soldiers injured on the frontline are in hospital, but telling us they want to get back there as soon as possible. Those are the ingredients for a country that is set to take on Putin and set to win this war.
I experienced two nights in an air raid shelter. The first night was with my hon. Friends. It was a little bit scary, but there was a sense of camaraderie between everyone there. I stayed on an extra night because I was heading up to Chernihiv the following day to meet the people up there. That night I was in the shelter alone, during which there was a lot of time to reflect, including on what was going on outside. The more the night went on, the more fearful I became, especially when I heard that there were not just drones but missiles potentially flying around above my head. The Ukrainians go through that every night and have been for three years. A massive mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder issue is developing among Ukrainian citizens, and we need to be there and ready to support them when they come through the conflict. It will be a really big issue for the country.
Up in Chernihiv, I had a chance to meet people who were on the frontline with Belarus and Russia. Every single day, they are impacted by the war in ways that we cannot imagine. I met the governor, who had some statistics prepared in a presentation of how many buildings have been destroyed this year, how many people have been injured and how many have been killed. He said to me, “Oh, I am sorry, that statistic is wrong, because another building was destroyed this morning and another three people were killed.” It is constantly changing.
The greatest message I got from Ukraine and its people is that they are incredibly grateful for the support that the United Kingdom has given them since day one and continues to give them today. They see us as the leader in the support to get them through this conflict, and that came from so many Ukrainians.
This war is real. I witnessed that for myself, as did my hon. Friends, with bombed out buildings everywhere and air raids taking place. That was really brought home to me on the day in Lviv, which is not massively impacted as it is close to the western border with Europe, but where there is a cemetery full of soldiers just from the city. We walked to the back of that cemetery, where there were three graves that had been filled, with three people from Lviv buried that morning. There were three further open graves that three more men from Lviv were about to go into that afternoon. That is the reality of this war, and that is why we have to continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people. They are relying on us. We have to be stoic. Slava Ukraini.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I want to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for providing us with this platform to show the House at its best, coming together in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. It is a chance for us to stand together in solidarity.
Three years ago, the world watched in horror as Russian forces launched their brutal, full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. The images of tanks rolling across the border and the shelling of innocent civilians will remain seared into our minds forever. Yet, despite the Kremlin’s relentless aggression, the Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary courage, determination and resilience, and we have shared some of those stories in here today. They continue to fight not just for their homeland, but for the principles that underpin our own security here: democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law.
I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice, first in 2021 during my time as a Foreign Minister and again in 2023. Each visit left a very deep impression on me. In 2021, I had the honour of standing alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, reaffirming the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. When I returned in 2023 with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I am a board member—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—the contrast was stark. I met parliamentarians, civil society leaders and local officials, many of whom had lost loved ones in the conflict. Their resilience was, and still is, unwavering; their determination is undimmed. It is that spirit of theirs that must continue to guide us in this place in our response.
The UK has led the way in supporting Ukraine. The previous Conservative Government were among the first to provide advanced weaponry, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision weapons and air defence systems. We played a key role in training Ukrainian troops and co-ordinating international military aid, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid until the decade’s end. However, that support must continue to ensure Ukraine has the weapons and the strategic backing needed to defeat Russian aggression.
Let us be clear: this is not just about helping Ukraine. This is about our own national security. Russia’s actions represent the most blatant breach of sovereignty and territorial integrity seen in Europe since the second world war. If we falter in the face of that aggression, we invite further instability. We know that Putin’s ambitions do not stop at Ukraine’s borders. The threat that he poses to NATO allies, including in the Baltic region, is real and growing. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to increase spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. That is an important step, albeit overdue, and I commend the Government for recognising, as my party does, that our security requires sustained investment.
The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the power of people-to-people solidarity, as my right hon. Friend for Chingford and Romford West—I hope I got that right. [Interruption.] I am being prompted that it is Chingford and Woodford Green.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) would be upset by that.
Wendy Morton
Always present, isn’t he?
The UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has provided sanctuary to thousands of Ukrainians fleeing war. I pay tribute to the British families who have opened their homes, including those in my constituency, and the communities that have welcomed them with open arms. Their kindness reflects the very best of our country. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider some sort of recognition scheme or way of thanking those families at the appropriate time for their kindness and generosity.
This week, as we mark this grim anniversary, we must ensure that those displaced by war continue to receive the support they need, both here and in Ukraine. We must remain resolute in holding Russia accountable, and our response must be unwavering, ensuring that we tackle all aspects of Russian aggression. Let’s be clear: Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand by Ukraine today, we strengthen our own security for the future. If we falter, we embolden aggressors everywhere.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
As Members have said, a number of us were in Ukraine at the end of last week, and four days ago we were sat in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the Ukrainian military worked to clear the sky of drones. Kyiv is a beautiful European city—one of the great cities of Europe—filled with a freedom-loving, well-educated population that are committed to liberating their country, and it is a place no different from our own. We were there as one of a 16-strong delegation to the Yalta European strategy conference. Never before in the history of that conference has that city come under bombardment while European parliamentarians were present, so great did Russia consider the risk of killing members of a NATO country. Something has changed, and we all know what it is. We need to wake up.
For most of America’s history, the country has been isolationist. After the first world war, it retreated back into isolationism. After the second, it would have done so were it not for the cold war. Since the end of the cold war, September 11 brought George W Bush back into the world, having been elected on a programme of isolationism. All three Democratic Presidents since the end of the cold war have in part retreated from international affairs. That is the default status of America, and we have to wake up to that reality—it is not about a single American President.
This is about the future of Europe. It is about the fact that we no longer can rely on an American security guarantee. Were we living in peaceful times, that would be worrying enough, but the fact is that Europe is at war. The arguments against appeasement have already been well made, and we know that if Ukraine falls, it would be a NATO country next and, in all possibility, a general nuclear war as part of Putin’s quest to rebuild the Russian empire.
We must accept the reality that we are at war—a cold war, but a war none the less. Neutral countries do not attack UK infrastructure or test UK airspace and territorial waters. Neutral countries do not release nerve agents into the streets of Salisbury, or openly discuss in the papers, as they are doing now, that the Americans have given them licence to bomb London. Those are the actions of an enemy state. Since the announcement on Tuesday, which I greatly agree with, I have received correspondence from constituents expressing concerns about the cuts to international aid. I want to be frank that many more painful decisions will follow if we are to do what is necessary to ensure the defence of our country against an enemy power.
We must mobilise. With no American security guarantee, the only choice is a European security guarantee, of which the UK must play a central role. For us, this will be a mobilisation not of men and women, for the most part. If we must replace the total manpower of the US military, that number—one million—already exists within the Ukrainian armed forces. Ukraine does not need the people; they are already on Europe’s frontlines holding back the enemy. They need our combined economic and intellectual power across the continent dedicated to our collective victory.
Speaking with those in Ukraine, not only politicians, soldiers and analysts, but the everyday residents who we met along our travels, they are determined to go on fighting however long it takes—alone if they must, hand to hand if totally necessary. We cannot allow things to come to that. Three years into the combat, why do Ukrainians still want for bullets and shells? Why do they struggle to access sufficient electronic countermeasures? Why are we training soldiers in batches in the UK and have not set up colleges in Ukraine to train them en masse? If Putin was standing on the French coast, would we have not resolved this in months, if not weeks?
We are at war. It is a war we can and must win. To do that, we must be prepared to do whatever it takes, starting today. Slava Ukraini.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his outstanding and comprehensive speech. Many people have died in this war so far, and United Nations figures suggest that at least 12,654 civilians have lost their lives and over 27,000 have been injured, with nearly 147,000 war crimes committed and 167,000 civilian buildings destroyed by Russia since the full-scale invasion began. Of course, the true death toll is likely to be far higher, as Ukraine and international bodies do not have access to Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine or areas on the frontline, most particularly the city of Mariupol, which was largely destroyed in the brutal Russian siege.
This is a tragedy that cannot continue, and yet amid so much darkness, a chink of light is how this war has shown the very best of our nation: our generosity towards Ukraine and how we have welcomed refugees and worked internationally to get co-operation against Russia. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils have gone a long way to welcome and help refugees, and many families have hosted them, enabled by the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
The village of North Moreton, with a population of just 350, has hosted dozens of people, earning significant media coverage for its generosity. Many families have also been hosted in the small village of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell. I want to give an example of the journey faced by one of those families. A mother and her two children, aged 17 and six when they came, had already fled Donetsk in 2014 in the first Russian aggression against Ukraine and then yet again in 2022 to the United Kingdom. The 17-year-old subsequently managed to get a place at the University of Nottingham and has started his studies. The mother took her six-year-old back to Ukraine last April, having missed her husband so much, and their UK host family are still in regular contact with her and her son.
In Didcot, Stanislav of the Help Ukraine Group Support, or HUGS, has collected enormous amounts of clothing, toiletries, tools and many other items and has sent huge pallets over to Ukraine. One place that received them was the Place of Kindness shelter for displaced families in Chernivtsi, which has helped shelter over 2,000 families, 147 orphans and 72 critically ill children. The same organisation collected and donated laptops to the Reading-based Ukrainian School Lastivka to enable children to get online and gain IT literacy.
I want to say a little about why I care so much about the Ukraine war, beyond the obvious reasons. I have a Polish mother, and Poland is a country that has also hugely suffered under Russian oppression in the past and retains a genuine fear of that nation to this day. This war matters to Ukraine and to Europe, but it also matters specifically to us. We hoped that Russia would stop after its 2008 invasion of Georgia—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after annexing Crimea in 2014—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after years of war in the Donbas—it did not. We hoped that Russia would stop after its brutal bombing of Syria in support of dictator Bashar al-Assad in the late 2010s—it did not. It is important that we learn from that and ensure that any peace we do have does not further embolden Russia.
Where do we go from here? Well, our communities and councils need long-term support to continue hosting refugees and looking after Ukrainians. Many hon. Members have already made eloquent remarks about that. We all want peace, but it has to be on Ukraine’s terms. There is so much talk at the moment of peace guarantees. We should remember that there have been such guarantees before—under the 1994 Budapest memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for supposed guarantees of its peace—so we cannot have cheap talk of guarantees now; we need to learn why previous ones did not work. Of course, we need European defence co-operation and investment in our armed forces. Many hon. Members have been optimistic that the United States will not turn permanently away from Europe, but in case that optimism is misplaced, we need to build up our defence forces and co-operate across Europe, using frozen Russian assets, so that we have the high-quality and competent defence force that our continent needs.
This war has brought huge suffering to the people of Ukraine, destroying communities, separating families and orphaning children. However, it has also shown the human spirit of justice, compassion and kindness to be a great unifying force. We must now work with our European allies to secure the freedom and prosperity of Ukraine and our continent.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Keeping our nation safe and preserving Ukraine for the future means showing Putin that we and our European allies have the resolve and the resources to defeat him. Showing him that we would win any war is the best way to prevent a wider conflict. Winning wars is a matter of resources being converted to fighting forces. We lost the first battles of world war two, but we won by converting our greater resources; Lincoln did the same during the American civil war. So it is now; we must reduce Russian resources and prepare ourselves.
Russia’s economy is straining at the seams. Putin’s demand for war matériel is outstripping the ability of his economy to supply it; the official inflation rate stands at 10%, and we may possibly be talking about double that; three quarters of Russian firms face staff shortages; Putin is losing tanks three times more quickly than he can replace them; and his national wealth fund has been halved. However, Russia is still out-producing us in shells and fighting forces, and its armed forces will reach 1.5 million personnel. Russia can rebuild, and Putin will rebuild and come back, so we can and must do more to reduce Russia’s resources.
First, we must seize central bank assets, rather than allowing Putin to use them to rebuild his fighting forces. Secondly, we must strengthen the oil price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of attestation documents. Thirdly, we need stronger export controls to stop western goods ending up in Russian tanks. That is what we can do right now.
Deterring Putin and defeating Putin are one and the same. Our economic power is greater: NATO’s GDP in Europe is 12 times greater than Putin’s in Russia. Converting that economic power into fighting forces is what we must do next. Prosperity means nothing if we do not have the forces to defend it, so, yes, this is about the percentage that we spend on defence, but for Europe as a whole it is also about so much more than that: long-term orders to build production capacity, securing strategic inputs such as steel, and the ability to scale rapidly if we must.
If we do face war, we must be prepared for it. Fighting a total war—converting an entire nation’s production to maximise fighting forces—is a problem that none of us has ever known, but that could be the economic problem before us: maximising the production of war, guns, tanks, drones. The rough outline of the answer is this: we must figure out national income, decide the maximum portion that can be allocated to war matériel production, and use taxes from those who can most afford them to transfer what is needed to the Government. If demand runs ahead of supply, it will lead to inflation. That means rationing consumption for more investment. Investment will have to go towards war matériel, so capital controls must be in place. We need import controls, and quotas to ensure that inputs such as steel are going towards war matériel. We must prepare for a financial world without lend-lease. Those are the preparations that the Treasury should be making.
We could not foresee the financial crisis or the pandemic, but we can foresee a greater war in Europe. These are the times in which we live. In the darkest days of our struggle against fascism, John Maynard Keynes wrote:
“A reluctance to face the full magnitude of our task and overcome it is a coward’s part. Yet the nation is not in this mood and only asks to be told what is necessary.”
That is where the British people are—a nation that remembers its finest hour—but where are we in this House? Are we preparing for the worst, so that we can prevent it? Are we showing that we will convert our far greater resources in order to protect Europe and ourselves? Are we ready to do what we must? Those are the questions before us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that, as I want to get as many Members in as I can, I will immediately bring the time limit on speeches down to four minutes—and it may go lower.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I thank the other hon. Members who took part in the visit to Ukraine for their powerful speeches. I share their emotions about the visit.
Last Saturday was particularly emotional for me because I visited a recovery centre for wounded soldiers in Ukraine. I met a soldier called Volodymyr, who had lost both his legs in a drone strike on his vehicle. His comrades had tried to rescue him four times, but each time they were turned back by drone attacks. His tourniquets held and, after nine hours, they eventually got him out. His spirit was unbroken. Hearing his story and seeing his courage was inspiring. We in Parliament and the British armed forces have enormous respect for everything that the Ukrainian armed forces have achieved.
Ukrainians continue to make an enormous sacrifice, yet every Ukrainian I met told me that they do not want Trump’s proposed ceasefire. They want to fight on, because they are fighting to win. Their choice to fight, and our choice to support their fight, is not warmongering; rather, it is the choice to save lives. Putin breaks ceasefires. He will regroup, attack again and kill even more. The only acceptable terms are those under which Ukraine is victorious. Russia is vulnerable now; in the past six months, it has failed to retake its territory in Kursk, and has suffered over 200,000 casualties to advance just 50 km in eastern Ukraine—4,000 casualties per kilometre —largely because Ukraine is out-producing it in drones.
Ukraine has a clear path to victory. European NATO GDP alone is 10 times the size of Russia’s. However, we are not converting that economic strength into military power. Russia is still spending $40 billion more annually on the war than Ukraine and her western allies. If we close that gap and exceed that spend by seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, Ukraine will win. Trump’s proposed ceasefire would free up 750,000 battle-hardened Russian troops, who could crash into the Baltic states and achieve Putin’s dream of restoring the Soviet Union. It is far better to defeat Russia in Ukraine than end up directly at war. We cannot trust Trump to defend Ukraine, and we cannot trust him to defend us, so we must rearm. With article 5 in doubt, the smaller democracies, including the United Kingdom and Ukraine, must consider a new western alliance that is strong enough for us to defend ourselves together.
It was particularly moving to see Volodymyr because his sacrifice is also on our behalf. In fact, many Ukrainians reminded me that they were comparing their sacrifice to our sacrifice in 1940, when it was our country’s responsibility to defend democracy during our darkest hour. We would do well to remember that legacy as we consider the fate of not just Ukraine but the free world.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in such a well-informed and passionate debate. Three years on from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the courage of the Ukrainian people is an inspiration to all of us. I was at the Munich security conference, where it felt like the world changed around us, and significant consequences flow from it. It is clear that any settlement negotiated solely between Trump and Putin would not be a dignified and secure peace for Ukraine. As democratically elected President Zelensky has said, there can be no peace in Ukraine without Ukraine, and no peace in Europe without Europe. European leaders, including our Prime Minister and our Parliament, rightfully stand in full solidarity with him.
With its war machine in full swing, we know that Russia would not stop with Ukraine, given the opportunity, and we must be clear that this is about security for the UK, too. Our Prime Minister is doing vital work in Washington DC today, with that in mind. The dramatic divergence of US and European approaches really matters, and we have to be clear about how many other countries now have an interest in Ukraine. With 12,000 North Korean troops on the frontline, Iranian drones being used and technology being provided by China, we are not just up against Russia in Ukraine; this is about a group of states that are seeking to disrupt an already fractured global order. Securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine has become the defining test of who our allies are in the world, and how far we are willing to go to defend the values of freedom, democracy and sovereignty that unite us.
The last three years have seen 2,236 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine—the most ever recorded by the World Health Organisation in a conflict. These attacks have increased in the last year and now occur almost daily.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when this conflict ends, we must examine closely the potential use of chemical weapons by Vladimir Putin during this conflict, as he has previously used them in Syria and other conflicts? Some of us who were on the trip that has been discussed saw that at first hand in hospitals.
Melanie Ward
I absolutely agree; accountability is essential.
More than a decade ago, Putin tested the tactic of attacking hospitals in his operations in Syria, and the world stood by. The message about impunity spread, and we have subsequently seen the same tactics used by other forces in Gaza and Sudan, and now by Putin in Ukraine. Children should never be targeted in war, and the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant out for Putin for his deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
The stability and prosperity that we have enjoyed in our part of the world for the last 80 years cannot be taken for granted. It was fought for, literally. Democracy does not just happen. We have to want it, value it, work to keep it and protect it, and we have much work to do in that regard. In my previous work in war zones across the world, I often returned home with the sense that conflict and disaster can happen anywhere. That is why we need to support our global institutions now more than ever—institutions such as the United Nations, and the framework of international law put in place after world war two. If we value those achievements, we must uphold and protect them.
Our Government are absolutely right to increase defence spending rapidly. I have seen too many times as a former aid worker what happens when Governments fail in their most basic duty: keeping their country safe. Of course, funding this increase in defence spending through the aid budget is painful, and I say to those in the international development community in this country and elsewhere that I and others feel the pain. Given the scale of external threats, we should all understand that further painful decisions of a different kind may come in the future.
I end by paying tribute to the Ukrainian refugees I met in Kirkcaldy in my constituency a few weeks ago. We owe it to those refugees, and to all who have fought for Ukraine, the UK and Europe’s freedom, to now do whatever it takes to defend our shared freedom and security.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate, although I do not know about the image I will have forever of him baking pizzas in the snow.
I rise today in support of the people of Ukraine. They have seen their nation invaded and devastated by bombing, their children kidnapped, their mothers and sisters raped and many of their homes, hospitals and schools completely destroyed. In Leicester, like in the rest of this country, we have a tradition of standing up for the oppressed, the bullied and the underdog. During world war two, RAF Leicester East—now Leicester airport—was home to the US 82nd Airborne Division, which played a major role in D-day and the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.
Britain has shown its compassion since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) articulated perfectly. The British people have stood firmly and resolutely beside the Ukrainian people, and one reason for that is our nation’s tradition of standing up for the underdog. Russia invaded Ukraine in the belief that Ukraine was weak and vulnerable, and that it would roll over and play dead while Putin took its land, identity and resources. What he discovered was that Ukraine is an underdog that bites back, and the British people have wholeheartedly identified with its bulldog spirit. The Ukrainian people have won our hearts and our loyalty. Their determination to fight on and to protect their homes, their families and their culture has been painful to watch, but any nation that can so effectively fight Putin’s military might deserves our unwavering support and the support of our supposed allies.
What may be even harder to watch in the coming months and years is the UK and other European countries having a taste of what many smaller countries have experienced for generations: a new world order where the largest powers decide to redraw the map or steal minerals and other natural resources at the stroke of a pen, with the smaller countries facing menacing threats of much worse if they do not comply; a new world order where those who pardon insurrectionists, who try to overturn the result of a democratic election and who to this day do not accept the result of the 2020 US elections have the cheek to lecture long-standing European countries on the imperfect nature of their democracy. Our country must stand against this new gangster world dominated by a few bros in ivory, or even gold, towers, who trade the world’s smaller nations between themselves like property on a Monopoly board.
That is why, despite Ukraine’s troubled past, its fight is our fight, and we must work with our European partners to ensure it wins, regardless of the threats from Washington, Moscow, Pyongyang or even Beijing. Who would have thought that the future President of those brave soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Leicester would align himself with today’s equivalent fascists, rather than with the nations and people who fought to defeat that particular evil? When Ukraine wins, the new world order that the few gangster bros are trying to establish will fail. That is why supporting Ukraine is so important and why European democracies have to step up and ensure they win.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate. He spoke powerfully and passionately, and with knowledge.
Imperialism is violent and tragic, dividing communities, separating families, and leading to untold death and destruction. That has been the grim reality for the Ukrainian people for the last three years. I witnessed it at first hand in March 2022, when I travelled to the Ukrainian border with Romania to personally deliver essential items generously donated by the people of Ilford. I witnessed the haunting scenes of women and children walking across the border into Romania with nothing but the clothes on their backs at 4 am, with the temperature south of minus 10º. I saw that while Putin’s aggression has attempted to shatter communities and sow division, the Ukrainian people have remained united, and have shown incredible resilience, strength and perseverance.
Like many of my constituents, I was born in India, and my parents lived most of their lives in India and what is now Pakistan. My family, my neighbours and the people of Ilford South well understand the consequences of imperialism—the scars left by wars of aggression, the theft of agency and denial of self-determination—which is why, when the invasion began, thousands of local people in Ilford stood with Ukraine and donated so much that we had to hire vans and appeal for additional drivers to get the donations to the border.
This week’s sombre anniversary is a reminder of the suffering in Ukraine, the tragedy of imperialism and the necessity of taking a stand—of doing what is right, and confronting aggression head-on. On Monday, the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions against Russia since 2022. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced an unprecedented increase in defence spending, the biggest sustained increase since the end of the cold war. We know the evils of imperialism, and we have learned from history that appeasing aggressors does not work. We will not stand by and allow the continued assault on a democratic nation. This House must remain united in its support for right over wrong. We will always stand with Ukraine.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is intolerable that the violence and bloodshed of Putin’s illegal invasion, the waking nightmare of Russian aggression wrought upon the Ukrainian people, has worn on for three ghastly years. At the weekend I joined local residents, including the Ukrainian families who have found safe haven in our community, at a service of remembrance in Bishop’s Stortford, organised by the Bishop’s Stortford Ukrainian Guests Support Group. It was impossible not to be deeply moved as we stood for a minute’s silence to remember all those who have lost their lives and suffered throughout this war, united in our shared hope that we will not have to meet again to mark a fourth year of violence in 2026.
I want to pay tribute to all of those in Hertford and Stortford who have shown their support for Ukrainian families in our community, and those who have gathered in recent days to pay tribute to the Ukrainian people in places including Bishop’s Stortford and Sawbridgeworth. It is a powerful reminder that in Hertford and Stortford, as across the country, we stand firmly with the Ukrainian people in their time of need.
The Ukrainian people stand resolutely against Russian aggression and brutality, and our support for them must be unwavering. Now is the time to redouble our support for Ukraine. Successive British Governments have led on this, the defining moral issue of our time, and our solidarity with Ukraine bridges political divides in the House. It is right that the Prime Minister now leads the international call for Ukrainian sovereignty, a long-term, secure future for its people, and a meaningful seat at the table in any future negotiation: nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
I welcome the landmark 100-year partnership with Ukraine to deepen security ties and build an enduring partnership for future generations, and the action that the Government are taking to step up and speed up our support for Ukraine at this critical moment. However, in a world that is more insecure and more unstable than at any time in recent decades, it is right that we do more to strengthen our security at home, and right that the Prime Minister has announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. I recognise that this decision comes with difficult but necessary sacrifices, and I hope that in the coming years the Government will chart a course towards restoring spending on international aid as soon as fiscal circumstances allow, alongside increased defence spending. Their first priority, however, must be to safeguard the British people at home in the face of what is a once-in-a-generation moment for the world, and I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this week.
Finally, I wish to put on record my admiration for the spirit and bravery of the Ukrainian people, who have endured so much—and will no doubt endure more— not just since 2022 but over the course of many years of unacceptable Russian aggression. For those Ukrainian families who have found safety in our community, I hope for a future when they are free to choose to return to rebuild homes in a peaceful, secure Ukraine, or, if they wish, to remain in Hertford and Stortford, where they will always, always be welcome.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend and thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for setting the scene so well, and for his passion for this subject. In all the years I have known him in the Chamber—he has been here much longer than me—he has always been a stalwart, and I thank him for that. I think we all owe him a debt.
I do not much like bullies, and Putin is clearly a bully. Now that there is a bigger boy in the playground, with President Trump of the United States entering the play, Putin seems prepared to make changes and the rules are changing. Of course that is to be welcomed, but I have a real and abiding concern that memories will be deliberately short. I have a real concern that as we strive for peace—as we should—we will minimise the atrocities that the people of Ukraine have suffered over these three years, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
My mind is immediately drawn to Bucha, and while I have no desire to stir up anger and anguish, we need to ensure that we remember who and what we are dealing with, and why it is essential that our support for Ukraine is as unwavering today, during any brokerage of peace, as it was during those first few days of war. Human Rights Watch researchers who worked in Bucha between 4 and 10 April, just days after Russian forces withdrew from the area, found extensive evidence of summary executions, other unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture, all of which would constitute war crimes and potential crimes against humanity. Those who sanctioned this behaviour are those with whom we deal now, and this must remain in our minds. We need accountability, so that those who carried out atrocities will be made responsible for their brutality. Girls as young as eight and women as old as 80 have been raped and abused. Russian crimes against humanity must be taken to the International Criminal Court, which must make those responsible accountable in whatever way it can. If only the death penalty were still in place, I would certainly seek that for them.
In Northern Ireland we dealt with the bare face of evil for too many years. We saw hatred overcome basic humanity as mothers and children were blown to pieces in a fish shop on a Saturday afternoon by Irish republican terrorists. No cause can justify that. We saw the face of evil when people were burned alive with a napalm-like substance in the La Mon restaurant in my constituency. We saw the face of evil when people were massacred in churches. All that reminds me very much of the atrocities suffered by the people of Ukraine as I look back on the last three years. I lived through those things in my lifetime, and they remain with me.
It grieves me that that face of evil is still at work, and that such atrocities and disregard for human life—for women and children—have been replicated in Ukraine. They were replicated in Bucha as women and children were murdered. In February, the body of a Ukrainian Orthodox priest was found in the streets of Kalanchak, in Russian-occupied Kherson. According to his bishop, Russian military forces had “tortured Fr Stepan to death”. That is the Russians, and they must be held accountable for their brutality. We hear of such evil deeds being repeated throughout Ukraine. Again, my intention is not to drag up these matters in order to cease the striving for peace; I believe that peace is needed, but I also believe that accountability is needed, and that while we work for peace we cannot allow the trauma of this war to fade into insignificance. These crimes matter and those families deserve not to be forgotten.
My thoughts now, on the third anniversary of this dreadful war, are as they ever were: that we stand with Ukraine; that we must fulfil our moral duty to them in war, or indeed in peace; and that there must be no doubt that the hand of friendship of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland remains firmly extended to those families in Ukraine at this time and in all the days ahead.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
A pile of dark brown mud next to a hole in the ground; a hole framed by planks of wood covered tightly in smooth, matt-black sheeting; four rough wooden handles jammed in as the mud hardens around them, with invisible silver shovels buried beneath—a pile of mud and four shovels in the sharp, harsh, dry cold of Lviv: that is the image that I have had in my mind for every waking minute of every day since Saturday morning. It is the picture of a newly dug grave in the cemetery of heroes in Lviv, Ukraine, as mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). For me, that image encapsulated the four-day trip from which I and other MPs from across the House returned earlier this week. It might sound an unusual thing to say, but this graveside was not simply one of sorrow, nor just of pride, nor just of memory; it was one of defiance and resolve.
That image encapsulates for me the emotions of all of the people of Ukraine. They have taken the punishment dished out by a criminal dictator-bully for three years. They have not only withstood the daily bombardments, but thrived underneath their air defence umbrella. In a position where every day represents a struggle for survival to the next, Ukraine has been able not only to fight and reach the next day, but to plan for a prosperous future. In health, education, technology, cyber-security, the scaling of innovation and in culture, the Ukrainian people are shaping their long-term future even as they take to shelters every night. This is not just “Keep calm and carry on”; this is “Keep calm, win the present and build the future.”
The Ukrainian people want peace—of course they do—but they will not accept peace at any price. We asked over and over again, “What message do you want us to deliver back to our country and our Parliament?” The answer was always this, something so simple and obvious that it is hard to believe it has to be restated: “Russia has conducted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—Russia is the aggressor; Ukraine the victim.”
We have had 20 years of warnings, from the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 to the first invasions of Ukraine and the public poisonings in Salisbury, and then finally the full-scale invasion of our ally.
Melanie Ward
Does my hon. Friend agree that Russia’s past behaviour, with Putin seeming to sign up to agreements but then not following them, is precisely why security guarantees for Ukraine’s future are so important?
Graeme Downie
I could not agree more. I grew up in Berlin during the cold war and could hear Russian artillery and helicopters practising on a live firing range, so that has always been present since I was very young.
We must not misunderstand the gravity of this moment. Geopolitical stability and security will be the defining issue for this generation and this Parliament. It is incumbent on us to do whatever it takes to keep British people safe at home and abroad and to support our allies. That is why I fully welcome and endorse the decision this week by the Prime Minister on defence spending increases. However, as I argued in this House in December, 2.5% and even 3% should be seen as a floor for our defence spending, not the ceiling.
This Government have already taken one difficult decision and there may well be more to take in the future. I suspect that before long the Government may conclude that they must go even further or faster, or both. If they do so, they will have my full and total support. That is not to crave the spending; it is to accept the reality of the world we live in, not the world as we would wish it to be.
While the public clearly support the increased spending on defence, it is incumbent on all of us in the House to ensure that the reality of the danger and threat that this country faces is brought home, as is the fact that this might mean even tougher decisions very soon. While a war in Ukraine might feel abstract, as I saw over the past few days, that war can very quickly come to these shores, and in a variety of ways. The mission of all sides of this House is to maintain that unity and communicate that reality and to bring the public with us on a long-term journey that will be difficult.
With the 100-year partnership agreement signed by this Government, we have the foundation of a long-term relationship with a country with which we share so much, and with which we are standing shoulder to shoulder. On that foundation we can build a lasting peace.
I want to end with a quote by JFK. In the same speech in which he called for peace
“not merely…in our time, but peace for all time”
he said:
“There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula… Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.”
Ukraine has taken several of those many acts and the UK is one of the many nations. It is incumbent on us to continue acting until we find the peace we all seek.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Ukraine is a country that never sought war. As we speak today in this House, people who were once administrators, chefs and mechanics are sacrificing their lives on the frontlines to protect their homes and families. It has been a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear some of the speeches from hon. Members who have been in Ukraine over the last week and have told their stories so powerfully; I thank them for doing that.
The people of Ukraine have, over the past three years, defied the odds at every turn and have a President unmatched in his bravery. President Zelensky looked down a smartphone in February 2022, stared down Putin’s war machine and pledged to defend the right of his sovereign country to exist and the right of his people to be free. He has done so ever since.
Successive Prime Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and been absolutely right to offer British military and financial aid. The fight to protect Ukraine is a fight for democracy and for our shared values. For three years this cause has bound together Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States, but there is no doubt that we have reached a crossroads, a moment in time that will shape the future of Ukraine and Europe.
On 14 February, the vice-president of the United States made his keynote address at the Munich security conference. He said:
“The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia…what I worry about is the threat from within: the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.”
It was a very sad and serious spectacle: a US vice-president seeming to downplay the significance of Putin’s aggression in Europe—aggression that, as we have heard today, has led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, with millions more driven from their homes. If his primary concern really is freedom of speech and expression, he would do well to look closer to home. Just this week, journalists from Reuters and Huffington Post were denied access to the first Cabinet meeting of the new US Administration. What I worry about is an agenda that claims to champion free speech but is actually seeking to promote favourable speech. Those are two very different concepts.
The words of the vice-president served as confirmation that a period of US history is ending. The Republican party of Eisenhower and Reagan is sleeping. It may well wake again in time, but for now it lies dormant. In Kyiv, Brussels, Paris, Berlin and here in London, we have to respond to the world as it now is. A peace deal fully supported by the United States and Ukraine and Europe must of course remain the central objective, and our Prime Minister is absolutely right to pursue it. However, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told the House, a deal cannot just mean the absence of war. Peace is what the people of Ukraine deserve, but we must never countenance a settlement that is not agreed to by President Zelensky.
Returning to Munich, there was one sentence in the speech of Vice-President Vance that I could endorse:
“To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice.”
On that, he is right. Our citizens do have wisdom. In the United Kingdom, they have the wisdom to look to the history of our continent and see the danger of failing to stand up to aggressors until it is too late. They know that now is the time to make our voices heard, and to say loudly and in unison that we stand with Ukraine.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate and for his bravery in going as far as Kharkiv. I admire his work and advocacy. I associate myself with everything that hon. Members have said, especially about the bravery of the men and women of Ukraine, who are standing up to Putin every day and fighting not just for their own freedom, but for our freedom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and I have just come back from a week in Ukraine, where we had an opportunity to speak to a number of MPs, Ministers, industry leaders and those in civil society. I will focus remarks on the need for drone technology, which is paramount to us winning in Ukraine. As many hon. Members have said, we face an existential crisis. The increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP is important, but it is vital that we get beyond that, to 3% and more. From my trip last week and from my previous visit, it is clear that Putin is not going to stop at Ukraine’s borders. If Ukraine falls, then NATO countries, and Baltic countries in particular, are in the firing line. It is important that our constituents understand that this war is not about other people; it is a war about us as well.
Turning to drone technology, in a meeting with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, I was told:
“Ukraine needs a fleet of drones that possess the same characteristics as the Kalashnikov.”
What he meant by that, as was reflected back to me by the chair of the Ukrainian Economic Affairs Committee, Dmytro Natalukha MP, who I know other hon. Members have met, was that Ukraine needs something like a Kalashnikov—a flying Kalashnikov, if you will—because it is standard issue, easy to manufacture, reliant on available common parts and comparatively cheap. Such technology alone will not match the existential crisis we all face, but it could play a vital role in the war. However, in order to get such technology, the drone sector needs to be able to access UK capital. We need more joint ventures between our defence companies in the UK and Ukrainian defence companies.
I want to underline why these drones are so important. There are now many different types of drones. There are massive drones, like the ones the Iranians are unfortunately supplying to Putin’s forces, such as the Shahed drone. When I was in Ukraine, I spent some time in a bunker because at one point there were 50 Shahed drones overhead. There are also drones that are necessary to hold Ukrainian positions and to help the Ukrainians to advance.
As the security adviser and expert James Rushton, whom I had the opportunity to meet while I was in Ukraine, told me, small recon drones such as the DJI Mavic are the difference between an entire platoon of Ukrainian troops surviving or not. They can help the Ukrainians to know if the Russians are coming over the horizon, so they can get away in good time. The converse is true, as they can also help the Ukrainians to hold positions and to advance. It is important that we get to a place where we are able to provide more capital to Ukrainian companies, to help them with the parts they need and, collectively with European allies, to help them produce some standard and cheaper types of drones, as they will be vital in the war.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others for securing the debate, of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. Many excellent and learned points have been made. There has been a real show of unity from the House and we can all be proud of the debate today.
Three years ago, peace was broken. The world woke up to something we hoped we would never see again—full-scale war in our backyard. Russian tanks were rolling into Europe, across Ukraine’s borders; missiles were lighting up the sky and the fire of war ripping through homes. There was complete and utter destruction of harmony and innocence, with people grabbing whatever they could and fleeing for their lives. Russian forces had brutally invaded their sovereign neighbour. Putin, the dictator, thought this would be over in weeks, yet because of the tenacity, fight, bravery and leadership of Ukraine and Zelensky, here we are three years on.
Today Ukraine is still fighting, and not just for its land but for its survival. It has been said many times before but I will say it again: if Russia stops, this war is over; if Ukraine stops, it loses everything. So today, before anything else, we pause to honour those who have paid the highest price; the parents who have buried their children; the soldiers who kissed their loved ones goodbye, not knowing if they would ever return; and the civilians who once lived in peaceful villages, now reduced to rubble. Millions have been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been killed, and schools and hospitals have been destroyed in targeted ballistic missile strikes, among other acts of terror and war. People have endured torture, execution and sexual violence, they have had their children snatched and sent to Russia, and there have been horrors that we in Britain would struggle even to imagine, never mind put into words.
Yet despite all that, the flame of hope for a free nation, Ukraine, not just stands but fights and refuses to surrender or be footnote in the history of the brutal expansionism of that barbaric, mad tyrant in Moscow. We all like to think that in that scenario we would do the same, and that we would kiss our loved ones goodbye and fight for our country, our families and our way of life. Ukrainians have been doing that now for three years, through smoke, rubble and fire, and attack after attack. They have stood up and said to Putin, “Not us— not Ukraine.”
It is in honour of that bravery, spirit and flame of hope that we must proclaim: to not an inch of Ukraine is Russia entitled; not a metre of Ukraine belongs to Russia; not a mile of Ukraine is in Russia’s sphere of influence by divine right. That air, that soil, those people and those children are Ukrainian. We stand with them today and every day, for democracy, for freedom, for sovereignty, for decency, and for the world that we want to believe in—no surrender, no appeasement, no deals without Ukraine at the table. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for granting and leading the debate.
Three years ago, we watched as missiles rained down on Ukraine from Kharkiv to Lviv, damaging even the Holocaust memorial at Babyn Yar. Anyone who has stood in that space will share the sense of revulsion at that desecration. A motorised column, reported to be some 40 miles long, advanced on Kyiv and its advance groups left a horror of murder in their wake. This was the terrible return of unrestricted industrial warfare to Europe for the first time since 1945. The goal must be stated bluntly: the Russian state seeks the destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and Ukrainian national identity. The proof of that assertion can be found in bodies that were laid out in Izium, Bucha and Kherson, and, I fear, in many other places whose names are not known to us and that only liberation will identify.
When we think back to February 2022, we must remember the hope that could quickly be found among the despair. A small Ukrainian force defeated the Russians at Hostomel airport, and on such a fine margin, the nation may have been saved. The actions of successive UK Governments and the unity of this House have, as many other hon. Members have said, been essential to that Ukrainian struggle for liberty.
Out of war have come new bonds of family and friendship. I pay tribute to the members of the British armed forces who have trained Ukrainians and to the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham—they have learned from us, and, as was said earlier, we have learned from them. I also pay tribute to all those who have acted as hosts as part of the wider support network for Ukrainian refugees.
One of the most valuable things we can do in this place is repeat Ukrainian voices. I will quote one—that of Ivanna Khrapko, the youth chair of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, who it has been my pleasure to come to know over the last couple of years. Ahead of a TUC vote some 18 months ago, she said:
“Of course we want peace, more than anything. But we want a just peace, without occupiers in our country.”
As Oleksandra Matviichuk, the head of the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which holds a Nobel peace prize, said:
“Peace cannot be reached by a country under attack laying down its arms, that would not be peace but occupation.”
I hope that message—so eloquently articulated by Ukrainians, who know the Russian regime better than anyone—is heard by all those currently making decisions about Ukraine’s future. I cannot go into detail in the very short amount of time available, but the issues identified by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown- Fuller) with regard to the Ukraine permission extension scheme have been heard in my constituency as well, and I hope that Ministers are monitoring those concerns closely.
I close by echoing one last Ukrainian voice—that of Taras Shevchenko, who wrote in a poem almost 200 years ago, also under Russian occupation:
Oh bury me, then rise you up
And break your heavy chains
And water with the tyrants’ blood
The freedom you have gained
And in the great new family,
The family of the free,
With softly spoken, kindly word
Remember also me.
The words ring true today.
If one message is to go from this House today, I hope it is this: our nation’s support for the Ukrainian cause is constant, not passing. We remember Ukraine, and we will stand with Ukraine and with our Ukrainian friends to the end—to the very end—and to the hoped-for day, as hard as the path may now be to imagine, when all Ukraine will be free.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
In the short period of time I have, I will say this: we face a critical moment for our nation, for Europe and for the world. Now is the time to uphold our values and to encourage our allies to do the same. That means concrete steps here and now to protect and defend Ukraine, as well as lasting agreements to ensure its security into the future.
While this feels like a dark phase for European security, it is not the first time that we who believe in co-operation and the importance of alliances have had to argue the case with those who favour a more transactional, zero-sum approach to international relations. We must hearten ourselves that we have won the argument before, including with our American friends, and we must appeal to the noblest instincts of that great nation.
We are now at a hinge in history—perhaps the most dangerous one since the cold war—because at stake is not just the erasure of a nation, but the weakening of the international rules-based system and the transatlantic military alliance that have, in combination, underpinned European security since world war two. Even the concept of truth is being challenged, but I will not rehearse those points; we all know that there is a truth, and we must defend it. We must not allow great powers to trade Ukraine’s future like a pawn in a game of chess, because at stake is the principle that bullies must not prosper in our world. If they do, other nations will be next. Indeed, the former British Prime Minister whose bust sits in the Oval Office once said:
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
The Baltic states understand that.
I strongly welcome the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in reasserting our values and our commitment to increase defence spending and contemplate putting peacekeeping troops on the ground. We must defend the right of any country to defend itself against invasion by its neighbour, but Ukraine is not just any country; it is a beacon for those who value freedom. In its bravery and sacrifice, it is upholding the concept of not just its own, but every nation’s sovereignty. It is defending the international rules-based system, international law, freedom, democracy, human rights and, yes, us. We must remind our friends around the world that intelligent self-interest and upholding moral values are synonymous. If we do that, Ukraine will live on, the rules-based system will live on and, ultimately, a world that values and defends freedom and democracy against those who threaten them will live on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
While I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, it is one that we all hoped we would never have to have, but I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing it.
For more than three years, the brave people of Ukraine have heroically defended their country against a full-scale invasion, defying Putin’s expectations and showing the world their courage, resilience and unwavering determination. They have reminded us all of what is at stake: the right of a sovereign nation to choose its destiny, free from coercion and tyranny.
Today, we are at a pivotal moment, with our Prime Minister in the US. This is a moment that will determine the future of our continent for generations to come. Now more than ever, we must stand firmly in support of our Ukrainian friends, resist Trump’s dangerous flirtation with a deal that rewards Russian aggression, and work with our European allies to defend freedom and democracy.
The UK must act decisively. That starts with working with our European allies to unleash the £40 billion-worth of Russian assets currently sitting idle in banks, in order to give Ukraine a critical boost at this critical moment. The UN General Assembly has recognised Russia’s obligation to make reparations for this illegal war, yet history shows us that Russia will never voluntarily pay those reparations. By redirecting these funds to Ukraine, we are not undermining the rule of law, but upholding it. Some fear that seizing those assets sets a dangerous precedent. I argue the opposite—it sets a necessary precedent. It tells the world that the international community will act decisively against those who wage unprovoked wars of aggression. It is only right that those assets are repurposed for military aid, humanitarian support and rebuilding efforts.
Any negotiations about Ukraine’s security must involve Ukraine itself. This war is about Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its fate cannot be decided in backroom deals between Washington and Moscow. I cautiously welcome reports that the White House is engaging respectfully with Kyiv, but this commitment must extend beyond words. There can be no ceasefire or security negotiations without Ukraine at the table; anything less would be an insult to the sacrifices made by its people and a betrayal of the values we claim to uphold.
Supporting Ukraine means more than military aid alone. It requires long-term investment in defence manufacturing, joint procurement with Ukrainian companies, and a recognition that Ukraine’s innovation in defence technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and prosthetics is unparalleled globally. The UK should actively support and invest in those sectors, helping to strengthen Ukraine’s economy while also bolstering our own security and technological capabilities. We must also stand with Ukrainian veterans and refugees. More than 250,000 Ukrainians now call the UK home, and many of those who arrived here in 2022 will soon need to apply for visa extensions under the Ukraine permission extension scheme. While that scheme grants those Ukrainians an 18-month extension, it provides no certainty about their long-term future. We must ensure that Ukrainians in the UK have clarity about their right to remain, while understanding that so many of them will return to their country once the war is over.
If the US retreats from its role in global security, Europe must step up, and Britain should lead. The Government’s pledge to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 is welcome, and we hope it will mean a reversal of the Conservative party’s short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops, but we must go further. Given the increasingly volatile global landscape, the UK needs to plan to further increase defence spending. Now is not the time to play politics. The Government should recognise this and host cross-party talks to discuss a pathway to 3% as soon as possible.
However, we must fund this increased defence spending in the right way. At a time when Ukraine’s economy has contracted by nearly 30% and its reconstruction needs are estimated at nearly $500 billion, it is incomprehensible that the UK has chosen to cut its international aid budget to fund the increase in defence. Slashing funding for global development while increasing defence spending is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The UK’s soft power is a vital tool in this fight, and we must restore our aid budget to 0.7% of gross national income, ensuring that our support for Ukraine does not come at the cost of abandoning other vulnerable nations. Defence, after all, is based on defence, diplomacy and development. The Liberal Democrats have set out how an increase in defence spending could be fairly funded by increasing taxes on social media firms and other tech giants, but the Government have chosen to finance it by cutting the international aid budget. This is a dangerous mistake; weakening the UK’s global influence will only play into the hands of Russia and China.
We must also lead discussions about the creation of a European rearmament bank. Led by the UK and other like-minded European NATO allies, such a bank would allow us to collectively increase defence spending further and faster by raising additional private capital. That model would mean a more stable long-term financing system, enabling the defence industry to innovate and increase production capacity.
The question is not whether we act, but what happens if we do not. Failing to stand with Ukraine will embolden Putin, undermine NATO and threaten European security. Three years into this war, the stakes could not be higher. We must take bold action to stand up for democracy, for our allies in Ukraine and eastern Europe, and for our own security.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is an honour to have the opportunity to mark the grim milestone that is the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for calling this debate, and I pay tribute to all the brilliant speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Above all, though, I pay tribute to the people of Ukraine. Without any provocation whatsoever, Ukraine has suffered vast casualties and a national trauma beyond our wildest imaginings, all forced on it by an aggressive dictator and bully. If we ask ourselves why this war has happened, surely Lord Acton had the explanation, when he famously said back in 1887:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
There is a reason why Putin can murder on our streets, threaten nuclear war, harass our maritime and airspace, invade free nations, do away with his political opponents and care not a jot for a casualty rate in his own forces of more than 1,000 a day. It is because he is not constrained by the checks and balances of a democracy that holds him to account. He has absolute power, and he has used it destructively, regardless of the impact on his own people, let alone the people of Ukraine. Putin’s motive is the motive of so many despots and dictators down the centuries: power lust and hunger for conquest. He externalises his nation’s problems, which his corrupt oligarchy can never solve, and that ultimately leads to internal economic hardship and pain for all, bar him and his close elite.
I am incredibly proud of the support that we gave in government to Ukraine; we provided the weapons to help it avoid an early capitulation, which would have been truly disastrous for Ukraine and the free world. In opposition, we have continued to stand resolutely with Ukraine, supporting the Labour Government to that end, as they supported us prior to the July election. We wish the Prime Minister every success in Washington and hope for a lasting peace, in which Ukraine can finally enjoy the security it deserves. For all the talk of peace, and for all our efforts to date, providing everything from tanks to Storm Shadow missiles, and despite the incredible bravery of Ukraine’s armed forces in defying the odds to push back Putin’s land and naval forces, the day-to-day reality in Ukraine is one of continued bombing, pain and suffering for its people.
A key question for us in this debate is: what action can we undertake this day to support the ongoing fight? I turn to the subject of drones and rearmament, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in an excellent speech, but one aspect of rearmament speaks to our own need to rearm. Also, Ukraine will need rearmament on a far greater scale, whether a settlement is achieved or not. If there is no settlement, the ongoing war will require that rearmament. If there is, the need to give Ukraine security about its future will also require a continued ramping up of military industrial production, not least to deter Russia, so now that the Government have confirmed their plan for a sustained increase in defence spending, we must urgently unlock our domestic procurement to drive our defence industrial capacity and that of Ukraine.
On Monday, I had the pleasure of visiting a brilliant UK defence SME, Modini, which is creating one-way attack drones and other capabilities for the British Army. When I launched the MOD’s first-ever defence drone strategy about a year ago, the plan was to procure drones at scale for Ukraine, as we have done, and to learn from that to build a domestic industry capable of arming our own military. It was frustrating to hear from Modini what I have heard from so many of our best defence SMEs, which is that procurement is largely on hold. En masse, our fantastic firms are like a coiled spring, waiting for the Government to press “go” on procurement at the scale and pace we have needed for months.
Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), I believe that a big step forward would be for our defence companies to urgently forge new joint lines of production with Ukrainian firms in the United Kingdom, honouring the pillar 1 promise in the 100-year partnership to
“Establish stronger and closer defence cooperation and industrial bases.”
That is so important because, for safety reasons, Ukrainian defence companies that I have spoken to want UK production, away from the bombing. They also know that partnering with UK SMEs will provide access to capital and ultimately a chance to feed into UK procurement. For the UK, that co-operation means access to the know-how and expertise of those companies with manufacturing capabilities that have succeeded in a war as it is being fought. For our armed forces and the MOD, it means realising the cultural change that we need—being less risk-averse in procurement, and rapidly developing capability to enhance the lethality and survivability of our armed forces in the near term. That will be particularly important should there be a peacekeeping force.
Ultimately, conventional war that is sustained for a longer period is fought in terms of factory production capacity, which is linked to innovation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) about capital controls—I think there is enough capital—but he made an excellent speech about the need to boost capacity. When I was the Minister for Defence Procurement, I looked at multilateral procurement with NATO partners. Whatever its current military capabilities, Europe has a vast industrial base that could scale up if there is the will power to do so, and if there is leadership from Governments.
We led at the outset of the war, and with our greatest ally, the US, reasonably asking us and our NATO allies to do more of the heavy lifting in confronting the Russian threat, we will need to lead again. That requires leadership on industry and innovation in the UK and across Europe to massively boost our defence industrial capacity. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to accelerate partnerships with Ukrainian businesses that have delivered on the frontline, but which will be even stronger with British backing. That will create British jobs, and will deliver a far greater scale of production for both countries’ armed forces. We can and must continue to do everything possible to support Ukraine.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for initiating this timely debate, which it is an honour to close, and I am grateful for all the superb contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I am especially grateful for the powerful advocacy of Members who have just returned from Ukraine; they shared their experiences of what is going on there, and told the story of the brutality of the Russian onslaught. I have been in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the air raid sirens sound, which is a sobering experience. It stays with you, and it must. It is a reminder of the daily courage of our Ukrainian friends as they resist Putin’s illegal invasion.
Today we have had the opportunity to reflect on the most unhappy of anniversaries. It is three years this week since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine—three years in which thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of Ukrainian families have seen their homes and communities destroyed, and Ukrainian children have been stolen by Russia. Although Russian troops continue to make small territorial gains, both nations have become deadlocked in a war of attrition. But this is a war that Putin believed he could win in three days. Thanks to the extraordinary resistance and courage of Ukraine, Russia has been humbled on the battlefield. Three days have turned into three years, and today marks 1,099 days.
Mr Francois
The whole House will recall that when Russian tanks were bearing down on Kyiv, President Zelensky was offered a ride out for his own personal safety. He famously replied,
“I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.”
That was Churchillian heroism, wasn’t it?
Luke Pollard
All parties in this House have rightfully praised President Zelensky, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. It is right that we continue to stand with him and his people for as long as it takes; I will come on to that in my remarks.
Putin’s resources have been drastically worn down, with over 860,000 Russian soldiers killed or wounded. The UK Government expect the grim milestone of 1 million Russian casualties to be achieved in the coming months. Nearly 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,400 armoured vehicles have been lost, and the damage and destruction of the once formidable Black sea fleet is testament to what a nation without a navy can now do with the right equipment and approach.
Let us not forget that over these three years, the UK has often been the first to step up to help Ukraine. This year, we will spend £4.5 billion on military assistance—more than ever before. To date, the UK has provided £12.8 billion of support and trained over 51,000 Ukrainian personnel with our allies as part of Operation Interflex, and we have committed to £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.
We have continued to strengthen Ukraine in recent weeks. Earlier this month, we announced a new £150 million firepower package, including drones, tanks and air defence systems. On Monday, the Defence Secretary announced that we are doubling our support for Ukraine’s lifesaving defence medical services, with a £20 million uplift in funding for Project Renovator. The UK has been repairing and upgrading a military rehabilitation hospital in Ukraine, and providing training to Ukrainian surgeons, doctors and nurses, and the funding will provide a major boost for this project. It will help Ukrainian soldiers to recover from frontline service, and help those who have suffered life-changing injuries while defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.
We also heard on Monday from the Home Secretary that we are turning the tables on Putin by blocking Russian elites and oligarchs from entering the UK, and the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions since the early days of the conflict, which aim to hit Russia’s revenue and hamper Vladimir Putin’s military machine. Standing alongside our allies, we will do what is necessary to support Ukraine, and keep Europe and Britain safe. The UK is solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January; bolstering co-operation on defence and security, and more; and, importantly, signalling our confidence that in 100 years’ time there will still be a free and sovereign Ukraine.
I turn to some of the important questions that have been raised in today’s debate. On negotiations, while Russia is weakened, it remains a significant military threat, not just to Ukraine, but to the whole of Europe, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine is the frontline of freedom, and our defence and security begin on that frontline in eastern Ukraine. That is why the decisions made in negotiations over the coming weeks and months will define not only the outcome of this conflict, but the shape of European and global security for decades to come.
Everyone wants this war to end, none more than the Ukrainian people, who need a chance to rebuild their shattered nation, so the efforts by President Trump’s administration to find a solution to the crisis are welcome, but the resulting peace cannot be achieved at any price. That would be an insult to Ukraine, the armed forces of which continue to fight with enormous courage and skill, and the population of which continues to ensure unimaginable hardships. When the fighting stops, it must be followed by a strong, stable, durable, lasting peace. That means a deal that safeguards Ukraine’s sovereignty and ends Russian aggression—not a temporary ceasefire before Putin finds an excuse to return to violence, but a lasting and durable peace. An insecure peace risks more war, and a US backstop is the only way to achieve a durable and lasting peace.
The Government’s position is clear: negotiations about Ukraine cannot happen without Ukraine. At the same time, it is right that the UK and Europe play our part in securing the peace. It is our security that is being negotiated, as well as Ukraine’s. We have to work together with the US to achieve a sustained peace and protect the democracy that both the US and Europe hold so dear. That is why the Prime Minister has said that a US security guarantee in Ukraine is critical to stop Putin attacking again. It is welcome that we are now talking about negotiations, but as a Defence Minister, let me remind the House that we must not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.
President Trump has long expressed his wish for Europe to step up and take more responsibility for its own security, and he is right. Indeed, we are responding to that challenge, and we are stepping up. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are bringing forward our Labour manifesto commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence to 2027—back to a level that has not been achieved since 2010, when Labour was last in government. Ahead of his visit to Washington today, the Prime Minister also announced that, subject to our economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% in the next Parliament.
Through our strategic defence review, which will be published in the spring, we are assessing the threats that Britain faces and building the defence capabilities we need to meet them. We are also cutting waste in the Ministry of Defence, and reforming procurement and recruitment, including by addressing some of the outdated medical standards that have been raised in this debate. We are prioritising investment in UK defence industries. As a result, our armed forces will once again become fit to fight a modern war, learning the lessons from Ukraine and adapting to the evolving threats we face, because we know that strengthening defence is the only way to win peace—by deterring conflict, but also by preventing defeat in it, if necessary. We are also stepping up in NATO, and encouraging all our NATO allies to spend at least 2% on defence. With Britain spending 2.5% on defence from 2027, we are also setting a new benchmark for others to follow.
Two weeks ago, I was leading a UK trade delegation in Ukraine with our Dutch and Norwegian colleagues. We talked about more joint ventures, more investment, more tech transfers of knowledge and data sharing in both directions. This week, I visited Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark and the Netherlands to discuss with our close allies how we step up our collective support for Ukraine.
The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to wind up the debate.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is great that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two and a half years ago you came out to Ukraine with me and the charity, as others have done, and you were fantastic talking to troops suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They remembered that when I saw them again later, so I thank you on their behalf.
This has been an excellent debate. It will send a message of unity to the President of America. It will tell him that this House is united in its support for Ukraine and believes that if we have faith in Ukraine it will succeed, and that there is no peace that is not durable that is worth the word peace. We need to make sure it has freedom and justice at the same time.
To finish the debate, I will give one small quote—if the House will forgive me; it is very short—from the man who, in 1941, was also appealing to the President of a nation of 130 million that was in isolation and not likely to enter a war on our behalf. This is the sign that we must send to the man who has a bust of Churchill sitting in his office. This is how Churchill appealed to the President of America, and, on behalf of Ukraine, I repeat it:
“Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and, under Providence, all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle, nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”
Slava Ukraini.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.
St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered St David’s Day and Welsh Affairs.
I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has granted this debate. It is wonderful to see colleagues in the Chamber this afternoon from across the House, many of whom kindly supported the application. This is my sixth St David’s Day debate and my first as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee. It was a great honour to have been elected Chair of this important Committee, so this afternoon I would like to take the opportunity to tell the House about the work the Committee has been undertaking so far.
I would like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, the former Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, Stephen Crabb. He did an exceptional job fostering a collegiate atmosphere to ensure that the Committee worked together to achieve the best for Wales, regardless of individual party affiliation. I very much hope to carry forward that consensual approach to the work of the Committee, because I believe that is the way to get the best for the people of Wales.
I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the exceptional Clerks team, led by Alison Groves, who support the Committee. The full extent of the work they do behind the scenes is rarely appreciated by Members, but the Committee simply could not function without them. I am very lucky to have the support of such a diligent, hard-working team, and I thank them all for the individual skills and abilities they bring to benefit the Committee.
The Committee may be newly formed, but it is already off to a flying start. We have already heard evidence from the Secretary of State and the First Minister, and opened three inquiries, with several more ideas for the rest of this Parliament in the works. We have also taken evidence on several pressing issues for Wales, including the impact of the Budget on Wales, the closure of Holyhead port and the tragic loss of 17 inmates at Parc Prison.
The first inquiry we have opened is on promoting Wales for inward investment. While the UK ranks among the most successful countries in Europe for attracting foreign direct investment projects, Wales has struggled to attract the same level of inward investment as other nations and regions of the UK, so this inquiry will focus on how brand Wales is promoted internationally. In order to market Wales as a competitive destination for inward investment, we will consider what lessons can be learned from success stories in the creative industries and sports sectors, and whether there are international examples of effective investment promotion campaigns that can inform Wales’s approach. We will look at how the Welsh brand is articulated and marketed to international audiences, what barriers exist to promoting Wales internationally as a destination for inward investment, and how well supported Welsh businesses are in attracting inward investment. All these factors will be vital to deliver and support sustainable local benefit and prosperity.
Our second inquiry is on the environmental and economic legacy of Wales’s industrial past. We know that Wales has a proud industrial heritage based on activities such as coal mining, slate quarrying, copper smelting and steel making. The industrial revolution was fuelled partially by Welsh coal, shipped out in vast quantities from the south Wales coalfields. Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenavon were world renowned for their ironworks, and the legacies of these communities live on in the landscape and the buildings.
Less than five minutes’ walk from my new constituency office in Newbridge is Newbridge Memo. Formerly the Celynen Collieries Institute, built by miners using subs taken from their wages, it is still the centre of the community today, hosting the local library, a ballroom, a cinema and a coffee shop. This is the living legacy of the miners—I know many places in Wales that would be poorer had they not actively built and fought for their communities. Of course, I must not forget to mention the Blackwood Miners Institute, which has recently been rescued from closure by Caerphilly county borough council, a decision applauded by all local community groups and users of the ’Stute.
Today, most of the heavy industries that powered the Welsh economy during the 19th and 20th centuries are gone. The Welsh Affairs Committee will examine their environmental legacy and the economic impact of their decline, and what this means for Wales as it transitions to the green and digital economies of the future—including, of course, the semiconductor cluster and data centres in my constituency.
We know that coal tips continue to have a significant impact on people and our environment. As well as causing pollution, coal tips pose a risk of landslides—a risk that flash flooding, made worse by climate change, makes even greater. We in Wales are acutely aware of these risks, after a landslip was caused by heavy rain in Tylorstown in 2020, and more recently during Storm Bert in Cwmtillery. I must acknowledge the additional £25 million provided by the UK Government to ensure coal tip safety in Wales—money that has now been provided after our calls were ignored for 14 years by the previous Government.
The decline in heavy industry also brought economic challenges to former industrial areas, which persist to this day. Last year, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust said that the south Wales coalfields have
“exceptionally low job density, high numbers of out-of-work benefits, poor health”
and “extensive deprivation”. Our inquiry into the environmental and economic legacy of Wales’s industrial path will look at all these issues and the role that former industrial communities can play as part of Wales’s exciting future.
Finally, we have opened an inquiry into prisons, probation and rehabilitation in Wales. Much of this work was started under my predecessor, and, when I was elected Chair, I was keen for it to continue. Criminal justice in Wales exists within a unique policy environment, with prisons, probation and rehabilitation services reserved to the UK Government, and key intersecting services such as health, education and housing devolved to the Welsh Government.
The inquiry will look at the challenges and opportunities that are presented by this unique constitutional arrangement, examining where the UK and Welsh Governments are working well together and identifying areas for improvement. We will consider the UK Government’s recent criminal justice policy initiatives and safer streets mission, assessing the extent to which they have been tailored to meet the needs of Welsh offenders. We will also consider the effectiveness of intergovernmental relations between the UK and Welsh Governments and their associated agencies in supporting offender management and rehabilitation in Wales, as well as the vital role played by the private sector and third sector organisations.
We will look at how suitable the Welsh prison estate is for keeping prisoners healthy and safe and ensuring they can access effective rehabilitation services, including healthcare facilities. The Committee undertook a visit to HM Prison Parc in November as part of this work, and we will continue to monitor progress at this prison as part of our inquiry.
I turn to my own constituency of Newport West and Islwyn. The boundary changes at the general election last year meant that, sadly, I lost some of my favourite wards in the former Newport West constituency to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), but I have been very lucky to inherit most of the Islwyn constituency. I have to remember all my predecessors: Paul Flynn in Newport West and Neil Kinnock and Lord Don Touhig in Islwyn. Those are very big boots to fill, so I take their legacy very seriously indeed and hope to serve the people of Newport West and Islwyn as well as they did.
Let me turn now to the whole point of the debate today. St David’s Day is a wonderful occasion to celebrate all that is brilliant about Wales. Whether enjoying the seaside resort at Llandudno, walking along the Gower peninsula, or climbing up Pen-y-Fan in Brecon, Wales is a place of extraordinary natural beauty, which welcomes many hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.
It is often said that Wales is a land of song. As I look around the Chamber, I am certain that, between us and the other place, we could have a proper choir going here if we actually worked on it. We are very proud of our heritage in culture and the creative arts, including the Welsh National Opera and the many film and TV companies that are sited in Wales, producing content for Wales and UK TV. I just need to quickly say that I achieved a lifetime ambition on Saturday, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who introduced me to the other Ruth Jones, of “Gavin and Stacey” fame—[Interruption.] Exactly, what’s occurring? May I say that I was completely starstruck? She was lovely.
Wales is not all cuddly lambs, daffodils and choirs. It is also a country of protest. The rights that we have today enshrined in law to protect the Welsh language were hard fought for by activists, who held the Government of the day to account and persisted with their campaigns—some lawful and some not—for many decades, finally to achieve parity of Welsh and English. Our care and passion for the Welsh language is clear. Only two events in more than 100 years have disrupted the National Eisteddfod in Wales, one of them being the recent covid pandemic, and the other the great war in 1914.
We are also a country with a strong history of Chartism—that noble cause that spread across the entire United Kingdom, burning brightly in south Wales, and particularly in my own constituency of Newport West and Islwyn and, of course, in Newport East. Many fought for years there to achieve democratic changes, even losing their lives in pursuit of a fair and open democracy, which is something for which we all need to be very grateful. The fact that an ordinary girl like me from Duffryn comprehensive school can represent the people of our communities here in this extraordinary place is something that I will never take for granted.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Many people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire enjoy the delights of Wales. As a child, my mother spent many happy summers at Colwyn Bay. This is the first St David’s Day in five years that I am not an employee of my hon. Friend, so I want to congratulate her on an excellent speech and say that, on behalf of the people of Newcastle, I wish her and her constituents a very happy St David’s Day.
Ruth Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and may I say that I have taught him all he knows?
I could go on, but I do not wish to take up any more time. I want to hear from other colleagues present today, and I look forward to their contributions.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i chi, Ddirprwy Lefarydd. A happy St David’s Day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone across the House. It is lovely to see so many daffodils.
This is a time to take pride in our culture, our communities and our language—each a rugged testament to our resilience as a nation. We are a nation of creativity and innovation. We all know that Wales has the talent, the resources and the potential to be more than brilliant, but it is time to be more ambitious. It is time to up our game.
Although we may not yet have a St David’s Day bank holiday, that does not stop us from coming together to celebrate what makes our country so special.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and would like to take the chance to wish everyone a very happy St David’s Day. Does she support my calls to make St Piran’s Day, the national day of Cornwall, which is taking place next Wednesday on 5 March, a bank holiday?
Liz Saville Roberts
Yes, we should celebrate our regional and national saints with vigour and enthusiasm, and ensure that people get every opportunity and the time to enjoy them.
Today we reflect on all that is great about Wales, but we must also acknowledge the challenges we face and, more importantly, determine how we can overcome them. Our arts and culture, so integral to our national identity, are hanging in the balance. Our national museum and national library are facing potential staff losses, and our national theatre has had to shut up shop. Meanwhile, the NHS in Wales has been—there is no other way of putting it—chronically mismanaged for 26 years, more than a quarter of a century. Labour boasts of lavish spending, but we have record-high waiting lists month after month. Nearly half of cancer patients are not getting the treatment they need on time, and ambulance response time targets are missed time after time.
Our schools are also struggling. PISA results are at their worst ever level. Recruitment targets have been missed for the past eight years, and Plaid Cymru freedom of information requests have found that the Welsh schools maintenance backlog totals over half a billion pounds. The buildings in which we expect to develop the skills of the next generation to build our nation are crumbling away.
First Minister after First Minister promised that a Labour Government here in the UK centre of power would turn the tide in Wales, but all we have seen is broken promises: a refusal to scrap the Barnett formula, leaving our funding arrangement misaligned with our needs and leaving Wales short-changed; not a single penny of High Speed 2 funding, while reducing the Barnett comparability factor for Wales to just a third—33.5%—leaving us again without that which we are owed to tackle our crumbling transport infrastructure; and an expansion, incredibly, of the cruel austerity agenda by removing the winter fuel allowance from thousands of Welsh pensioners, keeping the two-child cap in place and refusing compensation for 1950s-born women.
Only this week the Government voted down the opportunity that Plaid Cymru brought to devolve Wales’s Crown Estate assets, denying us the rewards of our own natural resources in Wales. That is despite Welsh Labour still supporting the Crown Estate’s devolution. In fact, the First Minister has called it an
“important cause for our nation”.
The Welsh Labour former Counsel General Mick Antoniw called UK Labour’s rejection of devolution a “big mistake” with
“no genuine economic or political logic”.
Added to that is the hike in employer national insurance contributions that will hit core public and third sector services, as well as family businesses, and the impact on the future of Welsh farming of inheritance tax changes and the shrinking of agriculture funding through Barnettisation.
Labour has well and truly let us down since 2004, and now there is nowhere else to turn to blame for it. Plaid Cymru is used to calling out Labour’s failures, whether here in Westminster or in Cardiff Bay. Plaid Cymru has proven time and again that we are never afraid to scrutinise Labour’s decisions. Unlike the Labour Welsh Government, we are willing to demand better for Wales. We always put Wales first. It comes with our name. Labour sits on its hands and panders to right-wing extremists, dancing to the tune of Reform—its Members are not even here, though they expect Wales to dance to their tune in 2026. Reform shouts out its empty slogans into the void of its non-existent Welsh policies.
Plaid Cymru is setting out our vision for a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government in 2026, with our initial plan for the NHS, including regional elective care hubs, an executive triage service and health board collaboration. A Plaid Cymru Government will hit the ground running, unafraid to implement the changes that Wales needs to fulfil our potential. Wales needs a fresh start, and Plaid Cymru is ready to invest in our people and our futures and to lead with policies that will transform lives and communities.
As we approach Senedd Cymru elections, the tide is turning in Wales. We should no longer have to accept any more empty promises or measly crumbs from Westminster dressed up as big, celebratory announcements. Labour in Westminster is not prepared to give Wales what it deserves, and Labour in Wales will not fight for it. Plaid Cymru will always demand fairness for Wales. Our record and our name speak for themselves. Let us work together, expecting a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government, to build a fairer, more prosperous Wales, where every lucky person who lives there gets to call it home and to expect more.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to speak in the annual St David’s Day and Welsh affairs debate, and it is a special honour this year to be speaking as the Member of Parliament for the new seat of Neath and Swansea East. Having lived in Swansea East my entire life, it was a real step into the unknown when the boundary changes forced me to leave behind half of my very special constituency to represent a completely new and equally special constituency. It may only be 15 minutes down the road, but those 15 minutes bring whole new communities, a much more rural landscape and a diverse caseload that differs in many respects from what I knew before.
When I made my maiden speech in this place almost 10 years ago as an Opposition MP, I spoke about my city, Swansea, questioning Dylan Thomas’s portrayal of it as an “ugly, lovely town”. I thought it is only right for my first St David’s Day speech as a very proud Government MP, representing Neath and Swansea East, to talk about the new part of my constituency and the wonderful town of Neath.
Neath is a town steeped in history. We have Neath abbey, a Cistercian monastery dating back to 1129, and a Norman castle, also built in the 12th century. At the heart of the town centre are Victoria gardens, overlooked by the formidable St David’s church, named for our patron saint. Consecrated in the 1860s, the church continues to be a focal point of the community today and it is always a great pleasure to be invited to attend events there, especially with my constituency husband, Jeremy Miles MS.
Just a few minutes away from the church is Neath market, a traditional covered market that has traded in the same building since 1837. As shops have come and gone over the years, the market has been a constant and the produce on sale is, in my opinion, the best available. If a shopping list includes Glamorgan sausages, Caerphilly cheese, a dozen Welsh cakes, a bunch of daffodils or even a bucket hat with a dragon on it, Neath market is the place to go.
Neath really has a past to be proud of. In addition to the beautiful historical buildings, we also boast one of the oldest fairs in the UK. Neath great fair, which takes place every September, can be traced back to 1280 and not even the first world war could disrupt it, with Henry Studt’s vans even used as a recruiting office for the war effort in 1915. Talking of showmen like Henry Studt, yet another outstanding church in the town centre, St Thomas, has a close affinity with the Showmen’s Guild, housing a wonderful carousel horse and a stained-glass window that was commissioned for the guild’s centenary celebration.
Our modern-day Neath is no different from anywhere else across the country, with its once bustling town centre feeling the effects of the convenience and value of online shopping. I know many constituents were understandably devastated when Marks and Spencer closed nine months ago after decades of being the town’s anchor store, unfortunately with very little support from the rainbow independent-Plaid coalition local authority. We are very lucky to still have a selection of national chains and individual bespoke shops still trading and thriving. Personally, I am a very big fan of shopping locally as it means I can pop into the Castle Hotel for a cup of coffee. At this point, I must give a special mention to Miss Jones Boutique, Mossies and Coco Blush. Any time hon. Members see me standing here, it is almost certain that I am wearing something from one of those shops.
Like everyone else in our great country, my constituents in Neath are a truly patriotic bunch. Hon. Members will struggle to find a man, woman or child who is not vehemently proud to be Welsh; proud of our country, of our history and of those who represent our nation. Back in July, at the very start of this Parliament, the Leader of the House joined me in wishing good luck to Team GB in the Paris Olympics and particularly to Dan Jervis from Resolven, who was heading to Paris as part of the GB swim team. I mention Dan again today as earlier this month he retired from competitive swimming. I congratulate him on all he achieved and thank him for being such a wonderful role model.
I know from visiting a host of grassroots sports clubs across the constituency that we have plenty of aspiring athletes who want to follow Dan’s lead. Last October I was particularly pleased to support a heart screening programme for young people from Bryncoch football club in Neath and Clydach football club in Swansea. Thanks to a generous donation, we were able to work with TOBE-Heartsafe to bring that programme to young people who otherwise might not have been able to access it. TOBE-Heartsafe was set up by Sam Richards in memory of her son Toby.
It has always been my desire to help people. That was at the heart of why I first stood for election 10 years ago. A decade on, I remain as proud as I was on that first day, now with a growing number of Welsh Labour representatives in this place. While I have not quite got St David’s knack of working miracles—but I do have a go—I will do everything in my power to help my constituents. I remain humbled and thankful that the people of Neath and Swansea East put their trust in me again last July, and I look forward to continuing to represent and support all my constituents throughout this Parliament. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy St David’s Day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will appreciate that, quite rightly, there is heavy demand to speak in the debate. If Members can help each other by keeping their remarks to about four minutes, I will be able to get everyone in.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate marking St David’s Day, and to celebrate the rich culture, history and contribution of Wales to our shared Union. My constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury shares part of its western border with north Wales, and the ties between us run deep. Many of my constituents cross the border daily for work, school and appointments, and to visit family and friends. In fact, Wales is particularly close to my heart because my mother was born in Swansea.
Our past relationship with Wales, however, has not always been as cordial and amicable. Henry, Prince of Wales, who would go on to become Henry V, was named Earl of Chester in September 1403. He used his powers over the city of Chester to order that all Welsh people and Welsh sympathisers should be expelled from the city following the battle of Shrewsbury, caused by a Welsh uprising. During the battle, Henry sustained a nasty injury as a result of an arrow. That led to him becoming slightly paranoid about the prospect of further Welsh uprisings and pushed him to pass a law that said that a Welshman was not permitted to enter Chester before sunrise or stay after sunset. If he did, he would be subject to the penalty of decapitation. I am relieved to say that law is no longer in place, as it would certainly put a dampener on our tourism industry, not to mention my family gatherings. It also led to the urban myth that it is legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow after midnight in Chester on a Sunday, so long as he is within the city walls. I have recently taken up archery, but let me assure the House that it is not with the intention of testing the legality of this law.
Despite such moments of strained relations, we have always been linked by geography, trade and shared experiences. Chester’s strategic location made it a key military stronghold for the Romans, the Mercians, the Normans and, most notably, Edward I during his conquest of Wales. Thankfully, our cross-border exchanges these days involve much less castle storming and much more co-operation. In the first and second world wars, the Cheshire regiment fought alongside Welsh contingents in some of the most challenging campaigns, including Gallipoli. That legacy of co-operation and mutual support is something we should celebrate.
Cheshire and north Wales share a deep connection across multiple areas. I will briefly refer to two of them: our shared economy and our shared infrastructure. Our local economies in Cheshire and north Wales are very much co-dependent. Our rural economy is supported on both sides of the border by growers and producers. In a recent Westminster Hall debate on agricultural property relief, I intervened on the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) to highlight the importance of farming to our economies. I was struck when she said in response that her farm supplies milk to a major food producer in my constituency—I did not know that. That coincidence illustrates perfectly how we work to support each other, particularly in the rural economy.
Our local economies are deeply interconnected—many workers from my constituency commute to industrial sites, such as Airbus in Broughton and Deeside, and many people commute from Wales to work in my constituency. Of course, visitors from Wales help to drive Chester’s tourism and hospitality sector. It goes both ways: many of my constituents enjoy weekend trips to the north Welsh coast, whether for a stroll along Llandudno’s promenade or a well-earned break on Anglesey. It is important that we continue to share a close economic relationship going forward, because both Cheshire and Wales are net contributors to our respective economies, and together we lead the way in innovation and entrepreneurship in so many ways.
A strong economy must be supported by strong infrastructure, which brings me to my second point. We have great potential for growth in north-west England and north Wales, but often our infrastructure does not meet demand. I have spoken in this House about the need to electrify the trainline between Crewe—our major rail hub—and Chester. However, if we are serious about growth and stimulating our economy, the north Wales main line should be electrified all the way to Holyhead to unlock its full potential.
Road infrastructure is equally vital. Many of the roads that run through my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, such as the A51 or the north Wales expressway, are critical for freight and connectivity, particularly those linking the port of Holyhead to Liverpool and Manchester. Yet some roads, including the A51, are not suited to the volume and type of traffic that they now carry. When heavy goods vehicles pass through villages such as Clotton and Duddon, where homes and Duddon St Peter’s Church of England primary school sit right on the road, it is clear that improvements must be made. I hope that the Government will, in partnership with their Welsh counterparts, continue to build on the positive momentum put in place by the previous Government on delivering the transport upgrades that both sides of the border need.
As St David’s Day approaches, the future of Wales as part of the United Kingdom is bright and exciting.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is wonderful to hear that my hon. Friend has a new string to her bow. She makes the point about the many ways in which we are connected and share heritage across the country. We are celebrating St David’s Day, and we all have our own local saints and national saints, but is it not marvellous that ultimately we all come together as one nation—the United Kingdom—and that more unites us than divides us?
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes a critical point. All parts of our Union are important.
Our relationship with Wales is one of shared history, shared prosperity and, occasionally, friendly sporting rivalry. Of course, our affection may be briefly set aside for 80 minutes when England travel to Cardiff for the Six Nations in a couple of weeks’ time, but I am confident that our friendship will survive even another English victory.
Wales remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, and our deep ties—economic, cultural, and personal—will only continue to grow. Let us celebrate that today and work together to ensure that both sides of the border thrive in the years ahead. Diolch yn fawr, and happy St David’s Day to all.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish everyone a happy St David’s Day for Saturday.
As always, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in the Chamber about our wonderful city of Newport, and to see my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who is certainly a very proud Newportonian, open the debate so ably—just as ably as she chairs the Welsh Affairs Committee.
For generations, Newport has been known for its rich industrial heritage. It was once central to the world during the industrial revolution, when iron and coal were shipped globally from its docks. On a point of trivia, those docks were disguised as the port of Southampton in the recent “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special, when Nessa—a very close friend of my hon. Friend—tries to head off to Panama. Today, a new industrial revolution is under way in city. It is bringing well-paid and highly skilled jobs, fostering innovation, and marking a significant shift in Newport’s economic fortunes. I am speaking about this today as we look to the UK Government and our excellent Secretary of State to help us.
Newport is rapidly becoming a hub for data and technology, attracting global businesses and securing billions of pounds of investment, both in my constituency of Newport East and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn. From the decades-long work of KLA in Ringland, to the Vishay site, Vantage and Microsoft at the other end of the city, which my hon. Friend represents, we have a globally significant semiconductor cluster. Newport is still a steel city—more of that later—but is also evolving into a “cwm silicon”: a Welsh silicon valley.
Powered by renewables, innovators such as SAE are leading the way, repurposing the former coal-fired power station at Uskmouth into one of the UK’s largest battery energy storage plants. This will store energy from renewables—it is right next to the Severn estuary, so any investment in tidal technology is welcome there—and feed it directly into the grid, ensuring that Newport steps into this new industrial revolution with the environment at its heart, protecting our unique natural surroundings.
At the centre of all this sits our city’s port. As the UK’s largest steel port, it is leading the way in becoming a port of the future, with an ambitious plan by Associated British Ports to decarbonise. That will not only sustain the port’s long-term viability and provide a source of renewable energy for the city but create more jobs in the industries of the future for the people of Newport. I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that a strategy for Welsh ports is very much part of the industrial strategy.
The city has come a long way since 1962, when Llanwern steelworks became the first place in the world to use a computer to control a hot strip mill. It continues to produce world-class automotive steel, thanks to its dedicated and highly skilled workforce, represented by excellent unions, and in recent months it reached a new output record of 14 kilotons in a week following the introduction of new technology. With the ongoing work by the Government to establish a long-term and ambitious vision for the UK steel industry through the industrial strategy and the steel strategy, Llanwern has the potential to maintain an exciting future on the cutting edge of steel making.
However, it is important that the steel strategy addresses the major challenges the industry faces. We appreciate the £2.5 billion of support for the industry, but ahead of the expiry of the existing steel safeguards next year, the industry is calling for robust quotas that will protect the UK market from global excess capacity and trade diversion, especially in the light of US tariffs. The strategy also needs to address the persistent issue of energy costs and procurement, and an update from the Secretary of State on any conversations with the Cabinet about steel would be most welcome.
As in the last industrial revolution, when Newport was key to getting black gold to the world, the city is once again essential to the industries of tomorrow. Without all the vital components—wafers, data centres for hyperscalers, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and renewable energy capacity—the UK risks missing out on this AI and data-driven industrial revolution. With support for and investment in Newport from the UK and Welsh Governments, working in partnership with industry, we can move forward with the ambitious plans outlined in our manifesto, with the industrial strategy now coming together.
Newport sits at the heart of all that is vital to transforming public services and driving economic growth across the UK. Our Newport city council leader, Dimitri Batrouni, would love to pursue plans for an AI growth zone, to make use of our strengths and assets and to take advantage of the incredible opportunities that lie ahead for our city. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn and I would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State about supporting these plans. As Newport representatives with our councillors and Members of the Senedd, we have big ambitions for our city in this field.
In closing, I invite all Members to pick up their mobile phones or tablets—if they are allowed to. Without the research and development work happening at KLA in my constituency, we would not be able to do everything we can on our devices. Every day, each of us interacts with hundreds of devices that would not exist without the cutting-edge R&D carried out by KLA, which builds the equipment needed to manufacture semiconductors. Newport is right at the heart of all that. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this today. I look forward to the Secretary of State’s reply and to working with colleagues in Government at both ends of the M4 to pursue this ambitious vision for our city.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am very keen to get everyone in, so I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I begin by referring Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
What a pleasure it is to be here today attending at my very first St David’s debate in the House, representing the fine people of Caerfyrddin. Although it is traditional to hold this debate, I want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time to allow the tradition to continue and giving us the opportunity to discuss all things Welsh. I am delighted to be joined today by Sian, one of my three daughters, and her beautiful family, as it is half-term week in Wales. This is their very first visit to the House; diolch yn fawr i chi am ddod!
Given that I am a farmer from a predominantly agricultural constituency, Members would expect me to start with “the land”, so I will not disappoint them: I am going to talk about farming. Seventy-four per cent of Caerfyrddin’s land is agricultural, and that is not just a statistic but a reflection of our way of life. Farming supports families, strengthens our rural economy, and keeps our Welsh language and culture thriving. As a tenant dairy farmer myself, I know at first hand about the dedication, the hard work and the sacrifices that come with this way of life.
The Government’s complete disregard for the sector has been astounding: the changes to the agricultural property and business property reliefs are pushing family farms to the brink. Ignoring this reality is a betrayal, not just of farmers but of the communities, businesses and local economies that depend on them. We must bear in mind that, according to union figures, for every £1 spent by the agricultural industry £9 is created locally and fed into local businesses, retaining that circular economy on which we all depend. Along with farmers, the local businesses that they support are crucial to our local economy.
We have incredible businesses in Caerfyrddin—Adeiladwyr LBS, Morgan Marine, and Whitland Engineering, to name just a few—all training and employing local people. We also have Bremenda Isaf, a publicly owned, council-owned farm growing fresh, high-quality, affordable produce for our schools, care homes, and cafés—and let me tell the House that its tomatoes and carrots are to die for! They are absolutely delicious. Those examples show that our communities do not lack potential or ambition, but they have lacked investment. We need a targeted rural economic strategy, one that delivers stable jobs, affordable housing, and real support for small businesses.
Farmers are also instrumental in providing answers to tackle the climate and nature crises. Adopting renewable energy through a mix of solar/wind and marine is a way for us to play our part in addressing these issues. However, in the transition to renewable energy we must also consider the needs of our communities and natural environment. Caerfyrddin’s natural beauty is priceless, but Green GEN’s plans threaten to scar our landscapes with a chain of pylons running through the Tywi and Teifi valleys. Undergrounding these cables—something that local groups have long demanded—would not only preserve the natural beauty of Caerfyrddin’s landscape, but protect our power supply from increasingly extreme weather events driven by the climate crisis. Power outages following Storms Darragh and Éowyn were caused by trees falling on overground electricity cables.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The security of our infrastructure and energy supply is crucial, in the context of both weather and possible enemy attacks.
Ann Davies
Absolutely. It is vital for any new electricity infrastructure to be placed underground, as it is in Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and most other European countries. Would that not make more sense?
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a green economy that works for everyone in Wales, not just big investors, so let us get it right. As St David said, “Gwnewch y pethau bychain,” which means “Do the little things.” But let us be clear: little things do not mean insignificant things. Thriving family farms, strong local businesses, green energy that works for our communities—these things might seem small in isolation, but put together, they shape our economy, culture and future. Let us stand up for our farmers, our businesses and our communities. Let us invest in Wales, and let us get it right. Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus —have a lovely, happy St David’s Day.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Llongyfarchiadau to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this debate, and dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus pawb—happy St David’s Day to everyone.
Twenty-five years ago, I was lucky enough to make Wales my home, and I am so proud to represent Monmouthshire; from Llantony to Llanishen, it is the most beautiful constituency in Wales. We have the most incredible sights, with the commanding Bannau Brycheiniog in the north and the picturesque Wye valley national landscape in the east, as well as the brilliant market towns of Abergavenny, Chepstow, Monmouth and Usk and the Magor marsh in the south. Last week, I visited Usk and Prescoed prisons and our fantastic probation services. I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all our public servants working across Wales and Monmouthshire as teachers, doctors, nurses, prison and probation officers and so much more. They are at the heart of our communities.
Each community across Monmouthshire is vibrant and adds to the welcoming culture that we in Wales are so proud of. After all, Monmouthshire community organisations, such as the Abergavenny community centre, are some of the best in the UK. The community always rallies round and people support each other in a crisis, such as the floods in Skenfrith.
Wales also has a strong and long history with the Labour party; it elected great leaders and political thinkers like Kier Hardie in Merthyr Tydfil, Aneurin Bevan in Ebbw Vale and James Callaghan in Cardiff. It is a history that we value and should never take for granted. The bond between Wales and Labour is built on our understanding of the priorities of our communities, and our Welsh Labour Government colleagues have been delivering for Wales for 25 years. They have shaped a country where we are proud to work differently, in partnership with the public sector, charities and unions.
We are a country that leads the world on the environment, with a world-first future generations Act, an active travel Act, and a plastic bags tax, and we are leading on recycling. We have prioritised families, delivering universal free school meals in all primary schools and the biggest building investment in Welsh schools since the 1960s. We have three new secondary schools in Monmouthshire, built under the Welsh Government’s 21st-century schools programme—unlike the Conservatives, we never stopped investing in our schools and our young people in Wales—and the very latest to open its doors will be in Abergavenny in April. Wales is a country where we stand up for and fight for what we believe in. It is an honour to be a Monmouthshire MP. Having two Labour Governments working together has made a great difference to all our services.
I am proud that ever more Monmouthshire residents are starting to learn Welsh, me included, although I am at the very start of my journey and must apologise to all fluent Welsh speakers for my pronunciation. We now have three Welsh-medium primary schools in the county: Ysgol y Ffin, Ysgol Gymraeg y Fenni, and our very recently added Ysgol Gymraeg Trefynwy. I am very grateful to all the campaigners over the years who have got these schools open, particularly Councillor Tudor Thomas. I recognise that, much like our rugby team, the Welsh language in Monmouthshire is on the rise, but there is still some way to go.
Wales has a lot to offer and, for a small nation, has given the world so much. I am so proud to consider myself Welsh, having moved there 25 years ago, and to represent the great constituency of Monmouthshire. I am incredibly humbled and proud that the people of Monmouthshire chose me in July 2024. Felly eto dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus i’m hetholwyr yn Sir Fynwy ac i bawb sydd yma heddiw.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Dirprwy Lefarydd. St David, the patron saint of Wales, was a renowned teacher, teaching his lessons across Wales. He founded monastic settlements and churches in Wales, Brittany and south-west England, teaching his message of discipline and living a simple life that shaped the communities he served. In the Wales of today, we would do well to remember history’s lessons and not repeat mistakes that have been made. In particular, we seem to be struggling to learn from experience when it comes to the economy.
In 2025, Wales’s GDP per person is 26% below the UK average. Parts of Wales, including west Wales, the valleys and Ynys Môn, my constituency, are performing even more poorly. Child poverty is set to reach 34% by the end of the decade, but in Scotland it is forecast to be 15% lower. For decades, we have failed to address the fundamental problems that face Wales. We have never had an ambitious, strategic economic plan. The case for a new, radical and “made in Wales” approach to economic development is clear for all to see.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady join me in welcoming the new Labour Government’s efforts, particularly through the industrial strategy, to fundamentally address the systemic problems around economic growth that have afflicted many communities in west Wales, including in my Pembrokeshire constituency?
Llinos Medi
I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman has looked at the ambitious plan he mentions and counted how many times Wales is mentioned: if he puts the word “Wales” into Google and searches that document, he will find that Wales is mentioned about nine times. That shows the lack of ambition for Wales.
Wales has immense natural resources. It is in a prime position to lead the industries of the future and give us energy security. Ynys Môn is a clear example of that potential. We have the community-owned Morlais tidal project; companies from across the world are looking at the potential of deploying their technologies in such zones. Ynys Môn also has the Wylfa site, the best site in the UK for a new nuclear power project, which would drive growth and economic development across Ynys Môn and north Wales. I urge the Government to officially designate Wylfa a preferred site for nuclear development.
Across Wales, there is huge potential for floating offshore wind. According to the Crown Estate’s “Celtic Sea Blueprint”, upcoming offshore wind developments could create up to 5,300 new jobs and generate £1.4 billion, notably, “for the UK economy”. A devolved Crown Estate would ensure that those jobs and wealth were created and kept locally. Maximising our clean energy potential must be done strategically to create economic growth that benefits our communities.
We should recognise the value of our agricultural sector to the economy and the importance of food security, and we should not be pursuing large-scale solar farms on agricultural land. There is plenty of room for small-scale solar, including on rooftops and buildings. The Alaw Môn and Maen Hir projects on Ynys Môn would have a detrimental impact to the economy. Solar farms do not create jobs; they dissolve jobs.
Taking the bold measures that I have outlined today will help create new jobs and opportunities for people in Wales. It would revitalise the economy and help to encourage people to stay in Wales, while attracting many recent emigrants back. That is the bold, innovate thinking we need for the second half of this decade and beyond, and Plaid Cymru is ready to deliver this vision for the communities of Wales. I wish a happy St David’s Day on Saturday to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the rest of the House.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak in my first St David’s Day debate in this place, along with so many other new Members.
The time around St David’s Day is always special, as so many have said. It is a moment of national and local pride for Welsh communities, a time when we celebrate everything that makes us proud of Wales. I look forward to joining in our annual St David’s Day parade in Wrexham this Saturday, led by the Cambria band, on what will be a busy day in the city, with our monthly award-winning street market and a home game against Bolton Wanderers also happening.
St David, or Dewi Sant, was known to have been a radical of his time, doing away with and challenging the perceived norms. We see that radical spirit woven into the fabric of Welsh politics—the radical spirit that saw Nye Bevan lead the charge for the national health service, the fightback against the devastation of Thatcher and the Conservatives’ decisions to close the mines in the 1980s, and the enduring quest for devolution, which was finally achieved just over 25 years ago, under the last UK Labour Government.
The devolution we celebrate has allowed Wales to do things differently; we have free prescriptions; we are keeping, not cutting, maintenance grants for students; we have a publicly owned train company; and we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—the first in the UK. All that and much more was achieved because of devolution, not in spite of it, as some may believe. Wales is a strong devolved nation in a strong Union; devolution is an evolving journey, not a destination. I look forward to seeing how that journey develops, now that we have two Governments working together.
St David’s Day is about celebrating the proud history that we all share, so it is a shame that no Reform Members are in the Chamber to brush up on their history for their next day trip across the border. That history ranges far and wide, from St Davids to Wrexham and from Chepstow to Holyhead, but I hope that colleagues will forgive me if I speak further on history a bit closer to home—any opportunity to wax lyrical about Wrexham.
Most will of course know about the world-famous Wrexham associated football club, but they may be less aware of the role that our city played in ensuring that Welsh football is what it is today. In February 1876, a group of football enthusiasts met at the Wynnstay hotel in the centre of Wrexham. From that meeting came the formation of the Football Association of Wales and the Welsh cup, which remains one of the oldest competitions in the world; Wrexham has won it a record 23 times. The Cae Ras in Wrexham is the oldest international stadium in the world that is still hosting matches, the most recent of which was earlier this week, and Wales’s first home match was held there in 1877; it has hosted more Wales international matches than any other ground.
Much is said about the seven wonders of the world, but not enough is said about the seven wonders of Wales, three of which can be found in my constituency. We have St Giles parish church in the centre of our city; the Overton yew trees, which are estimated to be around 2,000 years old; and the bells of All Saints’ church in Gresford, which have been ringing continuously since the 16th century—hopefully with a break—and which sometimes ring of their own volition.
No debate about Wales would be complete without mention of beer. Wrexham Lager has a history that spans back to 1882, and it continues to make a significant contribution to the Welsh economy, exporting across the world. I have just joined other Members here at an excellent showcase of Welsh food and drink, at which another Wrexham brewery, the Magic Dragon, was showing its exceptional beers.
There is so much more to say about Wales and about Wrexham, but in the interests of time, I finish by wishing everyone a dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus for Saturday. Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who I congratulate on her stewardship of the Welsh Affairs Committee, for securing this debate.
It is an honour, as a new Member of Parliament, to take part in my first St David’s Day debate. Despite what some news outlets have said about me—this is a lesson not to believe everything we read in the press—I am a proud Welshman, and I am proud to be one of the representatives of our nation’s capital in this Chamber. St David’s Day allows us to celebrate our patron saint Dewi Sant, who is incidentally the only native-born patron saint of the four home nations and of Ireland, but it also allows us an opportunity to come together and celebrate our communities, to talk powerfully about the brilliance of Wales, and to be ambassadors for Wales, both at home and abroad.
Today, we have heard some excellent contributions from colleagues across the House about how brilliant their constituencies are, but I am sure you will agree with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is a truth universally acknowledged that Cardiff West remains the best. It is a vibrant, brilliant community that is the proud left bank of Wales. Two First Ministers have come from my constituency, and our current First Minister was born in Ely, in the heart of my constituency. In my maiden speech, I described how while
“each area is defined by its own unique character…the common thread that runs through them is a proud community, replete with families, local activists, sports clubs, volunteers and faith leaders”—[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 888.]
all committed to serving the neighbourhoods that they call home.
Although I of course love all parts of my brilliant constituency, I want to place a little focus on Ely in this contribution. Ely is a proud community that has endured many problems over the years, and when reporting on Ely happens, the media tends to focus only on the negative, rather than the vibrancy and community spirit that I have seen in my short time as its Member of Parliament. That vibrancy and community spirit has been tested with housing shortages, benefit cuts, austerity and a lack of investment over the past 14 years. Let us be clear, despite the amnesia of Plaid Cymru Members: this was a legacy of a Tory Westminster Government.
Now, under this UK Government, for the first time in 14 years we have a Westminster Government committed to delivering for Wales. It is the first time in a generation. Since the general election, Wales has seen the largest funding boost since devolution, with £21 billion of new money and a record £1.7 billion spending boost for the Welsh Government to support public services, including the NHS. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East (Jo Stevens), and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for their efforts to secure that funding, and for their continuing work to forge a new partnership with the Welsh Government, returning it to a partnership of respect.
Since my election, I have sought to focus on Ely, trying to help tackle some of its issues while also promoting its story. For example, it needs improvement to its parks, so I welcome Cardiff council’s commitment to a new youth zone. Over the years, Ely has had a proud sporting tradition. Its sports clubs are at the heart of the community, and at the weekend, Trelai park in neighbouring Caerau and the recreation ground in Ely are huge sources of joy and fun for children, adults and families. However, we must also support further funding for our schools. Cardiff West community high school serves both sides of Ely—Caerau and Ely. I have seen the great work it does in the community, working with partners to make its new facilities available to young people across the constituency.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on their work on schools in Wales, keeping the investment in school buildings going after it was cut in England in 2010 through the 21st century schools programme? Now, through the sustainable communities for learning programme, which has seen schools and colleges across Wales—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady was going to be next on my list, but that was a very long intervention.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I wholeheartedly agree with and support my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I look forward to hearing more about it in her speech.
Of course, the route out of poverty is through education, and we must continue to work with the Welsh Government to improve educational outcomes in areas such as Ely. Already, the proposed budget from the Welsh Government will mean an extra £1.5 billion for public services, once again showing the power of partnership between two Governments working together in the interests of the Welsh people. Why, therefore, Plaid Cymru will be joining the Conservatives next week to vote against that investment in the budget is beyond me.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that this is not an increase in real terms, and that the Welsh budget is front-loaded. We know that grief is coming down the track in future budgets, so it is hardly appropriate to be singing the praises of this budget, knowing what is on its way.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I will simply say that while I may agree with some of what the right hon. Lady said today, it is still inexplicable to me that Plaid Cymru would vote against an extra £1.5 billion in the budget next week, and join the Tories in doing so. Their reasons for doing so seem unfathomable.
I will conclude by saying that I am proud to serve the constituents of Cardiff West, and I will always work hard for the whole community there. To everyone in this House and to all of my constituents, I say Dydd Dewi Sant hapus.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate. Having spent my entire life in various parts of Glyndŵr, it is an honour to represent my constituency of Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, an area steeped in the rich history of Wales. Bersham, for instance, was the cradle of the industrial revolution, home to the Davies brothers’ workshops. It is where British ironmaking began in 1670; where smelting iron ore with coke first took place in 1721; and where the pioneer of industrialisation, “Iron-Mad” John Wilkinson, established himself in 1761. It is where the first single-mould cannons in the world were bored, which were against the Americans during their war of independence. It was also the site where the cylinders for James Watt’s steam engine were manufactured.
While much of Wales’s industrial development focused on the extraction of raw materials, such as coal, slate and water, the Ruabon-Chester railway—the oldest commercial rail line in Wales—was not used for resource extraction. Instead, it was used to export manufactured goods made from the beautiful Ruabon red clay deposits in the area to England. Fast-forward to the present day, and it is wonderful to see how modern Glyndŵr has evolved from its heavily industrialised past. The coal spoil tip in Rhostyllen, for example, housed the Hollywood-style Wrexham sign when the football club gained two famous owners a few years ago. We have the old chemical plant site, straddling Cefn Mawr, Acrefair and Trevor, which has naturally rewilded with an abundance of buddleia flowers and butterflies during the summer months. A walk up the Trefnant valley to the top of Acrefair is now as beautiful and idyllic as it would have been in pre-industrial times, with rare birds and uniquely marked brown trout visible in the brook.
Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr is full of people with big hearts doing things every day to make our vibrant constituency special. In Llanidloes, constituents established a community venue at the Hanging Gardens, providing cake, soup, entertainment and wood and metalworking classes, complementing a town that already boasts community energy and solar organisations. It even offers a chance to borrow—not buy—from the library of things. In Machynlleth, our town councillors recently opened local town council-run toilets at a time when so many public conveniences are closing. That has made a big difference to the many visitors to the brilliant El Sueño and the Mach comedy festival.
In Carno, tireless volunteers are campaigning to reopen the railway station and establish a Laura Ashley museum at the very spot where its factory once stood. In Welshpool, the community hub has evolved from being a welcoming space into a supportive environment offering multiple services. One of the councillors, Ben Gwalchmai, has recently led the successful project to provide free community wi-fi, alleviating data poverty for many residents.
Our agricultural shows and fêtes at Glyn Ceiriog, Montgomery, Llanbrynmair, Guilsfield, Berriew, Llanfair Caereinion and Llanfyllin would not be possible without the help of an array of amazing volunteers, nor would the community wellness hub at the George Edwards hall in Cefn Mawr, which has had a real and substantial impact on the mental health of local people. People in Plas Madoc recently celebrated 10 years of their leisure centre, which is owned and managed by the community. The Splash Community Trust, which manages the facility, has expanded its remit to support the community by hosting a food bank and offering other advice services. Its success story has been an inspiration to us all.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Happy St David’s Day, everyone. A lot can change in a year, so I had a look back at my speech from last year to see what is different and what has stayed the same. It turns out that I only need to make one adjustment to my opening lines from last year, so here goes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones)
“for securing this debate—one that I look forward to every year.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2024; Vol. 746, c. 511.]
My apologies for taking out the name of the former right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, as he is a good friend. As they say, needs must. Like last year, we are back again after three defeats for Wales in the men’s Six Nations. I am hopeful, however, that the women’s squad will provide some national joy when their tournament kicks off later in March.
Moving on to the new, perhaps the biggest change in the last 12 months is that we now have a Labour Government in the UK, working with the Labour Government in Wales. Labour took 27 seats in Wales, with 10 newbies, some of whom are here today, and I welcome them with open arms. This is one of the parliamentary highlights of the year. I extend that welcome to our new Welsh MPs in other parties. We may not be aligned on everything, but we all do care deeply about getting the best outcomes for Wales.
Following the boundary changes at the general election, my team and I have been working alongside two Labour MSs: Rebecca Evans of Gower and Julie James of Swansea West. Both have recently announced that they will stand down at the next Senedd election, so I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their service to their constituents and the people of Wales in their ministerial roles.
I have told Members of this place many times before that I represent the most beautiful part of Wales, and that remains unchanged. Gower is world-famous for its breathtaking coastline, so naturally the quality of our seawater is deeply important to my constituents and me. In the last 12 months, I have set up a campaign to test the bathing water throughout the whole of the winter season. The secret of its success is the commitment of my constituents, local businesses and the Gower Society. Those of us who live near the coast know that our constituents swim or dip in the sea all year round, not just during the bathing season. I pay tribute to Dawn Thomas from Nature Days, who has gathered all the data, and Sarah Samuel, the secretary of the Gower Society; they have been absolutely outstanding in running the programme. What we are doing is new, so their guidance is really important, and it will inform both the Welsh Government and the UK Government.
Gower is also known for its rural landscape, and farming plays a pivotal role in the constituency. Many farmers have rightly raised concerns about the announcements in the Budget relating to inheritance tax, and I want to assure them that I will continue to listen and to share their concerns with the Government, ensuring that their voices are heard.
As in many rural communities, pubs are hugely important in Gower. On Tuesday next week, I will welcome Lara from the Kings Head in Llangennith, as she is a pub finalist in the community pub hero awards—make sure you are there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is the best night in the parliamentary calendar. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group—of course I am —I am delighted that there is some local representation at PubAid’s annual awards, which celebrate the contribution that pubs and hospitality make to their communities.
Some things will never change, and I want to talk about women in sport in Wales. I congratulate the Wales women’s football team on reaching this year’s Euros tournament for the first time. Years of hard work and dedication have paid off, and I wish them well in Switzerland, particularly against our neighbours and old sporting rivals, the English. But do not worry, and panic not— I have not forgotten about the rugby. The women’s rugby world cup is coming.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I need no excuse to wax lyrical about Wales—particularly the mighty Gogledd, or north Wales, which I am proud to call home—but I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so here in this House as part of my first debate to mark St David’s Day.
In my teaching days, I would have spent St David’s Day organising paintings of red dragons; cutting, folding and sticking yellow paper into daffodils; and conducting singing in the round for the song “Dydd Gŵyl Dewi ydy hi”. However, in the run-up to St David’s Day, dyma fi—here I am—in the House of Commons as the proud MP for Clwyd North, or yr Aelod Seneddol dros Ogledd Clwyd.
Thanks to the coastal path running along the coastline of Wales, I can take the House for a walk along Clwyd North from end to end. We can walk beside wide sandy beaches that other coastal areas can only dream of, from Rhyl and past the Pavilion theatre and the lifeboat station that has served our waters for over 150 years; through Kinmel Bay, Towyn and Pensarn, with its hundreds of caravans nestled by the shore, which host visitors who have holidayed there for generations; through the glorious Porth Eirias in Colwyn Bay, with its watersports centre and divine seafood at the Bryn Williams bistro; and to the bobbing boats, and chic cafés and shops, of Rhos-on-Sea.
Our Clwyd North coastline is truly something to be proud of and to behold, but there is so much more, including the market town of Denbigh, where everybody knows each other’s names, with its historic Denbigh castle and the fabulously renovated Buttermarket, which is now a centre of wellbeing, culture and heritage; the fine Welsh folly that is Bodelwyddan castle, which is now a beautiful hotel; the magnificent cathedral of St Asaph; and the majestic splendour of Rhuddlan castle. Clwyd North has so much to offer.
Across Wales we have lots to be proud of. The coastal path is just one of the achievements that show the value we place on wellbeing and rights in Wales. It was a journey hard travelled by our Welsh Labour Government against the hard winds of 14 years of Tory rule in Westminster. In 2015 we passed the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, giving Wales the ambition, permission and legal obligation to improve social, cultural and environmental wellbeing.
That of course chimes loudly with the long-term aims of our UK Labour Government, and this is no coincidence. United by our shared Labour values, our Welsh Labour Government at last have a partner in our Westminster Government to jointly work towards our shared Labour aims. With the partnership in power of Eluned Morgan as First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff East (Jo Stevens) as Secretary of State for Wales, we are finally setting about realising our hopes and ambitions for the future. We have made a great start, with the largest funding boost to Wales since the dawn of devolution. In Clwyd North this means that long-held regeneration ambitions can finally start to become a reality, which is no less than our communities deserve.
This St David’s Day we have more to celebrate than ever in Wales, with a vision and a plan for the future backed by two Labour Governments. Mae Cymru yn symud ymlaen gyda phartneriaeth o bŵer—Wales is moving forward with a partnership of power. Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus, bawb.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and my good friend and constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) for securing this debate.
St David’s Day is a very important day for Wales, but particularly for my constituents in Mid and South Pembrokeshire. I live in St Davids, the birthplace of the patron saint, and the area surrounding St Davids is part of the Pembrokeshire Coast national park. With its breathtaking cliff walks, hidden beaches and amazing wildlife, it has been the site of thousands of holidays, hikes and even film sets. This weekend, St Davids will host the annual dragon parade in honour of the birth of St David, and we will see schoolchildren, community groups and local residents sharing in a day of joy and local tradition. The parade will feature music and colourful dragons made by the residents of St Davids, showcasing some of the creativity that Pembrokeshire is home to.
I was lucky enough to experience for myself the incredible creative talent we have in Pembrokeshire last week at the annual Coram Shakespeare Schools theatre festival at the Torch theatre in Milford Haven. The festival provides an incredible opportunity for children of all ages and educational needs, and my communities get involved in local theatre by building the children’s confidence, tackling issues of anxiety and mental health, and equipping them with skills for life. That is why I am so thrilled about our Welsh Labour Government’s commitment to supporting Wales’s brilliant arts and culture sector with a £4.4 million annual funding boost, which was announced just last week.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
May I extend the wishes for happiness of the people of Central Ayrshire to Wales on this St David’s Day? As a former trade commissioner, I was delighted in Mumbai to spend time to celebrate the achievements of the people of Wales all around the world. I know that Wales has many friends in India and around the world because of those creative industries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before the hon. Member continues, let me just say that I will be calling the first of the Front Benchers to speak at 4.35 pm precisely.
Henry Tufnell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will therefore make some progress, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This crucial support will protect our theatres, cultural spaces and museums so that they can continue to play a central role in education, community engagement and tourism. Local sports clubs are at the heart of our communities, promoting active, healthy lifestyles and supporting our most talented athletes to achieve their dreams. They include St Davids’s Jasmine Joyce, who represented Team GB in the women’s rugby sevens at the Tokyo Olympics, and Joe Allen, a midfielder for Wales, who started out playing in a local Tenby football team.
Pembrokeshire is bursting with talent, and I am determined to ensure that my constituents are given the support and resources they need to release their full potential. So I was delighted with the recent commitment from the Energy Secretary in announcing Pembrokeshire as a key growth region for clean energy, which will mean more investment in skills and secure jobs for the future. After years of neglect from successive Tory Governments in Westminster, Labour is putting a vote of confidence in Pembrokeshire.
That commitment will support the fantastic work of Pembrokeshire College and the local businesses that are already leading the way to maximise the benefits of a green transition for local people. Just last week I visited WB Griffiths, a local construction company based in Haverfordwest, and its fantastic cohort of new apprentices. This family-run business offers a brilliant range of apprenticeships and makes a real difference in our community, helping to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and homes.
Mid and South Pembrokeshire has a proud industrial history. The oil industry transformed the county’s economic fortunes in the 1960s and ’70s. [Interruption.] And I will give way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting the time limit so neatly. That brings us to the Front Benchers.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members responsible for securing the debate.
Our patron saint, St David, championed the virtues of leadership and perseverance, urging us to “do the little things”. His words, though centuries old, resonate powerfully as we face the ongoing challenges in our constituencies today. His words underscore the necessity for meticulous attention to the seemingly minor yet impactful decisions that together weave the effective fabric of governance. Over the past eight months, I have seen how small decisions can change lives for the better. The residents of Ystradgynlais are delighted to know that, following my request, a banking hub will be opening on their high street within the next three months. The banking hub will boost an already thriving high street and spur on the local economy.
Ystradgynlais was once a vibrant hub of industrial activity. The closure of the “Tick Tock” factory in 1999 was a significant economic blow to the town, resulting in hundreds of redundancies. Established in the 1940s, the factories have been described to me as “the making” of local women. The factories thrived throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, heralding a new era in the history of Ystradgynlais and the surrounding areas. Local women enjoyed economic independence regardless of their educational background or marital status. The flexibility in working hours offered at the factories was revolutionary, allowing women to structure their shift patterns to suit their family commitments.
At their zenith, the factories employed around 2,000 workers and provided more than just employment; they fostered a community. Each worker was automatically a member of the social and recreational club, which featured rugby and football teams, a choir, and offered much more, including regular day trips and dances. Moreover, the closure of the Dewhirst factory in Ystalyfera in 1998 resulted in 300 job losses. The closure was part of a broader programme that hurt the local economy and the community’s wellbeing. The end of operations at Dewhirst highlights the vulnerability of such communities to global shifts in industrial practices and economic policies.
Those closures are not ancient history; their effect is a stark, recent reality that continues to impact the community profoundly. The legacy of factories such as the Tick Tock and Dewhirst illustrates the pitfalls of globalisation. They show us how industries can significantly influence community building and social empowerment, but also how their closures can lead to profound community and economic disruption. Since then, successive Governments have failed to replace those jobs.
Despite the challenges that the community faces, there is hope in initiatives such as the mobile banking hub coming to Ystradgynlais shortly. That will stand as a testament to the resilience and adaptive spirit of these communities. This institution signals a potential revival of economic engagement and empowerment. However, it also highlights the gaps left by the Government’s sporadic support and delayed responses, which fail to harness the full potential of Welsh innovation and resourcefulness.
Wales, as we all know, is a mostly rural nation; a nation of small towns and villages. So one might imagine that the Labour party would understand the importance of rural public services, but people living in rural areas in Wales are watching as their services disappear one by one. Just this week, police stations in Crickhowell and Hay were closed without any prior warning. That will make it harder for the people who want to keep us safe to do their jobs. Police officers are key workers and their offices should be treated as such.
Due to impending top-down reorganisations, small towns such as Knighton and Crickhowell are also facing the closure of their fire stations. How can anyone think it is a good idea even to consider taking fire engines out of communities that are frequently cut off by flooding? Following storm after storm over the past year, the fire service teams across Powys have proven themselves indispensable, and so are those services. These closures jeopardise public safety and erode trust in the state’s ability to protect and serve rural communities. Each closure and each cutback is a stark reminder of the Government’s wavering commitment to public safety, underscoring that the need to address this is not just a matter of convenience but a fundamental issue of community security.
The controversy surrounding the demolition of Godre’r Graig primary school following its closure in 2019 due to a supposed landslide risk underscores the urgent need for transparency and evidence-based decision making that involves and listens to local communities. Despite the school marking the sixth anniversary of that closure, pupils and teachers remain in temporary classrooms without a clear plan for the future, and this uncertainty, coupled with local doubts about the actual risks posed by the nearby quarry spoil tip, calls for a thorough examination of the facts to ensure that policies are built on solid foundations.
Drawing inspiration from the great Welsh leader David Lloyd George—the greatest Welsh politician of all time, and the longest continuously serving MP in this House’s history, with 55 years of continuous service—we are reminded of the transformative power of bold and decisive action. In his own words:
“The finest eloquence is that which gets things done”.
Lloyd George, who reshaped British society in the early 20th early century with progressive reforms, understood the balance between vision and action, and his legacy is a testament to the impact that that visionary leadership can have on a nation’s course.
Now that the spirit of Welsh liberalism breathes again in this Chamber, I want to turn Wales into a nation of winners again, because the Welsh Liberal Democrats are winning in Wales once again. Today, let us embody the spirit of St David by committing to both the small deeds and significant actions necessary to secure a prosperous future for Wales. Let us move boldly forward, together advocating for St David’s Day to be recognised as a national holiday.
Ben Maguire
I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. It is great to see the Liberal Democrats supporting St David’s Day being made a national holiday. Will he join and support my campaign for Cornwall to have St Piran’s Day as a public holiday? Gool Peran Lowen.
David Chadwick
I do of course support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I hope he will also endorse our campaign for St David’s Day to be considered a public holiday.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to respond to this today’s debate on St David’s Day and Welsh affairs on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It is a huge honour to carry out this role, working together with our Senedd team, councillors and activists.
Funnily enough, I have always been known in this party as the honorary Welsh girl, and it has never felt more right than today. Living and being in Wales has shaped my life for the past 30 years. I spent nearly 10 years of my life there—as I get older, that number diminishes in terms of percentage somewhat—and I, like many Members present, have a massive passion for Wales. Those who have lived there know just how special Wales is; it has shaped our lives, hopes, dreams and families. Living there is certainly an unforgettable experience—although I am quite pleased that many of my nights out on Wind Street in Swansea have been forgotten by my friends and family.
Mims Davies
Well, there was a lot of that. The only reason I left Wales, actually, was because of my ex-husband’s job—they do say they are exes for a reason, so there we go. I will not go into my nickname of DJ Love Spoon, which is definitely for another day.
It is certainly an extra pleasure to conclude this debate on behalf of my party today after the Welsh food and drink showcase earlier. I was particularly impressed with the Atlantic Edge oysters, which arrived from beautiful Pembrokeshire, and wine from family-run vineyards in Wales has never tasted so good, along with the beef jerky and salt beef—what an afternoon for us here in the House of Commons. I was recently in Wales with the Leader of the Opposition, visiting JCB at Wrexham. I certainly think that we could use a bucketful of those oysters going forward.
I was with some of my constituents in East Grinstead—as Members know, my constituency is not in Wales—which is home to the Caravan and Motorhome Club. The club is vital to Wales as it runs the campsites, offering jobs and opportunities across the nation. It would be remiss of me not to share with the House its concerns over the tourism tax from the Welsh Labour Government and the rise in national insurance contributions.
We have had a positive and spirited conversation about Wales this afternoon, as we would always expect in this House. It is absolutely right that issues and concerns are raised here and that we use every opportunity possible to champion Wales and our Union, and my party, the Conservative and Unionist party, has never shied away from doing just that. We fully believe in Wales, which is why, when we were in office, we were so dedicated to helping unleash its true potential.
Let me turn to some of the comments made this afternoon. I was very jealous of the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for meeting the other Ruth Jones—not only is her TV brilliant, but her books are too. What a talented lady she is. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of Plaid Cymru, was wearing an outstanding daffodil, as we would expect this afternoon. She gave a characteristic speech of passion and love for Wales.
I was fascinated to hear the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talking up Neath market. Balancing that with Swansea market must be a difficult challenge, but if there is one lady who is up to it, it is her. I say to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that I was very lucky to pop along to the beautiful Three Cliffs Bay Holiday Park. I was pleased to hear her standing up strongly for her constituents in terms of the inheritance tax, and supporting the pubs, including the beautiful Kings Head in Llangennith—what an exciting week she has ahead of her. She talked about the spirit of sport in Wales, particularly women’s sport, which is characteristic of her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about her mum from Swansea—I did not know about that! That is what I love about being in the Chamber, particularly on a Thursday afternoon. She is a new archer, which reminded us all to be very careful of arrows. The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly spoke about the rich heritage of steel, and now silicon, in her constituency. That reminded me of my rich heritage: I was getting a new passport in Newport, and decided to get a tattoo to go with it, so part of Newport is always carried with me!
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) spoke about the future of Wylfa and Morlais. It is really important for her to be championing that sector and her constituency—just like her predecessor did. I am in no doubt that it is important to know what the next steps in that sector are.
The Conservative Government always focused on Wales, delivering an additional £18 billion. It is vital to remember the work that we did. I know that all constituencies will have benefited from the support that we offered during covid, including the furlough scheme. That is why we can now talk about those businesses and those opportunities in Wales.
I recently had the opportunity to visit the Port Talbot steelworks to see what was happening just ahead of the forthcoming electric arc furnace, which will start this summer. There are some important and exciting times ahead for that community. Yesterday, I met representatives from S4C, which was important given the focus that our party gave to supporting the Welsh Language Act 1993. It was a pleasure to meet the team and hear about Welsh media, which shaped my career, as many Members here know. We understand the vital importance of local production, local commissioning and opportunities right across Wales because of the media sector.
It would be remiss of me not to focus on some of the challenges across Wales. My party and I join the Secretary State in supporting very strongly the idea that Wales needs a nationwide grooming gang inquiry. Can she give an update on that at the Dispatch Box?
As a Minister in the Wales Office, along with Alun Cairns, I was delighted to scrap the Severn bridge tolls, which was a boost for investment and local people. The tourism and attractions sector is concerned about the tourism tax. It is important that we do not “devolve and forget” when it comes to Wales. We Conservatives believe in Wales. We believe that it is the right place to invest in, live, work and visit.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the importance of allocating time to hold this debate on Wales and Welsh affairs. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), the chair and vice-chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, respectively, for proposing today’s motion.
It is a real honour to be the first female Labour Secretary of State for Wales and to begin delivering this Government’s plan for change. Across Wales and the whole UK we will raise living standards, make our public services fit for the future and our streets safer, secure home-grown, clean energy and ensure opportunity for all. That is the change that people across Wales need, deserve and voted for seven months ago. When we took office, I was clear that my priorities in the Wales Office included bringing investment to Wales to create well-paid jobs and economic growth, protecting and defending our steel communities and resetting the relationship between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, to be one of trust, co-operation and mutual respect.
The past six months have already seen billions of pounds of investment committed and hundreds of jobs created, including at the Port of Mostyn, and at Eren Holding at Shotton Mill. The ground has been laid for thousands more in advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and other growth sectors. Just this week, I announced a £600 million investment by Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners into Bute Energy and Green GEN Cymru’s onshore wind generation. That will create hundreds of new jobs and contribute significantly to the UK Government’s clean power mission and our ambition to double onshore wind, as well as the Welsh Government’s target for green electricity in Wales by 2035.
Jo Stevens
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on because we do not have much time.
We have given the green light to Welsh freeports to unlock billions in private investment and galvanise almost 20,000 jobs in our port communities of Milford Haven, Port Talbot and Holyhead. Two investment zones, in Wrexham and Flintshire and in Cardiff and Newport, have been confirmed, with £320 million of funding to support growth in key sectors of the economy to create those new jobs. We have also secured funding for local growth projects across Wales worth £440 million, including money for Cardiff Crossrail and the recently opened Porth transport hub.
We have protected key programmes that are important for local regeneration and economic growth, such as the iconic Newport transporter bridge and Venue Cymru in Llandudno. We are continuing to invest throughout Wales, with over £790 million in UK Government funding through the city and regional growth deals. Unlike the Conservative Government, whose £22 billion in unfunded commitments left many Welsh levelling-up developments at risk, our investment in these initiatives is an example of how our plan for change will lead to a decade of national renewal for people the length and breadth of Wales.
Wales now has the benefit of two Labour Governments committed to the regeneration and economic growth that will put more money in people’s pockets, raising living standards. This is a partnership in power that will continue to deliver for the people of Wales. As we have heard this afternoon, the Welsh Government had a record-breaking funding settlement from the UK Government in the Budget of £21 billion, with £1.7 billion extra to spend on improving public services in Wales. The Welsh Government have committed £600 million of that extra funding to health and social care. I really welcome the recent news that waiting times in Wales are heading in the right direction.
I hope that both Conservative and Plaid Cymru Members of the Senedd will reconsider their position on voting against the Welsh budget next week, because they are sending the message that they do not want that extra investment into public services in Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
From the point of view of Plaid Cymru, what is the Secretary of State doing to address the structural inequality of the United Kingdom, which her Government are maintaining in the partnership she talks about between Labour in Westminster and Labour in Cardiff? The funding inequality that does not recognise our needs remains there still.
Jo Stevens
I do not think the right hon. Lady has really listened to the list of things that have been announced for Wales in the past seven months. It is always the same with Plaid Cymru; it is always about the structures and the process and not about the outcome and the priorities of the people of Wales.
Jo Stevens
I will not, because the hon. Gentleman has had his speech.
Turning to steel, hon. Members may recall that on election day last year, Tata was intending to shut down both its blast furnaces, ending steelmaking at Port Talbot. Again, unlike the last Tory Government who promised to Port Talbot £80 million of support that did not exist, this Government have secured that amount of support and we are delivering for our steel communities right across south Wales. In just six months, more than £50 million has been allocated through the transition board to help people and businesses, and this month I announced the first regeneration project to be supported by £8.2 million of transition board funds.
I mentioned earlier my priority to reset the relationship with the Welsh Government. Since the election, people across Wales have been able to see the results of that reset: significant inward investment, a record-breaking Welsh Budget settlement, investment zones, freeports, clean energy projects on and offshore, and UK and Welsh Governments working together and delivering for the people of Wales on economic growth, clean energy, water regulation, health and plans for future rail improvement.
Jo Stevens
I will not. After years of deadlock, it was this UK Government that stepped up with £25 million for the Welsh Government to keep coal tips safe. There is no better illustration of the new relationship between the two Governments than that co-operation on a matter that I know is of concern for people in former coalmining communities across Wales.
Today’s debate has raised some important issues and we have had some excellent contributions from colleagues. I will run through a few, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Whenever I hear the word “Neath”, I just think of the “Neath, Neath, Neath!” rugby chant. That was definitely a “Neath, Neath, Neath!” speech. On the contribution by the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), I recognise, having grown up very near to the border, the economic, cultural and personal ties that she described. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked for a meeting with her colleagues to talk about Newport. I will be delighted to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) talked about the 21st century schools programme, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German). My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire also paid tribute, which I echo, to all the public sector workers of Wales. To my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), I was delighted to see Wrexham AFC promoted last season. I went to the game against Stockport at the end of the season and have, in my time, drunk quite a lot of that famous export, Wrexham Lager.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros- Curtis) talked about the political DNA in his constituency and about Ely, and I recognised his descriptions of the sports clubs. I have spent many weekends on the touchlines of pitches in Cardiff West and it is great to see the clubs going from strength to strength. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) gave a passionate speech about the history of his constituency, which is full of people with big hearts. He definitely has a big heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) mentioned his constituency’s proud city of St David’s and the £1 million regional skills fund that we have recently announced for Pembrokeshire. I was very interested to hear mention from the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) of her Wind Street escapades. I had some of those as well, so maybe we should have a chat outside the Chamber about that at some point.
I want to wish everybody a very happy St David’s Day. I thank them for their contributions and I look forward to celebrating on Saturday.
Ruth Jones
I am proud to have brought this debate to the Chamber to celebrate St David’s Day. It is great to speak from the Government Benches for the first time following an amazing Labour victory at the general election. We now have a new partnership with the Welsh Government based on respect, trust and delivery, and these warm words are matched with actions: the Chancellor gave a record £21 billion spending boost to the Welsh Government to support public services and infrastructure across Wales.
I thank all Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) mentioned many of them, as did the Secretary of State, so I will not go through them. It is great to welcome so many new Labour colleagues to this Chamber, and I look forward to watching them grow and develop over the coming years.
Finally, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all Members and our constituents—
Non-league Football Clubs
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber to discuss an issue that many of my constituents in Redditch and the villages, along with constituents across the country, care so deeply about: non-league football. I am grateful to the Minister who will respond, and I put on record my thanks for her steadfast commitment to bringing in the Football Governance Bill. I know that she cares deeply about and is heavily invested in the future of our nation’s favourite game. I also thank the various football clubs, organisations and supporters who have contacted me to tell me their positive and negative stories about what is happening in their communities.
I am blessed in my constituency to have several excellent non-league football clubs, including Redditch Borough football club and the aptly named Sporting Club Inkberrow FC, but today I will speak directly to Redditch United’s contribution to our community. Non-league football clubs attract local fans and generate money through ticket sales, concessions such as food, drink and merchandise, and parking fees. The funds flow directly into the local economy, benefiting surrounding businesses, such as pubs, cafés, restaurants and shops.
In partnership with the Football Association, Redditch United has commissioned a study on the club’s various impacts, and the results are staggering. United’s total direct economic value to the local economy is over £2.5 million. The club generates nearly £200,000 in total health value, nearly £20,000 in social value and over £1 million in wellbeing value—all from just 10 full-time staff and 50 part-time staff. Those numbers, and that effectiveness, would make any local authority, public health unit or Government scheme blush.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will notice that I have found my Harlow Town FC badge and have worn it for the debate, and I welcome the importance he places on non-league football. Does he agree that it is not just the paid staff members of the club whom we should recognise, but the huge number of volunteers? I pay particular tribute to a Welsh lady who is our secretary, Donna Harvey. It is the community feel that brings people together and makes non-league football so special.
Chris Bloore
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the incredible impact of volunteers on our local football clubs. Despite the professionalism of non-league football clubs in recent years, they would not exist if it was not for volunteers like his constituent.
Non-league football is often more affordable for fans, allowing people greater access to entertainment in their community. The relatively low cost of attending matches means that more people can engage with the sport and participate in local economic activities surrounding the home grounds. United charges £123 for a season ticket, and crowds have trebled in the last five years.
Chris Bloore
Thank you. More and more local boys and girls are building an affinity with the club, and local businesses are benefiting. United has nearly 400 youth players visiting its ground every week, marshalled by nearly 500 volunteers, and over 100 adult players and 560 community programme participants. The economic footprint of daily training sessions at the Valley stadium is significant; it reaches everyone from our petrol stations to our bus companies, and from local shops selling sports drinks and water to shops that help parents to fuel children before they play.
Engagement with Redditch United provides a wide range of benefits to different individuals. The Football Association credits Redditch United with creating 173,000 hours of social interaction, generating £187,000 in player wellbeing value, and £1.8 million in value generated from club volunteering hours.
Dave Robertson
I am blessed to have two non-league football clubs at step 4 and step 5: Chasetown FC and Lichfield City. Who can forget Chasetown’s giant-killing exploits in the FA cup a few years ago? The sense of achievement and togetherness that brought to the entire town of Burntwood is difficult to replicate. Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is important to recognise clubs’ economic value, it is the social value—the togetherness, camaraderie and civic-mindedness that come with supporting these clubs—that is so valuable for our communities?
Chris Bloore
I should have sent my hon. Friend my speech beforehand, because I will come to that. I agree that non-league clubs bring more than economic value to their communities.
United has been at the forefront of mental health and wellbeing campaigns. Many volunteers have gone on to work in the game and have become accredited coaches, or have simply built up the confidence to get back into paid work after a lengthy absence. I recently attended a walking football event at the Valley stadium. It was heartening to see more senior players who were still active, and that those who had suffered from poor mental health felt that they had an outlet, and a community to be proud of.
Football is a tool to create partnerships that local government and national Governments sometimes cannot make. Redditch United has signed a sponsorship deal with internet giant Reddit, stemming from a post on that site. I must admit, I was little overwhelmed at the sight of Reddit directors from the United States visiting our town, walking around the Valley stadium and cheering on the Reds.
United does even more. The design-a-kit campaign has been launched for a second year, engaging local school children. The club is working on making the fan base more diverse through work in schools, hosting employability talks, mock interviews, sports delivery, work experience, and work with local universities and colleges, including a special education needs and disabilities college that uses the ground for sports provision. Helping young people into jobs that pay taxes will help us to rebuild our public services and put the public finances on a solid footing once again. The club is a networking hub for businesses—and, yes, it is creating the next generation of male and female footballers, who I hope will push United up the pyramid, and training the next generation of coaches. The Valley is also home to the West Bromwich Albion ladies team.
Despite that incredible work and the proven benefit for the economy and the community, the challenges facing local non-league clubs are significant. It is getting harder, not easier, for non-league clubs to be sustainable, and their contribution is at risk. Limited revenue streams mean that non-league clubs often face financial struggles. They may struggle to maintain infrastructure, pay players and compete with larger clubs. Sometimes, promotion can mean being placed in a geographically challenging league, which makes it difficult to attract players, and in some cases, relegation follows promotion.
Last night, I had the chance to speak with Ellis Platten, the creator of the “AwayDays” YouTube channel, who has done an excellent job of chronicling the impact of a local club hitting tough times, not just on a fan base but on a community. It has chronicled everything from Durham City’s unwanted winless run to Farsley Celtic playing home games miles away from its home ground. Such stories are not uncommon when ownership fails. Ten per cent of the teams that were in Redditch United’s league last year no longer exist. The economic footprint and social impact of those clubs have been immediately lost, and there is nothing to replace them.
No billionaires are interested in rescuing smaller clubs, so non-league teams simply collapse. As with the loss of a major high-street retailer, the knock-on impacts on the local economy can be catastrophic. It is not just the economic benefits that are lost; all the work done off the pitch at the heart of our communities is lost, too. If Redditch United were to shut its doors, we would lose so much more than a team. Despite the excellent work of the Football Foundation to support clubs such as Redditch United and to improve local football facilities, the balance between being a community asset and maintaining financial sustainability can be challenging for such clubs, and too many towns are losing them.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Usually when I mention football in the Chamber, it is in reference to Grimsby Town, but on this occasion I will mention Brigg Town FC, which is now in my constituency, thanks to boundary changes. It is a community interest club. I went to one of its matches a few weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman and other Members have drawn attention to the important role that such clubs play in the local community. In order to secure finance, they encourage local businesses into sponsorship. Does he agree that that is a vital source of income for non-league clubs?
Chris Bloore
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Redditch United would not be in existence if it were not for the support of local businesses in Redditch and the villages. We are extremely appreciative of their sponsorship, and if some of them are watching this, we hope that they renew their sponsorship agreements for the next 12 months.
Trickle-down economics simply does not work in the football pyramid, and not simply in cash terms. It can be difficult for non-league clubs to approach councils for support when it comes to planning, or to ask councils to involve them in long-term strategic economic, health and leisure decision making. Many transport routes that served local grounds have been lost, and while premier league and championship clubs might receive significant support in making their grounds accessible, the same does not apply to many non-league clubs, due to a lack of funds and expertise in town halls.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to talk about our local non-league football clubs, such as Northfield Town FC and Alvechurch FC; I pay tribute to them for their community work. Does he agree that many clubs face a challenge in finding funding to bring on more women’s and girls’ teams, and to invest in the infrastructure? The same applies to disability teams. That can be a barrier to accessing wider funding. I believe he knows both football clubs well. Does he share my hope that they will find that investment?
Chris Bloore
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As a goalkeeper, I let in many goals by Northfield Town FC, so I have made my contribution to his constituency. He is absolutely right. I had the fortune to bring the chairman of Redditch United, David Faulkner, to the Houses to Parliament to meet the chairman of the FA. We made it clear that there is not the money available at the moment to build the infrastructure and facilities for girls and women, and it is preventing participation, so we must do more to build that infrastructure and those facilities in our communities.
Non-league football clubs are ideally placed to support this Government’s commitment to the growth and regeneration of our town centres, build a transport network fit for purpose, improve skills and education and, critically, reduce the burden on our NHS by promoting sporting participation. The economic impact of non-league football clubs is multifaceted. They contribute to local employment, business revenues and social programmes. While their financial reach is smaller than their premier and football league rivals, their influence significantly shapes local economies and fosters community cohesion and pride. Redditch has 500 players, but only 20 of them are on the men’s first team. A football club is more than what happens on a Saturday afternoon. We need to talk about clubs, not just teams, as the impact of clubs such as Redditch United is more than just their place in the football pyramid. When they are lost, the benefits to our economy and society are lost, too.
Not every non-league club has a Ryan Reynolds or a Rob McElhenney and accompanying Disney+ TV show. I wish they had, because if we have learned anything from the Wrexham story, it is that when a football club has the means to be successful, it can rejuvenate a town. Success breeds confidence and pride. People start smiling, and the money and investment follow, not just into the football club but throughout the city and regional infrastructure.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate, celebrating the immense value of football and our local clubs. I commend the mention of women and girls; I used to play football myself for a team.
I want to talk about Tamworth FC. My local chairman contacted me about the 3UP campaign, which is pushing for an extra promotional place from the national league to the English football league. That would provide more ambition for clubs, provide inspiration for fans and, crucially, ensure that money flows from the top right through the game to our lower non-league clubs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to support initiatives like that, to ensure that clubs and local economies benefit?
Chris Bloore
Football is about competition. More relegation and more promotion is a good thing for me, so I certainly endorse Tamworth’s support of the campaign.
Although I have focused on Redditch United and am proud of what the club is doing on and off the pitch, I know that the excellent work it does, despite extreme challenges, is being repeated up and down the country by staff and volunteers. They are not asking for a handout—just for the respect and support they deserve. While I welcome this Government and this Minister’s commitment to delivering the Football Governance Bill, I hope that when the Bill is passed, the Government will be able to work with the Football Association, local authorities and non-league clubs to review the sustainability and resilience of non-league football and, crucially, opportunities for growth via our non-league clubs.
Such a review into the financial sustainability, governance and gaps in support for non-league clubs, at step 2 and below, would allow us to recognise what support they need and how we can finally ensure that the riches of our game make it down to the real grassroots. There is more we can do with local authorities to ensure that transport links support the growth of clubs and encourage more fans to attend. We can help local authorities to recognise local clubs’ importance and provide guidance on strategic planning, including the benefits of working alongside clubs in meeting leisure, education and economic priorities.
Finally, and crucially, we need to offer the same governance support to non-league clubs, their fan bases and their communities to ensure that we reduce the number of clubs forced to drop down divisions or fold because they do not have the liquidity to continue their operations at the highest level. Securing the future and prosperity of non-league clubs could benefit many Ministers sitting around the Cabinet table.
I am unashamedly a passionate football fan, but my passion for non-league football and my team, Redditch United, is not just about what happens on the pitch for 90 minutes.
Non-league football clubs are often the unsung heroes of our local economies. As I have explained, they not only put millions into our economy but provide jobs, are the base for critical educational and social programmes, help people back into work, and provide sporting facilities enabling thousands of boys and girls every week to stay fit and healthy. I hope that during this Parliament we will be able to investigate how we can use the tools available to the House to support them, the local economies that rely on them, and the communities that love them.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to David Faulkner, his staff, and the volunteers who have made Redditch United more than just a football club.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
English football is one of our greatest exports, which this Government want to see thriving for generations to come. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for highlighting the impact of clubs such as Redditch United in his constituency on local communities. Indeed, we have heard from Members on both sides of the House about the huge impact that non-league clubs have on their areas. English football is a fantastic global success story, and of course it all begins, and would not be possible without, grassroots football.
I want to say something about the important contribution that football and the sporting sector make to our economy, and to communities up and down the country. In October last year, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published new research measuring the impact of the sport and physical activity sector on the economy. It showed that the sector had contributed £53.6 billion to the UK economy in 2021, which means that it was worth more than 2.6% of the UK’s economy. In the same year, 878,000 people on full-time contracts were employed in the sector. One of the reasons the sports economy forms such a significant proportion of the total economy is our footballing sector: the same research showed that football, throughout the whole pyramid, including professional and grassroots football as well as football’s indirect impact on the economy at large, generated £8.71 billion for the economy. The research did not even measure the societal benefits of actually playing grassroots football, which I will touch on later. Football clubs deliver significant economic benefits to their local economies, but they also deliver indirect economic benefits to the local communities that they serve, attracting visitors and bringing increased footfall to the hospitality, retail, and transport sectors. The Government want a thriving grassroots sport sector, with strong national governing bodies, including the Football Association, that can use their nationwide remit to deliver sport to people across the country. The DCMS provides the majority of support for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body Sport England, which annually invests £250 million of lottery and Exchequer money. The FA is a long-term partner of Sport England, which is investing £26.1 million pounds in the FA for 2022 to 2027.
As a Government, we understand the value of grassroots sports facilities. That is why we are delivering the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which is investing £123 million of UK-wide funding in 2024-25. It has helped to fund a total of 559 projects across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so far this year. Projects funded through the programme include new artificial grass pitches, new changing pavilions and clubhouses, floodlights, fencing, pitch maintenance equipment, and goalposts. It was great to attend the Chorley Women versus AFC Fylde match a few weeks ago, as part of the Premier League’s “More than a Game” trophy tour, and to see the impact of this funding at first hand in the improvements made to the facilities. Following the autumn Budget, the Government confirmed their continued support for elite and grassroots sport through future investment, and further details of that investment will be confirmed in due course.
My hon. Friend raised the importance of transport links to support the growth of clubs. I agree with him that we all need to play our part in supporting the case for our local clubs to be well served by local transport, not only for football fans but for access to opportunities to participate in sport. I am discussing with colleagues across Government how we can improve public transport access to and from sporting events, as I know that is an issue of interest and concern for Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend also raised governance support for non-league clubs. The revised code for sports governance sets out the levels of transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability and integrity that are required from the FA and other organisations that seek and are in receipt of public and national lottery funding. Any governance concerns regarding non-league clubs should be raised with the FA, which has its own complaints procedure. Sport England oversees the FA’s compliance with the code, and any concerns about the governance of the FA should be raised with Sport England.
That is why it is important that support for grassroots football continues into the future—because the influence of non-league football extends far beyond purely economic impact. Non-league football clubs have an important part to play in delivering wider societal benefits, fostering social cohesion and building a strong sense of local identity. Clubs often engage in community initiatives and contribute to civic identity and pride in place. They run extensive outreach programmes, volunteer initiatives, and youth development schemes that offer safe spaces and educational opportunities to local residents. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency, having visited clubs including Wombwell Town FC, Wombwell Main FC and Worsbrough Bridge Athletic FC, as well as seeing the work Elsecar Main FC has done with Elsecar Holy Trinity primary academy, reviving its playing field. I know the huge role community clubs play in my own area of Barnsley and across the country.
An FA study from 2019 showed that the value of regular grassroots football in England was over £10 billion per year. This consisted of a direct economic value of just over £2 billion per year and a social wellbeing value of over £8 billion per year. The FA study also showed that playing regular grassroots football saved the NHS over £43 million per year through reduced GP visits.
It was great to attend the FA’s “Made For This Game” event in Parliament this week as part of its campaign to empower girls in schools across the country to get involved in sport, no matter their age, role, ability, race, religion or ethnicity. I am looking forward to supporting the FA campaign next Friday closer to home in Barnsley for its fourth annual “Biggest Ever Football Session”. It is great to see that the FA’s target of equal access to football for girls in 75% of schools has been met, but we are committed to going further. This Government believe every girl deserves the opportunity to get involved in whatever sport they choose, because we know the power of football clubs, from non-league clubs to professional clubs, in getting people active and bringing communities together.
Non-league clubs also bring about significant economic benefits and are an essential part of the social fabric of our country. It right that we also thank the thousands of volunteers who give up their time to support their local non-league clubs; without them clubs simply would not survive. My hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to the contribution of volunteers.
This debate has been a brilliant opportunity to discuss the economic contribution of non-league football clubs. As I have set out, football and sport make a hugely important economic contribution to our economy and our country. This is exactly why the Government support non-league and grassroots football, and I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few quick preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please, everyone, switch mobile phones and electronic devices to silent. No matter how much we want tea or coffee, they are not allowed during our sittings.
Today, we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they should let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Core functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I look forward to constructive dialogue with the Committee throughout the day.
As the Committee is well aware, fraud against the public sector takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the Government, damages the integrity of the state and erodes public trust. The Bill makes provision for the prevention of fraud against public authorities by the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error, and for connected purposes. Under part 1, the Bill authorises powers that will be used by the Public Sector Fraud Authority, part of the Cabinet Office, and under part 2, by the Department for Work and Pensions, on which the other Minister in Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will lead.
I will now consider clauses 1 and 2 together. Clause 1 gives new core functions to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and sets out what can be recovered by the use of the powers under part 1 of the Bill. It describes what the Government want to achieve with part 1: to investigate more public sector fraud; to get back funds lost to the public purse through that fraud; to take enforcement action against fraudsters, whether through civil or criminal routes; and to support public authorities to prevent and address fraud against them.
The functions of the powers under part 1 will be used to deliver. As such, it is necessary that this clause stands part of the Bill. The functions are given to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, but it is important to stress that that is drafting convention, and the Minister will not use the powers personally; instead, in line with the Carltona principles, later clauses set out that the decisions may be taken and powers utilised by authorised officers and authorised investigators appointed by the Minister. Those officials will sit within the Public Sector Fraud Authority and will be experienced investigative professionals trained to Government counter-fraud profession expectations, sitting in a structure led by senior counter-fraud experts. As we heard from the witnesses, that will sit within a system of oversight, to be discussed later in the Bill.
The clause also sets out what “recoverable amounts” are. First, that means payments made as a result of fraud or error that have been identified during the course of a fraud investigation to be either fraudulent or erroneous, and which the affected public authority is entitled to recover. Later clauses cover how that entitlement is established. Error as well as fraud is included here, because if an investigation discovers that there has not been fraud, but none the less that a person has received money that they should not have, the debt powers in the Bill can, if necessary, be used to recover it. That is in line with the approach taken by others, including His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the DWP, but it is important to stress that the core function of the powers is to investigate and recover losses from fraud. Recovery in that way will normally be when alternative voluntary routes have been exhausted, or a person or business can repay but is refusing to do so. All attempts will be made to engage.
Secondly, “recoverable amounts” covers any other amount that a public authority is entitled to recover in respect of that fraud. That covers frauds where no payment has been made, but the fraudster has benefited in some other way—for example, fraudulently not paying what they owe—and the value of that can be determined. Finally, it also includes any interests which would be collectable in those circumstances.
Clause 2 sets out how the Minister for the Cabinet Office can carry out the functions in clause 1. The clause excludes HMRC and the DWP from the list of bodies that the PSFA will be able to take this action for as they both have significant resources and expertise in this area, as well as their own powers. Again, we will discuss that later.
Importantly, the clause does not remove or supersede responsibilities and functions that other public authorities may have in respect of fraud and the recovery of money. The powers in this part allow the Government to fill a gap and complement what already exists. The intention is that, in exercising these functions, the Minister, and the authorised officers and investigators who will use the powers on behalf of the Minister, are not simply moving investigations and recoveries that would happen anyway into the Cabinet Office. Instead, they will primarily use them in a way that is additive, to take on investigations, recover money and take enforcement action that would otherwise not have been done.
Subsection (3) says that the Minister may charge “a fee”. The PSFA does not currently charge for its investigative services, but that gives it authority to do so in the future, consistent with the cost-recovery approach set out in HM Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. “Public authority” has a broad definition set out in clause 70 and would include, for example, other Government Departments, arm’s length bodies and local authorities.
Clause 2(4) says that the Minister is included in the definition of public authority in clause 70 as far as that concerns fraud or suspected fraud against the Minister, or recovery of money for the Minister. That is to ensure that frauds against the wider Cabinet Office and its agencies and bodies can still be investigated by the PSFA. However, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, it will be set out in guidance that the PSFA will not investigate alleged frauds within the PSFA or allegations against the Minister personally but will refer those to another agency as deemed appropriate on a case-by-case basis. That will help to ensure the integrity of PSFA investigations by keeping responsibility for investigating fraud in the PSFA, or by the Minister, external to that function, to preserve appropriate independence.
Finally, subsection (5) ensures that, in giving Ministers these functions, this part does not affect a public body’s entitlement to recover an amount or any functions it has in respect of fraud or recovery. That means existing functions and powers are not taken away from public authorities or superseded by the Ministers’ functions.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
His Majesty’s Opposition agree with the Bill’s principles and support the Government in what they are seeking to do, but we will be using our best efforts to try to help them do it better where we can. As the Minister said, clause 1 sets out the functions. Those functions seem perfectly sensible and reasonable, as does the way in which the Minister for the Cabinet Office is to interact with other public authorities as set out in clause 2. One of the themes that runs throughout almost all clauses of the Bill is the issue raised by multiple witnesses on Tuesday about how the functions to be allocated to the Minister or their representatives are to be exercised within the various codes of practice provided for in the Bill.
On Tuesday, the Minister seemed to indicate that the Government intend for those codes of practice to be made available for the House of Lords to scrutinise, but not for the House of Commons. That obviously makes it much more difficult for the Committee to consider the appropriateness of those functions and the various powers in the Bill. I urge the Government again to reconsider and look at how the House of Commons can be given those chances before our House completes its consideration. We recognise that that will not be possible in Committee.
In August 2022, the previous Conservative Government established the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office. We welcome the Bill taking that work forward by establishing the PSFA as a separate body from the Cabinet Office, to which the Cabinet Office is able to transfer functions. We entirely support the Government’s efforts to tackle fraud and error.
The National Audit Office puts the amount lost by fraud and error in the range of £5 billion to £30 billion in 2023-24, so ensuring that the Bill works to tackle both error and fraud is crucial within the functions set out in clause 1, and we will come on to that with some of our amendments to later clauses. Equally, we wish to ensure that the functions assigned to the Minister for the Cabinet Office are proportionate and capable of independent review and oversight. We will return to these important issues with our amendments later on.
I would like to ask the Minister some questions on clauses 1 and 2, the first of which is about the definitions. The Bill does not provide definitions of “fraud against a public authority” or “error”. As we heard in evidence on Tuesday, Dr Kassem from Aston University stated that
“the definition of fraud can be a bit limiting in the current Bill, because, first, it assumes that fraud is happening for financial reasons when that is not necessarily the case. There are non-financial motives. Let us consider insider fraud—fraud committed by insiders, people working for the public authorities—which is one of the most common threats not just in the public sector, but across other sectors. A disgruntled employee can be as dangerous as someone with a financial motive. So I would stick with the Fraud Act 2006 definition of fraud, because it mentions personal gain full stop. It can be financial and it can be non-financial. That has to be clarified.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 6, Q3.]
Really, it must be clarified within the functions set out for the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Why should that not be the case, and how does the Minister define these things for the Bill, if it is not in line with the Fraud Act 2006? Clause 2(3) also states:
“The Minister may charge another public authority a fee in relation to the exercise of functions under this Part on behalf of, or in relation to, the public authority.”
Can the Minister clarify what we would expect that fee to be? Is it arbitrary or a set amount? Does the Minister decide or is there a particular process?
I would also like to ask the Minister about the amounts that the Government expect to recover under the Bill. According to its impact assessment, the powers in part 1 are estimated to lead to around £54 million—the best estimate for net present benefits—being recovered from public sector fraud over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure the Committee how robust that estimate is, what it is based on and how confident the Government are that the full amount of money will be recovered?
The reason I ask that is because, for the Government across the 10 years, the best estimate for fraud recovered minus costs is £23 million. Different numbers of cases could mean a loss or a slightly higher return, which could be between minus £1.5 million and £24 million. How will the Government ensure that the Bill recovers more money than is paid out in costs in administering its functions? As clauses 1 and 2 are the foundation for establishing the PSFA, the Opposition are content for them to stand part of the Bill.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am pleased that you already see that we will become the official Opposition by the next general election, as long as the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) continues.
The Liberal Democrats would like to state clearly that fraud is wrong and, as the Minister rightly stated, it robs the state of the ability to support people and drive the change in our communities that we all thirst for. Our concern is that this legislation is being rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed, and rushed legislation can result in dangerous consequences for those who get caught up in it eventually. I share this concern with the Minister: we legislate at haste and repent at leisure when things go wrong.
Georgia Gould
I thank both hon. Members for their constructive comments. This dialogue will be really important in scrutinising the Bill. I also welcome the support for action on fraud, and the acknowledgment that it is a significant issue.
On timing, I reassure the hon. Member for Torbay that the powers in the Bill that the PSFA is asking for are all powers that exist elsewhere in government. They have been used and tested; they are just being brought into a new context. At the moment, there are few powers to investigate or recover fraud that happens to the wider public sector, but this part of the Bill seeks to rectify that. There has been a great deal of consultation led by me, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and our teams to get us to this point, but we will engage constructively with scrutiny as we move forward.
On the cost-benefit analysis, the overwhelming message from witnesses was that these new powers are necessary because there is a gap in investigating and recovering fraud against the wider public sector, and that the Bill will make a difference.
On the question of the £54 million and whether that is robust, that is a modest amount given we know that at least £3 billion of fraud happens against the wider public sector. It has come about through a great deal of work from the PSFA in modelling forward the current size of the enforcement team and how the powers are used elsewhere. We can therefore be confident in that figure, but if the powers work well we could grow the capacity and potentially recover more fraud.
At the moment, we know that there is fraud going on that the Government cannot investigate. A big part of this will be the deterrent and making it clear that if there is fraud in procurement or grants, there will be real powers to investigate and recover that money. That is really important both for the concrete recovery of money and for trust in how public funds are spent.
On the wider points about the importance of oversight, including of the Bill, that has been incredibly important to the Government. We thought deeply about the measures in the Bill and we will discuss that as we go through it. As for the development of the codes of practice, as I hope the Committee will see today, I will refer to the measures that are to be put in the code of practice as we go through the clauses, so that we can have some discussion about that.
I reassure the Committee that the definition of fraud in clause 70 is as it is defined in the Fraud Act 2006. That includes the main fraud offences, which are false representation, fraud by failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so, and fraud by abuse of position. Hopefully that provides reassurance on that question, and I look forward to answering any other questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Information notices
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) The Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if—
(a) there is an objective basis for the Minister’s suspicion based on facts, verifiable information or intelligence, and
(b) a reasonable person would be entitled to reach same conclusion based on the same facts, information or intelligence.
(1B) The Minister does not have reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if the Minister’s suspicion—
(a) is based in any way on—
(i) the person’s physical appearance,
(ii) any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 that a person may have or appear to the Minister to have, or
(b) is based solely on any generalisation or stereotype giving rise to a belief that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity.”
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, delete “10” and insert “28”.
Amendment 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
“‘reasonable’ means the Minister must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind, and the suspicion that fraudulent activity has taken place must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, verifiable information and or intelligence which indicate that fraudulent activity will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information, and or intelligence.”
Mike Wood
Clause 3 would give the PSFA the power to issue information notices to a third party, compelling them to provide information within a deadline. The amendments set out the circumstances in which that would be done and set what we think is a perfectly reasonable test of reasonableness, as well as exploring the time provided for the recipients of notices to respond. Our amendments are designed to probe some areas of this process. The powers given to the Minister for the Cabinet Office in clause 3 are wide-ranging, so we wish to ensure that these are used reasonably and proportionately, and solely in connection with the explicit purpose of the Bill. We have tabled amendments 11, 10, 14, and 9 to that end.
We have to remember that the powers can be used against individuals and small businesses. While we might expect most of the notices to be issued against multinational companies, particularly financial institutions, we also need to consider those who do not have the capacity of larger organisations. The powers must be used reasonably and effectively in all circumstances.
Amendment 11 sets a reasonableness test relating to whether the information being requested is likely to relate to the fraud in question—for example, in private text messages—and therefore whether it is reasonable to ask for that information, and whether the cost involved in recovering the required information is likely to be reasonable and proportionate. The Minister referred to equivalent powers that are available in other forms of investigation that the Government and their agencies and bodies carry out. We see the reasonableness test as equivalent to that which HMRC must meet in its notices.
We also wish to ensure that the powers are not misused, and amendments 9 and 10 are directed towards that purpose. Although clause 3 states that the Minister can use the powers only against someone
“whom the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed fraud against a public authority”
the Bill provides no definition of “reasonable”, so amendments 9 and 10 are designed to fill some of that gap.
Amendment 10 specifies that the Minister for the Cabinet Office
“has reasonable grounds to suspect a person has committed fraud against a public authority if…there is an objective basis for the Minister’s suspicion based on facts, verifiable information or intelligence, and…a reasonable person would be entitled to reach same conclusion based on the same facts, information or intelligence.”
We want to be clear about what we do not think are reasonable grounds. These would include, for example, if the Minister’s suspicions were based in any way on a person’s physical appearance—protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 that the person may have, or appear to the Minister to have—or were based solely on any generalisation or stereotype giving rise to a belief that certain groups or categories of people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. We want to ensure that the powers are exercised responsibly and appropriately.
Amendment 9 gives the definition of “reasonable” as meaning that
“the Minister must have formed a genuine suspicion in their own mind, and the suspicion that fraudulent activity has taken place must be reasonable. This means that there must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, verifiable information and or intelligence which indicate that fraudulent activity will be found, so that a reasonable person would be entitled to reach the same conclusion based on the same facts and information, and or intelligence.”
Amendments 9 and 10 are based on the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are contained in the PACE—the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—code A.
Bearing in mind that these powers will be exercised against individuals, some of whom might struggle to provide information, we want to probe the choice of 10 days as the timeframe in which to provide information. Amendment 14 increases the minimum notice period from 10 working days to 28, which is similar to the standard minimum time that people would expect to be given to respond to written requests for information from HMRC. Given the scope of the information that might be requested, appropriate time must be given to organisations and individuals to comply. External circumstances should also be taken into account when considering the time periods. If an individual is on annual leave or off sick for a few days, they may have less than a week to provide the information or they will face significant fines. That does not seem reasonable.
We are not necessarily saying that 28 days is a better time period than seven, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained why the Government set the minimum time that they did. That is particularly pertinent, as failure to provide the information required would carry a civil penalty of £300 a day, which, for an individual, can amount to a considerable sum of money very quickly.
In its current form, without being more specific about what it means to be “reasonable” or expanding the timeframes, we are a little concerned that the powers that clause 3 gives the Minister may not include the necessary checks and balances, so I would appreciate her reassurances on that point.
Steve Darling
Perhaps the word that the shadow Minister used most was “reasonableness”. In our strange political world in recent months, the question of what is reasonable in our society has changed significantly following the change of President in the United States. What normal society would expect is “reasonable” of an elected official, both here and in America, gives me, as a Liberal Democrat, cause for concern in relation to how we can make sure that a Bill like this, which gives very significant powers to the state, sets safeguards in stone to protect our communities. We will come to that later, but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister. Although I am sure that we are all reasonable people in this room, others who are unreasonable might take power at a later stage of our lives. With this legislation, how can we put safeguards in place? I hope that we will cover that later, but the Minister’s early thoughts would be welcome.
Georgia Gould
I welcome those probing amendments, because they give me an opportunity to provide some clarity and reassurance on those important points. I will respond to them in a second, but on the question of safeguards, as I said in my introduction, we have thought very deeply about them and we are really mindful of the responsibility of these powers, so a broad range of safeguards has been built into both sides of the Bill.
On the PSFA measures, all the use of powers will be overseen by a separate team that will be accountable to an independent chair who will transparently report their findings annually to Parliament. The use of the wider powers will be overseen and reviewed by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which has a lot of experience in this. There are various routes of appeal and review built into the powers, as well as times when applications to court are needed, and we will deal with those in some depth as we go through the clauses. Oversight is absolutely critical, and that is why we have put such a robust oversight system in place.
On clause 3, currently any information needed from first parties or connected third parties can be asked for only if they refuse to provide it, and there is no way for the PSFA to compel the information to be produced without having to go through the civil court. The clause enables authorised officers in the PSFA to compel information to be produced that is not excluded, where it is necessary, proportionate and in line with the data protection legislation, from individuals and businesses as part of a civil fraud investigation. As we discussed on Tuesday, those authorised officers will all be highly trained and subject to professional standards and a code of conduct.
In particular, clause 3 extends the Minister’s powers to include taking copies of information and requiring the individuals to provide information in a specified form. The power includes imposing duties on an individual to retain information that they already hold for longer than they would normally be required to. For example, that might apply where the PSFA requests contractual notes as part of an investigation that a person may retain for only three years. Where the request is made just before the end of that period, the information notice would also explain that any failure to supply the specified information might result in a civil penalty being imposed.
The clause details the requirements of the information notice, including the format, the timeline for compliance and the location for submission. A similar approach is used by HMRC. In practice, authorised officers would engage, where possible, on a voluntary basis before issuing an information notice. The clause also ensures that there are restrictions on the information notice from demanding “excluded material” or “special procedure material”, as defined under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
I will turn to the amendments, and as I said, I am very grateful for the opportunity to explain how this clause works, which I hope will provide some reassurance. Clause 3(1)(a) and (b) set out a test for issuing an information notice. An authorised officer will have the power to compel information only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and only when the information being requested relates to a person whom the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed fraud. On that basis, PSFA authorised officers will request the information only when there are reasonable grounds to do so.
The question that amendment 10 raises is, “What is meant by ‘reasonable grounds’?” It must be objectively reasonable for them to suspect fraud, given the information available to them. An authorised officer must genuinely suspect that the fraud has been carried out by the individual, and that belief will be based on facts, information and/or intelligence. Reasonable grounds cannot be supported on the basis of personal factors such as those listed in the amendment, or a hunch. It is critical to set out that authorised officers will be using those facts and will be bound by the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act.
The reasonable grounds test is a standard, widely accepted test used by various organisations, including the DWP, the Serious Fraud Office and the police. Further to that, to ensure that the reasonableness test is applied properly in practice, the PSFA will have built in place safeguards. For example, authorised officers must consider all the facts of a case known to them at that time when they decide what is reasonable. Authorised officers must ensure that each decision made relating to the use of the powers is documented and available for checking. Management checks will ensure that those procedures are followed correctly. Information holders can also request a review of a decision to issue an information notice if they feel that there were no reasonable grounds.
As I said, there will also be independent oversight of the use of powers by an independent body such as HMICFRS or the new independent chair. I am setting out this detail on the record now, but we will also be transparent about this for those who do not leaf through Hansard. The code of practice envisioned by this legislation for the PSFA elements of the Bill relates to civil penalties. As civil penalties are the mechanism for ensuring compliance with the information gathering powers, we will also set out in the code of practice, and in further published guidance if necessary, how the information gathering powers will be used in practice, as I am doing today. We will also fulfil the commitment that we made on Tuesday to talk about what will be in the codes of practice as we reach the relevant parts of the Bill.
Let me turn to the period of compliance. Our approach in the Bill accommodates the variation in size and type of fraud investigations that the PSFA is likely to take on. As such, the Bill allows information providers a minimum, critically, of 10 working days to comply. However, in practice, the information notices will be tailored on a case-by-case basis, with each being judged on its merits and with the time period applied appropriately. Similar approaches are used in HMRC. That, in turn, protects the information holder from being asked to produce information in an unreasonable timescale.
On Tuesday, we heard from John Smart, who said:
“Some of the smaller organisations might struggle to meet that 10-day requirement”.
That is why we will be tailoring the requirement. But, he also said,
“I still think it is a reasonable starting point. If you do not start with a reasonable starting point, for the larger organisations you end up deferring decision making and action being taken. I think 10 days is reasonable.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 46, Q81.]
As I said before, that is the minimum.
Again, we will set out the commitment to tailoring to ensure that we are proportionate and reflect the different types of organisations and individuals who might be asked for information in the code of practice or published guidance. Alongside the time period for compliance, an information provider will have the opportunity to request a review, which would include the ability to vary the time period for compliance if it was considered that a longer timeframe was needed. The current drafting outlines a five-layered process for information holders to request a review of an information notice that they have received. I can go through that detail if Committee members want me to, but I hope that that provides some reassurance on hon. Members’ points.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for those points, but I seek a bit more clarification. There are references to “the Minister” in clause 3, and I want to be clear about this, because we talked a lot about the code of practice during the evidence session on Tuesday. Is the Minister saying that the code of practice will have reference to the authorised officers? So, for Hansard, where clause 3 refers to “the Minister”, it is actually more likely, through the code of practice, to be referring to the day-to-day operation of those investigators. The Minister also mentioned that the definition of reasonableness is as per other departmental records and is widely available. Just to clarify, will that also be in the code of practice so that it is easily accessible for anybody in the public to look at what that might include? I seek more clarification on those two points.
Georgia Gould
Yes, the code of practice will be much more operational guidance that will be targeted at the authorised officers and their day-to-day operational practice. It will include the information that I have set out.
The Chair
Does the shadow Minister wish to press amendments 10, 14 or 9, which were just debated, to a vote?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 18, in clause 4, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Mike Wood
The amendments are all about ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just go back to the same organisation that issued the original notice. Clause 4 will allow for the person to whom the information notice is given to appeal the notice up to seven days after it is issued, but that appeal will go back to the Minister for the Cabinet Office—or, in practice, the PSFA—to review it and decide whether to revoke, amend or uphold the notice. As drafted, it gives the Minister significant power, as really the only responsible person who can review the decision to give the notice.
There therefore appears to be a significant lack of independent oversight. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there is no ability to have an independent appeal of the kind that would generally take place against HMRC decisions and notices, through the first-tier tribunal. That is why we tabled amendments 15, 16, 17 and 18: to change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first-tier tribunal. We are concerned that, given it is the Minister who has been given the power to investigate fraud, it is then a case of allowing the Minister to mark their own homework if they—or the people acting on their behalf—review the decisions themselves.
I would like to understand the Minister’s view on whether that is an effective use of ministerial time and capacity. Does she envisage that any such appeal decisions would be delegated? In the amendments, we propose to replace the Minister with the first-tier tribunal in that process, which would be equivalent to the processes that would be expected when a decision of HMRC is reviewed. Our amendments would ensure that an independent third party is involved with the review process.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why there should be no ability for such an appeal to be made, whether it is made immediately against the notice for information or perhaps as a second appeal stage. We need to be satisfied that there is a good reason why people who are the subject of those notices, which may be quite onerous, particularly for individuals and smaller organisations, should not have the ability to appeal to an independent body. Normally, natural justice would assume that to be the case.
Steve Darling
I concur about the safeguarding of individuals. While there may be an independent reviewer or chair, the challenge, for me, is who appoints them. If it ends up being the Minister who appoints the chair, how independent will they be? Given what we are seeing elsewhere in the world, how do we ensure that we build a structure of independence into the Bill that we may not previously have thought was needed? I am somewhat supportive of the proposals from colleagues, but equally, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the challenge.
Georgia Gould
Some points of clarity: the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire asked who would do the reviewing. A more senior officer from within the PSFA would complete that review, not the Minister themselves. The entire process would be overseen by a separate team who are accountable to an independent chair, and critically, who will report into Parliament to provide that level of independence.
The other important context is that the Bill also—we will come to this later—provides for the PSFA to become a statutory body, fully independent from the Minister. In the meantime, it is incredibly important that we have this process of oversight and the independent chair, as we discussed. All these issues are important for balance. We have to avoid giving fraudsters the ability to abuse the review process and frustrate investigations. As John Smart told the Committee on Tuesday, months is far too long, and adding a further route to appeal to the tribunal at that very early stage would add months, if not years, to our investigations into suspected frauds. We have tried to balance this very carefully to ensure that there are appropriate routes to review that sit within a system that is independently overseen.
I believe that we have found the right balance in the Bill, and I have explained those layers of review. They include internal review, which is the appropriate route that strikes the right balance between fairness and avoiding fraudsters frustrating the process. As I said, the internal reviewer will be a separate authorised officer, who will be—this is a requirement in clause 66—an authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision maker. The way that these reviews are performed will be subject to oversight/ We will talk later in more detail about the oversight in the Bill, but it will include the inspections by HMICFRS and the day-to-day oversight by an independent chair, which could include live cases.
I explained in the previous debate—I did not go through the detail, but I can do so—the stages of an information notice going through if someone still does not agree that they should provide the information. Ultimately, it is really important that if a penalty is issued for non-compliance, the information provider can appeal to the relevant court against that penalty, so there is a formal appeal to a court at the end of the information-gathering process if it gets to that place. However, the intention of the powers—as I said, this will be written into the code of practice—is very much to work alongside those organisations that are gathering information, and to be proportionate to their size and the requests put forward, so I believe we have found the right balance.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for those responses, but I think that the first-tier tribunal is perfectly capable of dismissing applications that are without merit, without significantly extending the time. Given the importance of an independent appeal mechanism, I wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.
Mike Wood
Amendments 12 and 13 are in a similar vein to amendment 14 —they allow the individual or organisation issued with an information notice to apply to the independent body or board for an extension to the 10 working days within which they are currently required to provide information requested in the notice, if they are reasonably unable to comply. Sorry, have I skipped ahead a section?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Feel free to skip ahead to the conclusion.
Mike Wood
Sorry, it has been a while since I have been on a Bill Committee.
The amendments would allow the individual or organisation to apply for an extension to the 10 working days within which they are currently required to provide information requested in an information notice, if they are reasonably unable to comply. This is a common sense approach to support people who are engaging with the process and prevent them from being hit with penalties, which was never the intention of the legislation. This is also important because we do not know precisely what information the Minister will be able to ask individuals to provide, other than that an information notice cannot require the giving of particularly sensitive—such as excluded or special procedure—material, as defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This includes confidential business records or journalistic material. Otherwise, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has a very open-ended power to require different types of information. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether the Government would consider allowing those issued with information notices to apply specifically for an extension if they cannot reasonably provide the information within the time period requested.
Steve Darling
I can add very little to what the shadow Minister said. Again, I am broadly sympathetic on the need to have these safeguards in the legislation, and on not knowing what the practice notes are. We are very much in the dark, so that does give us cause for concern.
Georgia Gould
The critical thing to note here is that we have been very clear in the Bill that 10 days is a minimum. As we heard in evidence, some organisations will find it very easy to provide the information within 10 days; others will find it harder. As I have already set out, we will ensure that responding to different kinds of organisations proportionately is referenced in the code of practice.
I previously explained why we believe that the time limits in the Bill for information requests are appropriate, and why we believe that internal review strikes the right balance in preventing fraudsters from frustrating the process. The current drafting includes powers for authorised officers to vary the duration of an information notice in clause 4. The clause allows an information notice to be varied subject to the outcome of an internal review. A variation of a notice can include amending the timeframe to comply with a request if it is found that a longer timeframe is required.
We have discussed how the Bill allows information-providers a minimum of 10 working days to comply, which in practice will be tailored on a case-by-case basis, with each case judged on its own merits and the time period applied appropriately. This is a similar approach to that taken by HMRC, for example: an authorised officer would take account of the nature of the information or documents required and how easy it will be for the person to provide or produce them. That, in turn, protects the information-holder from not being asked to produce information within an unreasonable timescale. In response to the amendment, I ran through what the reasonable grounds test will be and the kinds of thinking that authorised officers will have to go through to determine what information they will gather. That includes writing it down so that their thought processes in requiring information can be reviewed.
Steve Darling
I welcome that reassurance from the Minister, which we will take onboard.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her response, which offered some moderate reassurance. We would be comfortable if either it was included in the Bill or we at least had sight of the code of practice, which will actually define that decision-making process. A fundamental flaw of this Bill Committee is that we are being asked to make decisions on something that may be produced in the future, of which we have no advanced sight. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
Clause 3 introduces a civil power that allows authorised officers to compel information from first and third parties, similar to that used by HMRC. Clause 4 introduces a right to request a review of a decision to issue an information notice within seven days of a notice being issued. The policy intention is that this provides adequate time for an individual or business to request a review of a decision to issue an information notice, and sets a time limit for a review that will balance any attempts that might be made to aggravate the information collection process by slowing down the fraud investigation unnecessarily. During the review process, authorised officers will work with information-holders to give them every opportunity to comply.
Steve Darling
The Minister referred to a review process; it would be really helpful if the Committee could be aware of how long that process is likely to take.
Mike Wood
Clause 4 gives the Minister a considerable amount of power to compel individuals, as well as organisations, to provide an unspecified range of information within what could be very tight timescales, on pain of a fine of £300 a day if they fail to comply. The only route to appeal these powers is going back to the person or organisation that is exercising them, and we are concerned about the natural justice of this approach.
The legislation, as drafted, involves no impartial third party in the review process on a case-by-case basis, so it leaves individuals with nowhere else to go if they disagree with what is being asked for, or cannot practically comply with the request in the specified timeframe. Our amendments aim to balance these powers, and I am naturally disappointed that the Minister was unable to consider accepting at least some of them.
Georgia Gould
First, it is important to set out that these powers will be used by authorised officers who sit within a professional standard. They are highly trained and have a code of ethics that they apply. It is a deliberately limited group of people to ensure that we have full oversight. The kind of decisions that they make will have to be written down, so they can be overseen by the team within the Cabinet Office, which is answerable to the independent chair and to another independent body, and that is likely to be HMICFRS. I think I have already set out, and it is in the Bill, that the reviews on a case-by-case basis will have to be done by another authorised officer who is of a higher grade than the one who made the decision. There will be no set time, but we will set out a range within the wider guidance.
The intention of the Bill is to ensure that we prevent and recover fraud against the public sector. We want to be reasonable and proportionate, and as I have said, we will set out further information about the size and scale of organisations and timeframes within the code of practice. What we really need to avoid is organisations that have committed fraud using appeals to frustrate the process and keep this going for ages, so that money is moved and we lose the ability to recover critical public funds. We think that a huge amount of oversight has been put into this overarching package, but we have to ensure that we allow authorised officers to get the information they need and recover fraud. Finally, it is important to remember that, if we go through a process where somebody does not provide that information, and a fine is levied, they are able to apply to the courts at that point. There is that fundamental backstop to the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. Clause 5 is an explanation of the principles related to information sharing that pertain to the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Cabinet Office. It sets out how the disclosure of information would work for the purpose of facilitating the Minister’s exercise of the core functions. It refers to how the Minister may use information disclosed under subsection (1); the specific purposes for which it may be disclosed; and what the Minister may not use information for. Information must not be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was disclosed and may not be disclosed to any other person without the consent of the Minister. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Clause 5 will give the Minister enormous powers to request and share information for the purpose of facilitating the Minister’s exercise of the core functions under the Bill. Given that the Minister’s core functions are to decide whether to investigate and take enforcement action, we are concerned that almost any information could be shared to facilitate the making of those decisions.
Likewise, the Minister may share information onward. If they give consent, the information may go further yet. Again, this is a case of the Minister marking their own homework. They get to decide who knows what and whether it gets shared onwards, without any external oversight from an impartial third party. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what sort of information the Government envisage being requested, under what circumstances, and what safeguards will apply to the sharing of that information.
Andrew Western
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I would not want to second-guess the specifics of what may be required in the sharing of information on a case-by-case basis; clearly that sort of speculation may restrict us unnecessarily. What I would say, however, is that the independent oversight powers laid out for the execution of the PSFA’s work would be in place to ensure that if anybody, up to and including the Minister, were considered to have overstretched their powers, it would be able to comment and investigate as necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Amendment of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016
Andrew Western
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 6, page 4, line 28, in column 1, after “Office” insert
“, so far as relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority”.
This amendment limits the designation of the Cabinet Office as a relevant public authority for the purposes of Part 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 so that it is designated only so far as relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority.
Andrew Western
I am sure that colleagues will agree that the amendment is straightforward. It will limit the designation of the Cabinet Office as a relevant public authority for the purposes of part 3 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, so that it is designated only in so far as it relates to the Public Sector Fraud Authority.
Clause 6 sets out the purposes of the amendment to the 2016 Act and is straightforward in its terms. It will make a small tweak before the entry for the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service to insert “Cabinet Office” and the relevant provision.
Mike Wood
As the Minister says, the clause will add the Cabinet Office to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Act governs the powers available to the state to obtain communications and communication data, provides statutory safeguards and clarifies what powers different public authorities can use and for what purpose. This legislation will give the Cabinet Office further and greater investigatory powers.
Government amendment 1 seeks to clarify that this applies not to the whole of the Cabinet Office, but to the Public Sector Fraud Authority only. I am glad that the amendment will rectify that fairly major drafting error. Obviously, the Opposition support the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I am sorry to have arrived late. Clause 6 will provide essential powers to obtain communications data from telecommunications providers, as and when necessary, as part of an investigation into fraud against the public sector. As a result of the clause, the PSFA will be listed under column 1 of schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and will thereby be granted the power to request communications data—the how, where, what and when, as opposed to the content, of communications—for the purposes of investigating suspected fraud against the public sector. The clause will not give the PSFA surveillance and covert human intelligence powers.
The precise listing of the PSFA in schedule 4 will not permit self-authorisation to use the relevant powers; a request for communications data in the course of a criminal investigation must be approved by the independent Office for Communications Data Authorisations. The powers also come with extra oversight from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which will inspect the designated communications data single point of contact that facilitates the lawful acquisition of communications data and effective co-operation between the IPCO and public authorities that have these powers.
I welcome the Opposition’s support for Government amendment 1, which is necessary to align us with the Home Office’s new approach to restrict powers to specific teams in other Departments within the same schedule. The amendment will change the way the Department appears in schedule 4 to the Investigatory Powers Act, as it will restrict the use of the powers to the Public Sector Fraud Authority only, not the Cabinet Office as a whole. The amendment will ensure that the use of the powers is properly restricted and that there are no unintended consequences for other parts of the Cabinet Office.
I commend clause 6, as amended by Government amendment 1, to the Committee.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 etc powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Georgia Gould
Clause 7 and schedule 1 cover the investigative powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Clause 8 will give the PSFA a legal route to apply to a court for an audit in relation to property that has come into its possession in the course of a fraud investigation. Clause 9 will bring the PSFA under the oversight of the Independent Office for Police Conduct for serious complaints about its use of PACE powers.
Clause 7 will designate authorised investigators with the necessary authority to use limited provisions from PACE within the remit of public sector fraud investigations. These include powers to apply to the courts for a warrant to enter and search premises and to seize evidence, and special provisions to apply to the courts to gain access to certain types of material that are regarded as excluded material or special procedure material.
These are criminal investigation powers and will only be used in criminal investigations to enable all reasonable lines of inquiry to be followed and all relevant evidence to be collected. PSFA staff must be specifically authorised by the Minister before they can use the powers in the clause. Authorised investigators will be able to access and process evidence under the same conditions applicable to the police, ensuring that robust investigative protocols are followed. PACE has its own code of practice, and authorised investigators will adhere to the provisions that apply to the PSFA’s PACE powers, in particular PACE code B, which deals with the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure.
Clause 7 is fundamental in reinforcing the Bill’s objective of combating public sector fraud effectively by equipping investigators with powerful investigative tools, governed by long-standing safeguards. The provision of such powers is essential and reflects our commitment to holding to account those who defraud public resources, maintaining the integrity of public administration.
Schedule 1 will modify the provisions of PACE adopted in clause 7 so that they apply to authorised investigators within the PSFA when they are conducting criminal investigations into fraud offences committed against the public sector. Clause 7 will enable these modifications to have effect; they include equating authorised investigators with constables for the relevant sections of PACE, clearly defining the range of their responsibility and authority. An amendment to replace “articles or persons” with “material” in schedule 1 is specifically intended to clarify the scope of investigations conducted by the PSFA. By defining the term more narrowly with reference to “material”, it reflects the fact that the PSFA will not be conducting searches of individuals.
While detailed stipulations regarding the retention and handling of seized material are set out in PACE, schedule 1 will provide the essential adaptations necessary for the authorised investigators to carry out their roles effectively while adhering to established legal safeguards. Overall, schedule 1 is necessary to equip authorised investigators with precise, tailored powers from PACE so that they can enforce the legislative aim of combating fraud within the public sector.
Clause 8 will give the PSFA a legal route to apply to a court for an order in relation to property that has come into its possession in the course of a fraud investigation. The order will determine who the property should be returned to and whether changes need to be made to the property before it is returned or, if appropriate, destroyed, subject to suitable safeguards.
The PSFA will not routinely need to use this power. It will use it only in three specific situations: first, when there is conflicting evidence as to who the property should be returned to; secondly, when it is not possible to return property to its owner, and the PSFA is otherwise liable to retain it indefinitely; or, thirdly, when it has been identified that the property could be used in the commission of an offence. Clause 8 will protect the PSFA in situations in which it could otherwise face having to retain property indefinitely, at ongoing cost to the taxpayer, and where it cannot return the property to its owner. It will ensure effective management and disposal of items, helping to prevent misuse while reducing the administrative burden.
The use of a magistrates court to determine the appropriate course of action is a critical safeguard. This external judicial oversight ensures transparent and lawful disposal decisions. A mandatory six-month waiting period is built into the process before property can be disposed of or destroyed. This period will allow any interested parties to make claims on the property. However, if a magistrates court orders that the property be returned to its owner, there is no waiting period for that return. Further application to court can be made if initial orders do not resolve ownership or disposal issues, ensuring ongoing flexibility and fairness in property management. Equipping the PSFA with these powers is vital for appropriately concluding fraud investigations and reflects similar practices in other Government Departments.
I turn to clause 9. The PSFA’s use of PACE powers will be subject to robust internal and external scrutiny. Elsewhere in the Bill, clauses 64 and 65 set out provisions under which His Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services will work with the PSFA. Clause 9 amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the functions of the director general of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators and enables them specifically to consider the PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. In doing so, this clause enables the IOPC to be engaged where necessary to investigate death, serious injury, accusations of staff corruption or serious complaints against the PSFA’s use of PACE powers, although we hope that none of those will come to be.
The amendments made by clause 9 also include allowing the Minister to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. In practice, this enables the Minister to detail in due course the specific remit of the IOPC in relation to the PSFA. This clause represents a typical approach to engaging the IOPC in legislation, similar to that of other law enforcement agencies.
The clause will also enable the sharing of information between the director general, the Minister and those who act on their behalf. Additionally, it will enable the sharing of information with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to facilitate potential collaborative investigations with the IOPC. The clause will ensure that any information sharing complies with existing data protection and investigatory powers legislation. Incidents and complaints will be either self-referred from the PSFA or referred to the IOPC via a third party. Any potential cases of serious injury or death that occur in the exercise of the PSFA’s PACE powers would be automatically referred to the IOPC for review.
The use of the independent complaints function offered by the IOPC is a key element of the oversight landscape, ensuring that the PSFA is held accountable to the highest standards in the exercise of PACE powers, and providing confidence to the public that the Government take their responsibilities in using the powers seriously. I went through a lot of detail there, but I know that the Committee is concerned about the proper oversight of powers, as it should be.
Mike Wood
Clauses 7 to 9 give authorised investigators the powers to enter and search premises and execute search warrants, and powers for the seizure, retention and disposal of property. Those are obviously extensive powers with potentially significant consequences. While strengthening powers to tackle fraud is welcome, we have some concerns. For example, clause 7(3) states:
“An authorised investigator is an individual who is authorised by the Minister to exercise the powers conferred by this section.”
The clause would extend some PACE powers to authorised investigators at the PSFA to investigate offences of fraud against a public authority.
An authorised investigator is defined as a Cabinet Office civil servant of at least higher executive officer grade. What training will those investigators have in order to carry out their functions appropriately? In evidence earlier this week about public sector investigators, Dr Kassem said:
“Are they trained and do they have the proper skills to enable them to investigate without accusing, for example, innocent people and impacting adversely vulnerable individuals? That would be the main challenge, in my view.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 6, Q2.]
Paragraph 3(2)(b) of schedule 1 states that an authorised investigator may be “a higher executive officer”, which is adding to the positions specified in PACE. The comparable position in the police appears to be specified as
“a police officer of at least the rank of inspector”.
Is the Minister satisfied that a higher executive officer is of equivalent rank and experience to a police inspector? Salary bands would suggest that they are not. A quick search suggests that the starting salary of a higher executive officer may be as little as £38,000, whereas a police inspector in London would typically be on at least £61,000. That suggests that there will be some disparity in the level of seniority that one might expect between the two positions. Is she satisfied that a higher executive officer has the seniority for the very far-reaching powers that the Bill would give them?
Turning to clause 8, it is welcome that there is a role for the magistrates court—we finally have some external oversight—where a Minister must apply to make a decision about an individual’s property.
Clause 9 amends the Police Reform Act 2002 so that an individual may go to the director general with complaints or misconduct allegations in relation to the Public Sector Fraud Authority. However, it appears that there remains discretion for the Minister, who only “may” make regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to public sector fraud investigators and “may” disclose information to the director general. Does the Minister intend to make those regulations? What may they contain? If regulations are made under those provisions, what parliamentary procedure will they be subject to?
Georgia Gould
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As he said, these are important powers, and it is critical that the right training is in place. I reassure him that all these authorised officers will have relevant training to the standard that police officers have for the use of the PACE powers. As he set out in his remarks, an application for search warrants must be made to a magistrate, so there is already an external body ensuring that they will be used correctly.
Another critical component of the PSFA’s use of the powers is that if an authorised officer is visiting a property, they will be accompanied by a police officer and will not go their own, so we have not included powers of arrest because of the nature of the PSFA investigations as separate to the Department for Work and Pensions. The powers sit within a range of safeguards, some of which have been mentioned. To remind Members, His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services will also oversee the use of all these powers, as it has experience of doing that. The powers will be overseen in any serious circumstances by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Acting for another public authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
As I have set out, the Bill provides the key powers to investigate suspected fraud against the public sector. However, to be able to deliver a holistic counter-fraud service and recover vital funds lost to fraud and error, powers are needed to act on behalf of other public authorities for recovery action. That is what clause 10 outlines. The PSFA will already have conducted investigations before the recovery phase and will know the background to the case and the people and businesses involved. It will be able to leverage that information and those relationships to secure recovery, prioritising voluntary repayments first. It will then be able to utilise the proposed recovery powers already used across Government to get back fraudulent funds where people can afford to repay their illicit gains but are refusing to engage with us.
The recovery of fraudulent funds is complex, as is fraud itself. In 2021-22, the Government’s fraud landscape report found that only 23% of fraud losses were recovered. That is not good enough. Having a central recovery function within the PSFA will allow it to develop the expertise and capability required to drive effective recovery action on behalf of other public bodies. Providing the option to keep some of the recovered funds, subject to agreements with the public bodies concerned, helps to fund the development of that recovery expertise and provides value for money for the Government and taxpayer.
Clause 11 outlines the requirement to issue a recovery notice before proceedings can be brought to a court or tribunal. The notice must outline what the Government believe is owed and why. It must also provide information as to how the amount can be voluntarily repaid. Once issued, the liable person has a minimum of 28 days to respond. The recovery notice will effectively signal the end of the PSFA investigation.
During an investigation, a suspected liable person will already have had the opportunity to make their case and provide evidence to support their position. This provides the liable person with further opportunities to positively engage on the matter, either through voluntary repayment or by providing additional evidence. It also provides them with ample opportunity to prepare for a potential future court or tribunal proceeding. The issuing of a recovery notice is therefore an important step that promotes fairness and transparency in proceedings by providing a liable person with an overview of the position.
Clause 12 provides a key safeguard for the use of the recovery powers. During an investigation, the PSFA will collect and assess evidence to determine whether a liable person or business received payments made as a result of fraud or error. It will outline its reasonings in the recovery notice. However, it will be able to use the proposed recovery powers only if a liable person agrees and a court or tribunal has made a final determination of what is owed.
We will not be making unilateral decisions as to what is owed. Instead, this process firmly embeds independent judicial decision making. If a liable person disagrees with the determinations, they can present their case in a court or tribunal. If a liable person agrees, we do not need to seek confirmation from a judge, making important judicial time and cost savings and ensuring that we do not further overburden the judicial system.
Those are all important steps in commencing our recovery action. The positive impact of the Bill is predicated on being able to effectively recover funds identified as being lost to fraud or error. We have already agreed that recovery is a vital new core function of my Department, and it is one that we should strive to ensure can operate effectively to return money lost to fraud and error to the public purse.
Mike Wood
Clause 10 allows the Minister for the Cabinet Office to act on behalf of another public authority to recover a recoverable amount, including bringing court or tribunal proceedings, and recovered money will be returned to the other public authority unless it is agreed that the Minister can retain some or all of it. We have some questions about what has to be agreed ahead of time. Can the Minister just act, or do they need prior approval from the public authority beforehand, so that there is clarity about the basis on which the Minister for the Cabinet Office is acting and any division of recovered funds?
Clause 11 sets out the recovery notice that the Minister must give before proceedings can be brought to court or a tribunal, and what is included in it. How is it decided how much can be recovered? What assets are taken into account, and what is the process before the legal system becomes involved?
Clause 12 sets out that the recovery methods can be used only to cover the amount where the liable person agrees or a court or tribunal has determined the amount is recoverable. Where the liable person does not engage, what mechanisms exist to encourage them to do so? Are there penalties if a court or tribunal is involved, and how long is the legal process typically expected to take, given current capacity? What does capacity look like at the moment? We feel that, in principle, the powers could be proportionate, but that depends on how they are to be exercised. I would be very grateful if the Minister clarified some of those points.
Georgia Gould
The first point to clarify is that before any investigation and any debt recovery are started, there would be a vulnerability test on that individual, and that would be part of the basis for the decision making. As for whether there was a voluntary agreement about the recovery of debt, a conversation would happen with the individual, but there is a limit to the amount that would be recovered—up to 40% of their assets in their bank account for fraud and 20% for error. In terms of whether people would try to frustrate the process by unnecessarily reviewing it, one of the features of the Bill is that it can include interest on the money that is paid, so that is a disincentive to continue to drag out the process, and the matter can be resolved as quickly as possible—and voluntarily.
On the initial phase of the PSFA’s investigatory and debt recovery work, if there is a limited number of officers, we do not expect a high burden on the court system—we expect less than double digits to be taken through initially—and we believe that the provision around interest is a key disincentive against frustrating the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Thursday 27 February Until no later than 12.10 pm Refugee Council, Scottish Refugee Council, British Red Cross Thursday 27 February Until no later than 12.40 pm Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Migration Observatory Thursday 27 February Until no later than 1.00 pm The Children’s Commissioner for England Thursday 27 February Until no later than 2.40 pm National Police Chiefs’ Council, National Crime Agency, Crown Prosecution Service Thursday 27 February Until no later than 3.20 pm Migration Watch, Tony Smith, former Director, UK Border Force, Centre for Policy Studies Thursday 27 February Until no later than 3.40 pm David Coleman, Emeritus Professor of Demography, University of Oxford Thursday 27 February Until no later than 4.00 pm Professor Brian Bell, Professor of Economics, King’s College London Thursday 27 February Until no later than 4.20 pm Home Office
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally, without debate. The programme motion was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 February;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 March;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 March;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 March;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 March;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 40; Schedule 1; Clauses 41 to 47; Schedule 2; Clauses 48 to 57; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 20 March.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I want to let the Committee know that I know Daniel O’Malley from Scotland through the Liberal Democrats.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I have previously met Daniel O’Malley as well.
The Chair
Very popular. If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time. We will now hear oral evidence from the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council and the British Red Cross. We must stick to the timings that the Committee has agreed in the programme motion. For this panel, we have until 12.10 pm. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Enver Solomon: Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Enver Solomon, and I am the chief executive of the Refugee Council.
Mubeen Bhutta: Good morning; I am Mubeen Bhutta, the director of policy research and advocacy at the British Red Cross. I think you have all been told that I am a hearing aid user; I am just having an issue with one of my hearing aids, so I need to step out and step back in, if that is okay.
The Chair
Yes, that is okay.
Daniel O’Malley: I am Daniel O’Malley, policy and public affairs specialist with the Scottish Refugee Council.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Q
Enver Solomon: I am happy to take that one. Our view is that this legislation is rightly seeking to disrupt the criminal gangs—the smuggling gangs. The trade is heinous; it is very damaging to people and it needs to be stopped. In that context, the Border Security Command is an understandable response. I think the issue that we have with it is that it is very difficult to simply rely on enforcement to tackle what is a complex and challenging situation.
The Bill is putting multiple eggs in the basket of enforcement, not just through the Border Security Command but by introducing a number of new offences. Our view, based on our frontline practice and work over many decades with people who have come to this country from war zones, having fled persecution or having been victims of modern slavery, is that that strategy will fundamentally fall short, because it is very difficult to change behaviour by adopting a primarily enforcement approach, which is primarily driven by further prosecution and creating new laws.
Essentially, new laws, such as the offences created in the Bill, are pretty much a blunt instrument to deal with behaviour that drives people to seek protection in other countries and to come here seeking asylum. I think that the evidence, from the offences created in previous legislation, demonstrates that they have not acted as a deterrent.
To sum up, enforcement is an understandable and legitimate approach, but it is only one approach, and it needs to be combined with other approaches that focus on international diplomacy and co-operation, and, critically, on additional legal routes. If you look at the evidence, particularly from the US under the previous Administration, the combination of those three can have a demonstrable impact on reducing irregular arrivals.
Despite the intention that this Bill has set out, our concern is that it will not deliver the outcome—the understandable and credible outcome—that the Government are trying to achieve, which is to stop the people smugglers and to stop people making dangerous crossings. It is focusing too much on an enforcement-driven agenda.
Matt Vickers
Q
Enver Solomon: We would have liked to see more provisions that look at opening up targeted, additional humanitarian pathways, additional legal routes, and additional mechanisms for people to seek humanitarian protection and make applications for asylum without necessarily having to take dangerous journeys. We have advocated for a targeted humanitarian visa to be piloted for specific nationalities where there is a high grant rate.
We would also have preferred to see the full repeal of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—not all provisions have been repealed. It is very positive that a significant number have been repealed, and that the Government have started to clear the backlog and essentially end the meltdown of the asylum system under the previous Administration, with the failed implementation of the Act. That is positive, but we think that retaining other provisions in the Act, particularly the provisions on inadmissibility, and not repealing the differential treatment provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, contribute to greater dysfunction in the system.
The Government’s laudable and correct intention to bring greater efficiency and competence to the system is absolutely right, but having multiple pieces of legislation that just create greater dysfunction will not ensure that you get an effective end-to-end system. You do that by ensuring that you have reliable, speedy decision making on asylum; that decisions are right first time; that if people are granted protection, they can move through the system effectively with appropriate support; and that if people are not granted protection, the right steps are in place to support them. The focus needs to be much more on getting the asylum system to function, with a clear vision of its purpose, than on layering more and more legislation on to an already incredibly complex legislative system, which actually just creates further dysfunction.
The Chair
Before I go to the Minister, can I just check with Mubeen that you can hear us okay?
Mubeen Bhutta: Sorry?
The Chair
If we speak louder, is that better?
Mubeen Bhutta: Yes, that is helpful. I do apologise; it is a technical thing.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Q
Enver, thank you for your evidence. You welcomed the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the majority of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill accomplishes. Could you talk about your experience of trying to live with those Acts on the statute book? Some argue that those bits of legislation were the only deterrent that we could have had. Can I have your thoughts on whether they worked?
Enver Solomon: Absolutely. In short, they were a disaster. They were a disaster in terms of the lived experience of people who had come from places such as Sudan; we know about the civil war there. They created huge uncertainty and anxiety. Through our work, we saw a rise in levels of great mental distress, and even in suicide ideation, as a consequence of those pieces of legislation, which led to what we described as a system meltdown. That was a fundamental meltdown that resulted in the system pretty much coming to a standstill. The system slowed down, with productivity in asylum decision making at its lowest level since the height of the covid pandemic. It is absolutely right that steps were taken to address that and to ensure that the asylum system is functioning effectively.
The asylum system has to deliver integrity. It has to ensure that the public have trust in a system that functions. It functions by ensuring that decisions are fair—the great British value of fair play—by ensuring that decisions are taken in a timely fashion and by ensuring that taxpayers’ money is well spent. That means you do not have billions being wasted every year on housing people in hotels that become flashpoints for community tensions. The system also works effectively when it ensures that people are supported to integrate and to go on and contribute to communities across the country in the way that generations of refugees have done. Critically, you must also ensure that if people are not granted protection, there are appropriate pathways to support them to return to the countries they have come from.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Enver Solomon: I will let my colleagues come in.
Daniel O’Malley: In relation to the European convention on human rights, frankly, coming out will not help anyone—it will not make the system any more efficient. For example, when it comes to the human trafficking provisions in the Illegal Migration Act, we want to see more of those repealed because they undermine human trafficking protections in Scotland.
The broader repeal that has happened of the Illegal Migration Act and the statutory instrument laid down to alter that Act has aided, for example, the guardianship programme in Scotland, which gives a guardian to unaccompanied minors in Scotland and was put on to a statutory footing in Scotland under the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. It helps that programme because asylum claims were previously just not being made under the IMA, so that programme had thousands more people in it. The programme was operating, but it was getting overloaded with more and more people.
The wider point is that there are protections that we are signed up to—for example, the UN convention for refugees. Continuing with those is absolutely right; the repeal of them will not make the system any more efficient and it will not be a deterrent to anyone.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Mubeen Bhutta: I do not have anything more to add to the important points that Daniel made.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Q
Mubeen Bhutta: I did not quite catch the first bit of your question, but I think you are asking about safe and legal routes. I endorse some of the comments that my colleague Enver has already made. We welcome the Bill. We welcome the intention of the Bill around reducing the loss of life in the channel, but that is only half of the story.
It is really important that we look at the reasons why people are putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers in the first place. It is often because there is no other choice—there is no route that they can take. We would like to see more safe and legal routes, whether that is new routes, such as enabling people to apply for a humanitarian visa in the country that they are in to come directly to the UK and then be able to claim asylum, or expanding existing routes such as family reunion, so that there is more eligibility for people to use those routes.
It is really important to look at both sides of the coin. In a way, you could consider this Bill to be looking at the supply of this sort of activity, but it does not do anything about the demand. People will still need to make those journeys if no other routes are available.
Daniel O’Malley: For us, this is another migration Bill on top of many migration Bills. The system that people seeking asylum currently face is convoluted and arbitrary, and it is founded on hostility. As Mubeen rightly said, it is about the enforcement and stopping people crossing, rather than creating a more efficient asylum system. For us at the Scottish Refugee Council, that is what we are concerned about in the Bill. You talked about the Bill being quite narrow, but there are aspects of it that are far too broad and that can be applied in too broad a manner.
For the Scottish Refugee Council, the asylum aspects of the Bill do not address an updating of the asylum system. There are points on integration that should be considered as well. Nothing in the Bill talks about the integration of people seeking asylum while they are in the system. We commend the Government for speeding up the clearing of the backlog, which is great, but work needs to be done to help people who are in the system to integrate into the country. About 75% of people in the system will typically be granted refugee status, so work needs to be done to help them to integrate into communities, rather than having them in asylum accommodation or hostile environments.
The Government are rightly looking at asylum accommodation and the Home Affairs Committee is also doing an inquiry into it, so we know the work is being done. We would have liked to see the Bill contain a point about integration. The work in Scotland on this is the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy”, with an approach to integration from day one of arrival. We would like to see that extended to the UK level as well, mirroring what has also been done in Wales.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Q
Enver Solomon: I think those measures are legitimate. As I said, it is important to take steps to disrupt the activity of gangs that are causing huge harms to the lives of individual men, women and children, who are often extremely vulnerable. Attempts such as the powers you referred to are important and have a role to play—I am not disputing that. What I am saying is that they need to be used proportionately and to be clearly targeted at the individuals behind the criminal gangs and the trade of the criminal gangs.
Our concern is that, by broadening criminal powers in the Bill and specifically by introducing new offences, individuals will be caught up in that process. People who are coming across in very flimsy and dangerous vessels will end up being criminalised through no fault of their own. We are also concerned that using further laws—as has been seen across a whole range of different areas of public policy—is a blunt instrument to try to change the behaviour of people.
People will not stop getting into flimsy dinghies and coming across the channel or the Mediterranean because of new offences that they might face. They will probably know very little about the nature of those offences. They will know very little about the new rules that mean, if you get refugee protection, you will no longer be able to go on and gain British citizenship. We know that from our experience: they will know nothing about that, so it will not change behaviour or provide the deterrence that I think it is hoped it will provide.
That is why you need to use these powers in a very targeted, proportionate way that deals with the prosecution of the criminal behaviour but does not result in, in effect, punching down on those vulnerable people who are getting into the boats because they want to seek safety. It will not change their behaviour. That is our experience from having worked with refugees and people seeking asylum over many decades.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Q
Enver Solomon: I would say not. I will come to clause 18 in a second, but I encourage the Committee to look at clauses 13 and 14. In our submission, we proposed that they should be amended to ensure the focus of the new offence is on people smugglers and not on those seeking protection in the UK. We also said that clause 15 should be amended to include other items that are important for reducing the risk that people face when attempting to cross the channel, and that the Government should consult widely to ensure the list is as extensive as is necessary.
On endangering others, given that, as Committee members will know, many of the boats now used are barely seaworthy and overcrowded, and that the numbers crammed into them are increasing, clause 18 could cover many more people than those whom the offence is apparently targeted at—that is, the people smugglers. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary gave some useful examples of the types of behaviour that could result in people being prosecuted, including physical aggression, intimidation, the rejection of rescue attempts and so on. We think the wording should be amended to reflect specific actions to ensure that the offence is very clearly focused.
We argue overall that these new offences are an extremely blunt instrument to change behaviours, and they will not have the desired effect of changing behaviours and stopping people getting into very dangerous, flimsy vessels.
Daniel O'Malley: To add to what Enver says, yes, it is a blunt instrument. We operate a refugee support service across the whole of Scotland, and when people come to our services they do not talk about the deterrence or anything like that; they talk about what they see once they get here. The environment that is created around people seeking asylum and refugees does not deter them from coming here, but once they are here, they feel that there is a threat to their protection and that their status here is under threat.
The language in these deterrents does not deter anybody from coming here; it just causes a hostile environment. That was the situation created by the previous Bills under the previous Government. We hope that will not be continued with the new Bill and other changes the Home Office is making. At the end of the day, when people come to our services and talk about stuff like this, they talk about how it makes them feel when they are in the country, not about how it deters them from coming here.
Chris Murray
Q
Enver Solomon: In short, what happened with the system meltdown that I referred to is that processing did pretty much come to a standstill. You had a huge and ever-growing backlog, and people were stuck in limbo indefinitely in the system. The number of people in hotels—asylum contingency accommodation, as it is called—reached record numbers. Hotels were being stood up in communities without proper prior assessments with relevant agencies of the potential needs—health, the NHS, and tensions vis-à-vis the police.
We work in Rotherham, where a hotel was brutally attacked and refugees were almost burned alive in the summer. My staff were in contact with people in the hotel who were live streaming what was happening. They thought that they were going to get burned alive. That hotel in Rotherham should never have been opened. It was always going to be a flashpoint. It was located in an incredibly isolated area, there were not appropriate support services, the local services were not properly engaged with in advance and there was no appropriate planning and preparation. That story, I am afraid, was repeated across the country because of the dysfunction and the system meltdown that the previous pieces of legislation resulted in. It is absolutely critical that we learn the lessons from that and do not repeat those mistakes.
There is no need to use asylum hotels. As I understand it, there are roughly 70,000 individual places within the asylum dispersal system today. If we had timely decisions being made in a matter of months, people moving through the system, a growing backlog in the appeal system dealt with by ensuring the decisions are right first time, and people having good access to appropriate legal information and advice from representation, which is a huge problem, you would begin gradually to fix the system.
It will take time to fix the system and create efficiencies, but it is absolutely vital that plans to move away from the use of hotels are taken forward rapidly, and that the current contracts in place with the three private providers to provide dispersal accommodation are radically reformed, because they just create community tensions. They are pivoted towards placing people in parts of the country where accommodation is usually cheap and where there are going to be growing tensions, often without support in place for people in those communities.
Mubeen Bhutta: I did not fully catch your question, Chris—I apologise.
Chris Murray
It was about the impact on local communities of the dysfunction created by the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act, and how much you attribute that dysfunction—especially the growing use of hotels for asylum seekers—to those Acts, which we are proposing to repeal.
Mubeen Bhutta: I probably do not have a huge amount more to add to what Enver just said, but it goes back to what was said earlier about the speed of decision making, the time that people are left in accommodation, the suitability of that accommodation, the impact on their wellbeing—certainly in terms of what we three see through our services—and the need for a comprehensive strategy. It comes back to what we said at the beginning about what is in the Bill, and what needs to go alongside it that is not in the Bill, around integration.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q
Mubeen Bhutta: We do not fully know what the impact of that new offence will be, because it is not enforced yet. It is helpful to see that there is provision in the drafting around charities and their role, but it is not certain how that will play out. Our concern is also that new offences could impact the overall aims around the focus on seeking protection. It could influence behaviour or the ways that people offer support if there is concern that they might be caught.
Daniel O'Malley: On the point about the new offences and the deterrent aspect on human traffickers and smuggling gangs, there are aspects of the Illegal Migration Act that have not been repealed that apply to human trafficking. For example, a provision about disqualification from human trafficking protection in section 29 of the IMA has been kept. We would like to see that removed because an individual who has been in a nail bar and might have been human trafficked, as tends to be the case, might not come to any services due to fear of being disqualified from human trafficking protection because they may have engaged in criminal activity. If you have been human trafficked, you are likely to have engaged in criminal activity by virtue of that. That is the problem with the aspects of the Illegal Migration and Nationality and Borders Acts that have been left in.
The Nationality and Borders Act still contains section 60, which raised the threshold for referral to the national referral mechanism. Someone from a legal organisation in Scotland said that before the Nationality and Borders Act—he had been a lawyer for a couple of years by then—he had done one judicial review on the national referral mechanism. Since the Nationality and Borders and Illegal Migration Acts, he has done more than 50 judicial reviews. That keeps in the Act a freezing factor. Gangs and human traffickers can scare people who have been human trafficked by saying, “You might not get this protection because these offences could be applied or your protection could be taken away.” That is the aspect we would like to see removed to make sure that any offences are not disproportionately affecting victims of human trafficking.
The Chair
The next question will be the last. Witnesses, if there is anything that you have not yet said but would like to say, please do so.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Q
Enver Solomon: The system meltdown that came about because of the fantastical Rwanda policy and the full provisions of the Illegal Migration Act left people in a state of permanent limbo, in inappropriate accommodation, in very vulnerable situations, in communities where there were high tensions. As a consequence of that, people’s wellbeing was potentially compromised. There is no question about that. We saw that through our work. We saw the rise in stress and in suicidal ideation. There was very clear evidence from our practice about the impact of what was, as we described, a system meltdown.
On your point about enforcement, enforcement has a role to play but it has to be one strategy combined with others—one side of a multi-pronged approach. Similarly to the evidence from dismantling drug trafficking, often when you dismantle one set of smugglers or gangmasters, others will reappear and take over that part of the trade. It is very difficult to enforce and prosecute your way out of this challenge. Multiple strategies have to be adopted—
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt, but we are in our last minute. Mubeen and Daniel, would you like to come in quickly?
Mubeen Bhutta: Thank you—my hearing aid has magically started working.
On disrupting the business model, going back to what we said at the beginning about this being the other half of the safe routes story, clause 34 is about taking biometrics and introduces flexibility so that biometrics can be taken outside visa centres. We would like to see that extended to people required to submit their biometrics for family reunion visas, because we know that people are making dangerous journeys to visa centres. Often there are multiple journeys, often in conflicts, and people often have to use smugglers to get across the border if the visa centre in their country is closed. There is a real opportunity to strengthen that existing safe route by extending the flexibility in clause 34.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Zoe Bantleman and Dr Peter Walsh gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and from Migration Observatory. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 12.40 pm. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Zoe Bantleman: Good afternoon. I am Zoe Bantleman and I am the legal director of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association.
Dr Peter Walsh: Good afternoon. I am a senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dr Peter Walsh: Evidence from academic research shows that the impacts of deterrence policies are fairly small. The main reason for that is that migrants often do not have accurate or detailed knowledge of policies in destination countries. Their understanding of those policies is often lacking in detail and wrong, and it is often influenced by what they are told by their smugglers or handlers, who have a vested interest, of course, in downplaying risks.
There is also some statistical evidence that looks more broadly at what drives unauthorised migration and asylum applications around the world. That has found that domestic policy is not statistically one of the more important factors. Instead, geopolitical developments, conflict—civil, ethnic or international conflict—ecological disaster and regime change are all statistically much stronger drivers of unauthorised migration and asylum applications in particular countries.
Finally, rounding out the picture, when an asylum seeker decides which destination country to move to, that calculus is influenced not just by policy—policy is one of the things that they take least account of—but by things like the presence of family members, members of the community, friends, language and in some cases, in the context of small boat arrivals, escaping the Dublin system. Individuals may have claimed asylum in other EU countries—maybe those claims are outstanding or have been refused—and they understand that if they move to the UK they cannot be returned to the EU, because we are no longer a part of the EU and of the Dublin system that facilitated that.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Dr Peter Walsh: Because under the IMA the Government proposed not to process people’s claims, they would not have known whether returning those individuals to countries of origin would be safe or not. That is where Rwanda came in.
There were always questions about the deterrent effect of the Rwanda policy. For my part, whatever deterrent effect it would have had would have depended fundamentally on how many people were actually sent to Rwanda. You can imagine that if it was a large share of people arriving by small boat, that might make people think twice, but if it were a small share—only thousands a year when we have tens of thousands of small boat arrivals—that would imply that the chance of being sent to Rwanda was fairly small. You can imagine that the people then making the trip would view that risk as just one risk among many much greater risks—risking their lives, for example—so there were always real questions about the deterrent effect of the Rwanda policy and how many people would in fact have been sent there.
The last Government said that the scheme was uncapped, and the Rwandan Government said, “We can take as many people as you can send.” But there were logistical challenges there, not least among them where people would be detained. At that time we had about 1,800 people in immigration detention in the UK, with a capacity of 2,200. You would have to detain people if you were threatening to remove them to Rwanda, so that was a very big initial stumbling block, putting aside whatever the capacity of those Rwandan facilities would have been, and more broadly the capacity of the Rwandan asylum system to process large numbers of claims. Typically it processed only a few hundred a year, not 10,000 or 20,000, so there were real questions there.
The big risk was what to do with people who are neither deterred from arriving nor able to be removed to Rwanda. That would be a sub-population in the UK without legal status who would be here indefinitely, so they would for ever have no legal right to remain in the UK, but we would be required to provide them with asylum accommodation and support at great cost. That was the risk when it came to Rwanda and the IMA.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Dr Peter Walsh: I was not surprised, because I think that was consistent with the attitude at the time on the part of the Government. I did note that they did decide not to pursue a similar kind of agreement, which hampered them in a certain sense because there was no longer a mechanism to return asylum seekers arriving by small boat to the EU. It is true that in the last five years or so that we were a part of Dublin, we were actually a net receiver of asylum seekers under the system: we received more than we sent out. That is for various reasons, including administrative ones. But yes, it was striking that a similar kind of agreement or remaining a part of the Dublin system was not pursued because that appeared to hamper the Government in that aim—namely, to remove people arriving without authorisation to the EU.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Zoe Bantleman: As the witnesses in the previous session have already said, those are not the only international legal agreements by which we are bound. The UK has voluntarily agreed to be bound by a great many international legal agreements, including in relation to the rights of children, the convention on action against trafficking and the conventions on the rights of stateless persons. There are a whole host in addition to the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.
One of the hallmarks of the new Government has been this new-found commitment towards our international legal obligations, and also restoring the UK’s position as a leader in the international rules-based order, which all three of the previous Acts—the Safety of Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the Nationality and Borders Act before it—eroded. I think it is fundamental to retain our commitment towards our international legal obligations. But there was also a case in the High Court in Belfast, brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in relation to the Illegal Migration Act, that found that it was not only the convention on human rights that was breached by the Illegal Migration Act, but also the Windsor framework itself.
At a time when His Majesty’s Government are trying to reset the relationship with Europe, it seems a very strange thing to do—to try to back out of our human rights obligations. Again, the Good Friday agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union are both based on our compliance with the European convention on human rights.
Mr Forster
Q
Zoe Bantleman: The offences are drafted in quite broad terms and the defences are quite narrow. There is a real concern, particularly on behalf of the legal professions, as to what would constitute a defence. For example, one of the defences is where a person was
“acting on behalf of an organisation which—
(i) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and
(ii) does not charge for its services.”
Would a legal aid firm charging the legal aid fund for services come within the scope of this defence? That is a real question.
We could also imagine the much more practical question of someone who is, for example, in Calais with their family member, and their family member wants to get on to a small boat and they are saying, “No, don’t get on to the small boat. Look here—this is what the weather is going to be today” and they show them on their phone what the weather is going to be. That could be useful to that person in helping them to prepare for their journey to the UK, and it would be the collection, recording and viewing of that information. It is not clear that such a person would have a defence if they were to reach the UK by a safe route, if a safe route was available to them. Even though that was done in France rather than the UK, they could potentially be prosecuted once here because of the extraterritorial scope of the offences, subject of course to prosecutorial discretion.
There is a very large scope to the offences and the defences are potentially not sufficient and holistic enough to account for all situations in which persons should not be prosecuted and should not be criminalised for their behaviour.
Chris Murray
Q
Dr Peter Walsh: The Dublin system provided a mechanism for asylum seekers to be transferred between EU member states and prioritised the idea that people should have their claim processed in the first state in which they arrived. There are other things that the decision can be based on—one might be having family members in the country; that could also be the basis for a transfer.
There is emerging evidence from when researchers have spoken with migrants in and around Calais. They ask them, “Why have you taken this dangerous journey to the UK?” They talk about family, the English language and perceptions of the UK as being safer. Often they have experienced harsh treatment at the hands of the French police. Increasingly, they specifically mention Dublin.
What we can infer from that is that these people have an outstanding or rejected claim—or claims, potentially in a number of EU member states, even though there are rules and processes to prevent that. They have exhausted what they view as the opportunity to receive a successful asylum claim in the EU. That leaves the UK. They understand that because the UK is no longer a part of Dublin, we are effectively not able to return them to the continent. That is fairly recent evidence we have found.
On the smuggling networks and how they work, one of the big challenges is that they operate transnationally, so they are beyond the jurisdiction of any single authority. That, by its very nature, makes enforcement more difficult because it requires quite close international co-operation, so the UK would be co-operating with agencies that operate under different legal frameworks, professional standards and norms and maybe even speak a different language. That challenge applies with particular force to the senior figures, who are often operating not only beyond the UK’s and EU’s jurisdictions but in countries where there is very limited international law enforcement co-operation with both the UK and the EU. I am thinking of countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iran.
More generally, the smuggling gangs have become more professionalised. They are very well resourced and are highly adaptable. There is a sense that law enforcement is constantly having to play catch-up. The gangs are decentralised, and there are quite small groups of, say, eight to 12 individuals, spread out across the continent, who are responsible for logistics—for example, storing equipment like motors and engines in Germany that are imported to Turkey from China and then transported in trucks to France. Those networks stretch out across the continent. That is why it is so hard for law enforcement to fight them.
Pete Wishart
Q
Unless we tackle the demand, surely there will not be anything we can effectively do to tackle the illegal gangs, particularly if we are going to be cutting international aid budgets, which will exacerbate the problem and drive more people into the hands of the gangs. Ms Bantleman, you have written to the Government urging them to amend the good character guidance to ensure compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Could you expand on that and elaborate on what you are intending from the Government? You are right to remind the Government of the range of their commitments and international obligations. I will come to you first, Dr Walsh.
Dr Peter Walsh: It is true that there is a real lack of evidence on what the likely impact of specific policies to disrupt smuggling networks will be, but the policies could assist in disrupting smuggling activities. If you invest more resources in enforcement and agencies have greater power of seizure, search, arrest and investigation, then you would expect that more smugglers would be brought to justice. The bigger question for me is: will that reduce people travelling in small boats? There is the separate question of whether this will eliminate the market for smuggling.
What we do know is that a lot of people are willing to pay a lot of money for the services that smugglers provide. If the effect of the policies is to disrupt smuggling operations, that could conceivably raise the cost of smuggling—a cost that would be passed on to migrants. It may be the case that some are priced out at the margins, but I suspect that demand is fairly inelastic. Even with an increase in price, people will still be willing to pay.
Another challenge is the people most directly involved in smuggling operations on the ground—the people who are tasked with getting the migrants to shore, the boats into the water and the migrants into the boats. It does not require substantial skill, training or investment to do that job. You can apprehend those individuals, and that requires substantial resource, but they can quickly be replaced. That is why it has been described as being like whack-a-mole. I think that is one of the real challenges.
Zoe Bantleman: I would like to add to that point, before I address the second question. I completely agree with what Peter says about how the most fundamental challenge in breaking the business model of smugglers is that, simply, smuggling will exist for as long as there is demand. There will be demand for it as long as there are people seeking safety. For as long as we fail to have accessible, safe, complementary routes for people to arrive here, and for as long as carriers are too fearful to allow people on to safe trains, ferries and planes to the UK, people will feel that they have no choice but to risk their lives, their savings and their families’ savings on dangerous journeys.
The focus of the Bill is not on tackling trafficking or the traffickers, or on protecting the victims of trafficking; it casts its net much wider. It is really about tackling those who assist others in arriving here, as well as those who arrive here themselves.
That leads me on to the second point, which is in relation to the good character guidance. There was a recent change, on the day of Second Reading, that also resulted in a change to the good character guidance, which is a statutory requirement that individuals must meet in order to become British citizens. The guidance says that anyone who enters irregularly—it actually uses the word “illegal”, which I have substituted with “irregularly”—shall “normally” not have their application for British citizenship accepted, no matter how much time has passed.
Fundamentally, article 31 of the refugee convention says that individuals should be immune from penalties. It is a protective clause. It is aimed at ensuring that exactly the kind of person who does not have the time or is not able to acquire the appropriate documentation, who has a very short-term stopover in another country on the way to the UK, and who is allowed to choose their country of safety can come here and is immune from penalties. There is also an obligation under the refugee convention to facilitate the naturalisation of refugees.
We also mentioned many other conventions, including the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women, and the convention on the rights of the child. Children have a right to obtain citizenship, so stateless children should not be barred from obtaining British citizenship. In addition, they should not be held accountable for things that were outside their control. Children placed on small boats may have had no control or understanding of their journey to the UK, so arriving here in a way outside their control, in a way that the Government consider to be illegal but is not illegal under international law, is not a reason for them to be barred from citizenship. That is the substance of what we have said.
The Chair
This may be the last question, unless anybody else has indicated that they wish to ask one.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
In his evidence, Enver Solomon spoke about the “meltdown” of the immigration system—that it is chaotic. I think we all heard that. I am on the Home Affairs Committee, and we are also looking into that. Quite a few people from different groups have given evidence, and their evidence was slightly more optimistic than what has been said today.
We are all in mass communication, so I think word will get around when this starts rolling out. If the system had been chaotic and everything had ground to a halt, the gangmasters running the boats would have got to grips with it as time went on, and that would have seeped through. It therefore would not necessarily be the case that people would want to risk the boats and the gangs.
Dr Peter Walsh: On communication, many of these individuals who are travelling receive information from their handlers, agents and smugglers. Sometimes it comes from people who have already made the trip and are in the UK, but that has the effect of emboldening them. I am not sure what the prospects would be for them learning about the reality of the UK’s asylum system more broadly. We see that knowledge of the system—whether it is chaotic or functioning well—is always filtered through their agents, smugglers, handlers and those they know in the community who are making the trip or have already successfully made it.
Tom Hayes
Q
“The deterrent impact of the policy would likely have depended on the number of people sent to Rwanda.”
You estimated the probability of people crossing the channel in a small boat being sent to Rwanda to be about 1% to 2%.
You also said:
“There is no evidence that political discussions surrounding the Rwanda policy deterred small boat arrivals.”
In fact, from the day the policy was announced to the day it was scrapped, we saw 84,000 people cross the channel. Do you want to say anything about the efficacy of the so-called deterrent? Relatedly, do you agree that it is hard to make emphatic assessments of the fiscal burden of immigration owing to the quality of the available data?
Dr Peter Walsh: Yes, I would agree with that last point.
The Rwanda policy was never implemented, so it would be unfair to say that it did not have a deterrent effect. Policies of that kind typically have the bulk of their effect once they have been implemented. I cannot remember the source for the 1% to 2% figure. This is a somewhat old research paper, but at the time it was the best estimate we could point to. It was not an estimate that I or colleagues made. Can you see what the source is?
Tom Hayes
I can. It says:
“If only a few hundred asylum seekers were sent to Rwanda each year (as suggested by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office’s modelling) and unauthorised arrivals had continued at rates similar to those seen in 2022 and 2023”—
the paper was published in 2024—
“then the probability of a person crossing the Channel in a small boat being sent to Rwanda would have been small—around 1-2%.”
Dr Peter Walsh: I now recall the Home Office’s modelling, and it was subject to a whole range of caveats. The Home Office was actually quite cautious about the estimates. That was the best available figure it had at the time. It was in part based on Rwanda’s capacity to process claims. The number could have gone up, but we never found out.
Kenneth Stevenson
Q
It has been very interesting to hear about what does not deter people from coming across, but it would also be very interesting to hear about anything that does deter them. Could you outline that too?
The Chair
There is less than a minute left, and I wonder whether Zoe wants to quickly come in too.
Dr Peter Walsh: Strong deterrents do not necessarily operate on a psychological level. They include the physical interception of boats in the water, and the case of Australia demonstrates that quite clearly. It had an offshore processing plan, but the huge decrease in numbers arriving by unauthorised boats happened once Australia was physically intercepting those boats in the water and returning them to the countries of departure.
Kenneth Stevenson
Can you answer my original question about the engagement you have had with the Government? You are saying that small gangs are very flexible, but obviously the Government are saying that they are going after those gangs—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Dame Rachel de Souza gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Children’s Commissioner for England. Once again, we must stick to the timings in the programme order. We have until 1 pm for this panel. Could the witness please introduce herself for the record?
Dame Rachel de Souza: Good afternoon. I am Rachel de Souza. I am the independent Children’s Commissioner for England. It is my job to protect and promote the rights of children. Since I took up the role, I have made working with illegal immigrant children who arrive in Kent one of my top priorities. I go down to the Kent intake unit. I talk to all the children who are in hotels. My independent advocacy body has supported hundreds of these young people. I have used my entry powers to go in and look at their situation, and I have used my data powers to track safeguarding issues. It has been really thoroughgoing work for the past four years.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I do not want to see any child crossing the channel in a small boat. I have sat in those small boats myself. I have talked to children who have come across on them. I have seen eight-year-olds, blind children and children with Down’s syndrome come across on them. The crossings are dangerous. One case that sticks in my mind is that of a young Iranian lad who saw his parents killed in front of him. He was taken by smugglers and did not know where he was going, but he came across on a small boat. Anything to stop these wicked traffickers is good in my book, as long as we are protecting and safeguarding children.
You will know that I was very vocal about the Illegal Migration Act, particularly the bits that conflicted with the Children Act 1989. When a child is on this soil, up to the age of 18, the Children Act has authority over them. I was very worried about the Home Office accommodating children, and I am pleased to see that has now been changed. Every Home Office official was working hard to do their best by those children, but the Home Office accommodation and the hotel accommodation were not suitable. Children were languishing without proper safeguarding in inappropriate places. Children’s social care must look after unaccompanied children, so I am pleased to see that change.
From a children’s perspective, I am pleased to see the Rwanda Act repealed. Children told me that it would not have stopped them coming; they were just going to disappear at 18. It would have ended up putting them at more risk. I had concerns about that. I also had concerns about children who had been settled here for a number of years then, at 18, being liable to be moved to Rwanda, so I am pleased to see that changed.
In general, I am really supportive of this Bill. There are some things that I would like to see it go further on, and I do have some concerns, but in general I am very supportive.
Mr Forster
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Because I see so many of these children and work with them directly, I am often thinking practically about what their lives are like and how to ensure that they are okay, so I tend to come at your questions from that approach. One of the things that I am worried about is the potential for getting the scientific age assessment wrong.
There was a fantastic debate in the other House, where Lord Winston and others talked about the British Dental Association and the lack of clarity and slight vagueness around age assessment procedures. What I will say is that the social work team down at the Kent intake unit are fantastic and they have developed a strong approach to and knowledge about how to get those age assessment decisions right, with an understanding of school systems and other things about young people. I think we need to be really careful on the age assessment side.
You know that I am also going to be worried about safe and legal routes. Let me give you two examples two young ambassadors out of my large group. One is from Ukraine. She came under the Ukraine scheme, managed to complete her Ukrainian education and her UK education at the same time, and is going to King’s College. She has had nothing but support. The other is from South Sudan and, with no safe and legal route, came as an illegal immigrant. Female genital mutilation was an issue; there were some really serious issues. She found it hard to find somewhere to live and hard to get a job. She is now at Oxford University, because we have supported her and she is brilliant. Those are just two completely contrasting cases.
I stood and welcomed off the boat the first child who came from Afghanistan, who spent his nights weeping because he did not know whether his parents were alive. There is that safe and legal routes issue, particularly for children we know are coming from war-torn areas—we know that they are coming. We really need to think about that and think about support for them. That perhaps answers your tone question as well.
Chris Murray
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Down in Kent, because needs must, hotels were set up, so I visited the hotels that children were in. The situation was wholly inappropriate. Many children were languishing there for months, without English teaching. Kent county council was doing its best. Some of the best provision that I saw for children who were just arriving was put on by Kent, which had managed to get school going and get interpreters in, but it was overwhelmed.
What I will say, to pay tribute to local authorities around the country, is that whenever there was a very young child or a disabled child, they would step up and help. But it was hard to get the national transfer scheme going and the children were confused by it as well. The Hghland council offered a range of places to some of the children, and they were like, “Where is the highlands and what are we going to do there?” It felt discombobulated at best. It was really tricky.
Of course, let us not forget that a lot of those children were older teenagers, and a lot of the provision that they were going to was not care, but a room in a house with all sorts of other people—teenagers and older people. They were left to fend for themselves, which was incredibly disorientating. We have a problem with 16 and 17-year-olds in the care system. There was a massive stretch on social care. Every director of children’s social care who I spoke to said that it is a massive stretch on their budgets, and that they do not know what to do with those children.
I think we could be more innovative. Again, there is massive good will out there in the country. We should be looking at specialist foster care, and not sticking 17-year-olds in rooms in houses on their own. There are so many things we could be doing to try to make this better, such as settling children in communities with proper language teaching.
The No.1 thing that children tell me that they want, given that they are here, is to learn—to be educated—so that they can function well. For me, particularly with some of the children who I have seen, they do not in any way mirror the stuff that we read in the media about freeloading—coming here for whatever. Most of them are really serious cases, and given that they are here, they want to try to learn and be good productive members of our communities. There is much that we can do.
Pete Wishart
Q
We are keeping parts of NABA, so that will be a feature of the Bill. There are concerns about modern slavery and the impact on children with that. Are there any amendments that we could bring to the Bill that would help to deal with that and meet some of those concerns, so that we can get to a much better place with how we deal with children in our asylum system?
Dame Rachel de Souza: Obviously, both of those issues are concerns of mine—age assessment and the modern slavery provisions not being allowed to be applied. On age assessment, it is important that we know how old children are. I have seen 14-year-olds in hostels with 25-year-olds, which is totally inappropriate. I have seen girls who say that they are not 18 be age assessed as 18 and put in adult institutions with adult men. We do not want people masquerading as children to be put in with younger children. We need to do everything we can to determine age.
The technology around scientific age assessment is going to be difficult, not least because when you are dealing with an international population—as Lord Winston talked about—it is really difficult to be precise. Being precise matters. When children arrive in Kent, they get their new clothes, then if they are sick, they are put into a shipping container until they are not sick any more. They maybe then have to sleep a bit on a bench, and then they are age assessed. That age assessment is the most important thing about the rest of their journey here. If that goes wrong, that is it; if you get that wrong, they are an adult. It is a really important and tricky thing, and it is often not supported.
There are things we can do—I always look for solutions. Maybe we ought to be saying, “This is obviously a child. This is obviously an adult.” But there is a group where there are questions and perhaps we should be thinking about housing people in that group and spending a bit more time to work out how old they are and try to get the evidence, rather than making these cut-and-dry decisions that will change people’s lives. As I said, I found a 14-year-old boy in Luton who was there for years with 25-year-olds and was really upset.
On the modern slavery provisions, all I would say—I hope this is helpful—is that I have seen with my own eyes a 16-year-old Eritrean girl arriving at Kent with an older man who was her boyfriend. She obviously said, “It’s fine—I’m 16. We can come in.” She had lost her parents. It was obviously going to be trafficking. We need parts of the Bill to pick that up. That is real, so we need to be really careful about these things.
Jo White
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: That is the first question I asked the National Crime Agency when I came into the role. I asked, “Could you find every child in this country?” I was told that, “With enough resource, we could pretty much do it, apart from some of the Vietnamese children who are trafficked into cannabis factories and things like that.” With resource, and with this new Border Security Command, we will get a lot nearer, and we need to do that.
Tom Hayes
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: The Home Office was the only Department that failed to answer my data request in time and that gave me imperfect data, but I did not stop and I kept going. I have to say: it is much better now. I was able to speak to and did have access to Ministers, and I was always able to make my case. I did not get that information in a timely manner, but I did get that information in the end. I am worried about what has happened to those children.
The data we were after was safeguarding data that showed all the concerns, and the reason I asked for it was because I knew that the safeguarding in the hotels was not as it should be. We got the data on children who had been victims of attempted organ harvesting, rape and various other things, as well as the number of children who were missing. We still do not know where many of those children are, and that is not good enough. The whole tone has changed, and I hope that the Government will still want to stop the small boats, while also being much more pro-children.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Absolutely. The number of tales and stories from children about how virtually the entire rest of the hotel had been picked up and driven off by gangs was really not good. They would just walk outside and be picked up, and they would go. Some of those children made their way back to Kent because they were being exploited so badly. It was really terrible. There were not proper safeguards.
One of the reasons I do not want the Home Office to accommodate children is that, while it is great at many things, it should have nothing to do with children. Children’s social care should be looking after children. The Home Office was never able to put in appropriate safeguarding. Despite its best efforts, it did not manage to structure children’s days. It did not have the personnel to deal with this.
Children were going missing regularly; some are still missing. Kids were there for months who were not learning English. What were they doing? Whereas, when they went straight into Kent’s care, they were put in school, learning English, learning what it is like to be in England, learning to understand their rights and getting used to the country they were in, but I fear that many of those children came to terrible ends—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated and allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness for her evidence.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with the Bill? No. In that case, we will now hear oral evidence from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Examination of Witnesses
Assistant Chief Constable Jim Pearce, Sarah Dineley and Rob Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 2.40 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves briefly for the record?
Rob Jones: I am Rob Jones, the director general of operations for the National Crime Agency.
Sarah Dineley: My name is Sarah Dineley, and I am head of international at the Crown Prosecution Service and the national CPS lead on organised immigration crime.
Jim Pearce: Good afternoon. I am Assistant Chief Constable Jim Pearce, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on organised immigration crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Q
Rob Jones: There is not one thing that you can do to tackle these problems; you need a range of measures that concurrently bear down on them. The problem that I focus on is the organised crime element, which needs concurrent effort in a number of areas, designed to undermine the business model that supports organised immigration crime. That means tackling illicit finance; the materials that are used in smuggling attempts and the supply chain that supports them; the high-value targets based overseas who are involved in supplying materials and moving migrants; and those who are closer, in near-Europe, who are involved in it. From an organised crime perspective, it is about concurrent pressure in a number of areas to make the incentives for being involved in organised immigration crime no longer viable.
Jim Pearce: From my perspective, you need to look at this at both ends of the scale. What we are probably thinking about at the moment is prosecution and putting people through the courts. Actually, we know that, in other thematic serious and organised crime, prevention and early intervention work just as effectively. We would call that disruption. Disrupting the patterns, and the ways of working that Rob just described, earlier would obviously prevent victims from becoming victims in the end. It is the 4P approach, which I am sure most of you have heard of. It is about working from neighbourhood policing, with a local factor, in order to gather intelligence, and putting that into the system all the way up through our regional crime units and into the National Crime Agency and high-end prosecution, international and online.
Sarah Dineley: I concur with my two colleagues. I do not believe that there is one single measure that would impact so significantly that it would reduce migrant crossings to zero. It is about having a suite of measures—whether they are prosecutorial or disruptive in nature—that taken together will allow the prosecution and law enforcement teams to work together to tackle the gangs. It is always important to remember that a criminal justice outcome is not necessarily the right outcome; there are other outcomes that can tackle organised immigration crime and gangs effectively.
Matt Vickers
Q
Sarah Dineley: From a prosecution point of view, I would say it is a matter for the legislators to decide what legislation they feel is appropriate. The Bill as drafted does add to the toolkit of measures we have available.
Rob Jones: From my perspective, the measures that make the most difference and are the most significant in tackling the organised crime element are on preparatory acts, in clauses 13 to 16. They give us the ability to be pre-emptive, proactive and very disruptive, giving us something we have not had before—the ability to act before people actually commit an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, which is the facilitation offence. That is an important opportunity, because we are driven by trying to reduce the highest-risk crossings and trying to prevent crossings. We would not choose to react to crossings and then investigate; we want to act as quickly as we can. These measures create the ability to do that—to go much sooner, have more impact, and build momentum, so that the people who are behind these attempts really start to feel the pressure.
Jim Pearce: In addition, the Bill provides the opportunity to increase clarity and focus, with the ability to gain information and intelligence through the seizure of electronic devices, for example. I know this is controversial. Being able to do that with a very clear power to search, seize and then download, as opposed to potentially—I am not saying this has happened—misusing existing powers, will give clarity because you can say to an operational police officer, immigration officer, or a member of the National Crime Agency, “This is what you use in order to get that defined intelligence at the end.”
Matt Vickers
Q
Jim Pearce: From a policing point of view, there would be insurance around safeguarding. For the electronic devices, for example, I understand the benefits that would come from the counter-terrorism-style powers to be able to seize electronic devices. I am confident that that is managed through the measures in place around reasonable suspicion and having to get the advice from a senior officer. It is about operationalising that, putting it into practice, and making sure that our staff understand through education and training. Any change in legislation requires training, finance and input. Those are the types of things that I would be thinking about.
Rob Jones: I agree. It is about the professional development and the guidance for officers who are using new tactics and new tools against this threat, and making sure that we are ready to go with very clear guidance on how officers should look to engage the new offences in the Bill.
Sarah Dineley: Clause 17 and one of the subsections of clause 18 create extraterritorial jurisdiction for the offences, and it would be remiss of me not to highlight some of the challenges that that will bring. We have a system of judicial co-operation, something called mutual legal assistance, whereby we can obtain intelligence and evidence from our overseas counterparts at both judicial and law enforcement level. We work very hard on building those relationships to collaborate.
To that end, the Crown Prosecution Service has a network of liaison prosecutors based across the world. Specifically, we have liaison prosecutors based in the major organised immigration crime countries—Spain, Italy, Turkey, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium—and two in France, one of whom is actually a dedicated organised immigration crime liaison prosecutor. We use them to foster and build those relationships so that we have that reciprocal exchange of information where required. That is not to say that is without its challenges. I flag that as something that we will continue to work on, but it has challenges.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Q
Rob Jones: It gives us the opportunity to make the most of the intelligence dividend that we have invested in tackling the threat. We have a good understanding of the people behind small boats crossings in particular, the supply of materials, the facilitation from near-Europe and further afield, but we want momentum and greater agility so that when we are aware that a crossing is being prepared—when materials are moving—we can act pre-emptively and proactively.
As I said earlier, we do not want to be investigating after thousands of people have arrived, and trying to put together very complex investigations that may involve months of covert surveillance and eavesdropping—a whole range of covert tactics—to get us over the line for a charging decision for a section 25 offence. The new offences give us the opportunity to act when we see that jigsaw puzzle coming together, to go to the CPS when we reach a tipping point and to go earlier than we can now. That means that we can pull more people through that system, deliver justice more quickly and be more disruptive in tackling the threat. That is a big step forward. That is lacking in the current toolbox to operationalise the intelligence we have.
Sarah Dineley: The endangerment offence potentially fills a gap between the current section 24 and 25 provisions. Each boat has a pilot—someone steering it across the channel—who, by the very nature and condition of those boats, the overcrowding, the lack of lifesaving equipment, and so on, puts everyone in that boat in danger of losing their life. We welcome that clause and will draft guidance on how it can be interpreted in terms of practical application.
Jim Pearce: Police officers mainly deal with the inland clandestine events as opposed to the small boats. From my point of view, it would be, correctly, common practice to use schedule 2(17) of the Immigration Act 1971 to detain migrants and then pass them into the immigration system. On searches after that, yes, there are powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 after that provision under section 32, but that is mainly to safeguard; it is not to seize evidence.
On Rob’s point about early intervention and intelligence gathering, the only way you gather intelligence is through what people tell you and what electronic devices give up. The Bill gives police officers the ability to gather intelligence through defined and clear powers in legislation, so that they are not misusing a PACE power, an operational procedure or anything else. That would be the biggest change for policing.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Rob Jones: You could say that about all serious organised crime. Where do you go from there? I do not agree with that view. It is definitely transnational and complicated, but it is a relatively new serious organised crime threat, and it is not too late to stop it. In 2018, there were a few hundred people coming on small boats. There were 36,000 last year. We need to unravel the conditions that have allowed that to happen, and this legislation will help with that. I do not take the view that you cannot stop it.
There will always be people attempting organised immigration crime, but this element of it—small boats—is relatively new. There are very specific things that organised crime groups involved in it need to do. They need access to very specific materials—otherwise they cannot move the numbers that they attempt to move—and they need to be able to operate using materials that are lawfully obtained, albeit for criminal purposes. This attacks that business model because we can pursue the dual-use materials with more vigour and have more impact. It is challenging, and it is a different challenge from drugs and other threats, but it is there to be dealt with. It is a very public manifestation of the OIC threat that has always been there. This part of it relies on a very specific business model that we can attack.
Sarah Dineley: The follow-on point from that, and one that you raised, is that people are making a lot of money out of this, so the illicit finance piece is really important. These new clauses actually give us more on which to hang illicit finance investigations. There is a lot of work going on in the illicit finance sphere; in particular, and most recent, the illicit finance taskforce between the UK and Italy, was set up specifically to look at the profits being made by the people who are preying on other people’s misery.
Jim Pearce: It has been said already but I want to reinforce the point about organised crime gangs being involved in polycriminality. Organised immigration crime is one part, but so are modern slavery, serious acquisitive crime and drug running. That is felt in local communities across the whole country. In my own force area of Devon and Cornwall, you would think that modern slavery and organised immigration crime do not exist, but we have a number of investigations and intelligence leads being developed; they are being looked at by both our regional crime units and members of Rob’s team. This exists everywhere across the country. As I say, if you are prepared to effectively smuggle people into the country, or at least to facilitate that, you are prepared to get involved in very serious things indeed.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Q
Sarah Dineley: I will deal with the second point first, as it is probably the easiest and it flows into the first. In relation to clauses 13 to 16, with any new legislation, the Crown Prosecution Service always publishes guidance on how it is to be interpreted. Certainly, the example that you gave about asking what the weather is like in Dover when you are stood in Calais would not fall within the guidance as meeting the evidential test. Of course, it is not just about an evidential test being met, but a public interest test as well. Our guidance always deals with that specific question of whether it is in the public interest, so that prosecutors can do that balancing exercise and ask, “Are there factors that weigh in favour of prosecution? Are there factors that tend away from prosecution?” They want to come to a decision that is compliant with our code for Crown prosecutors, so it is a mixture of guidance and application of the code that hopefully gets us to the right conclusion.
Going back to your first point, I mentioned that we have mutual legal assistance and that we can issue what are called international letters of request. They require the recipient country to execute the action, or to provide the information that we have asked for. One of the problems is that there has to be something called dual criminality—there has to be the equivalent offence in the country that we are making the request to, and there are some gaps across Europe in establishing dual criminality for all the immigration offences that we currently have on our books. However, we are confident that there are reciprocal laws in the major OIC countries in Europe to allow us to make those requests for information under mutual legal assistance. We are aided by the network of prosecutors based abroad, which I mentioned. We also have Eurojust and the joint investigation teams run out of Eurojust. We are well versed in working internationally and with the measures that we can deploy to make sure that we build a strong evidential case.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Q
We have talked a lot about the upstream side, which publicly people are well aware of. Is there a significant domestic angle here? Are we confident that we have a sound intelligence picture—as much as we can? Are there crossovers with other crime? Does the Bill help us to disrupt and arrest people in this country?
Rob Jones: I will come back on that first. There is a footprint in the UK for organised immigration crime. The footprint for the small boats crossings has typically been driven by Belgium, Germany, Turkey and further afield, with Iraqi Kurdish and Afghan groups. As more and more people have successfully exploited that route, however, they put down ties, they get involved in criminality and they know it has worked for them, so that drives the problem. There are organised crime groups in the UK that we are targeting. Some of our most significant cases to date have involved a footprint in the UK.
When we look at those groups and what it took to bring them to justice, we have either had to extradite them to another country following a judicial investigation, or we have done very complex covert investigations for many months. This helps with that issue, because when we have got good evidence from covert tactics—this was my earlier point—we are able to go earlier with it. The majority of the criminality that drives the small boats element, however, is based overseas. We have a good intelligence picture through OIC, which has improved dramatically since 2015 when we started targeting this, when the crisis first started.
Jim Pearce: I have a follow-on from policing. I probably have two points to make. First, tomorrow you will start hearing national media on interventions across the country, which are termed Operation or Op Mille—police interventions to do with cannabis farms. A lot of the intelligence linked to that particular operation involves workers who have been brought in illegally from abroad, and all those disruptions will be from across the whole country. That might just bring this to life.
The second point I want to make is on legislation changes, which you just asked about. The two changes—well, there are more than two, but the ones I particularly want to focus on—relate to serious crime prevention orders and the ability of law enforcement, which is the police, the NCA and of course the CPS, to apply for interim orders, especially those on acquittal. Serious crime prevention orders are probably a tool that is underused at the moment. We are keen to push into that space moving forward.
Sarah Dineley: To put that into context, at the moment there are effectively two types of serious crime prevention order: one is imposed on conviction, and between 2011 and 2022, we had 1,057; the other is what we call the stand-alone serious crime prevention orders. Those are made before any charges are brought and they are heard in the High Court. To date, there have only been two applications, one of which was successful. The introduction of this new serious crime prevention order does fill a massive gap in that restrictive order.
Rob Jones: I agree with that, and I welcome those measures. There is a similar regime for sexual offences, which allows control measures for people who are suspected of offences. That has been very successful. We welcome that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Q
Mr Jones, I am struck by your confidence that you are going to end this. I think you made a comparison with illegal drugs. You are probably right to make that comparison—they are both demand-led and operated by illegal gangs—but we have not been particularly successful with illegal drugs over the course of the past decade.
Lastly, Ms Dineley, you said something about pilots of the boats. I hope your intelligence is telling you exactly the people who are piloting the boats. It is not the gang members or people associated with this crime. It is ordinary asylum seekers who cannot afford the fare or are forced into piloting these boats. I hope that when approaching the new powers in the clauses you will be proportionate, you will know what is going on and will not endlessly prosecute innocent people who are just asylum seekers fleeing oppression and warfare.
Rob Jones: We are not looking to pursue asylum seekers who are not involved in serious and organised crime. That is not what we do. This is about tackling serious and organised crime and being as effective as we can be in doing that. There are examples of people involved in piloting boats who are connected to the organised crime groups.
Pete Wishart
Q
Rob Jones: People have been convicted of those offences, so that has passed an evidential test. Our role is undermining a specific element of the business model. It is not like drugs trafficking. Drugs trafficking has been established since the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It is a lot older, a lot more established and involves billions of pounds and tens of thousands of people internationally, if not more. The small boats threat is different from that. It is the highest harm manifestation of organised immigration crime. I have not said that I will stop organised immigration crime. I said that we will tackle the small boats business model and then continue to tackle the OIC threat, as we have been doing since 2015.
Sarah Dineley: In relation to asylum seekers piloting boats, under the Immigration Act 1971 we have two offences: sections 24 and 25—section 25 being the facilitating offence. Our guidance is very clear on when we charge the section 25 facilitation offence. It is very clear from our guidance that it is not just about having a hand on the tiller; it is about being part of a management chain and being part of the organisation of that crossing.
You mentioned people who are coerced into taking the tiller. We would look under section 24—arriving illegally—on whether an offence of duress would be sustained. That would form part of our considerations on whether evidentially it is made out and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute that person. We do look at the whole set of circumstances, and our guidance sets out in very clear terms what is required, both in terms of the evidential test and the public interest test—that balancing exercise. We also have specific guidance in relation to how we treat refugees and asylum seekers. Again, that plays into the charging decision equation, as I will put it, and the balancing exercise.
Jim Pearce: I am not sure what I could add to my colleagues’ comments.
Pete Wishart
Q
Jim Pearce: I am not sure I am going to be able to answer that question, but I can tell you that for 12 months since November 2023 the police were involved with just under 2,000 inland clandestine incidents. What I mean by that are, for example, relevant persons who have been found in the back of an HGV who walk into police stations declaring asylum or those who have been left at petrol stations and are then picked up by police patrols and brought in. There were 2,000 incidents and nearly 3,000 persons. Obviously, they are not all being arrested for organised immigration crime offences, because they have not necessarily committed them, and my colleague here has spoken about the aggravating factors that sit within section 24, which are the key points to prove. As I say, that is probably all I could offer you at this time.
Sarah Dineley: Perhaps I could put things into some sort of numerical context. Last year, we had 37,000 arrivals in the UK through small boats crossings alone, and, in the period from April to September last year, there were only 250 prosecutions.
Pete Wishart
And were they gang members?
Sarah Dineley: I cannot break that down, but that would include gang members. That is the total number of prosecutions.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Q
Rob Jones: In relation to the powers in clauses 13 to 16?
Kenneth Stevenson
Yes. I apologise—I think I have cut across the Minister, because she asked a very similar question, but, if you could give us an idea of how those three things that you spoke about before could be helped by the Bill, that would be really helpful.
Rob Jones: When we identify somebody from the UK who is involved in organising small boats crossings, for instance, we have to get very good, sophisticated surveillance control over that individual to get enough evidence to be able to produce a full file submission to the CPS for a section 25 facilitation offence. That could mean months of surveillance, or covert activity, in terms of eavesdropping and audio recordings.
In the meantime, we are seeing that individual with a public profile on social media, researching crossings, communicating with people overtly and meeting people. When you are looking at the commissioning of the offence, and you are living with somebody who is involved in serious organised crime, you are seeing that play out in front of you.
These clauses allow us to take elements of their business model—as they are meeting people, as they are researching, and as they are taking the preparatory steps to the section 25 offence—then go to the CPS and say, “We think we’ve got enough; we think we could go now.” That gives you more momentum, more speed and more agility.
It is the same mindset as trying to prevent attacks in the CT world. You would not choose to reactively investigate a terrorist attack; we would not choose to reactively investigate highly dangerous crossings in the English channel during which people get killed. We would choose to pre-emptively stop them, and that is what the new offences would introduce.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Q
Then, just picking up on your point, Mr Jones, about criminal gangs starting to feel the pressure because of this new suite of tools, would you say that the tools provided for in this Bill, which will have a disruptive effect, could in consequence also have a deterrent effect on the criminal smuggler gangs?
Rob Jones: I will take the second question first. Obviously time will tell but, adding to what we are doing already, these tools will rack up the pressure, and that starts to change behaviour. It increases costs and increases friction in the business model. Those things contribute to deterring people from getting involved, and we see that with other areas of criminality. I will allow others to answer the asylum question.
Sarah Dineley: I am going to dip out, rather, and say that it is not really a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, but I can tell you that the Home Office is undertaking a piece of work looking at what the pull factors are for migrants wanting to reach the UK, and at what point they reach the firm decision that the UK is their final destination.
Tom Hayes
Q
Sarah Dineley: There is nothing that I have read in any interview provided by a migrant to suggest that that is a pull factor.
Jim Pearce: I have a personal view, but I am speaking on behalf of the national police chiefs, and I am not sure that I am in a position to do that. That is probably a question for either Immigration Enforcement or the Home Office.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
My second question is for Sarah. I should probably declare an interest because I was previously the home affairs attaché at the embassy in Paris. You talked about international co-operation and mentioned things like JITs and Eurojust and the challenges we face there. We heard from a previous witness about how the UK no longer being in Dublin is being cited by migrants as one of the reasons that they are going in. Can you say more about the challenges that the UK is facing post Brexit? How do we build relations with key allies to overcome them?
Sarah Dineley: I will start with how we rebuild relations with key allies. I have talked about our network of liaison prosecutors. We regularly engage and hold engagement events with our overseas prosecutors: this year alone, we have had engagement events in Ireland, Spain and, two weeks ago, Italy. That is about building those relationships and finding out what their challenges are, as well as finding out about their legal systems and what barriers there are to the co-operation that we are seeking. I think we do have to recognise that different countries have a different legal framework, and we cannot simply impose our framework on another country; we have to be able to work around their framework to try to get what we need from them.
The Chair
I want to get Mike Tapp’s question in quickly so that you can summarise. We have got just two minutes left.
Mike Tapp
Q
Rob Jones: For me, I have worked really closely with Martin Hewitt already, and it works well. It allows me to focus on the operational leadership of tackling the organised crime threat and Martin to have the convening power and to work across Whitehall on a range of issues. It provides clarity, and we have more than enough to get on with in the NCA in tackling the organised crime element.
Jim Pearce: I sit on Martin’s board, so strategically I am heavily involved, and members of my team sit within the operational delivery groups. Speaking from a personal point of view, his strategic plans over the next few years make absolute sense in terms of what he is seeking to achieve for the Border Security Command. Exactly as Rob just said, it feels as though the co-ordination is there and it is driving a system response across law enforcement and more widely.
Sarah Dineley: Although we contribute to the Border Security Command, as an independent prosecuting authority we cannot be tasked or directed. However, we do value the collaborative work that we can do within that sphere.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for your evidence and for your service.
Examination of Witnesses
Tony Smith, Alp Mehmet and Karl Williams gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the former director general of UK Border Force, from Migration Watch UK and from the Centre for Policy Studies. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Could witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Karl Williams: I am Karl Williams, the research director at the Centre for Policy Studies. I have written several reports on legal and illegal migration.
Tony Smith: Hello, my name is Tony Smith. I spent 40 years in the Home Office, between 1972 and 2013, from immigration officer right the way up to director general of UK Border Force.
Alp Mehmet: I am Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch. I am also a former diplomat and a former immigration officer.
Matt Vickers
Q
Alp Mehmet: May I just make a few remarks? Would that be acceptable?
The Chair
We have a limited amount of time, so if you could answer the question, that would be great.
Alp Mehmet: I welcome the Bill in many respects. It is the sort of thing that needed to be done, and it is now happening. I welcome the co-ordination taking place across Government, and the potential co-operation with the EU and EU member states is also to be welcomed. The setting up of Border Security Command and the Border Security Commander will be helpful. My only gripe is that I strongly disagree with the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024—I think that is a mistake. I also think that repealing certain parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is a mistake. That is my personal view, and I am happy to explain why in a moment.
I wonder whether primary legislation was necessary to do a lot of what is happening, but we are where we are. If anything, I think repealing the Rwanda Act will encourage illegal immigration, or whatever we may call it, to some degree, which is unfortunate. A lot of people entering the EU—240,000 were declared to have entered illegally last year—will end up coming to us. There is no deterrence because, once they arrive here, the likelihood is that they will be able to stay. I believe the only deterrent is to restrict arrivals, and to contain and remove quickly. That will send the right message. I do not think anything in the Bill suggests that is going to happen. That is broadly my view.
Tony Smith: Looking at the relevant clauses, the first thing that struck me is that the Border Security Commander will be another civil servant. I think it will be a director general post in the Home Office. I was a director general, and we already have quite a lot of them. I am not sure he will actually be able to command anything. He is probably going to be more of a co-ordinator.
I would like to see the Border Security Commander and his team have law enforcement powers so that they can arrest and detain, the same as officers in Border Force, the National Crime Agency and Immigration Enforcement. I think that whole governance structure needs attention. It needs someone to pull it all together. I am not sure we have pitched the post right in immigration law enforcement teams.
On the Border Security Commander’s reporting requirements under the Bill, I think he regularly needs to publish details of irregular arrivals by way of nationality and age, and provide regular updates on where they are in the process, so we can all see whether there are logjams in the process from arrival to either removal or grant. We can check the timelines. I think they already have a dashboard in the Home Office that does that, so I presume he will be able to take responsibility for that.
I would also like to follow up on the point that Alp Mehmet made about data on removals and the numbers of people who can currently be excluded under NABA because they have come from a safe third country. That is still there, but we do not know the data on how many of them are actually being removed on a case-by-case, so I would like to see a list of all the countries to which we can remove people: safe first countries, source countries and third countries.
We know the EU will not take third-country returns. In fact, other than Rwanda, I do not think there are any countries that will take third-country returns. There are countries that will take back their own nationals, but under this new system where we are doing away with SORA and most of the IMA, there does not seem to be a third-country outlet. Therefore, people who come here from Iran, Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan know that, from the other side of the channel, they need only get into British territorial waters and they will probably be allowed to stay in the UK. They might well get asylum, but even if they do not, it is impossible to return them for one reason or another.
I am really interested in that returns piece. I am keen on capturing data from mobile devices. Some of them keep their mobile phones. That data is being used for prosecution purposes only. I think it should be made available to officials who are considering their asylum claim. Passport data, identity data, age data and travel history data are often held on those phones—all data that would be useful when considering an asylum application. We need legislation to do that.
I would also use mobile devices to track people who are given bail so that we can use the tracker to know where they are in the event of an adverse decision from the Home Office, so that we are able to find them. At the moment, we do not have powers to do that because of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I would like to see an amendment that enables that to happen. We know the tagging systems have not really worked. In the unlikely event that we keep SORA or the Rwanda plan—I do not expect the Government will—we really need to look at options for offshoring asylum claims from people who have arrived from a safe third country. If we cannot send them back, we could send them to another safe country—ergo, Rwanda—where they could be resettled safely without adding to the continuing flow of arrivals by small boat from France.
Matt Vickers
Q
Karl Williams: I have two brief points to reinforce what Tony was saying. It feels to me like the Bill focuses on disruption and the interdiction of routes for entering the country illegally. It does not do much on deterrence. As the impact assessment says, on pillar 3, the changes to measures for going after the gangs, it is very uncertain what the outcome will be. That is because there is no evidence base here. The only country that has succeeded in stopping small boats is Australia. There was some interdiction work with Indonesia, but it was primarily about the offshoring agreement, which was a major plank of its deterrence. I would like to see deterrence measures added, not just disruption.
Secondly, on the Border Security Command, to reinforce what Tony said, data information is really important. Migration policy, legal and illegal, has generally been bedevilled by very poor quality Government data. It seems the new Border Security Commander will have limited ability to take operational control. One thing I would like to see them have is power to access and pull together data, so that we can have a much better picture.
Matt Vickers
Q
Tony Smith: One thing I have raised is the possibility of a biometric entry/exit system, which we do not have in this country. I chair a lot of conferences around the world, on border developments, border security and border technologies. Your face will become your passport sooner or later—sooner in some countries than here. If we had the powers and authority, we could capture a digital biometric image of everybody entering and exiting the country, and we could require the carriers to do likewise—we do not have physical embarkation controls.
This is happening in America. It is happening in Dubai. It is happening in Singapore. We are going to Curaçao, which now has a walk-through border. All it does is capture your face. It matches you to the API data that you already have, uploads it into the cloud and recognises you straightaway, so you have a more seamless border. It will give proper figures on who is in this country and who is not. Your net migration figures will be a lot more accurate than they are currently, provided that we have the powers to capture and retain everybody’s facial image. That means UK passports, Irish passports, electronic travel authorisations and visas, and permanent residents. I think that is achievable, and I would love to see it happening in this country.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
“significant fall in the percentage of the indigenous (white British) population.”
Can you explain what your worry is, and could you define “indigenous white population”?
Alp Mehmet: First, I am a first-generation migrant. I came here as an eight-year-old. I have been here since the mid-’50s. The immigrant ethnic minority element of the population in those days was something like 4%. In the 1951 census, it was 3.9%, and it is now 25%. That has substantially happened over the last 30 years.
What worries me, if that is the right word, is the fact that people are being added to the population, and migration is the only driver of population increase at the moment. I know you have David Coleman coming up next. He will tell you a great deal more about the likely evolution of the population’s demographic mix. That is my concern. Having arrived here as a migrant, and accepted and joined this country and made it my own, I see it now changing very rapidly into something that the majority of people in this country do not want to happen.
Dame Angela Eagle
You still have not told us what indigenous means, but thank you very much.
Mr Forster
Q
Tony, you talked about your perfect solution to borders. You did not mention the costs. Do you have an idea of the set-up and running costs?
Karl Williams: The short answer is that we do have safe and legal routes. The new Home Office immigration data, which was published this morning, pointed out that last year 79,000 people arrived through safe and legal routes. Since 2020, about 550,000, maybe slightly more, have arrived by safe and legal routes: Ukraine, Hong Kong, the Afghan resettlement schemes, and people arriving through UN programmes and from Syria, yet that does not stop the crossings.
The fundamental problem is that there will always be more demand to come to this country than we would probably be willing to allow for through safe and legal routes. One stat is that, a couple of years ago, Gallup did a very wide-ranging poll of attitudes on migration and found that, globally, about 900 million adults would migrate, given the opportunity—30 million of those people put Britain as their first choice. There is always going to be a longer queue to get in than we have capacity for at any given time. That is my view.
Tony Smith: I do not have a detailed financial breakdown for you, but I can say that the direction of travel in the UK and around the world is to take away officers from the border and to automate a lot of the processes. We are doing that here already: we move, I think, more people through e-gates than any other country does. This is an automated border that will reduce the number of officers required to do frontline, routine tasks, which they really do not want to do, and enable them to target the people they want to focus on. If you were to do that detailed analysis, you would probably find that it will be cost-neutral in the end.
Mr Forster
Q
Karl Williams: I do not think it combats it, and I do not think it is a disincentive. The ideal solution is that, once we have control over the small boats, and therefore who is coming to this country, we can have a serious conversation about, if we want, expanding safe and legal routes, what that might look like and what other parts of the world we might want to help. But so much resource is now sucked up by dealing with the downstream consequences of the channel crossings, such as the hotel bills and so on—this is a sequence of things. I do not think having a safe and legal route is in itself a disincentive to small boat crossings.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
Q
Tony Smith: I do not think any of it was good value for money for the taxpayer, was it? The history and record speak for themselves. But we need to think about why it did not work and look at the reasoning behind why it took three years to try to get the process going. An awful lot of work was done in Rwanda and the Home Office to try to make it happen, but it was subject to continual legal challenge. Legal challenges were made in Europe, in the domestic courts and by judicial review. On a number of occasions, flights were lined up that did not happen, and a lot of money was therefore wasted in the process.
I am not a big fan of the Illegal Migration Act. Some of it was cumbersome, because it put all the eggs in the Rwanda basket. Rwanda was a limited programme—obviously, we could not send everybody to Rwanda—but under NABA, you had the option to triage and put some people into the Rwanda basket: those hard country removals, where you could not remove them anywhere else. You had that option, but you could still do what you are doing now and process people from places like Turkey and Albania, put them through the asylum system and return them to source.
Losing that triage option is going to be a big drawback, and it is going to cost a lot more money in the long run. The intake will continue to come, and you will then have to rack up the associated asylum, accommodation and settlement costs that run along with that.
Karl Williams: I would ask: “Value compared with what?” There is one argument around the counterfactual of if you had a deterrent, but I would also refer to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis last summer on the fiscal impact of migration. It estimates that a low-skilled migrant, or low-wage migrant as the OBR puts it, will represent a lifetime net fiscal cost to the taxpayer of around £600,000. We know from analysis from Denmark, the Netherlands and other European countries that asylum seekers’ lifetime fiscal costs tend to be steeper than that, but even on the basis of the OBR analysis, even if everyone ends up in work, if 35,000 people cross a year, which is roughly where we were last year, at that sort of cost range, it will probably be £50 billion or £60 billion of lifetime costs. Compare that with £700 million—it depends on what timescale you are looking at.
Pete Wishart
Q
If I am unfairly characterising your view, you can correct me, but your view is that they should not get into the UK, that they should be stopped either in the sea or the minute they arrive in the UK, and that at that point they should be booted out somewhere—if not Rwanda, some other country—or just put back to country of source. Is that roughly your view? You can just shake your head or nod.
Tony Smith indicated assent.
Pete Wishart
Q
Tony Smith: I do have sympathy with them. I do sympathise. Many of us, I suspect, would do the same. My issue is that they have travelled through a great many countries to make it to the UK. We used to have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees resettlement programme, when we had control of our borders. I was a big fan of that; I went to Canada and studied it for three years. We were actually searching the world and working with the UNHCR to identify the most vulnerable people and set a cap on the numbers that we could take. That was going on in Canada, Australia and the UK.
If you look at the UNHCR website and see the numbers of people who are going through that programme now, they are not getting resettled. The reason why not is that the business model has been taken over by the smugglers. That is why we are getting large numbers of young men who can afford to cross multiple borders and pay smugglers to get here. I would like to see a return to the system where we have control of those irregular routes. Then we could start looking, as Karl said, at reintroducing UNHCR resettlement programmes, going to the UNHCR and taking a certain quota into the UK in a managed way.
Alp Mehmet: Out of Gaza, there are going to be potentially 2 million people who would like some comfort, so they would like to move to somewhere a bit more convivial than Gaza is at the moment. But, if I may ask the question, why is it assumed that—because people like us advocate control and discouraging people, a lot of the time, from risking their lives, not just in crossing the channel but in living rough as they do—discouraging them from coming is in some way inhuman, insensitive and unkind?
Pete Wishart
Q
Alp Mehmet: We do, and even in my day as an immigration officer 50 years ago, that was exactly what we did. Tony rose to run the show, but I would argue that we had far more leeway in the ’70s as very junior, humble individual immigration officers. We were properly trained, we were monitored, we did things entirely within the law and we dealt with people humanely. It does not mean that that will not happen because we are saying, “No, you shouldn’t jump into a dinghy and make your way over here.”
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Q
Alp Mehmet: Tony, you start, and then I will catch up with the question, because I did not quite hear.
Tony Smith: We may well say the same thing. The question was about the fact that the Rwanda plan did not deter anybody because we still had 84,000 people arrive. I think the reason for that was that it was never, in fact, implemented. The intelligence coming across from Calais was that the smugglers and migrants never believed that it was going to happen. Once it became clearer that the Safety of Rwanda Act had passed, and that it might well become a reality, there was intelligence to suggest that some people were thinking twice about getting into dinghies, and there was some displacement into Ireland as a result. Of course, we will never know now, because we never actually implemented it.
We had a change of Government, and the new Government made it very clear that they were going to abolish the Rwanda plan, so we are where we are, but I would have liked an opportunity to see what would happen if we had started at least some removals. We had flights ready to go. I would have liked to see the impact that starting some removals would have had on the incoming population. We will never know now, I am afraid. Clearly, we hardly removed anybody to Rwanda in the end—I accept that—but I would have liked us to at least try, to see if it had an impact.
Alp Mehmet: It was never going to be the solution. It was not going to be the way to stop those people jumping into boats and coming across, but it was going to help. There needed to be other changes. I appreciate that we are not going to resile from the European convention on human rights any time soon, but while it is there, it is very difficult to be certain that people will be dissuaded. Some will be, some would have been, and we know that some were already being deterred. It was a pity, I am afraid, that the Rwanda deal went.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Q
Karl Williams: If we are talking about what deterrence we might need or what pull factors there are, having charities that in some circumstances are facilitating people crossing the channel is clearly an extra pull factor—probably a small one in the grand scheme of things, but it is there. I am thinking about organisations such as Care4Calais, which provide, for example, phone-charging services to migrants who are waiting in the sand dunes and the camps around the beaches where the crossings are made. They can recharge their phones; they are therefore in contact with the smuggling gangs. I think that there is a hole in the system that needs to be closed, and I do not think that this Bill does it.
Tony Smith: There are charities and charities. Some charities are not in any way involved in facilitation; it is a pure “care in the community” exercise or function in Calais. But I think other charities are a little bit more mischievous: they might be helping people with what to say when you are near the border, how to present your asylum claim, and how to get to a beach that might not be patrolled. I would like to see more work done on that.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Q
Given that the Bill clearly provides a deterrent to smugglers, to the people-smuggling business and to the criminal gangs in the channel by disrupting their activity, and by making it a greater expense, why do you still think it is a mistake—I think two or three of you said it outright, but you all seem broadly supportive of the Rwanda scheme—to be repealing those Acts with the Bill?
Tony Smith: There is the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and there is the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I said earlier that I was not a great fan of the IMA, for the very reasons that you have stated: it brought in the ban too early, and people were being banned from re-entering this country before we had even removed them. That was impacting on port cases. It was a hugely difficult time, because that law put all of the eggs in the Rwanda basket. As you say, that left increasing numbers of boat people being served with a notice that they were going to Rwanda, when they were never going to go to Rwanda; they were going into the system that you described. I do not think that that was a very good idea. If we had put the IMA to one side, with the duty to remove, we could have stuck with NABA.
Then we had SORA, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act, which would have turbocharged NABA. It would have given you a triage option: either to accept people into the asylum system quickly and process them, as you are doing now, or—for others, where you wanted to make a point that it is not okay to come across in a small boat and get to stay in the UK—to send some of them to Rwanda. That is what we could have done under NABA and SORA, and my view is that the IMA disrupted that.
Karl Williams: I suppose the asylum backlog of inadmissible people is a function of the disjunction whereby different parts of the legislation are being implemented at different speeds. Obviously the intention at the beginning was that we would have the flights going off in January or February 2023. When the ECHR injunction stopped the first flight, that derailed it. You could conceivably have had a situation in which a combination of some offshoring and the deterrent effect of that meant that the backlog of inadmissible cases did not grow. The fact that Rwanda was stalled in the courts for a couple of years, and then just did not happen at all, meant that that amount was inevitably going to increase. That was then locked in.
Mike Tapp
Q
Tony Smith: No, I have not spoken to the DG of the National Crime Agency. I am retired, so there are probably different constraints on what I can say versus what you can say when you are still working for the Government. But I am very close to Border Force immigration enforcement and a lot of my former colleagues who are still working. I went out on the boats with them last year and am very much in touch with what is going on there.
I worked under the UK Border Agency. We had agency status, and we were at arm’s length from Government. I had specific removal targets that I had to deliver. I had end-to-end teams: I had front-end teams, asylum teams and immigration enforcement teams in a region, working a case from start to finish, with rigorous case conclusion targets. I liked that system, because I thought it worked, but it got broken up into silos—we now have directors general for Border Force, immigration enforcement, migration and borders, and homeland security, and now we are putting another one in for Border Security Command. That is quite a jumbled mirage of civil servants. If you then have crime agencies—NCA, the police, and the security services—it gets really complicated, so I can see why you want a co-ordinator. But that is what it is: a co-ordinator, not a commander.
I was Gold commander for the UKBA at the London 2012 Olympics. I was in charge, basically; obviously I was answering to the Home Secretary on decision making, but it came to me because I had command over all those units. Now, you do not have that, because the Home Office is very gradeist. You have all these directors general for a whole bunch of silos, so it is going to be a heck of a job for the new security commander to actually direct activities to those agencies that have other priorities and other responsibilities. That is why I would like to see them have agency powers—arrest powers, enforcement powers—and to have a look at that whole structure of Border Force enforcement and migration enforcement, and ask, “Is this too unwieldy? Can we have a more streamlined process whereby we have somebody calling the shots?”
Mike Tapp
Q
Tony Smith: I know you have an order coming in next week that will allow biometrics to be captured, but I do not think it goes far enough.
Mike Tapp
Yes, we are. It is coming in this year.
Tony Smith: We do not have a biometric entry/exit system. The EU is bringing in EES, which means Brits will have to give their biometrics on entry and exit. We are bringing in the electronic travel authorisation—the ETA—but that is different from an entry/exit system.
Tom Hayes
Q
I also want to ask you about that report. In a previous answer, you raised the importance of counterfactuals. In reaching the overall recommendations and assessments in your report, did you consider counterfactuals such as the fact that migrants might move up the wage and skills distribution and might not always remain on low pay? In the absence of migrant workers, for instance in health and care settings, there would need to be other people who could do their work. Did you consider the economic impact of having nobody in those roles to do that health and care work, and whether that would affect the worklessness in our country? Did you consider whether there could be a reallocation of British workers into higher-skilled and higher-wage jobs as a consequence of those migrant workers? Did you think about the economic impact of potentially more people doing unpaid care because of a lack of paid carers?
I ask those questions not because I feel we should rely on migrant workers—I do not—but because your report has been lauded by the shadow Home Secretary and other Conservative Members of Parliament. I want to make sure that if it is being used as a point of reference, the data and the assessments have integrity. If you were to consider those counterfactuals, I wonder whether that would affect your report.
Karl Williams: To clarify, we are talking about the report on indefinite leave to remain that came out recently, not the report from last year.
Tom Hayes
I forgot the name of it. The “Here To Stay?” report?
Karl Williams: Yes, that is the one. That is purely about the fiscal impact. There is some analysis, which I can go into in a minute, on the broader economic picture in the previous report, but this report was more tightly focused.
Tom Hayes
But inevitably the counterfactuals would have an impact on the fiscal burden carried by the state.
Karl Williams: Indeed, yes. The counterfactuals we did think about were different levels of stay rates and different rates among different wage profiles. Migrants earning more as they go through the system clearly does happen to some extent, whether through out-migration or through career progression. In conducting that analysis, we stuck to the fiscal profiles used by the OBR, because, as you say, the data quality is fairly poor. That was the best there was, without trying to construct our own estimates for ingoings and outgoings as migrants progress over their life course in the UK. The OBR models it by age, so it captures the different wage contributions that you make at different points in your life, which will be higher in some points and lower in others. It also captures the different burdens of, for example, healthcare in old age.
I am glad that you have raised the quality of the data. We have repeatedly pointed out, as have the Governor of the Bank of England and the Office for National Statistics, that the labour force survey is very broken. In that report and in previous reports, we have always pushed the point that we need better data. Everyone needs better data. This is one area where there is broad consensus, whether you are restrictionist or want more migration or whatever else. I understand that the reference here is to Denmark and the Netherlands.
Tom Hayes
Q
Karl Williams: The report is very clear about the assumptions we have made at various points and the unknowns. With any modelling exercise, whether you are conducting a fiscal model of an effect of a tax change or whatever else, you have to make reasonable assumptions.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses very much for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
David Coleman gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear evidence from David Coleman, emeritus professor of demography at the University of Oxford. We have until 3.40 pm for this witness. Could you please introduce yourself briefly for the record?
David Coleman: Yes, of course. My name is David Coleman. I am emeritus professor of demography at the University of Oxford. I have been retired for over 10 years, and I interest myself in all sorts of aspects of demography—not just migration, but mortality, fertility and all the other things that we play with.
Matt Vickers
Q
David Coleman: The sad fact is that I do have reservations about the Bill, but I do not have any magical solutions to put that right, I am sorry to say. It is, after all, an intractable problem, this question of asylum and migration.
My concerns are that we have to, we are forced to, restart or intensify a war that we may not easily win. Rather like, as I suggested in my note, the war against drugs, it will be difficult—probably perpetual and probably indecisive. It will have some effect. It will consume a great deal of effort. It may involve unkindness to asylum seekers and possibly risk to those doing the investigations. It is, I think, very much second best to the idea of trying to deter migration for asylum claiming in the first place. That, of course, was dismissed by the present Government as being unfeasible, unworkable and unkind, so the Rwanda scheme was scrapped. However, although it sounds rather brutal, it seems to me that the only obvious way of deterring movement to Britain is by making the movement to Britain unattractive. The obvious way of doing that is to divert at least some of the claimants somewhere they will be safe but will not enjoy the benefits of being in a rich country.
There are four ways of dealing with the issue, are there not? One is to have open borders, so that everybody who wants to come can come. Then there are two ways of being nasty: one is being nasty to the smugglers themselves, which is, I suppose, what the Bill is primarily about, and the other is being rather nasty to people who wish to claim asylum, which the previous policy did. Alternatively, you could have special routes for selected people who can be investigated, possibly by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and then admitted. That has, as far as I can make out, been ruled out by the Government for the time being.
Matt Vickers
Q
David Coleman: The lesson that everyone cites is the example of Australia, which, depending on which Government are in power, has a policy of diverting people right across the other side of the Pacific to an island where they were notionally safe, but where they were not able to enjoy being in Australia. That is supported or not supported depending on which Government is in power, which is one of the problems with migration policy. Generally speaking, whether the doors are tight shut, half open or fully open depends very much on the swings and balances of electoral change and is rather unpredictable. That is inevitable.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: Yes and no. The Galton Institute does not exist any more; it has changed its name to the Adelphi Genetics Forum.
Dame Angela Eagle
But it is a eugenics organisation?
David Coleman: No, it is not. It is devoted to genetics research and has conferences every year on genetics research. It promotes research into that and has a small grant fund that people can apply for. It is a very pukka organisation.
If you have any doubts about it, I suggest that you look at its publications and its website. You will find something by me on that that is only slightly connected to genetics: “New Light on Old Britons”—it is about palaeontology and human evolution. That is one of the things that the organisation was interested in. You are quite right that it started off as the Eugenics Society, and before that it was the Eugenics Education Society. That was in the days when progressives of every kind clustered around to support eugenic ideas because they were thought to be improving and beneficial to society. Society has changed its mind—
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: It got a terribly bad name for that reason—exactly so. That is why, over the last century, opinion has moved against using that word and using those notions. But I respectfully point out that it has nothing to do with asylum seeking.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: I suppose, as a rather bad Christian, I am bound to believe that, but the problem with human rights definitions is that they tend to be infinitely extendible. All kinds of entitlements that started off being universally accepted by almost everyone of good will tend to get expanded beyond reason.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: I mean making the prospect of life in the country of intended asylum less attractive than otherwise might be the case. That is what the Rwanda policy was. I suppose I was speaking slightly tongue in cheek in calling it “nasty”, but it certainly is not the same thing as being welcoming, is it? The idea of the Rwanda Bill was to secure the safety from persecution and risk of death for asylum seekers, which is the aim of asylum, without admitting them to Britain and all the benefits of being in a rich country.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: I am not here to defend the Rwanda policy, although I think that, in principle, it had some merit. That is a problem that would arise whether there was a Rwanda policy or an Illegal Migration Act or not, because of the sheer pressure of asylum seeking from all corners of the world. That has been the case in the past for a long time and will continue to be the case. We now have asylum claims up to 99,000 in the last year, so it is not just to do with the Illegal Migration Act; it is a worldwide process.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
David Coleman: I do not know how important the Illegal Migration Act was in increasing the number of the backlog, to be perfectly honest. In the past, it has been the same height without the Illegal Migration Act. About 15 or 20 years ago, it was also 90,000 per year, and that was way before any of the past legislation was enacted.
Pete Wishart
Q
David Coleman: This is a formidable tutorial group to try to give such an answer to. If I could say with any kind of confidence what was going to happen by the middle of the century, I would deserve a Nobel prize.
Pete Wishart
Q
David Coleman: I can do my best. The present situation, as you are obviously suggesting, is rather dire from the point of view of domestic demography, such as the fact that the so-called total fertility is down to 1.44 and may fall further. Therefore, it presages considerable population ageing and decline should it continue.
At the risk of being technical and boring, I would point out that total fertility is a snapshot. It is only a calculation of, on average, how many babies the average woman—if you can imagine an average woman—will produce over a lifetime, if the same levels of age-specific fertility were to continue, which refers to the same levels of birth rate at the ages 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and so on. If that continues at the present level, in the long run you will get 1.44 babies. This is a very volatile measure; it goes up and it goes down. Back in 2010, it was 1.94, which is really very healthy and probably as high as you could possibly get.
Pete Wishart
Q
David Coleman: Yes, or 2.1. That is true, although there is a risk of starting another hare. I suggest that some degree of population ageing and population decline is tolerable, particularly when we are faced with a world whose habitable area is shrinking and productivity is declining, thanks to the inevitable level of global climate change. The last thing we want, it seems to me, anywhere, is population growth. Population stabilisation and population decline, as long as it is modest and eventually comes to an end, is to be welcomed. I have said that with colleagues on a number of occasions.
I do agree that the present level of fertility is very unsatisfactory; it would be much healthier if it were higher. One gets into perilous waters trying to persuade people to have more children. The important thing is to identify those obstacles that stand in the way of the family size that people keep on saying they want to have. Despite all the problems at the present time, opinion polls suggest that people still want to have, on average, almost two babies or even more than two babies, but they cannot, for all sorts of reasons. In this country, some of those reasons are very obvious. One is the atrocious cost of housing. House prices are now at nine times the level of the average income, compared with three or four times, which was normal in the past.
The Chair
Sorry, we have four minutes left and I have three people to get in.
David Coleman: Forgive me; I ran away with myself. I am so sorry.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Following on from what the Minister asked you about how we have to be mean or have open borders, I looked at your written evidence, in which you have put as your ninth point, “Make Britain unattractive again”, and then you refer to the Rwanda policy. You say that you do not really know, but we had the National Crime Agency in before you and they were quite optimistic about the deterrent aspects of the Bill. Are you saying that you are not at all?
David Coleman: I am not, but at the moment it is to some extent a matter of opinion. The sorts of measures being proposed in the Bill are a development and accentuation of what has been done already. After all, the Government are not doing nothing to try to moderate asylum seeking; they have already, like the previous Government, been involved in discussions with our neighbours to try to come to an agreement on all sorts of aspects of migrant trafficking. The Bill is trying to ratchet that up, perfectly reasonably.
So far those measures, although admittedly not as intense as this Bill wants to impose, have not been notably successful. I drew a parallel with the war against drugs, which has an effect. It reduces the volume of drugs in circulation and puts drug pushers in prison, but it also puts up the price of drugs. There is a rather depressing parallel there.
Chris Murray
Q
David Coleman: That, I suppose, is the reason why the previous Government wanted to try to do something very different indeed in the Rwanda policy.
Chris Murray
But they passed the Act.
David Coleman: It was never tried. It might well have failed, but it was certainly a different avenue. It was not the one you had in mind, I am sure, but it was none the less a different way of doing it. It was attacking the problem from a different angle—from the question of demand rather than control.
The Chair
Order. That brings us, unfortunately, to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Professor Brian Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Brian Bell from King’s College London. We have until 4 pm for this panel. Could the witness please briefly introduce himself for the record?
Professor Brian Bell: I am Professor Brian Bell, the chair of the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee.
Matt Vickers
Q
Professor Brian Bell: I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether it will be effective. The evidence from lots of previous experiences is that it is actually very hard to deter this kind of activity, but I suppose you have to try everything you can and see what works. If something does not work, you try something else.
In some sense, it is an unanswerable question at this point, and it may be unanswerable in the long run. Suppose that the Bill is passed and small boat numbers go up. That does not prove that the Bill failed, because we do not know what the counterfactual is of what would have happened without the Bill, and vice versa: if the numbers go down, it could just be that the number of people who wanted to come to France and then on to England had fallen. It is going to be very difficult to directly observe the effect. Whenever you think about these issues, you always have to think about both the deterrence and sanction effect, which is what the Bill is focused on, and then how you change the underlying incentives.
Matt Vickers
Q
Professor Brian Bell: I do not think so, in the sense that I do not think any country has experienced these issues and dealt with them particularly successfully. There are different approaches—obviously, Australia has taken a different approach—but I do not think that any country would claim that it has really succeeded in significantly addressing this kind of problem.
To me, it is very much the same kind of problem as any sort of criminal activity. You can change the sanctions and the effectiveness of the police, and that has some effect. The evidence tends to suggest on this sort of thing that it has a fairly small effect. The deterrence effect tends often to be quite small with these policies, so in the end the right response will almost certainly be about changing the incentives as well, in terms of both what is the attraction to come to the UK and whether there are ways we can encourage people to stay in France, in this case, instead of wanting to make those journeys.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Yes.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Absolutely, but that is sort of true of all crimes: if someone is committing a crime, you want to stop them doing it. I think the difficulty is in the question: if you stop one criminal doing it, what happens? Is there a substitution effect where you just get the next organised crime organisation taking action? The risk is that you may well succeed, but the overall macro effect of that may be not as positive as you might hope.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Absolutely not.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: It is likely to have some positive effect. In some sense, it cannot have a negative effect, so it must have some positive effect. The difficulty is that, as almost everyone would accept, it is impossible to judge ex ante what the size of that effect will be, but that sort of tells you that you should try it and see how it works.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: It is an effort worth making, but I would caution that in other areas of police and crime activity, the impact of being tougher with sanctions and new offences does not necessarily lead to very substantial changes in crime rates. The overall crime rate in the UK is almost certainly driven more by incentives and economic outcomes in the long run than it is by particular offences and statutes that are passed.
Dame Angela Eagle
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Completely.
Mr Forster
Q
Professor Brian Bell: I do not have expertise in that area. I am confused as to how significant it will be. As I understand the Bill, it will allow HMRC to share customs data with other parties. It is not clear to me what that achieves. It would be wrong of me to imply that I have any particular operational understanding of how that will help operations.
Mr Forster
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Data sharing overall can be phenomenally valuable in thinking about immigration more broadly. The Migration Advisory Committee has been very clear that we need to improve the data. We have access to data from HMRC that we find very useful on the legal migration side. Fundamentally, the question is: what data does HMRC hold that will provide useful information to border security in terms of stopping organised immigration gangs? Presumably, the Government think that there are some useful points. My view is, “Why wouldn’t you try it and see if it helps?” If it does not, you are no worse off.
Chris Murray
Q
Professor Brian Bell: I will take those questions in reverse order. I do not think they were very effective. Again, I would caution that there is always this problem that you see a piece of legislation passing and then look at the numbers and try to guess whether it was the legislation that caused the change that you see. Other things are going on, so it is always difficult to do that.
More broadly, the evidence that we have from people seeking asylum is that the exact nature of the rules that exist in the country they are going to are not big drivers of their decision to go there. People have asked asylum seekers to list the reasons they want to come to the UK, and very rarely are they things like the legal system in operation for dealing with asylum claims. It is all about the fact that English is the most common language in the world and often the second language of these people. There is often a diaspora in the country, or labour market opportunities are potentially better than in some of the other countries. Those things are generally much more important than whether your asylum claim will be dealt with in Rwanda. I do not think that many people concern themselves with that.
The numbers are certainly not consistent with a story of a very significant deterrent effect from the Rwanda Act. Of course, asylum seekers might have been really clever and spotted that it was probably going to be declared illegal by the Supreme Court—perhaps they were prejudging the legality of the measures. The cost was staggering for a policy that was very unlikely to have a significant deterrent effect. The previous Government’s difficulty was that they could never actually tell you how many people they thought would be sent to Rwanda. It is not a deterrent if you are sending a few thousand people every year.
Chris Murray
Q
Professor Brian Bell: Well, four went voluntarily, but if the policy had been implemented in full, there were never any guarantees. We certainly would not have been able to send 100,000 a year to Rwanda; Rwanda was never going to accept that. The cost was astounding, given the likely deterrence effect. It illustrates a problem in the Home Office at the time: there was little rational thinking about what the costs and benefits of different policies were. My personal view is that getting asylum claims dealt with more quickly would have been a much more effective use of public resources. That is in the interests of not only the British public but asylum seekers, as most of their claims are accepted. If we could have got them through the system faster, got them approved if they were approved, got them into work and integrating within their communities and, if they were rejected, actually deported them, that would have been a much better use of public resources.
Pete Wishart
Q
Professor Brian Bell: I think the numbers will be quite small. In some senses, a good piece of legislation makes a criminal offence so serious, and a penalty so severe, that no one commits the crime. There is a risk that you think you have failed because no one is convicted, but actually if you deterred the behaviour then it succeeded. The reality is that if there are any convictions, it will be almost entirely asylum seekers who are convicted. I do not see how the gangs will be convicted because, as I understand it, they are not on the boats.
Pete Wishart
Q
Professor Brian Bell: That is the implication of the legislation. I am not a lawyer, so I should be careful here, but I understand that there is a defence in the legislation that would allow you to claim that you were essentially forced into doing it, under sort of human slavery conditions.
Pete Wishart
Not according to the current numbers: 205 is a lot of people being convicted for being compelled to drive a boat—
Jo White
Q
Professor Brian Bell: It is probably not a very strong deterrent. To repeat myself, all the evidence is that when asylum claimants think of where to claim asylum they do not have detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the procedures of different countries. They almost certainly do not know what might happen in five to 10 years, which is the length of residence that they would need to apply for citizenship, so I am not sure it will be a significant deterrent. However, it is important to recognise that citizenship is not a right; it should be viewed as a privilege that people earn. It is reasonable for the Government to take the view that citizenship should not be given to certain people. I do not think there is anything wrong with that—it seems a legitimate observation.
Katie Lam
Q
Professor Brian Bell: You would not want to disrupt some of the incentives. For example, the unemployment rate is 7.8% in France and 4.4% in the UK. The gap is slightly larger for young people than for the population as a whole. I am sure the Government would not want to change that incentive, although the French probably would. If you have a buoyant economy relative to your neighbour, at least in the labour market, that is an incentive. There is an incentive in terms of things that you would not necessarily want to change. The English language is really important as a pull factor, and the fact that there are diasporas already in the country.
There tends to be some evidence that the UK has been somewhat more successful than France at integrating immigrants into society, particularly second-generation immigrants: there is some evidence that whereas employment rates are always very poor for first-generation immigrants relative to natives, that gap narrows quite a bit in the UK when you look at second-generation immigrants. That is less true in France, so people may think the opportunities are better here.
The area where the Government could take action—and they are with the Employment Rights Bill—is that we have lots of employment rights in this country, but do not bother enforcing any of them, because we do not spend money on HMRC minimum wage enforcement teams and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority does not have enough money to employ people to do all the work it needs to do. If the Fair Work Agency can take over and actually be beefed up, then we can enforce labour standards a bit more and that may discourage people, because one of the attractions of coming to the UK is that our looser enforcement of rules in labour market makes it easier to employ people who are here irregularly.
Tom Hayes
Q
Professor Brian Bell: That is a speculative number. It is actually extremely difficult to work out the fiscal impact of migration. We are doing it at the MAC at the moment. We can only do it because we have access to data that the CPS could not possibly have. I do not know how you do that kind of analysis without making really very brave—and some may say foolhardy—estimates of what these people are going to do when they are in the UK. To give a very simple example, we currently do not know what dependants do when they come into the country. Let us say we issue a skilled worker visa and a dependent comes in. We will know nothing about what they do because the Home Office, quite fairly, does not pursue finding out about that dependent because they are here legally, but you need to know how much they earn and if they are in a job to work out what their contribution will be over the next 50 to 60 years of their life.
I think it is very dangerous to just make broad assumptions about, “Oh, they are going to be like this and they are going to earn this”, and then you can come up with a very big number. I could choose a big group of British people who will also have very big negative effects, because if you just choose people who are low earners and perhaps people who are disabled, you automatically get those numbers because they are entitled to more benefits in the long run, and they do not pay as much tax. I am not particularly sure what that tells us.
Tom Hayes
Q
Professor Brian Bell: As I understand it, the big difference is that in the Australian system, if your asylum application was granted, you were brought to Australia; the system was just offshore processing of the application. That is very different from the Rwanda scheme, where we were essentially washing our hands of any responsibility going forward for those asylum applicants. The Australian model is worth thinking about if you could find countries that would be willing to process the applications, because we are spending—let us be honest—an absolute fortune on housing asylum seekers here while we consider their claims. If you could find a cheaper and more effective way of doing that, while still recognising that we have the responsibility to take those asylum seekers who have claimed asylum in this country, that would be worth considering.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for Members to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Angela Eagle and Seema Malhotra gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Dame Angela Eagle MP, Minister for Border Security and Asylum, and Seema Malhotra MP, Minister for Migration and Citizenship at the Home Office. We will have until 4.20 pm for this panel.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: The Illegal Migration Act was flawed legislation, which did not actually work. It was so flawed that the previous Government, even though they put it on to the statute book, did not actually commence much of it at all.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: The issue was that we did not think it was possible to make the suite of legislation, which involved the Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act, work together coherently. Its effect was essentially to allow people into the country but make it illegal to process them and leave them stuck in an ever-lengthening backlog and in limbo. The whole approach established by the interplay of those two Acts of Parliament, one of which was barely commenced even though it was on the statute book, had to be taken away so that we could bring some order to the chaos that we inherited from the previous Government, as a result of the practical outcomes of those two pieces of legislation.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: No, we certainly have not said that. As soon as people’s asylum claims have been properly processed, and the appeals that they are allowed to make are finished, if they have failed, we will seek to remove those people—but not to a third country.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: The Home Secretary has made it perfectly clear in the changes to the advice that if you come to this country illegally, we do not expect that you will be granted citizenship.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: We have taken that out of primary legislation because it was connected with the duty to remove, which was about the interplay of the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act. As I have just said, it was flawed legislation that did not work in practice.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: There are real issues about the accuracy of scientific age assessment. At the Home Office, we are in the middle of doing work to see whether we can get a system of scientific age assessment that is robust enough to use. We are certainly not ruling it out, but the effects in that legislation were all about the duty to remove—it was about trying to define children. You will remember that in the IMA, the duty to remove excluded children, which perhaps created a bigger incentive for people to claim that they were children when they were not. The scientific age assessment clauses in that Act were related to the duty to remove. Given that we are repealing the vast majority of the Illegal Migration Act in this Bill, we removed those clauses.
I would not, however, want to give the hon. Gentleman the false impression that we have completely abandoned the idea of doing scientific age assessment. Currently, we are trying to assess whether there are ways of doing it that not only are cost-effective, but can be relied on. It is not an easy thing to do; there are no very easy solutions to whether it is accurate. We are exploring those areas ahead of making any subsequent announcements about if—and how, if we do—we use scientific age assessment.
Matt Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: First, we will always seek to return people if they fail the asylum system, and have had all their claims and appeals, as soon as it is safe to do so. That is the first thing to say, and we must never lose sight of that. Situations in particular countries change—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We never give up on that. Clearly, if people are here and have failed, we want them to leave, and we will facilitate them to leave.
Martin Vickers
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: With all due respect, I do not think they were ever going to go to Rwanda.
Mike Tapp
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: One of the important things for the integrity of any asylum system is that if people fail it, there are consequences that are different from those if they do not. It is the hard and nastier end of any asylum system: if you have no right to be here, we will want you to leave—voluntarily, if at all possible. Sometimes we will even facilitate that, but we will return you by force if we have to. The 19,000 returns that we have achieved since 4 July are an indication that we want to ensure that enforcement of the rules is being put into effect more than it was. There had been very big falls in returns, and very big falls in enforcement, and we want to put that right.
Mr Forster
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: Clearly, it is important that we try to deal with the development of organised immigration crime on our borders. Colleagues will have heard the comments from the NCA and the National Police Chiefs’ Council about how important it is to assert the rule of law in such areas. It is very important. That is the main aim of the Bill.
If the hon. Gentleman is talking about safe routes, we heard some evidence today about safe routes. I am personally sceptical that those would stop people wanting to come across in boats. If one takes the example of our Afghan scheme—a safe route for particular people from Afghanistan who have been put in danger by supporting UK forces—that is a legal route that is safe. At the same time, last year the largest nationality represented among small boat arrivals was Afghans.
We have people arriving on small boats who come from countries where we have visa regimes, so I am not convinced that we could provide enough places on safe routes to prevent people smugglers benefiting from that kind of demand. That is my opinion from having looked at what goes on and I accept the hon. Gentleman might have a different one.
Seema Malhotra: If I may add to that, we also heard in the evidence about the scale of the challenge that we face and how small boat crossings are a relatively new phenomenon, in that we had around 300 in 2018, but the number is now 36,000. In a very targeted way, this Bill is looking at what more tools we can bring in along with the Border Security Command to tackle the criminal gangs that are literally making millions—if not more—out of people who are very vulnerable.
The fact that there were more deaths in the channel in 2024 than in previous years shows that the situation is becoming even more dangerous, so we absolutely have to do everything we can to disrupt those criminal gangs. Therefore, I want to focus on that for this Bill, because we cannot do everything in one piece of legislation.
It is important, however, to correct, from my understanding, a bit of evidence that was given earlier by Tony Smith that the UK resettlement scheme was closed—it is actually still open. We have had over 3,000 refugees resettled via that scheme since its launch four years ago. The number of refugees arriving on that depends on a range of factors, and that includes recommendations from the UNHCR as well as how many offers of accommodation we have from local authorities; that is an ongoing system. This is legislation around tackling the small boats and the criminal gangs that are enabling that as a new trade.
Mr Forster
Q
To be more specific, I have a follow-up on clause 18. We are creating a new criminal offence of endangering someone on a sea crossing—why is it an unauthorised sea crossing? Why is it not a blanket endangering of someone when crossing the sea? Should that offence not be wider or is it more like an aggravating factor?
Dame Angela Eagle: I will talk about the very detailed aspect of that during our line-by-line scrutiny.
There has been a certain behaviour that has begun to happen, which has been perceived on the crossings in the small boats and which this offence is designed to deal with. That is the various kinds of violent intimidation that goes on, such as putting women and children in the middle of boats that then collapse, so they are crushed and die in that way, or holding children over the edge of boats to prevent rescue.
Sometimes if there has been a fatality on a boat—and we have seen what has happened—we go to pick people up and return them to France. The French authorities also do that. There is then a battle not to be returned and violence is sometimes used to prevent people from accepting the rescue that is offered to them. So there are some very particular things that this endangerment clause and this new offence are seeking to deal with.
Jo White
Q
Dame Angela Eagle: Well, the Border Security Commander is very happy with the powers that he has—he has been appointed. Again, we will talk about this in some detail, but it is important that we get co-ordination across different areas of activity. I think you will have heard what the NCA witness said about how he wants somebody else to do the co-ordination while he does the basic work. Everybody is working together very well across the people who have to have regard. The Border Security Commander is bringing together a range of very important players in this area to strategise and co-ordinate, and he has not told me—I meet him regularly—that he needs any more powers.
Pete Wishart
Q
The other thing is that it will have very little impact on people making the decision to come to the United Kingdom. They are fleeing oppression, poverty and war, and they do not care about the laws of the United Kingdom—what Angela Eagle is doing in a migration Bill is not going to deter them from coming here. So what are we going to do to get on top of this issue? Should we not be thinking, as we go through this Bill process, about fresh, new ideas to tackle it?
Dame Angela Eagle: Well, we have just come out of a period of fresh new ideas and gimmicks—
Pete Wishart
Yes, but that is gone.
Dame Angela Eagle: And very expensive they turned out to be. We have inherited such a mess, with huge backlogs and very long waits for appeals, that we have to try to clear up. We have an asylum system that essentially broke down—I think one of our witnesses was talking about it being “in meltdown” earlier today.
We are going to do the day job and start to get that system working. I think that having fast, fair and effective immigration decisions is a very important part of all of this, as is removing those whose claims fail so that we can actually get to the stage where people know that, if they come to this country and they do not have a reasonable chance of being accepted as an asylum seeker, they will be returned. I think that is what the deterrent is.
Seema Malhotra: If I may add one point, it is absolutely valid and right to say that this Bill is one part of trying to tackle both the criminal gangs and the demand. Certainly, the other side of the work that the Home Secretary has been leading on—in terms of agreements with other countries for returns, as well as the reasons why people are coming and what more could be put in place as a deterrent—is work that was also talked about in evidence today; international diplomacy is also an important part of the overall framework. That is going on in parallel, and it is important to be working upstream through diplomacy and agreements with other countries too.
Kenneth Stevenson
Q
I then heard that there were no magical solutions and that war was not easy to win—so we are in a “war” with migrants. We then spoke about unkindness to asylum seekers. I think that the most important words that I heard today were proactive, pre-emptive and disruptive— that is what the Government are trying to be. Do you agree that that has to start with the gangs who are starting this and are pulling—or pushing—people across?
Dame Angela Eagle: Yes. There are many genuine asylum seekers, many of whom are granted asylum when they are finally processed, who have come in that way. There are also people who are trafficked, who are in debt bondage, who go into sex work in nail bars, say from Vietnam, or who end up—as the police chief told us—growing cannabis in hidden farms in all our communities or being involved in serious crime. Some of them are victims of modern slavery, and some of them are the perpetrators of all that kind of evil.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Ministers for their evidence.
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
Rural Crime
(1 day, 2 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
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rural crime.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and a privilege to open this important debate on rural crime. It is fantastic to see many hon. Members, from both sides of the House, joining the debate, and I thank them all for their attendance.
I grew up in the rural constituency of North Cornwall—which I now proudly serve as its Member of Parliament—and my family and friends, like many others, are acutely aware of the dangers that rural crime can bring and the drastic effects it can have on our small, tight-knit communities. For too long, rural crime has been overlooked and not made a priority by successive Governments, but for those living and working in our rural communities, its impact can be absolutely devastating. Let me be crystal clear: rural crime is rarely random or opportunistic, and successive Governments have not given it the attention it deserves.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that rural crime is now dominated by organised criminal gangs that operate with sophistication across police forces and systematically target farmers, tradesmen and rural businesses. I am not talking just about the occasional theft of a piece of farm equipment; this is large-scale, co-ordinated and organised criminal activity, with criminal networks exploiting gaps in policing resources.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Sadly, in the last week my constituency has suffered a spate of rural break-ins on the edge of Exmoor, and a quad bike and a chainsaw were also stolen from sheds in West Anstey earlier this month, in a pattern that we are very familiar with. Just this past week, South Molton and Umberleigh joined a string of other Devon villages where thieves believed to be targeting cigarettes struck local shops and service stations overnight. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we talk about rural crime, we are really talking about the perception among criminals that rural areas are soft targets for obtaining goods that can be easily fenced elsewhere?
Ben Maguire
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that type of rural crime. We have become far too much of a soft touch for these organised criminal gangs.
If we want to tackle crime in this country, we must finally start taking rural crime seriously. The latest figures from NFU Mutual put the total cost of rural crime in 2023 at £52.8 million—an increase of 4.3% on the year before. But those figures only reflect insured losses, and the true cost is likely far higher, as many people do not have trust or confidence that crimes will be properly investigated when reported.
The explosion in thefts of high-value equipment is particularly worrying. GPS theft surged by 137% last year, costing £4.2 million, and farmers cannot simply replace the equipment overnight. Thefts of quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles, which are critical equipment for farmers and rural workers, rose by 9% to £3.2 million. Livestock theft remained at an alarming £2.7 million, with evidence of animals being butchered in the fields and then stolen, causing immense distress to farmers.
Farmers—who faced botched Brexit trade deals thanks to the Conservatives, and who now face a family farm tax because of this Labour Government’s changes to agricultural property relief—are suffering from the scourge of rural organised crime, which is often theft to order. The toll on farmers’ mental health and wellbeing is enormous, and my inbox has been inundated with cases from North Cornwall. One farmer saw his £17,000 all- terrain vehicle stolen in the dead of night, and that was not the first time thieves had targeted his property. Another farmer, in the village of St Kew, lost more than £3,000 in the blink of an eye when thieves broke in and stole vehicles, tools and equipment that he relied on for his livelihood. Finally, one farming couple in Blisland had two quad bikes taken from their locked garage, costing £15,000 to replace. With this particular theft, police travelled all the way from Totnes—a three-hour round trip—showing up three days after the event. They put a few signs around the property, and the farmers have not heard from them since. Those stories make it unsurprising that 86% of countryside residents have said rural crime is negatively impacting their mental wellbeing, as highlighted by various surveys conducted by the NFU.
Yet, one of the most under-reported aspects of rural crime is the mass theft of power tools and machinery from tradesmen and small businesses—a crime that exceeds farm machinery theft in total volume. The figures are staggering. Of the over 3,600 stolen tools recovered by the national rural crime unit, only 77 were successfully returned to their owners. That is just 2%, which is an abysmal rate of return, with a huge impact on the livelihoods of these tradesmen. These thefts can devastate builders, carpenters, plumbers and others who rely on expensive, specialised equipment to earn a living. When tools are stolen, jobs are lost, deadlines are missed and insurance costs soar. Yet, some manufacturers outright refuse to co-operate with crime prevention efforts, as there is currently no legal requirement for forensic markings or GPS tracking on these high-value power tools to help with their recovery.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a private Member’s Bill I brought forward in the last Parliament—it is now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023—would enable us to place that requirement on power tool manufacturers to fit forensic marking; it just requires secondary legislation. The Bill was discussed at all stages of debate during its passage through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, so will the hon. Gentleman support my calls from back then, and on the new Government now, to look at bringing in that secondary legislation to make the Act apply equally to power tools?
Ben Maguire
Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I certainly do support that change, and I will discuss it slightly later in my speech.
The trust that our rural communities have in police forces to solve these crimes is shockingly low, with two thirds of respondents to one survey saying that reporting rural crime is a total “waste of time” as they know it will go unsolved. The Government could reopen some of the smaller police stations in rural areas, such as that in Launceston in my constituency, so that these crimes can be reported and dealt with by the front desks, which would certainly be a start in regaining the public’s trust and confidence,
As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) just mentioned, Parliament passed the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act in July 2023, with the aim of deterring thefts of farm vehicles by requiring immobilisers and registration databases. The Act was a clear step forward, but unfortunately it did not do quite enough to tackle the true scale of the problem, as it does not cover GPS units, power tools or smaller, high-value pieces of equipment, which are among the most frequently stolen items. Will the Government consider the merits of extending that legislation to ensure that all GPS systems, power tools, and pieces of high-value rural equipment are required to have forensic markings and registration databases?
Ben Maguire
I am going to carry on for a moment.
Without proper enforcement and action, we are leaving the van door wide open for thieves. While rural crime grows, police forces remain underfunded, overstretched and lacking the specialist knowledge needed to combat these offences. In many cases, local police do not have the resources, staff or capability to track and recover farm equipment and power tools at the rate at which they are stolen. These crimes are committed across wide areas and are often too small to warrant the attention of large-scale organisations such as the National Crime Agency but too big for individual forces to deal with on their own.
That is where the national rural crime unit comes in. The unit is a vital national co-ordination centre, and does excellent work in the recovery of stolen property, sharing intelligence across forces and disrupting these organised criminal gangs. Shockingly, the national rural crime unit is set to lose its single national crime co-ordinator this year due to a lack of funding. That role has been essential in tackling cross-border rural crime, linking intelligence between forces and co-ordinating national efforts to combat criminal gangs. However, without continued funding, that vital work will collapse.
Furthermore, the NRCU is entirely industry-funded, yet as it stands the Government take 50% of all cash assets seized from criminal gangs, which cannot be returned to the victims. That 50% could instead go directly back into fighting the criminal gangs, and supporting the work of organisations such as the NRCU. I ask the Minister to commit to providing long-term funding for the NRCU to allow it to continue its critical work and deliver greater co-ordination between local forces to tackle rural crime. As it stands, the Government are relying on the insurance industry to fund rural crime policing, and my constituents and I view that as unacceptable.
County line drug gangs have increasingly infiltrated Cornwall and other rural areas across the country, exploiting vulnerable individuals, including children, to traffic and sell drugs across the region. In Bodmin, for instance, gangs took over the homes of vulnerable residents—a practice known commonly as cuckooing—to establish bases for their illicit operations. These gangs operate across vast rural areas and often in sparsely populated towns and villages, and proper resourcing is required to ensure that they are properly policed.
The costs of rural crime extend beyond humans, often harming our natural environment and the animals that live in it. Illegal snaring, hare coursing, poaching and other criminal activity have decimated and traumatised wildlife populations in North Cornwall and across the country. That is not to mention the huge problem of fly-tipping, which comes up time and again from my constituents, with rubbish being illegally dumped in our towns and across our countryside. To combat that issue specifically, the Government could consider a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, so that landowners and farmers need report an incident only once and will have the confidence that it will be followed up on.
Despite facing unique challenges, rural police forces such as Devon and Cornwall police continue to receive some of the lowest funding per head in England. In Cornwall alone, the population swells by over 3 million during the summer months, placing enormous strain on an already overstretched police force. Meanwhile, the police and crime commissioner for the region costs around £1.5 million a year, factoring in expenses and office costs. That money could instead go directly into funding into rural crime teams—officers on the beat, instead of office administrators.
Furthermore, more than a third of officers in Devon and Cornwall have less than three years of service, due to difficulties in retention and recruitment caused by chronic underfunding over many years. Despite those clear pressures, the Government have failed to reform the funding model to reflect real-world policing demand in our rural communities. Policing should not be a postcode lottery, where the most in need are often the least supported.
On all these issues, we still seem to have no clear Government strategy to tackle rural crime. We do not appear to have national co-ordination, proper funding structures or a commitment to equipping rural police teams with the resources they so crucially need. The Government could look to organisations such as the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime, which has had an official rural crime strategy in place since 2019. That strategy focuses on gathering intelligence and raising people’s confidence in reporting crimes to the local authorities. As a result, the cost of rural crime in Scotland reduced by £2 million, from £5.6 million to £3.6 million in just one year.
The rural crime team established within the Lancashire police force is also proving to be an excellent example of a specialised rural crime unit. One resident served by their work said that the police
“just showing their faces around here has had a massive impact on rural crime for us”
and that it had even led to a “massive decrease” in fly-tipping. That is why, on 14 January, I introduced the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill, which would require the Home Secretary to establish an independent taskforce to develop and implement a comprehensive rural crime strategy. The taskforce must bring together stakeholders from across industry, police and rural communities to advise the Government, ultimately leading to a strategy that could take vital steps such as ensuring that properly funded dedicated rural crime teams or specialists are embedded in police forces—currently, less than 1% of police officers are assigned to rural crime—providing training for police and 999 control room staff on how to tackle rural crime, and improving intelligence sharing among the different forces.
Rural crime is a serious, organised and devastating issue for our countryside communities. It is time for a cohesive national strategy that puts an end to the chaos of underfunded police forces and unco-ordinated responses and that gives teeth to legislation to tackle these problems. Organised crime is thriving, and the Government need to act now, starting with bringing forward a comprehensive rural crime strategy, because our rural communities deserve so much better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should not mention any live legal cases during the debate. Members should bob if they wish to be called, and interventions must be brief. We will come to the Front-Bench spokespeople at 2.30 pm.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this debate and for comprehensively outlining many of the problems. It was good to hear his insights and the work that he has already done, particularly around rural thefts and thefts of farm equipment, which are a big issue in my constituency. I will focus on fly-tipping, which is a huge blight in Sittingbourne and Sheppey and across the whole of Kent, where it costs about £1.8 million annually.
One of my problems with fly-tipping is the name; it is too cutesy. It makes it seem so unimportant—“Fly-tipping? Well, fine.”—but it is a massive environmental scourge and a massive scourge on the people who live near it. In an urban setting, it is often small scale, with lots of people doing it on housing estates and in back alleys— I have that in bucketloads in my constituency—but there are also huge, illegal dumping tips. I have one in my constituency on Raspberry Hill Lane near Iwade. Yesterday morning, a BBC documentary showed drone footage of the site, with a real investigation from BBC journalists into the problems.
Fly-tipping has been going on there for a long time. Residents have raised the issue repeatedly, and they have struggled to understand what has been going on to challenge it. Some of what has been looked at very much involves cross-agency working that has frequently failed. One of my biggest concerns about fly-tipping is whether we have the structures in place to investigate it: are the right organisations doing the investigations, and do we have the right level of punitive punishments for the people who are destroying vast swathes of countryside?
The site that I am discussing is right next to a site of special scientific interest. It is an extremely vulnerable area. It is also right on the edge of a village. The smell, the noise and the disruption is obvious to everybody as they go past it.
At root, this is an organised crime issue. Whether the sites are big or small, it is not just a man in a van dumping stuff in someone’s bins or back alley or on the street. At multiple sites, such as the one that I am talking about in Kent, truck after truck brings along its loads of unprocessed waste, which is dug into the ground and left for the birds to eat and spread around nearby farmland.
I do not think people understand the significant impact that it has on local people, or how frustrated many of them are at not getting a response from the authorities about what is going on. When they have reported fly-tipping, it is hard to understand where investigations have got to or whether anyone is looking into them at all. Because organised crime is involved, many of my residents are afraid to raise the issue publicly.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about fly-tipping as an issue of organised crime. I suppose that Opposition Members would also include casual littering in the same bracket. We see that every day in towns and villages, but also on the side of motorways. Does he want to say something about that also being a real scourge of society?
Kevin McKenna
I am very happy to say that. We have a lot of casual littering, with things thrown out of cars as going up the A249 between Sheppey and Sittingbourne, so it is an issue. We also see articles from time to time about middle-class fly-tipping, with people—apparently benignly—leaving furniture out on the street in front of their house for people to pick up. Honestly, I can see that that is well-meaning—or thoughtless. That level of littering needs dealing with in one way, but it is the organised criminal side of it that we really need to look at in a much more systematic way.
Does the Minister think that the Environment Agency is the right organisation to be doing the investigating? It is not really set up as an investigative organisation, but that is where the bulk of the digging and detective work is now falling. That is similar to some of the other issues regarding the Environment Agency, such as with land drainage, where it is pulled into operational matters when that is not really what it is set up for. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts about whether we need to look at how the Environment Agency operates, what its real function is, and whether it should be the investigating agency.
I would also like to look at what the actual penalty for the crime is, where it is provable that those people are organised criminals. Frankly, where landowners have been using land to create organised illegal dumps, I would question whether they should retain the assets—not just the land, but the vast fleets of trucks and lorries that they are using for that. It is being done on an industrial scale and it needs to be addressed, not with fines of a few tens of thousands of pounds, but by looking at actually seizing the assets of those organised criminals.
Finally, the most important thing that I want to talk about is that, at its root, organised crime is a market issue. Those people are criminals, but they are serving a market need, and a lot of that is down to regulation. Are the regulations around the licensing of waste removal and waste processing incentivising criminal gangs to get involved in this “business”—obviously in scare quotes—rather than other areas of crime? Honestly, as with many areas of organised crime, we have to look at the market forces behind that crime and see how we could use regulation to disincentivise criminals and then hopefully get them as they move into other areas.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this debate. While I will talk about the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 in more detail later in my remarks, I assure him, because of the comments that he made, that GPS units were very much intended to be included within the scope of that Act; they were spoken about extensively at all stages of debate before the Act achieved Royal Assent. I urge the Minister to have that in mind as she prepares the necessary statutory instruments to fully bring the Act into force. I believe that has now been promised to come by this summer.
Fundamentally, rural crime is devastating to all rural areas, not least those such as mine in Mid Buckinghamshire, where the economy is mostly agricultural and entire communities are centred around farming and the local economy that farming supports. Whether it is theft, hare coursing, fly-tipping or antisocial behaviour—to name just a few such crimes—the countryside is too often an easy target for criminal gangs looking to make a quick buck. It is imperative that the Government recognise that and take steps to build on the work that we did in government, particularly over the last few years, to tackle and prevent rural crime.
According to the Countryside Alliance’s 2023 rural crime survey, fly-tipping accounted for the most commonly reported crime—to the point made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna)—at 37% of cases, followed closely by agricultural machinery theft at 32% and trespassing at 31%. It goes without saying that farm machinery is essential to the smooth running of farms. Those items are not just tools; they are the backbone of the entire agricultural machine. Whether it is a combine harvester, a tractor, or a high-tech bit of equipment, the cost of replacing them can run into tens of thousands of pounds.
In 2022 alone, rural crime cost UK farmers over £50 million, with farm machinery theft accounting for a substantial portion of that. NFU Mutual—which, let’s face it, insures the vast majority of agricultural machinery in this country—estimates that the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% year on year in 2023 to £52.8 million, and the cost of GPS theft alone reached an estimated £4.2 million in 2023, which was a 137% increase. Quad bike and all-terrain vehicle theft cost an estimated £3.2 million in 2023—up 9% on 2022. It is not just heavy machinery and equipment that is targeted. Often it is fuel, which is all too easy for organised gangs to simply siphon off and load into a van, then off they go, leaving victims with huge losses and hefty bills to restock.
Last year I visited a farm in my constituency that is directly opposite Chequers. It seems like an unlikely place for opportunist thefts to happen—opposite one of the most heavily armed and secure premises in my constituency—but the farmers fell victim to the loss of some 2,000 litres of red diesel that was siphoned off and taken away in the night. That particular farm operates a very good farm shop, and the thieves also got away with two chest freezers full of meat destined for it. That has not just a huge financial impact on those farmers and that business; there is an equally huge toll on business owners’ and farmers’ mental health, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall referenced.
These criminal gangs are incredibly difficult to apprehend when operating across county lines, and the raids can often take several hours and go on through the night, with criminals targeting several farms and heading off great distances with the stolen items. Some are even shipped overseas and sold without any traceability. The ever-evolving nature and sophistication of criminal gangs makes this a severe uphill battle, but it is a battle that, I would put to this House and to the Minister, this country can win. We can defeat these gangs.
The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, which was my private Member’s Bill, requires retailers to register ATV sales and to ensure that vehicles are fitted with unique identifiers in the form of forensic marking. That will help police forces to track those that fall into the wrong hands. The use of GPS trackers and forensic marking on machinery is already helping farmers who voluntarily fit them to their equipment to ensure that stolen items can be recovered; where voluntarily applied, law enforcement agencies have followed leads and caught criminals before they could profit from their crimes.
Given that my Bill achieved Royal Assent in 2023, I was hopeful that the secondary legislation would have been passed before the general election was called last year, or quickly after it. That was not to be, but I am assured from commitments made in the main Chamber that those pieces of secondary legislation are coming. I would be grateful if the Minister could reconfirm in her speech that the summer is still the intended point of arrival for them, so that we can debate the regulations in a Delegated Legislation Committee.
Another common-sense piece of legislation passed under the last Government was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which increased the maximum sentence for hare coursing from a fine to six months in prison. It is not just the legislation that is making a difference; it is the commitment of local law enforcement. In Buckinghamshire, Thames Valley police has been working tirelessly to track down and apprehend those responsible for thefts and other rural crime.
Increased patrols, better surveillance systems, and collaboration with local farmers and rural communities have contributed to a drop in farm machinery theft in areas where such initiatives have been rolled out. I argue that, with the support of the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, Thames Valley police is leading the way, with a commitment in the 2024-25 policing budget for an uplift in officers to tackle rural crime—in fact, a doubling of Thames Valley’s rural crime taskforce.
The national rural crime unit has been mentioned in this debate. Thames Valley’s rural crime taskforce, led by Stuart Hutchings, has been a trailblazer feeding into that. Launched in March 2022, the taskforce has made a huge impact. It has already seized more than £5 million-worth of property including vehicles, drugs, plant machinery and tools, as well as completing hundreds of investigations and supporting hundreds of people with crime prevention advice. I pay particular tribute to the national rural crime unit, led by Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who was instrumental in helping to put my Bill together and who I very much value as a friend and someone I look to for sage advice. The unit has recovered stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, worth £10 million since 2023. It has co-ordinated operational responses across the UK that have resulted in multiple arrests, as well as disrupting organised crime groups. The national construction and agriculture theft team, which sits under the NRCU, seized £3.1 million-worth of stolen vehicles and machinery in 2023 alone.
Even in the last few weeks, this co-ordinated approach, started by the last Government and hopefully continued by this one, has produced significant results. Following a series of hare coursing and associated antisocial behaviour incidents across the south-east and east of England, key arrests were made by Cambridgeshire police with support from Thames Valley police. This reinforces the effectiveness of intelligence sharing and co-ordination between forces that makes entire regions and the whole country safer by stopping these gangs operating.
To conclude, rural communities in Buckinghamshire and the whole country deserve the same level of protection as urban areas. We must ensure that our hard-working farmers are able to focus on what they do best— feeding the nation—without the looming threat of theft, intimidation or criminal damage hanging over their heads. I urge the Minister to ensure that the good words that have been said about fighting rural crime under this Government so far are turned into a solid reality that will protect rural communities—my own and all others across the country—in the coming months and years.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms McVey. Last week, one of my local farmers told me that in the last two years there have been fewer thefts on his farm. I was thrilled and asked him what had led to that—and he told me that everything worth taking had already been stolen.
My constituency of North East Hampshire is a beautiful part of the country. Rolling countryside is peppered with picturesque villages, farm shops and even a vineyard. Despite being officially classed as semi-rural, it has all the hallmarks of idyllic country life. But beneath that is a troubling picture. Day in, day out, farmers face theft, fly-tipping and hare coursing on their land, and this is often accompanied by threats, violence and intimidation. These are not small, isolated incidents in rural pockets; every farmer I speak to has plenty of experiences to share.
As we have heard, these crimes are linked to and a major source of funding for organised crime such as drug trafficking and gambling. This in turn affects our towns and returns to our communities in the form of shoplifting, car theft and county lines drug dealing. Last year, an estimated 6,600 active county lines were in operation, generating an annual criminal profit of £800,000—a figure likely to be a significant underestimate. The profitability of rural criminal activity and competing county turf wars in turn increases violence and rural knife crime. There are 22 active organised crime gangs across the country that are specifically involved in rural crime. The organisation of these groups enables them to take stolen goods across international borders, and farming equipment is frequently traced to eastern Europe and Africa.
The more valuable the crime is to the criminal, the more aggressively they will protect it, and farmers are experiencing the impact. Isolated farms are exposed, and farmers tell me that they receive direct threats of retribution for reporting crimes. We know that these rural crimes are often under-reported and difficult to prosecute, especially given the ways in which police weaknesses are exploited across county boundaries. Despite the precautions of CCTV, extra locking on gates and digging ditches, the police are usually just too far away to be able to reach the farms quickly enough. The impact of Conservative cuts to policing is still being felt despite recent recruitment of new officers. We are not back to former police officer numbers and many are not experienced enough to manage the complex and violent nature of rural crime.
Hare coursing is particularly lucrative, with betting proceeds running into tens of thousands of pounds on each race. The money goes to criminal gangs and the farmers are left with damaged fields and dead hares. Criminals know the land so well that they can simply duck for cover when they see the blue lights of a police vehicle. If they do end up in a police chase, they drive so dangerously that the police are often forced to give up pursuit. The knowledge that they can avoid police action and prosecution has made criminals in rural areas, including mine in North East Hampshire, increasingly brazen. They will drive over fields of crops three or four times a season, damaging fields that support our food security, pushing farmers’ insurance bills through the roof and making farmers feel so threatened that some physically cover their heads when they move around their own land at night because they expect to be attacked.
This is a complex problem that requires a co-ordinated, deliberate and targeted solution. Hampshire was promised a rural crime taskforce, but where is it? There has been a lot of talk and very little action. All the while, farmers continue to experience an escalation of crime that is costing Hampshire at least £1.4 million a year. We know what needs to be done, so I call on the Minister and the Government to work with local communities to build up dedicated rural crime units, increase specialist training for new police officers and forge collaboration across county boundaries. Many of the solutions lie in planning policy partnerships, partnerships with industry, and prevention, as much as with policing. We have the knowledge; now we need the strategy, the leadership and the action.
Farmers have had a hard deal recently and our food security is at risk. It is time for the Government to step up to ensure the safety and dignity of our farmers and to put an end to the distress that rural communities are facing. Our farmers are the backbone of this country—it is time we gave them the fair deal they deserve.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is wonderful to see you in your place, Ms McVey. I credit the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this debate.
I represent a predominantly rural constituency with low crime rates. Those low crime rates have been achieved by focusing on three things: increasing police numbers, effective police strategies and a strong local economy that has minimised the age-old problem of poverty driving crime rates. I pay tribute to my police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore, and the hard-working people serving Suffolk constabulary. But this positive headline negates two fundamental realities.
First, it does not portray the changing nature of crime across Suffolk and other rural areas, specifically the proliferation of crime in our agricultural sector and on farms; fly-tipping, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; poaching; damaging heritage and historical sites; crime at logistics hubs and warehouses; and, awfully, hidden crime such as sexual exploitation and domestic violence, which have tragically become all too prevalent in rural communities.
Secondly, the positive headlines ignore the fact that Suffolk constabulary has to police both a very rural countryside with a low population density over a large geographic area as well as urban crime in Ipswich. Covering very different environments and very different types of crime presents huge challenges to many rural police forces, be they in North Cornwall, Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire or anywhere else. We have already heard that the Countryside Alliance rural survey estimates that more than a third of people living in rural communities experience rural crime every year. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, the NFU estimates that the cost of rural crime increased by nearly 5% last year to £52.8 million.
The situation facing rural police forces is indeed tough, so in the short time I have, I ask the Minister to comment or give a steer on this Government’s intent on the following. First, earlier this week I had the opportunity to take part in Home Office oral questions, and I raised the long-term problem of looking at the funding formula for rural constabularies. I accept that the problem is long term and that the previous Government did not do nearly enough to tackle the confusing nature of our funding formula. Rural constabularies, as I said on Monday, consistently receive less money than urban ones. Will the Minister agree to publish the formula and methodology, and launch a consultation on reforming it, so that we can move on—and away from this iniquity?
Secondly, the national rural crime unit was set up by the last Government and it has made great strides, along with the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was epic in the pursuit of. However, the NRCU has a very limited mandate. Could it not expand to tackle other forms of crime that we know proliferate in rural areas, such as fly-tipping, organised crime and rural domestic violence? At the moment, I am afraid to say that it is somewhat limited to the pursuit of crime around equipment and GPS theft, and other things that are specific to agriculture and farming. By expanding its remit, and giving it extra funding, it could support rural police forces with intelligence on tackling problem areas.
Finally, I ask the Minister what steps this Government are taking to invest in technology that will help deter and tackle rural crime? Yes, police forces do need cars and coppers. The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned earlier issues around the public faith in our police to turn up and tackle crime. Just over the recess, my next-door neighbour was broken into. Did the police turn up? No, they did not—it was deeply disappointing.
We need cars and coppers, but we also need drones that can react 10 times as quickly to theft on a farm. We need AI tools and monitoring CCTV that are able to pick up potential targets and suspects. Technology may be expensive up front, but the savings in the long term will be substantial. Rural crime is not just about farms and tractors. It has a real impact on people, lives and livelihoods, and it is too often underestimated here in Westminster.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this vital debate. He gave such a comprehensive overview of the many challenges facing our rural communities that I will perhaps make my speech slightly shorter than planned.
Although my constituency is named simply Redditch, some Members will have noticed that I often refer to it as Redditch and the villages. That is because although the Boundary Commission for England has found it fit to change the layout of my constituency on many occasions, it has yet to update its title. In addition to the town of Redditch, my constituency is vast and contains many beautiful rural communities and villages. Tomorrow I will be walking with local councillors in Dodderhill parish, and I know the issue of rural crime will feature heavily in those important conversations when we speak face to face with constituents.
Fly-tipping remains one of the biggest concerns of my residents, local businesses and farmers, with many selflessly cleaning up after the thoughtless actions of others and the organised dumping of waste by nefarious actors. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned, the 2023 Countryside Alliance rural crime survey showed that fly-tipping was the most reported rural crime in our communities, and 73% of respondents said it was on the increase.
A 2024 National Farmers Union survey found that more than half of respondents had experienced small-scale fly-tipping on their farm, and more than a quarter had experienced large-scale fly-tipping. Fly-tipping on private land is often under-reported because the responsibility for dealing with it rests with the private landowner and is not subject to mandatory data reporting. Will the Government reconsider that situation, so that we can understand the true scale of fly-tipping on private land across the country?
I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce in 2026 mandatory digital waste tracking to prevent bad actors from getting away with fly-tipping in our communities. Currently, there is no comprehensive method for tracking the waste produced in the United Kingdom. Existing systems are fragmented across the country and utilise a mix of digital and paper storage. The Government’s initiative will enhance the regulation of waste management by transforming how environmental regulators monitor compliance and prioritise their regulatory activities. It aims to help to prevent waste-related crimes such as fly-tipping. Hopefully, if we know where waste is coming from, we will be able to take punitive actions against the organised crime networks that are exploiting our rural communities and costing my local businesses millions of pounds.
Of course, many other rural crime issues will come up on the doorstep tomorrow, from car theft and tool theft, which has already been mentioned, to burglaries, farm machinery being stolen—often made easier by our proximity to the motorway network—and the continued incidents of antisocial crime that continue to worry my residents. That is why I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to ensure that rural communities will see the benefits of the Government’s promise to enhance our neighbourhood policing teams.
I finish by thanking our existing policing teams and Harvington, Norton and Dodderhill parish councils for their hard work in combating rural crime and ensuring that our beautiful villages remain great places to live.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As ever, it is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this important debate.
The Scottish Borders is home to many people who rely on agriculture, forestry and tourism for their livelihoods. These communities are tight-knit, with deep-rooted traditions, but they are also isolated. This geographical isolation often makes them more vulnerable to crime. Livestock theft, vandalism and break-ins at farmhouses and outbuildings are just a few examples of the challenges faced by farmers and rural residents.
As we have heard, rural crime is going up, and going up fast, rising by 34.9% in 2023 compared with the previous year. It cost the UK £52.8 million in 2023, according to NFU Mutual. Livestock theft remains a particularly disturbing issue, with cattle, sheep and even horses being stolen from fields or transported to markets without detection, with NFU Mutual claiming that that cost around £2.7 million in 2022.
Another crime that has been on the rise is the theft of agricultural equipment. Tractors, trailers, quad bikes and tools—vital assets for those who work the land—are all being stolen, sometimes in broad daylight. According to NFU Mutual, of the £1.8 million estimated total cost of rural crime in Scotland in 2023, £1.1 million related to machinery theft.
These are not just petty thieves but sophisticated and organised criminal gangs, often travelling up from England. [Interruption.] I apologise to colleagues—I will explain later what I mean by that. I am not coming out with an anti-English rant here. The impact of the crimes goes far beyond the immediate financial loss: it disrupts the day-to-day operations of those affected, causing distress to families, and results in significant delays that can affect the wider rural economy.
What can we do to address this issue? Much of this policy area is devolved to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. My MSP colleague Rachael Hamilton recently presented a Bill to the Scottish Parliament that would replicate UK legislation enacted in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who highlighted the importance of his legislation and what it will achieve when it is finally fully enacted. The Scottish Bill introduced by my colleague in the Scottish Parliament will help to tackle rural crime in Scotland head-on.
It is clear that rural crime cannot be tackled through traditional policing methods alone. A more comprehensive, multifaceted approach is required. First and foremost, we must ensure that police forces in rural areas are properly resourced. I pay tribute to the local police officers in the Scottish Borders who do a tremendous job in engaging with the rural community and farmers in my constituency. They do everything they can to protect those people and prevent this type of crime from happening, but their hands are tied behind their back because the SNP Government have not done enough to resource local policing. The SNP focus too much on the central belt of Scotland and do not allocate enough resource to rural areas such as the Scottish Borders. It is unfortunate that no SNP Members are here today to explain why they do not fund my local police in the way we would expect.
We must provide additional funding for policing services in rural communities, and ensure that officers have the training and equipment they need to address the unique challenges of rural crime, and we must improve communication between local farmers and the police. We also need to recognise the role of preventive measures —as rural communities become more connected through technology, we must harness that power to reduce crime. Surveillance technologies such as CCTV cameras, automatic number-plate recognition systems and livestock tagging can be used to monitor activity and deter potential criminals. Rural watch schemes, whereby communities come together to report suspicious activity and share information, are another effective means of prevention. By encouraging the use of such technologies, we can create a more proactive approach to tackling rural crime.
Although technology and policing are vital, local residents and communities have an important role to play too, so we must empower them to be part of the solution. Community-led initiatives such as neighbourhood watch schemes and local crime prevention workshops can provide valuable support to law enforcement. This effort resulted in some good news in my constituency just last week, when Scottish Borders police reported that a quad bike stolen from Jedburgh was recovered after a member of the public saw it being loaded into the rear of a van. They contacted the police, which allowed officers to trace the van, resulting in the thief being arrested.
Finally, we must work collaboratively with farmers and landowners to develop strategies for crime prevention and resilience. Farming is at the core of the Scottish Borders economy and it is essential that we protect those who sustain it. Engaging farmers in conversations about crime, sharing best practice on security and offering training on how to protect a property will help to build a more secure and resilient agricultural sector.
In the light of much of this policy space being devolved, as I mentioned earlier, will the Minister commit to ensure proper cross-border engagement? Many of the challenges that we face in the Scottish Borders come from the urban conurbations further south. Some come from Edinburgh, but the police reports suggest that Newcastle and the surrounding urban areas present us with particular challenges, so I ask that there be more engagement between the police forces on both sides of the border. That happens already, but more needs to be done to ensure that we are ahead of the game.
Rural crime in the Scottish Borders is a growing issue that demands our attention. Although the challenges are unique to rural areas, there are solutions that apply across the board. By working together, giving the police adequate resources, leveraging technology and supporting local communities, we can ensure that people in rural communities such as the Scottish Borders feel safe, secure and supported. Our rural communities are the lifeblood of this country and we must do all we can to support them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As a fellow north-western MP, let me say that it really is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey.
For too long, our rural communities have been subjected to too much rural crime, but time and again previous Governments have failed to take those crimes seriously enough, and have left police forces understaffed, under-resourced and thus ill prepared. The new Government have the opportunity to take real action to address rural crime, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight to ensure that it is tackled properly, starting with a real strategy and real resources for our police. We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s plans for crime and policing as the current legislation makes progress.
In 2023, the NFU reported that the cost of rural crime rose to £52.8 million—up nearly 22% since 2020. Farmers and rural business owners are left to pick up the pieces and face huge financial losses. Rural crime does not just hit wallets but takes a toll on people’s wellbeing. The NFU survey also found that 86% of farmers say that rural crime is negatively affecting their mental health, so we need more from the Government.
I am lucky enough to represent the wonderful constituency of Hazel Grove, where we have urban, suburban and some semi-rural communities. Although there are trends and similar issues that affect the whole community—off-road bikes are just as annoying in Marple as they are in Woodley—certain crimes disproportionately affect the more rural areas of my patch. In High Lane, constituents have raised with me concerns about the impact that low-population density can have on criminals’ ability to commit crime. It makes sense if we think about it. It is easier to steal a quad bike or livestock if the barn they are kept in is several miles from the nearest neighbour.
The Minister and I have spoken before about the importance of neighbourhood policing—I think she and I agree on that—but I have spoken with local police officers from my patch who tell me they just do not have the resources or the tools to catch offenders, so too many of our communities are left to deal with the consequences. That is why we are pushing for a dedicated rural crime strategy, which is sorely needed.
As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, we are not just talking about petty theft. Much of rural crime is driven by organised criminal gangs. According to the National Rural Crime Network, there are at least 22 active gangs stealing farm machinery, vehicles and GPS equipment and selling them on the black market, which contributed to a loss of over £4 million in 2023 alone. The gangs exploit the fact that police forces are stretched thinly, and often work across county and police force borders to evade capture. Criminals know that rural policing is underfunded and overstretched, so they take full advantage.
Freedom of information requests show that less than 1% of police officers in England and Wales are dedicated to specialist rural crime teams. Many police forces lack the basic tools they need, such as mobile ANPR cameras and rural drone kits, as others have mentioned. How can we expect our dedicated police to fight rural crime without the right resources?
The Countryside Alliance reports that nearly half of rural residents—49%—feel that the police do not take rural crime seriously enough, and two thirds think that reporting it is a waste of time. That is something I hear from my own constituents. Ian from Mellor reported repeated instances of people riding those irritating, illegal off-road bikes, terrorising his street. When his wife calls the police, she waits 20-plus minutes on hold each time, month after month, and nothing is seen to be done.
The Lib Dems will fight to keep rural communities safe and continue to give rural crime the attention that it deserves. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this important debate. He spoke with eloquence and clarity about the issues and some of the things that we Lib Dems would like to see happen to tackle these issues. I am particularly keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on my hon. Friend’s Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill.
There have been other strong contributions from Members today. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) made a really interesting point about the language we use when we talk about fly-tipping. I agree with him that the language we use can diminish the issue—there is a similar issue around shoplifting. It can almost sound like a little bit of fun rather than a really serious problem. Some really good work has been done on calling it “shop theft” rather than shoplifting. The hon. Gentleman also made interesting points about investigation and enforcement.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) commented on Chequers being a low-crime area. If I were a mischievous person, Ms McVey, I might make a comment about some of the people who have stayed over at Chequers in the past, but I am not a mischievous person so that point can be left to somebody else.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) made important points about police numbers and the importance of a co-ordinated and targeted approach. I thoroughly endorse her comments.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) mentioned some of the hidden crimes, such as the sexual exploitation and domestic violence that occurs in rural communities. That was a really important point to make at that point in the debate.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore)—and the villages, of course—talked about our brilliant rural communities taking matters into their own hands when they have to clean up after inconsiderate illegal fly-tipping.
The Lib Dems’ comprehensive plan to tackle rural crime includes establishing a permanent national rural crime co-ordinator to work across police forces and share best practice. We would embed a properly funded, dedicated rural crime team in every police force, which would include a single point of contact for local communities. At the very least, I urge the Government to provide specific rural crime training for police and 999 control room staff—including in metropolitan forces like my local Greater Manchester police—to increase access to the technology needed to detect and deter rural crime, and to streamline communications between rural crime offices and the communities they serve, including via WhatsApp for a quick intelligence-sharing reporting tool. That is what a real rural crime strategy would look like: real action, real funding and real support for our rural communities.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Crime is often perceived to be an issue confined to cities and metropolitan areas. While it is true that crime rates are often higher in these areas, it is easy to overlook the unique challenges of policing rural communities.
As many Members have eloquently said in today’s debate, the reality is that rural crime is often a complex picture for the police, ranging from minor incidents of antisocial behaviour to organised criminal gangs exploiting our rural communities through machinery theft, livestock theft, fly-tipping and county lines operations—indeed, many of the issues that have been outlined today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) rightly outlined, many of the hidden challenges associated with rural crime are very complex and need the full weight of police attention. As NFU Mutual’s rural crime report indicated, the cost of rural crime has risen again this year to £52.8 million. We know that the cost is likely to be substantially higher, given how insurance policies work for those thefts.
Research from the National Rural Crime Network concludes that there is an unprecedented level of organised rural crime, with its datasets illustrating the point. This has led to the network’s focus on making sure it is working collectively with all stakeholders that are willing to interact, and on making sure that all police forces are working as collaboratively as possible.
It is therefore vital that the police have a full range of powers and resources to tackle rural crimes. It is also imperative that the Government work effectively with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the next rural and wildlife crime strategy reflects the priorities of our rural communities.
Every Member has mentioned fly-tipping, which is an attack on our communities, nature and environment. It endangers wildlife and people alike, and the harm caused by these criminals must not go unpunished. For this reason, under the previous Conservative Administration, DEFRA grants were allocated to 58 local authorities specifically to enable them to provide additional enforcement powers.
I welcome the Government’s intention to act on fly-tipping through the Crime and Policing Bill. However, it appears that all they are offering is limited statutory guidance for local authorities. I am therefore interested to hear from the Minister about the extent to which the guidance will help local authorities by further increasing the powers available to them. What will the guidance seek to achieve? Will it be accompanied by additional financial support, like that previously made available to local authorities by the previous Conservative Administration, and will it enable further enforcement action?
Fly-tipping is probably one of the most prolific categories of rural crime, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned. A survey of NFU members found that 54% of respondents had experienced small-scale fly-tipping on farmland, while over a quarter—30%—said they had been hit by large-scale industrial fly-tipping. DEFRA statistics from January 2023 show that fly-tipping is estimated to cost the economy £924 million in England alone. Worryingly, instances of large commercial fly-tipping are ever-increasing, costing local authorities in the region of £13.2 million.
John Lamont
Does my hon. Friend agree that, with many councils closing tips and other community services, there is almost no other option for some residents to dispose of materials? Obviously, fly-tipping is illegal, but when councils cut back services such as tips, there is often no other alternative but for residents to do that. That is not a defence, as the action is totally unacceptable, but if there is no other option, some people are forced to do it.
Robbie Moore
As my hon. Friend makes clear, fly-tipping hits every part of our community. In Keighley and Ilkley, Bradford council recently made the decision to close two household waste and recycling centres, which has resulted in more fly-tipping not only in those parts of the rural environment that sit on the urban fringe, but sometimes in the most isolated of rural places. That is incredibly detrimental to many of our constituents. I would very much like to see, as we have previously advocated, a single reporting mechanism for fly-tipping, which would make it easier for police forces to manage the levels of reporting. This must continue to be a priority for all Governments.
Hare coursing has also been mentioned, and intervention is crucial to preventing wildlife crime. I thank all those involved with the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act under the previous Conservative Administration, under which hare coursing now carries the appropriate punishments that recognise the damage it causes, with powers in place to impose custodial sentences, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. As the Sentencing Council stated in its January 2025 consultation,
“The courts now have a fuller suite of sentencing powers, including new ancillary orders, to deal with hare coursing offences.”
Hare coursing may seem to many like an abstract issue, but for the many Members who represent rural constituencies, the offence unfortunately continues to take place. As a result of that Act, however, incidents are being reported. It is encouraging to see that, as of this Tuesday, 16 people have been arrested for the crime, but that underscores the need for the police to ensure that offenders are properly punished. It is highly encouraging that in areas where police forces are taking part in Operation Galileo, hare coursing has decreased by 40%. As I mentioned, the Sentencing Council is consulting on updating its guidance to reflect instances of this crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could keep the House updated.
Without doubt, the other big issue that has been mentioned is machinery and diesel theft. Based on data from the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, one of the most impactful crimes affecting rural communities is theft of agricultural machinery, including vehicles. Data from the NFU indicates that the theft of agricultural goods costs more than £10 million in just the last year, which is a shocking amount.
I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, whose private Member’s Bill, now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, received Royal Assent back in 2023. The Act provided the Government and the police with wider powers to tackle the increasing incidence of vehicle and equipment theft from farms, including of quad bikes and ATVs, focusing on prevention. As my hon. Friend has consistently indicated, there is still a need for secondary legislation. It is comforting to hear that it will potentially be laid before the House by the summer, but the Government need to pass that secondary legislation to ensure the Act includes other agricultural equipment such as power tools.
Members have also mentioned livestock worrying, which involves livestock being attacked or chased by dogs that are not kept under proper control. NFU Mutual found that an estimated £2.4 million-worth of farm animals were killed by livestock worrying in 2023 alone, a rise of 30% on the previous year. Those deaths were not always because of physical attacks or injury. With the lambing season now under way, I worry that the issue will fill all our inboxes in the spring months ahead.
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill, which is a critical piece of animal welfare legislation, was first introduced under the last Government, and it is now slowly moving back through the legislative process. It received an unopposed Second Reading in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024, having been reintroduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). I ask the Government to ensure that time is allowed for the Bill to progress as quickly as possible. This much-needed legislation would provide much comfort to many of our livestock farmers, because it aims to address the growing issue of livestock worrying by enhancing protections for farmers, introducing tougher penalties for offenders and expanding police powers. It would also expand the definition of livestock, introduce unlimited fines for offenders and grant the police powers to seize suspected attacking animals and to collect the DNA evidence needed for prosecution.
I reiterate the need for all our police forces to work collectively and collaboratively to deal with rural crime. Rural crime is often isolated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk indicated, we must enable cross-border interaction and ensure that police forces like mine in West Yorkshire, which predominantly have an urban base but also remote rural fringes, focus on rural crime just as much as more rural police forces.
It seems that rural crime is often a bottom priority for our local leaders and police forces. It is difficult to measure, it is often difficult to observe and it generally impacts fewer people. Rural crime can be reduced, but it requires not just investment but an understanding and prioritisation by decision-makers across all branches of local and national Government. The Opposition are determined to put the prioritisation of rural crime in focus, and I hope that the Minister will be able to match our commitment.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave a few moments at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this debate, as well as on his private Member’s Bill, which is before the House. I am grateful for how clearly he set out the serious nature of rural crime, particularly the involvement of organised criminal gangs. I am also grateful for the contributions of all Members to this debate, which has shown great insight; Members’ passion for this issue has been very clear.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) mentioned the theft of a quad bike and chainsaw, and almost every Member who spoke in the debate mentioned such thefts. My hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) spoke with a lot of knowledge of fly-tipping. They and a number of Members asked what more we can do to tackle fly-tipping.
I will take away some of the challenges that have been raised in this debate on fly-tipping, but I want to refer to the provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill, which had its First Reading this week. Through that Bill, there will be a power to issue statutory guidance to ensure consistency and robust enforcement of fly-tipping, but I very much hear the concerns about organised criminals who are involved and whether the Environment Agency is the most appropriate enforcement body. I will certainly write to respond to hon. Members’ concerns about fly-tipping.
We all thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) for his work on the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act. We are working hard on the statutory instrument that is needed, and I will say something about that in a moment. As the Policing Minister, I am also concerned to hear his comments on the thefts around Chequers. We also heard from the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) about the particular effect in her constituency. She spoke about hare coursing, which other hon. Members also raised.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) raised the funding issue. I fully accept that many are concerned about it, and I will say something about it in a moment. He also talked about the use of technology such as AI and drones, which is important in not just urban areas but rural areas.
Other issues, which we did not really touch on today, include domestic abuse and sexual exploitation, which are a problem in both rural and urban areas. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) gave us the Scottish perspective, and talked about the need for cross-border work between Police Scotland and English police forces.
It is clear that this issue is important to many hon. Members and their constituents, and I take it very seriously as well. I visited North Yorkshire two weeks ago and had the privilege of meeting farmers who had been subject to farm thefts and lost quad bikes, and we talked about how that made them feel. There is the issue of safety and security, but these thefts are also a loss to their businesses. I also talked to farmers who are seeing hare coursing in their fields, crops destroyed and gates damaged about how they felt about that. I fully recognise that these are important issues.
I also met the officers who were policing that area in rural North Yorkshire, and one thing that struck me was that they talked about how the community—although it was dispersed—wanted to work with the police. Because of the nature of the geographical area they have to cover, WhatsApp groups have been set up to provide information and intelligence that they can use. That assistance from the community is quite important.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I want to deal with a few issues. First, it is clear that the offending we have been discussing affects the lives and livelihoods of decent, law-abiding people. Those who have been victims of crime in rural communities often indicate that they have been left feeling isolated and undervalued, and we need to change that. No victim of crime and antisocial behaviour should feel unsafe. Their concerns should be taken seriously, and if they report, action should be taken.
In the National Rural Crime Network’s “Rural Crime” report in 2024, 49% of rural residents surveyed said they did not feel that the police take rural crime seriously, and they reported a sense of dissatisfaction with and lack of faith in rural policing. That may be because of the lack of visibility of policing in rural areas or negative experiences when a crime is reported. We will not stand for that any more, which is why we have made safer streets one of the core missions of our plan for change. It is why we are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing to communities across the country, including in rural areas. It is why we are taking action to crack down on criminals and protect the public. We will be implementing the new neighbourhood policing guarantee to deliver an additional 13,000 police officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles, ensuring that every community has a named officer to turn to. Those policing commitments will not just be about towns and cities; they will also be for rural communities, speeding up response times and building public confidence in all those areas.
As we all know, neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model. It is a critical building block in helping communities to feel safe, and the public rightly expect their neighbourhood police to be visible, proactive and accessible to their community. The national policing guarantee will help us deliver our commitment to ensuring that greater visibility and presence in all of our communities and restoring confidence in policing.
Beyond that commitment, in the 2025-26 police settlement we have committed to provide funding of up to £19.5 billion for the policing system in England and Wales, which is an overall increase of up to £1 billion compared to this financial year. In January 2025, the Government announced in the final police funding settlement that they would double the funding available to a total of £200 million in 2025-26 to support the first steps of delivering on the 13,000 more neighbourhood personnel.
I take the point about the funding formula. I said in the main Chamber that the previous Government made two—but I now understand it is three—attempts at changing the formula. We have been in government for seven months, and we have made it very clear that we have an agenda around reforming policing to make it fit for the future and to give it the structures and capabilities it needs. That will, of course, involve a conversation about funding, and that will happen as part of our reform agenda.
The major investment that I have just talked about supports the commitment to making our country’s streets, and our village streets, safer. It also reflects the scale of the challenges, which I fully accept that forces are facing and which this Government are determined to address.
I acknowledge the vital role of the national rural crime unit and the national wildlife crime unit. Those specialist policing units play a really important part in tackling crime, as well as in helping police across the UK to tackle organised theft and disrupt serious and organised crime groups. Both units have delivered a range of incredible successes. The national rural crime unit co-ordinated the operational response by several forces to the theft of GPS units across the UK, which resulted in multiple arrests and the disruption of two organised crime groups, as well as recovering over £10 million in stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, in the last 18 months alone. The national wildlife crime unit helped to disrupt nine organised crime groups, with a further nine archived as no longer active, as well as assisting in the recovery of £4.2 million in financial penalties. It also oversees the police national response to hare coursing, which has resulted, as we heard, in a 40% reduction in offending.
I am very clear about the excellent work of both units, and although we obviously have to wait for the outcome of the spending review, the Government are committed to supporting their ongoing specialist policing activities. I understand the urgency to confirm funding, but I hope we will not have to wait too much longer before we are able to update the House on this issue.
On the issue of taking a national focus on rural crime, we will continue to support the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the next iteration of its rural and wildlife strategy for 2025 and beyond. I recently met Deputy Chief Constable Nigel Harrison and Superintendent Andrew Huddleston, who the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire praised in his speech, to ensure that the commitments made under our safer streets mission, such as the neighbourhood policing guarantee, will apply in rural areas.
I want to address a few issues on rural crime more specifically. The Government are committed to ensuring that countryside communities that are blighted by organised crime, rural theft and antisocial behaviour are protected. We understand the devastating consequences of these crimes and the fundamental impact they can have on perceptions of safety. Rural crime and the associated costs have a considerable impact on rural residents and business owners.
Significantly, the threat appears to be increasing. For example, we know the significant impact that thefts of agricultural machinery—in particular, all-terrain vehicles—have on individuals and businesses in rural areas, and the disruption that such thefts cause to essential farming work. That is why we are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to fend off these thefts and the resale of high-value equipment, and we intend to introduce the necessary secondary legislation later this year. We will shortly publish the Government’s response to the call for evidence, which will determine the scope of that secondary legislation.
We understand the impact of cruel hare coursing, which many hon. Members mentioned; livestock worrying, which was also mentioned; and the serious issue of fly-tipping, all of which blight communities. In 2022-23, local authorities reported 1.08 million fly-tipping incidents. That figure, of course, excludes the majority of private land incidents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch noted.
The same crimes that affect urban communities can also, of course, affect rural communities. I talked earlier about domestic abuse and exploitation, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall raised another issue we need to talk about: drugs, drug dealing and drug supply. We know that county lines is the most violent model of drug supply and a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Gangs exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store drugs and money, often using coercion, intimidation, violence and weapons. I reassure hon. Members that, through the Home Office county lines programme, we are targeting, and will continue to target, the exploitative gangs working in both rural and urban areas. It is absolutely the case that when someone reports a crime, no matter where they live, it should be properly investigated, with victims having faith that justice will be delivered and criminals will be punished.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall again for securing the debate, and I thank all those who have spoken. Rural crime is, without doubt, a serious threat and must be dealt with as such. That is why we are taking the actions I have talked about and why we have the wide-ranging safer streets mission. There is clearly much more to do, but we are determined to deliver the safety and security of all our communities, rural and urban.
Ben Maguire
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate; it is great to see such cross-party support and that all Members take rural crime especially seriously.
It was excellent to hear from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), who made an eloquent case regarding the severity of fly-tipping and how it blights so many rural communities. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) on his Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, and I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm that the Government will take it forward, which is an important step.
It was excellent to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), who highlighted the violent crime that happens in our rural communities. Just because some of these crimes happen in quaint and beautiful rural settings, that does not make them any less serious. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) made a series of excellent points, including about the need for increased technology, such as drones and AI.
I am pleased that the Minister is taking all those matters extremely seriously. I look forward to working on a cross-party basis with her and, given some of his excellent points, with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). This is such an important issue that it takes Members from across the House to tackle it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered rural crime.
Women’s Health
(1 day, 2 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
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered women’s health.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
“Women’s pain is too often dismissed, recorded as emotional, misunderstood and misdiagnosed. It’s got to change.”
Those are the words of my friend, Professor Geeta Nargund—an expert in women’s health, who joins us today. They sum up well the issues that we are here to talk about.
Ahead of today’s debate, the House of Commons put out a public call for evidence. We have been overwhelmed by more than 800 responses in just a few days, which shows the strength of feeling on this matter and how much women in this country want to see more focus on and prioritisation for women’s health.
Although I will focus my comments today on the state of women’s health in this country, it is worth putting on the record our concern for the awful situation that many women around the world find themselves in. I will never forget seeing the maternity theatre run by Save the Children in Yemen, where women gave birth between airstrikes. In many parts of the world, women struggle to access the most basic care and the most basic of reproductive rights and healthcare. The struggle for better women’s health does not stop at our borders.
We have heard stories from women up and down this country of not being believed, not getting diagnosed and then having difficulties obtaining treatment when they do finally get that diagnosis. Before coming on to some of the specific areas of women’s health that need to be addressed, I want to highlight the underlying themes that are too common in so many of these cases. For too long, women have had to fight to be believed and to be taken seriously, which can result in them losing their jobs. Their relationships, mental health and wellbeing can be affected. So many women have got in touch to share their stories of going through endless appointments and referrals in search of a diagnosis. During the long waits, women wait needlessly in pain and in huge suffering. For some, sadly, the long wait has proved fatal.
As this Labour Government take welcome action to tackle long gynaecological waiting lists, we are committed to improving inequalities in many areas of women’s health. It is worth pointing out that if we lined up the number of women currently stuck on the hugely long gynaecological waiting lists in this country, that line would stretch from London all the way to Exeter. What a shocking indictment of 14 years of Conservative failure!
In their submissions, several women shared their stories of having their symptoms dismissed by doctors or clinicians as being simply due to hormones, or even as having been imagined, only for the real diagnosis of a very serious rare cancer to come later on. I share one story of my friend—the late, great, Baroness Margaret McDonagh. Margaret attended her GP on several occasions complaining of painful headaches, but they were dismissed by her GP time and again as being related to her hormones. Tragically, Margaret was later diagnosed with a brain tumour, a glioblastoma. We all wish that it had been caught earlier; Margaret could still be with us today.
Anyone who knew Margaret will be aware of what a force of nature she was. It shows the scale of the issues facing women in accessing healthcare that even she was dismissed. We have heard similar stories from women eventually diagnosed with ovarian cancer and blood cancer, with the delayed diagnosis damaging their chance of successful curative treatment.
Many women eventually diagnosed with endometriosis shared similar stories. In its 2024 report of over 4,000 women who had received a diagnosis, the charity Endometriosis UK found that almost half of the women had visited their GP 10 or more times before receiving a diagnosis. Some 70% had visited over five times and 20% reported seeing a gynaecologist 10 or more times before getting a diagnosis.
Another common barrier for women is the lack of research and data about women’s health. We have all been made familiar with the gender data gap and the consequences for policymaking by Caroline Criado Perez’s excellent book “Invisible Women”. The gender health gap is stark. The Women and Equalities Committee report published in December said:
“past research has shown that five times more research is conducted into erectile dysfunction than premenstrual syndrome. This is staggering considering that 19% of men are affected by erectile dysfunction, while 90% of women have premenstrual syndrome.”
Over-the-counter Viagra was available a full six years before chemists in this country were able to provide medicine over the counter for urinary tract infections.
It is clear that far more attention and focus needs to be given to women’s menstrual cycles and treatment for conditions related to them, including the menopause. Why is it that in over a decade of being at school in this country, I learned all about many obscure topics like oxbow lakes, but never about the menopause, which affects 51% of our population? Everyone will be affected by it, whether they experience it as a woman or their mother, daughter or wife does.
We are rightly seeing more focus given to the menopause thanks to the work of many campaigners. I want to give particular mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her championing of the cause. She and many others have rightly highlighted the shocking delays for women in accessing hormone replacement therapy treatment— a medicine that plays a critical role in alleviating the symptoms of the menopause, helping millions of women in the UK manage what is a natural life transition.
One of my constituents, Kate, wrote to me to describe her struggle to access adequate treatment for the pain that she has been suffering and how she was not taken seriously by medical professionals. She says:
“At one point, I was experiencing such a high level of pain…that I was sent by the GP to A&E with suspected appendicitis. After tests confirmed what I’d said all along”—
that it was endometriosis—
“I was ‘confronted’ by a doctor…who demanded to know why I was there, and what I thought they should do to help me. When I said that I’d been clear that I thought it was related to endometriosis the whole time, she dismissed me and said ‘we don’t deal with menstrual issues in A&E’. I left in tears and pain and have since avoided A&E despite experiencing acute pain”.
Another area of great importance in this debate is maternity services. I recently had the chance to visit my local maternity unit at the Conquest hospital in Hastings and see the fantastic care that local midwives are giving women. Midwives are working really hard and have our full support. We need to ensure that we are doing everything we can to tackle the retention crisis in midwifery and encourage more young people to enter the profession. We have heard harrowing evidence in the numerous reviews commissioned into maternity services at a number of hospital trusts of the same mistakes being made over and over again and lessons not being learned, with tragic consequences of women and babies losing their lives or experiencing traumatic births. That has to change.
The landmark report of the all-party parliamentary group on birth trauma in the previous Parliament set out for the first time the shocking impact that traumatic births have had on women and their families and what needs to change to prevent that. Often, those tragic cases were a result of an unhealthy obsession in maternity units with not intervening. I must point out to the House how damaging that obsession has been for many women. The report made many important recommendations and I hope that the Government will look closely at them.
I pay tribute to those in that all-party group in the previous Parliament for the work that went into that report and to the women who shared their stories, and to all the women that have shared their stories as part of the House of Commons call for evidence. We have looked through all of them, and I know that many Members will be sharing stories about their own constituents’ experiences.
It is also worth pointing out that some examples of brilliant women’s healthcare have been shared as well. I want to particularly mention Dr Warner from the Rye medical centre in my constituency. She was mentioned by a number of women who got in touch with me who said she was a champion of women’s healthcare; as a result, a huge waiting list of women were waiting for appointments with her because word of mouth had spread about how she prioritised this issue.
Maternity services, of course, are not the only area in which shocking scandals have been exposed regarding women’s health. We will hear today from Members who have been campaigning for justice for the women who were victims of the mesh and sodium valproate scandals. We have also heard a number of shocking stories from women, as part of their submissions, about an inability to access basic contraception, about long waits to access the healthcare that they have the right to access and about challenges in women’s mental health services.
Many Members wish to speak, so I will sum up by saying that it is clear that far more attention needs to be given to women’s health. I am looking forward to hearing the stories from other Members’ constituencies and how this Labour Government will be working to ensure that women get the support and treatment that they have the right to.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Everyone who wants to speak should be bobbing, because we will be calculating the time limit depending on how many there are.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. As we have heard for far too long, women have been paying the price of an NHS that simply is not working. Women know that; in a survey that I saw, half of women said that they believed that their health was treated as second class.
Our economy is also paying the price. There are many areas that we could mention, but I want to focus on one in particular: the often very challenging journey that people experience when trying to have a baby. More than 3.5 million people in the UK go through some kind of fertility challenge, and that obviously has a huge impact on women. It can happen for a variety of reasons and is often heartbreaking. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to addressing fertility, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are clear that, for women under 40 with a clinical diagnosis requiring in vitro fertilisation, or with unexplained infertility for two years, three NHS-funded cycles of IVF should be offered. The guidelines also recommend that women aged between 40 and 42 should be offered one cycle of IVF on the NHS, subject to some conditions.
Yet the reality is a postcode lottery. It is down to local integrated care boards to decide their approach, and only around a quarter of ICBs in England offer a full three cycles. The east of England, where my constituency is, has the lowest proportion of NHS-funded cycles, and my own ICB of Norfolk and Waveney offers two cycles. In other areas—north-east London, for example—the full three cycles are funded, whereas in areas such as Hampshire only one is.
Recent data tells us that fewer than 27% of IVF patients receive NHS funding nationally. When we think about our NHS, that is a huge anomaly. It means that most patients are paying for their treatment. Other factors also come into play: inequalities are stark when it comes to access and outcomes for black and ethnic minority patients, as well as for those in female same-sex relationships.
The postcode lottery needs to end. We must address those inequalities in access to NHS funding. There also needs to be greater education for healthcare professionals around fertility, regarding diagnosis and treatment, and for people themselves, so that patients have the choice and know what to do when it comes to their own fertility.
Beyond medical treatment, there is also not enough support in the workplace. We really need a whole-of-Government approach to this issue. It is not just about the Department of Health and Social Care; there are so many other areas, including, importantly, the Department for Work and Pensions. There is no legal right to time off for fertility treatment and currently, under the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice, fertility treatment is compared with cosmetic dental surgery. That means that many employers regard fertility treatment as a “nice to have”—an elective choice. Instead, it should be treated as a medical procedure that is needed.
I have heard stories of women losing their jobs simply because they have attended an IVF appointment. That needs to change. That is why I am campaigning, with Fertility Matters at Work and others, for a change in the law, so that people—women, in particular—have a right to paid time off for fertility treatment. I have met the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), to discuss the issue, and I welcome the continued engagement with the Government. I hope the Minister will meet us to discuss those demands. Many companies, including Centrica, E.ON and Cadent, already give women time off because they know it makes sense for productivity and happiness at work. Almost one in five people undergoing fertility treatment end up leaving their jobs because of the impact.
I also want to touch on miscarriage, another aspect of the journey; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will mention it as well. We need a right to time off for miscarriage before 24 weeks. It causes huge trauma, and women do not recover from it straight away. They need to be given time.
In the 30 seconds that I have left, I want to touch on gynaecology in my area of Norfolk. The situation is dire: we have the worst wait for gynaecology treatment in England. We are nowhere near the 92% target of 18 weeks: the figure is 44% in Norfolk and Waveney. Research from the House of Commons Library shows that more than 1,000 patients have been waiting for more than a year in Norfolk and Waveney, and that has a massive impact on women’s health.
I have to stop there. I wanted to talk about women’s health hubs, but I am sure that others will. There are so many issues to discuss, but when it comes to fertility and gynaecology, we simply cannot wait. Our manifesto promised that we will not neglect women’s health again, and I am sure that we will live up to that promise.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
With a time limit of four minutes—the clock is counting backwards—I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for leading the debate and setting the scene incredibly well. I welcome the Minister to her place. I think this might be her first official engagement as Minister. If it is, I wish her well in her new role. I welcome the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and I seem to spend every Thursday afternoon at about this time in these debates. It is a pleasure to be here.
I am my party’s health spokesperson, so finding solutions and discussing these issues are of major importance to me. It is important to get the full perspective, so I will give some facts and figures about Northern Ireland, which will echo what the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said.
Many will be aware that health is a devolved issue. That does not mean, of course, that our central Government allow the devolved Administrations to be left behind. The Department of Health back home launched a women’s health survey in late 2024. The hon. Lady referred to a similar survey. The Northern Ireland survey, which closed on 31 January 2025, focused on women’s healthcare needs and experiences to help shape planning for women’s health services. Almost 80% of respondents to a separate women’s health survey undertaken by the Community Foundation Northern Ireland said that they felt unheard by healthcare professionals, and more than 30% reported that necessary services were inaccessible or very inaccessible, so we have real problems back home.
I have worked closely alongside many charities raising awareness of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome care, and the challenges that women in Northern Ireland face in relation to gaining access to treatment. Endometriosis UK revealed in 2023 that there was an average diagnostic delay of nine years and five months—an increase on the eight-year delay reported in 2010—so we really have significant issues in the Province.
As of 2021, Northern Ireland had only one endometriosis specialist surgeon, and some 324 women were waiting a long time, in pain, for surgery. I ask the Minister whether it would be possible for her to have some discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we can address these things together.
I want to speak very quickly about the menopause. The hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is not here—she is in the main Chamber speaking on St David’s day—is a real champion on this issue. If she were here today, she would be adding to this debate. In my office, I employ six women of different ages, and I have always tried to make an effort to be understanding to ensure they are comfortable in the workplace. For menopause, there are adjustments that can be made in the workplace to support women, and I encourage employers to be mindful of that, especially in more male-dominated fields, where women can feel more isolated. Women are playing their part in places where men used to have all the jobs, such as engineering. It is time that employers grasped that and came up with something to help those ladies.
I have mentioned some of the issues, but there are many, many more. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye said, we in this place can do more as legislators to support more research into and funding for women’s healthcare. We need to do more to ensure women can access what they need. I look forward to working closely with the responsible agencies and our respective Governments to see what more can be done. I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing forward this debate, and I look forward to contributions from many others who will add to it. I am here to help us do the best we can, and to bring a Northern Ireland perspective, because we are badly lagging behind. We need to step up and do more.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate, and for her excellent opening speech. There are so many things that I want to talk about, but for time’s sake, I will focus my remarks around the importance of women being believed by healthcare professionals, and the detrimental effect on women when that is not the case.
The UK has the largest female health gap in the G20, and that is attributed in part to the misdiagnosis of conditions in women. It is absolutely shocking that eight in 10 women in this country report not being listened to by healthcare professionals. Those discrepancies extend beyond the confinement of the consulting room; they actively reinforce beliefs among wider society that women’s symptoms, no matter how debilitating, are normal. That is likely to prevent so many women from seeking medical advice, ultimately putting them at risk. Therefore, that widespread problem does not just perpetuate systemic misogyny but directly impacts women’s health outcomes and endangers their lives.
Published in August 2022, the 10-year women’s health strategy for England included a six-point plan on how to improve health outcomes and the way that the healthcare system listens to women. No. 1 on the list was to ensure that women’s voices are heard. In the month of the first anniversary of the publication of the excellent Hughes report, there is no better time to speak on an apt example of what happens when women’s voices are not heard. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on first do no harm, mesh, Primodos, valproate, I campaigned for justice and compensation on behalf of the thousands of women who live with the consequences every day of what happens when women’s voices are not listened to. The mesh scandal in particular exemplifies that perfectly.
To set the scene, it is believed that 40,000 women in this country could be affected by mesh damage and complications, and 10,000 of those women have been left with disabilities, as the mesh has cut into their organs and nerves. I hear from mesh-impacted constituents who describe desperate situations of poverty, depression and isolation as a result. Many have lost their jobs, their marriages and their trust in a service that is supposed to be there for us when we are sick, not make us sick.
Perhaps even worse was the treatment of those women when they realised that it was the mesh that was causing their health complications. The women then report being gaslit, undermined and ridiculed when trying to sort out a mess they had no part in making, or even consenting to in most cases. Among the thousands of mesh-injured women is my own mam. I personally sat next to her at our local hospital and watched her be gaslit and undermined by her original surgeon when she first sought help with her pain and symptoms. Despite now having had her mesh removed by the wonderful Dr Suzy Elneil in London, the complications sadly do not stop there.
The way mesh attaches to our organs has been likened to the way that chewing gum gets caught in our hair, so it is almost impossible to fully remove it. As such, regardless of the removal, my mam, now 80, is still struggling and in her own words, will never be the same again. The important point is that had my mam and the thousands of others affected been men suffering horrendous pain as a result of a medical procedure, I do not believe that dismissal on such a scale would have occurred. Nor do I believe that compensation and recognition of the scandal would be such a painfully slow process.
Before I finish, I put on record my gratitude to my friend who recently retired from the other place, Baroness Cumberlege, for all her work on this issue. I will leave it there, as I am out of time.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate, which is one of only a handful to tackle women’s health in general. Since I came to this place, a big focus for me has been women’s health, whether it is the devastating and shocking findings of the Kirkup review of East Kent Hospitals maternity care; the setting up of the APPG for birth trauma; the plight of women who now have no recourse to any healthcare or medical treatment in Afghanistan; the women whose health and wellbeing means precisely nothing to the warring factions in places such as Tigray; the tenacious mothers who have tirelessly fought for changes to sodium valproate labelling; female cancers; vaginal mesh; menopause; the mental stress and health toll on WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality —or 1950s women; female genital mutilation; or domestic abuse survivors. All of those and so many more are health issues that affect the majority of the population, who are female. And for the avoidance of doubt, let me be clear: by female I mean women, adult human females, the kind who have a cervix and who definitely do not have a penis.
Despite women being 51% of the population, women’s health services are frequently deprioritised, with the healthcare model based on a default male, and women existing within a system built around men. The inequalities in health outcomes between men and women are scandalous. Compared with men, women are more likely to experience common mental health conditions, more likely to be misdiagnosed, more likely to receive less pain medication after identical procedures and more likely to be undertreated for pain by doctors.
A perfect example of how women must exist within a healthcare system built for men is that of heart attacks. I have recent experience of this, with my dear friend Nicky Clark experiencing a heart attack in January. She is now tirelessly campaigning, because compared with men, women are less likely to be admitted to hospital when they complain of chest pain and they have more than double the rate of death within 30 days following a heart attack. Medical professionals know that heart attacks present very differently in women, compared with men, and yet the classic symptoms listed in campaigns are specific to men only.
Recent trends in the collection of data highlight how vital the accurate recording of this is in a medical context. Women’s health issues all arise from our specific biology. A man cannot get ovarian cancer and a woman cannot get prostate cancer, for example. It may be considered good manners, kind and courteous to refer to those who identify as a different gender in the way they prefer, but for the specific purposes of recording vital and potentially lifesaving data, we must accurately record patients’ biological sex. Otherwise, trans patients may miss being called for screening for sex-specific conditions, and that has potentially fatal consequences. That has been highlighted by Professor Alice Sullivan, who was commissioned by the last Government to tackle the issue of recording sex data, including in the NHS. Her review is due to be published, and I would be grateful if the Government could confirm the date for that as soon as possible.
In the last seven years, we have had seven Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care. It is very hard to get even on the second rung of a ladder when we have to start all over again with explanations, evidence and examples relating to a campaign or specific health issue every few months because the departmental personnel and teams change so often, so women here will keep campaigning and holding debates to push women’s health further up the agenda. I will keep working with the Birth Trauma Association, the MASIC Foundation and others to help to end the postcode lottery and extreme inequalities for black and south Asian mothers experiencing what should be straightforward and perfectly safe childbirth. I again thank all those parliamentarians, campaigners and activists who just will not take no for an answer and who fight every day to bring about better experiences for other women.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this important debate. Today, I want to talk about the stigma and embarrassment in relation to women’s incontinence: stress incontinence, urinary or faecal incontinence, and double incontinence. It affects so many aspects of women’s lives: where they go out, how much time they spend out, their relationships and their sleep patterns. And of course there are the effects on their mental and physical health.
Working as an NHS physiotherapist, I spoke to women about their incontinence when I did back screening, and I heard over and over again that women felt an overwhelming sense of shame—the fear of the smell, the sense of being dirty and the feeling of always having to check their pad to make sure that it is in place and has not leaked down their leg. It is estimated that a third of women in the UK are living with urinary incontinence. That means someone in this room will have those symptoms. A third of women suffer from a pelvic floor disorder after childbirth, including urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, but only 17% of women actually seek help. I would recommend to any woman who is suffering that she seek professional help from her GP or specialist. What we do not talk about for both faecal and urinary incontinence is the psychological problems, low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, sexual problems, social isolation, physical problems, skin breakdowns, and the falls when having to get to the toilet as quickly as possible.
At the moment, we also know there is an economic case that is also very compelling. Research shows that every £1 spent on women’s health services will return up to £13 back into our emergency services by reducing women going to A&E and GP appointments.
So what do I, as a clinician, propose? As a physiotherapist, of course I propose physiotherapy. Physiotherapy is the first line of intervention preventing mild to moderate incontinence and prolapse. It is therefore essential that we have women’s health physiotherapists in hubs locally as they are rolled out. We should also take a multifaceted approach to urinary and faecal incontinence, where women’s mental health, physical health, lifestyle—their caffeine and dietary intake—and the incontinence all get addressed. We should also make sure that, when people need the most help, referrals to secondary care or a surgeon are optimal.
We also need to get the first line of treatment for incontinence on to our high streets, making it more accessible for women to get self-referrals as quickly as possible. We should not have a barrier to speaking to a healthcare professional or a GP; women should be able to go into a high street pharmacist and say, “I’ve got incontinence. What can be done to help?” I welcome the Government’s steps for women’s health hubs, but we need to go further by making sure that there is a national campaign so that women know that those hubs exist.
I say to the women listening to this Westminster Hall debate: you are not alone and there is no shame. As a nation, we cannot allow women to feel shame or embarrassment about this topic any longer. Incontinence is common, so will my hon. Members join me in my mission to break the silence, end the stigma and eliminate the anxiety around incontinence?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for bringing forward this very important debate.
The UK currently has the largest gender health gap in the G20 and the 12th largest in the world. It is high time that we focus on these disparities. Let me start with breast cancer. Breast cancer does not only affect women, of course, but the vast majority of cases are in women, with one woman being diagnosed with breast cancer every 10 minutes.
Over the last 20 years, the prognosis for women diagnosed with breast cancer has improved significantly. Women diagnosed with primary breast cancer today are 66% less likely to die from the disease within five years. That is encouraging news, but we cannot stop there.
Detecting breast cancer in its early stages drastically improves a woman’s chances of survival, but young women face huge challenges when it comes to being diagnosed. That is particularly harmful, because younger women are more likely not only to develop aggressive forms of the disease, but to be diagnosed at a later stage when the tumours are larger and have spread to the lymph nodes. As a result, younger women have a significantly worse prognosis, a higher risk of recurrence, and a greater chance of death compared with older women.
Even more alarmingly, cancer cases in women under 50 have increased by nearly 80% worldwide over the last 30 years. In the UK, breast cancer diagnoses in women under 50 have been steadily rising, and in 2013, we saw over 10,000 cases for the first time. Yet despite that growing trend, routine breast cancer screening still does not begin until women turn 50. Why do we start so late? It is an alarming trend and the Government must look at it. I know that the UK National Screening Committee advises on the decision about who to screen, and I have been assured that it will be looked into, but I mention it today to urge the Government to make progress.
Another issue affecting many women in Bath is gynaecological care. A new report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the UK has a “gynaecology care crisis”, with over 750,000 patients currently waiting for treatment for a serious condition.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
My constituent, a GP, got in contact after she recently had to cut specialised contraception services in her practice due to national insurance hikes and inadequate funding. The services were running at a loss, making them unsustainable. Does my hon. Friend agree that that lack of funding is short-sighted and will harm health outcomes, and that all women should have equitable access to contraception?
Wera Hobhouse
I could not agree more. We already have a crisis, which that will only exacerbate, so I thank my hon. Friend for rightly highlighting that issue.
My Bath constituents are at particular risk. A recent report said that appointment waits have doubled since the pandemic—another serious trend that the Government need to look at. A constituent recently reached out to me about the length of time it takes to get an endometriosis diagnosis in the NHS, which has already been mentioned today. That is not only a problem in Bath; far too many women wait far too long. The Government need to look at that.
In better news, the national maternity survey 2024 found that Bath’s Royal United hospital received a top Care Quality Commission rating over its treatment of patients. The survey found that those giving birth felt confidence and trust in staff during their care at the RUH. There was also praise for the dignity and respect people that were treated with. I am grateful to the RUH and all its staff for setting such a brilliant example, and offer them my congratulations.
In such a debate, I cannot, as chair of the eating disorders APPG, leave out eating disorders. Although they affect more women than men, it is not only women who suffer from them. One issue of particular concern is online platforms recommending harmful eating disorder-related content to young users. The Center for Countering Digital Hate, whose representatives I met this week, recently published research on the dangerous eating disorder videos recommended by the YouTube algorithms. It set up an account for a 13-year-old girl searching for body image and dieting content, and found that, of the next videos recommended by the YouTube algorithm, one in four was harmful eating disorder content. That is alarming.
I urge the Government to look into that and to hold these powerful digital platforms to account. In 2025, it is not acceptable that there are continuing disparities in women’s health and, in particular, young women’s health on this issue. I urge the Government to take action.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I am sorry to do this, but I am imposing a newly reduced time limit of three and a half minutes.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this vital debate. In the time available, I will concentrate on the importance of delivery. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke eloquently about the experience in Northern Ireland; it is only appropriate that I, as a Scottish MP, talk about my constituency and my constituents’ experience.
In 2021, the Scottish Government published its women’s health plan, the intent of which was absolutely sound. In November ’24, they provided the final report for this plan, measuring what it had delivered. I looked at that when preparing this speech, and in particular at one of the topics that comes up regularly in my inbox—endometriosis. People, particularly younger women, are living with pain. It is difficult to get on to the referral pathway, and long waiting times for people who do get there.
The Scottish Government’s strategy detailed a clinical endometriosis pathway for women that was launched in January ’23. It was rightly lauded at the time, but the Scottish Government have a habit of announcing and launching brand new shiny things that are then not delivered operationally. There is a review date of January ’24 on the pathway, but I cannot find any evidence of that review having ever happened. It gives a set of criteria for women to be referred to specialist services, but when someone has those symptoms and declares them to their GPs, they are still do not getting that referral.
When people actually get on to a waiting list, it is endless. Unlike the experience in England, where waiting lists are starting to come down, in Scotland they are not. My constituency of Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch straddles the periphery of NHS Lanarkshire and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. On average, 65% of people referred to specialist gynaecological services in Scotland wait more than 12 weeks for the first appointment—most wait an awful lot longer than that, as the number of clinics is certainly less than when I worked in the service 30 years ago.
One of my constituents informed me that after fighting for a year with her GP to get a referral to a specialist service, she waited over a year before deciding to go private. She travelled abroad for treatment because she could not stand the uncertainty and the pain. That is just one case from my inbox; there are many, many more. Pathways and strategies are good, but they need to be delivered. I know my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am assured that the Government are focusing on delivery, not just the strategy and a publication that can be held up. I welcome that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my former colleague on Merton council, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), for securing this important debate. As the proud father of four daughters—the solitary man in a family of six—I am acutely aware of the inequalities between the sexes when it comes to health provision. The evidence is clear: our health system does not accord women equal priority to men. Their health issues are often ill researched and underfunded, with women more likely to be misdiagnosed and undertreated for pain, and have their symptoms dismissed.
From a lack of research funding into women’s specific health conditions to medical textbooks using many more images of men, women’s health is often marginalised. Women regularly report feeling unheard by doctors. Surveys have found that over 80% of women report not feeling listened to by healthcare professionals, with their symptoms being dismissed. As a constituent recently told me,
“Every woman I know has a story of their pain not being taken seriously.”
That is simply not acceptable. As time is short, I will focus on two issues that I know are key for my constituents and my immediate family.
My constituency of Wimbledon has a particular concern around the levels and availability of breast cancer screening. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the UK, with one woman diagnosed every 10 minutes. Every year in the UK that leads to, on average, 11,500 deaths. It is, however, one of the most treatable cancers if caught in its early stages, as I saw with my wife Samantha, who was diagnosed and successfully treated almost a decade ago. Breast cancer is a disease where screening programmes work and are cost-effective.
In Merton, however, where most of my constituency lies, there are genuine concerns about the effectiveness of the screening programme, with more than 40% of eligible women failing to attend when invited. That is partly due to the fact that Merton is one of the only boroughs in London not to have a specific breast screening cancer centre, despite its being recommended by NHS reports a number of times. I acknowledge that that is being worked on, as is the potential for using a mobile screening unit in the meantime, but there is still no firm commitment. Each day’s delay means more breast cancer going undiagnosed and women’s lives being jeopardised.
Finally, as it is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, I would like to focus on how this terrible disease impacts women, as women, particularly young women, are at the highest risk. As my wife and I have seen in our own family, those who take the often difficult step of reaching out for help are too often told that nothing can be done—that they are not ill enough to be treated as the resources are not there—with an underlying message that they should starve themselves more and wait until they are thinner. They will not be taken seriously until their condition has deteriorated further, at which point it is of course more dangerous, more damaging, more difficult, and more doubtful whether they will ever recover, as eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.
I have focused in my speech on the two aspects of women’s health in which my family has the most experience. In finishing, I want to emphasise the broader point with which I began. We have an unequal healthcare system in which women are treated as second best and often marginalised, and that simply must change.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the incredible Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for bring this important debate to Westminster Hall.
As Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I will focus on our two reports on women’s health because, as we have heard, we have some way to go to improve things. The first report followed our inquiry into the need for miscarriage bereavement leave. Campaigners from all parties have been calling for that for a number of years, and it is time the law caught up with public opinion. That is what our inquiry found and what our report clearly states.
We have tabled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that clearly lays out the need for time to grieve following miscarriage. It is not a sickness, so sick pay is not an adequate replacement for time to grieve when it comes to miscarriage and miscarriage bereavement leave. That is what we heard from the brave women and families who gave evidence to our Committee. When I experienced miscarriage, nobody gave me a squeeze and told me to get well; they gave me a squeeze and said, “I am sorry for your loss.” It is definitely time the Government caught up with public opinion on this issue.
There are good examples: the NHS offers bereavement leave for those who miscarry, as do Dentsu and the Co-op Group. They are not all doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. When questioned by two separate Select Committees as to how much it costs the largest public sector employer of women, which is the NHS, the response was that it is de minimis—it is negligible. It costs us nothing, and we gain everything. That is incredibly important.
The second report concerns medical misogyny, which we have already heard about. There is this constant feeling of not being listened to—being patted on the head, sent off and told to get a hot water bottle and some paracetamol and just crack on with it. Fortunately, that does not happen to men in the same way. When we were looking at a title for the report, it was said that medical misogyny seems quite hard, but it is really difficult to describe it as anything else: women are subjected to painful procedures, such as intrauterine device insertions or hysteroscopies, without any pain relief, and training is far too low in gynaecology. One of the report’s recommendations is that gynaecology becomes part of mandatory rotation. More than half the population are women, yet our medical practices do not reflect that.
Women and girls on low incomes really struggle with period poverty. For example, one in three women and girls struggle with heavy bleeding, and one in 10 women and girls experience adenomyosis or endometriosis. The average wait for a diagnosis for endometriosis and adenomyosis is eight years. That is far too long. Our recommendation is to make that two years. That is still two years too long, but it would be a vast improvement. We know it is a chunky report, but I really look forward to the NHS’s response to it.
Progress is not inevitable. This is not about making women wait any longer or about making progress at the expense of men’s health either. We all benefit when we see women’s health improve.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I extend my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I know it is really close to her heart.
For far too long, women’s health concerns have been under-represented, underfunded and misunderstood. When reading the elective care reform plan, I was delighted to see that the Government are going to increase the funding available to improve capacity to tackle the waiting lists for gynaecological treatment, on which there are 260,000 women. The Government are taking sorely needed action to ensure that women across our country receive the care, respect and medical support they deserve.
My constituent Suzanne is a campaigner for women’s health and is director of the charity Bladder Health UK. She told me how woefully under-represented urogynaecology is in the medical sector. Suzanne told me that, similarly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) said, there is currently no NHS guidance for chronic urinary tract infections, leading to a troubling gap between the lived experiences of women and the way their conditions are treated. Urologists often fail to refer patients with chronic UTIs to uro- gynaecologists, despite the need for multidisciplinary care. Organisations such as Bladder Health UK have highlighted the importance of ensuring that patients receive comprehensive, specialist-led treatments, and I hope that will be emphasised by the Government.
More widely, we need a cultural shift in the way we approach women’s health. There is a huge gap between research and study. Friends of mine have told me that they are left scouring the internet and American medical journals to find a cure for their chronic urinary tract infections, simply because GPs’ approach to UTIs is so severely lacking. It is tough to understand the true scale of the problem because of how absent the research is.
The Government have stated that women are leading in senior positions in the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is a really promising step. However, that must be matched by a laser-focused commitment to women’s health. We need targeted research, better training for medical professionals and a system that listens to, and prioritises, women’s concerns. Women make an immense contribution to our society—in our social networks, our economy and our institutions—yet far too many are doing so while in chronic pain and discomfort. What could they achieve if they had not held back by a scandalously poor understanding of their medical needs? If we get this right for women, everybody will benefit.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this really important debate.
In my first MP surgery I spoke to Debbie, a victim of the pelvic mesh scandal. I was horrified by her story, and by how thousands of women like her not only suffered enormous, life-changing pain, but many felt they were left without a voice, that their concerns were dismissed and that they were not being taken seriously. Since then, half a dozen women from Harlow constituency have come to me with similar stories.
The issue of women not being listened to goes far further than the pelvic mesh scandal. In fact, it probably goes far further than the issue of women’s health. I am deeply disappointed—I would go as far to say I am ashamed —to hear so many women in my Harlow constituency and beyond tell me that their chronic pain is going undiagnosed. They are being told terrible things like, “It’s just your period,” or, “It’s just your hormones,” or, “You’ll be fine. Go home, put your feet up, have a paracetamol”—despite the fact that 10% of women worldwide suffer from endometriosis.
The NHS website describes the symptoms of endo-metriosis as
“severe period pain, that stops you from doing your normal activities”,
and
“heavy periods, where you need to change your pads or tampons every 1 to 2 hours, or you may bleed through to your clothes”,
and pain when going to the toilet. The World Health Organisation describes how endometriosis can
“decrease quality of life due to severe pain, fatigue, depression, anxiety and infertility.”
Some individuals with endometriosis experience debilitating pain that prevents them from going to work or to school. It is fair to say that a lay down and a paracetamol does not quite cover it. The situation is made worse by the fact that some women are having to wait for up to eight years for a diagnosis. The negative impact on women’s mental health is unimaginable—it can result in the need for antidepressants—and, as we heard in previous speeches, young girls in particular are ignored. Nicola, an acupuncturist in my constituency, told me that a number of women patients had come to her feeling that they were being ignored. Frankly, in 2025, that is just not right.
My ask to the Minister is to let this Government be the Government who take women’s health seriously. Let us have a charter that says that the concerns of women suffering from chronic pain cannot be dismissed.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to hear so many brilliantly powerful speeches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing the debate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, but I want to say in my speech why they should not be here. A Treasury Minister and their shadow should respond to this debate, because poor women’s health is costing this country billions of pounds.
We have all talked about the stats. It is not just about lady issues or even to do with ladies’ bodies—it is how women are thought about. A fifth of women report that they were called “dramatic” when they sought help for their mental health, and 27% of those who spoke up were told that their issues could be hormonal. We understand that, but even when we are not awake we are losing this battle. A 2022 study of trauma patients found that women were half as likely as men to be given tranexamic acid, which reduces the risk of death from excessive bleeding by up to 30%—literally a life-and-death division.
Women have longer life expectancy, but we spend more of our lives in ill health. As we have said, even when we go to the doctor’s, we are not believed. It is also about provision. After all, abortion is healthcare, but it is not a given that anyone can access it in this country. Nor is it a given that anyone can access sexual health services, because they are not a requirement of general practice, even in 2025.
We do have to talk about lady parts and lady issues, but I want to make this more about wonga than wombs, because we are losing billions of pounds to our economy every single year by failing to support women’s health. Absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is estimated to cost the UK economy nearly £11 billion per annum. Women have lost 14 million working days a year to the menopause. Painful periods cost an estimated £531 million in sick days. One in four women consider leaving their job due to their menopause experience; one in 10 do. If we changed that, it would generate £1.5 billion a year for the economy.
But this problem is not being talked about in terms of an economic loss. Two in five women said that their professional life has been negatively affected by the gender health gap, because they have missed out on important meetings, promotions or pay rises, but the same proportion said that they would never be able to mention it to a manager. That has to change.
We also have to recognise that experience is not equal. We know about the brilliant Five X More campaign on maternity services and the shocking experiences that women have. It is not just in maternity services where we see women from the global majority experiencing negativity. Women from those communities are twice as, and in some cases three times more, likely to experience long-term conditions that can negatively affect working, whether that is chronic pain, anxiety, hypertension, osteoarthritis, diabetes or morbid obesity.
Changing the record and making this an economic issue could change the lives of millions in this country—and help our GDP, which helps the lads as well. Every £1 of additional public investment in obstetrics and gynaecology services is estimated to deliver a return on investment of £11. In other words, every extra pound gets us 10 times more than that. The gender pensions gap currently stands at 35% because women are living longer. If we sorted out their health, they could work and we could get something back for our economy. Minister, please help us to make the case to your Treasury colleagues to get the money we need to get this country moving via the women.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate.
Menopause is a biological process that marks the end of a woman’s menstrual cycle and fertility, and it typically occurs between the ages of 45 and 55. It is a universal experience for women around the world. The journey to that point is known as perimenopause, which can last for several years, and that is what I will focus on today. The perimenopausal stage in a woman’s health remains in the shadows, under-prioritised and under-resourced by policymakers, employers and healthcare providers alike. Perimenopause is overlooked despite its relevance to health, education, employment and demography.
During the transition into the menopause, a woman’s body undergoes various changes as it prepares to end its reproductive years. Typically, the transition begins in the mid-40s, but it can start as early as the mid-30s and last as long as into the mid-50s. It usually lasts for about four years, but it can extend to up to eight years. During the perimenopausal stage, oestrogen levels fluctuate, leading to irregular menstrual cycles, and as the ovaries gradually produce less oestrogen, it can cause various other symptoms.
Perimenopause is diagnosed based on symptoms and menstrual history, and the treatment focuses on managing the symptoms, including through lifestyle changes, hormone therapy—although less so—and other medications. The symptoms of perimenopause can affect daily activities. They affect work and relationships. Women in my Broxtowe constituency have told me that they have needed to take time off work due to the symptoms, which they did not understand and neither did their healthcare professionals.
We know that absences from work have a significant impact on our economy. As has been said, it can cost billions of pounds per year. Some women need to reduce their working hours, to take extended leave, or to leave the workforce entirely. This can affect their career progression, depending on how young they are. At a time when the Government are focusing on growing our economy, we cannot ignore the economic costs of not helping and supporting women in their perimenopause.
Few women seek help or attention, and due to a lack of understanding they receive very little support if they do. Their symptoms might be subtle and they will come on gradually. They might not even know that they are connected to the hormone fluctuations of the menopause transition. Many women do not even understand the signs and symptoms of the perimenopausal stage, as the menstrual cycle continues. This lack of awareness and education about the perimenopause, among both women and healthcare providers, leads to underdiagnosis and undertreatment.
I raise this issue because I would like to go back to my constituency and assure people that perimenopause will be included in any future Government policy.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important and timely debate, and for giving a passionate and well-informed opening speech.
Women’s health has been overlooked for far too long, and today’s discussion is an opportunity to highlight the urgent action needed to address the crisis in women’s health, with International Women’s Day due to be celebrated next week. The Fawcett Society found that nearly two thirds of women in the UK believe that their health concerns are not taken seriously, and more than half have had negative experiences with healthcare professionals. I start this speech feeling very frustrated, because during the debate I have had a message from one of my good friends who was ignored two years ago when she had pain in her leg, and she has just texted to tell me that she will now have to undergo a course of chemotherapy and extremely evasive treatment so that she can retain her ability to walk. My friend is in her early 20s—she was ignored, so I am very cross.
This is not just a health issue; it is an economic issue, as has been mentioned. The UK loses 150 million working days every year due to women’s poor health and inadequate support. If we want a healthier, more productive society, we must take action to close the gender gap in healthcare. During a drop-in surgery that I ran in my Chichester constituency, a woman told me that when her daughter started experiencing extremely painful periods, with pain outside of her period, all she could do was cry at the thought of her having to go through the same painful process with healthcare professionals that she had been through herself to get a diagnosis for endometriosis, which took that lady nine years.
Gynaecological waiting lists have more than doubled since 2020, which is the biggest increase of any medical speciality. At the end of last year, 755,000 women were waiting for treatment. Behind every number is a woman experiencing chronic pain, worsening mental health and a disrupted daily life. One in four women with a gynaecological condition will end up in A&E because they could not access the care that they needed in time, yet the NHS is failing to prioritise these urgent needs. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been clear: the system needs a complete overhaul so that gynaecological care is given the attention it deserves.
An example is St Richard’s hospital in my constituency, which does not have a specific gynaecological ward. That means that women who have gynaecological issues or have received treatment are placed across several other wards. That could negatively impact their treatment as it makes it more difficult for them to receive urgent specialised support in emergencies. Also, as the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, clinicians do not have to do gynaecological training as part of their mandatory training.
Delays in female cancer care are alarming. Between April 2021 and March 2024, 2,980 people waited over 104 days to start treatment on the 62-day urgent suspected breast cancer referral route. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) noted that younger women have a much worse prognosis, due to a lack of breast cancer screening before they are 50. For ovarian cancer, the average wait from GP referral to treatment is 69 days. That is one of the longest delays for any cancer. These prolonged waits are not just unacceptable—they have life-altering consequences.
For generations, women’s pain, particularly in maternity care, has been dismissed. That has created a crisis of confidence in NHS maternity services. Several investigations have revealed fundamental flaws in our maternity care and how it is delivered across England. A Care Quality Commission inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% of them were not safe for a woman to give birth in, and studies show that one fifth of all causes of stillbirth are potentially preventable.
The CQC has also warned of a normalisation of serious harm in maternity care. That cannot continue. I held a debate on maternity services earlier this week, calling for the Government to fully implement the recommendations of the Ockenden report. That is urgently needed to reform the maternity care sector for the better.
In 2024, the Patient Safety Commissioner estimated that 10,000 women in England had experienced harm as a result of vaginal mesh implants, although campaigning groups argue that the true figure could actually be closer to 40,000. One woman in my constituency asked me to go to her home because she does not leave it; she is a victim of the mesh scandal and she is totally isolated from her community because of it.
I am a member of the First Do No Harm APPG, which builds support and raises awareness of the recommendations of the 2020 Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, and I was really glad to hear the contribution from the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who talked about the women living in poverty, isolation and pain, who are so often dismissed by the professionals. The review found that those suffering adverse effects from medical treatments including vaginal mesh found a system that was
“disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive.”
So many of those women are still waiting for compensation. It is a national scandal and a grave injustice. I appreciate all the work that the hon. Member is doing with the APPG.
The Liberal Democrats would ensure that medical scandals that have disproportionately harmed women in the past can never be repeated, including through the introduction of a statutory duty of candour for public officials. We believe that every woman deserves high-quality, safe and accessible healthcare. We would try to tackle the maternity care crisis by addressing chronic understaffing, improving retention and modernising outdated facilities. We will continue to press the Government to expand access to screening for conditions such as breast cancer and cervical cancer. We would also make a serious commitment to investing in women’s health research.
For too long, the gender gap in medical knowledge has left women without the answers or the treatments that they need. Faster diagnoses and better treatment pathways for women’s cancers and gynaecological conditions must be a priority for this Government, not an afterthought, because this is not just about healthcare; it is about basic dignity, fairness and justice. Women should not have to fight to be heard when it comes to their own bodies. It is time to put women’s health front and centre of the NHS.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the Minister? Gosh, what a debate to come into—it is such a wide-ranging field. I am so glad that she has been ably supported by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) who put in a fantastic effort and managed to cover so many topics.
When I came to look at this debate, I thought about the best way I could try to touch on many of the topics. I thought a physiological view might be quite useful, starting with birth. Earlier this week, we had a debate on maternity services. The point is this: there is an explicit risk in pregnancy and birth, but we should do all we can to mitigate those risks. We know from the last 10 years that the maternal mortality gap has reduced from five times to two times, but much more can still be done. I am pleased that we heard that the Government are working through getting the Ockenden recommendations in place.
That leads me on to talk about postpartum depression, breastfeeding, and supporting recovery post-caesarean section delivery or episiotomy. We have heard about infertility and miscarriage. We have not even mentioned looking after a newborn. These are tough things to go through.
Young girls have to deal with body image, which is a personal hobby horse of mine. We heard about eating disorders. In 2023, we saw an investment of £4 million into new research, but there is still much more to do. Of course, that leads us to cosmetic surgery and when we need to regulate there. There is the issue of menarche and managing periods, not only from the contraceptive angle, but what to do when they are too heavy, too painful, irregular or do not happen at all. All these things require time, dedication and compassion to find out what works for that individual and what can be done to support, inform and empower that woman.
Returning to medical problems, Members have spoken eloquently about incontinence, as well as polycystic ovary disease and endometriosis, which are really common problems that are hard to diagnose and even harder to treat. I hope that the roll-out of 161 community diagnostic centres, which the new Government commit to carrying on with, make a giant leap forward in allowing women to get the diagnosis they need.
There is, of course, screening. We talked about breast screening, but cervical screening has not been mentioned. Screening is so important, and I urge every woman to consider it. What about the successful roll-out of the HPV vaccine, over a decade ago, to dramatically reduce cervical cancer? From 2019, it has also been offered to boys to help reduce that further. We need support for both lobular and ductal breast cancer. We have not really mentioned ovarian cancer and how difficult it is to pick up, often happening far too late.
Working through life, there is the menopause and the impact it can have on women: confusion, depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction. It is still not well understood. The last Government, along with many from across the House, campaigned for better understanding to create a supportive environment. This is still developing, and long may it do so. Choice is hard too. Non-HRT or HRT? There are pros and cons. Of course, we had difficulties with shortages during the pandemic. Linked to the menopause, and not mentioned today, is the risk in old age of osteoporosis and fractures. That is critical. We know that women are significantly more affected by that than men, and prevention is much better than dealing with a broken hip or a broken wrist. I could go on.
Women’s health was rightly a priority under the last Government, which had almost 100,000 responses to their call for evidence to deal with the gender health gap. The last Government published the country’s first women’s health strategy in 2022, and expanded specialist women’s health hubs across England to improve access and quality of care for services such as menstrual problems, contraception, pelvic pain and menopause. They improved access to hormone replacement therapy and addressed barriers to health services faced by women who suffered from trauma from things like domestic abuse. Further still, the Government appointed Dame Lesley Regan as the first women’s health ambassador to step up efforts to improve women’s health, and Helen Tomlinson as a cross-Government menopause ambassador to find out the experiences of women employed in different sectors.
Turning to the issues here and now, I have some questions for the Minister, and some context. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists wrote to me on 29 January, just before the announcement by the Labour Government, with the following:
“We express our deep concern about the speculation of the Government’s decision to remove the target for all ICBs to set up and run a women’s health hub in the planning guidance”.
It went on to say:
“Removing the target may well lead to women’s health hubs being closed down, and a worrying rollback on the progress made in improving women’s health services for your constituents. It is self-defeating for the UK Government to close women’s health hubs when they are a clear success story for reducing waiting lists and moving care closer to home—they should instead be given ringfenced funding and expanded.”
I know the Minister cares deeply about improving women’s health, but it is hard not to see this is as a potential row back.
My first question is: what commitment can the Government give, in the light of dropping these targets, that women’s health remains a priority? Secondly, to help demonstrate this commitment, would the Government consider the call by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists for sustained investment in expanding women’s health hubs? Considering what we have heard today from the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), would the Department make a request in the spring statement and spending review to see that this would be the case? If not, why not?
I have spoken in the past in this Chamber about learning from previous work, so my third question is, how many times have the Government met with the women’s health ambassador since the general election? Can the Minister set out how this role would work alongside the Government’s new menopause ambassador? I hope that in asking these kinds of questions, it will kickstart the system into looking at how we can improve women’s health.
In the short time I have left, it would be remiss of me not to pick up on some of the key issues at the moment: osteoporosis, menopause, workforce and waiting lists. There has been some concern about the Labour Government’s commitment to their own promise of universal fracture liaison services by 2030. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has said:
“We all want to believe that Ministers will honour their promise, but people with osteoporosis tell us their faith is waning. It doesn’t need to be like this—we appeal to Wes Streeting to restore trust and confidence in the specific, measurable pledge that he campaigned on, and for which many people voted.”
Dr Evans
I am really sorry; I am tight on time. Question No. 4 is, could the Minister kindly clarify, confirm and commit to that promise? If not, why not?
On the menopause, when the women’s strategy was announced in 2022, the then shadow Health Secretary—now the current Health Secretary—said:
“I challenge the Secretary of State to go further than the proposal he outlined to train incoming medical students and incoming doctors. What plans do the Government have for clinicians who are already practising? We need to upskill the existing workforce, not just the incoming workforce. However, let us be clear: informing clinicians is no good if we do not also improve access to hormone replacement therapy, so where is the action in the strategy to end the postcode lottery for treatment?” —[Official Report, 20 July 2022; Vol. 718, c. 977.]
As we are now eight months into the Labour Government, question No. 5 is, when will the strategy document he talked about be produced and presented to the House? Has he made an assessment since July 2024 of HRT medication access in terms of locality?
Turning to workforce, we know that the demand for women’s services is outstripping the supply of generalist and specialist support. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has highlighted ongoing problems with maternity workforce staffing and agreed that the NHS long-term workforce plan was a good first step on the way to properly staffed maternity services. Therefore, question No. 6 is this: we know that the Government will be looking at a refresh of the plan this summer, so will the Minister give an undertaking today that women’s health will be a priority in both primary and secondary care? Will she update the House on the obstetrics workforce planning tool, which the DHSC commissioned to help maternity units calculate staffing requirements, and when it will be rolled out across the country?
Given that time is tight, I will close by saying that I have heard it said that a healthy woman means a healthy family, a healthy community and a healthier world. That is hard to dispute that; it is now for the House to deliver it.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Finally, for what we think is her first outing as a Minister in Westminster Hall—although she is a veteran of the Chamber already— I call Ashley Dalton.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this really important debate on women’s health. She and all Members who have participated today have raised a number of important points.
Let me begin by agreeing that reading the Ockenden review is harrowing, and progress on women’s health has been far too slow. I want to address some of the key issues that Members have raised; I will attempt to cover as many as I can, but if I miss anything, please get in touch, and I will endeavour to fill any gaps after the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye raised the story of our very good friend Margaret McDonagh and how her experience feeds into the medical misogyny that has been highlighted on a number of occasions. In addition, it was very powerful to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who put an important focus on women’s voices and said how important it is that those are heard in this space. Those voices can lead to the important cultural shift that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised and that underpins all of this.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke about the devolved Governments. We are committed to ensuring that we have closer working between the UK and devolved Governments so that we can share insight and best practice and cut waiting lists right across the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) raised issues relating to eating disorders and women in online content. The Government inherited a broken NHS, in which patients wait too long for eating disorder treatment. The 10-year plan will overhaul the NHS, and the Online Safety Act 2023 will prevent children from accessing harmful online content on eating disorders.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) raised the differences in heart attack symptoms between men and women. NHS staff can now access guidance through the British Heart Foundation, and there are learning sessions available to support training. NHS England ensures that there is clear messaging on atypical symptoms in women in all public campaigns, and training on heart attacks and the identification of gender and sex are a core part of the cardiology curriculum. The hon. Lady will be aware that the National Institute for Health and Care Research has a very clear definition of sex and gender, which has an important impact on delivering the right healthcare to everybody.
I was really interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who has expert knowledge of perinatal pelvic health services, which are being rolled out across England to ensure that women have access to physiotherapy for pelvic health issues during pregnancy and for at least one year after birth. Those services incorporate a range of interventions aimed at improving the prevention and identification of perinatal tears and other perinatal conditions.
The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), spoke about the Committee’s recent report, which we welcome and take extremely seriously. We are grateful to everyone who gave their time and expertise to the inquiry, and to the Committee for its thoughtful recommendations. My Department has looked closely at the findings, however chunky they are, and has worked with NHS England to consider the recommendations and develop a Government response. I assure her that it will be published very soon.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke about contraception. Let me make one thing really clear: we are committed to ensuring that the public receive the best possible contraceptive services, which are vital in helping women to manage their gynaecological health. Since 2023, the NHS Pharmacy Contraception Service has allowed pharmacists to issue ongoing supplies of contraception that have been prescribed by GPs and sexual health services. That service was relaunched in December 2023 and will be continued.
We have also talked about fertility issues. Access to fertility treatment across the NHS has been varied across England, and funding decisions are made by integrated care boards, based on the clinical needs of the people they serve. We expect those organisations to commission fertility services in line with the guidelines set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We recognise that provision is variable across England, and we intend to support ICBs to implement the updated evidence in the revised guidelines to benefit all affected groups.
We recognise the significant physical and psychological consequences of birth trauma and the devastating impact it has on women. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the report of the APPG on birth trauma—the hon. Member for Canterbury was intrinsic to it. The Government will ensure that lessons are learned from the recent inquiries and investigations, including the APPG report, and that the experiences of women and their families are listened to and woven into our efforts to improve services.
For too long, women have been let down by their healthcare. The system is broken—it does not work for them. This Government are committed to fixing women’s health as a key part of building an NHS fit for the future. As a first step, we have delivered 2 million more appointments since July, in line with our manifesto commitment of delivering 2 million more appointments in the first year. We have achieved that seven months early. That includes appointments for breast cancer care, for gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis and for many other conditions.
However, we are still nowhere near satisfied with the state of women’s healthcare. Kate’s story, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye shared, is testament to that state.
Wera Hobhouse
I do not mean to be pompous, but the Minister did not mention me—it was me who mentioned the online harm.
Wera Hobhouse
May I ask whether the Minister would meet the eating disorders APPG to talk about online harm, particularly in relation to sufferers of eating disorders?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I will get there and mention her. I am more than happy to have that conversation with her.
For the benefit of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I would like to clear something up and dispel some misinformation. We have not scrapped the women’s health strategy, nor have we abandoned women’s health hubs—far from it. We are using women’s health hubs to beat the backlog. The future funding decisions around those health hubs will be taken in due course. I can also confirm for the shadow Minister that Baroness Merron is the Minister with responsibility for women’s health, and she regularly meets Dame Lesley, the women’s health ambassador. Dame Lesley attended the 10-year plan round- table in January, which was chaired by Baroness Merron. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
When we came into government, we inherited an appalling legacy of nearly 600,000 women on gynaecology waiting lists. That is why the Prime Minister kicked off 2025 with our elective reform plan. The plan states our commitment to offer women gynaecological care closer to home, an approach that has been pioneered by those women’s health hubs. As of December, nine in 10 integrated care boards had at least one women’s health hub, and some have more.
Alice Macdonald
In Norfolk we had a virtual health hub. When we look at whether the health hubs are working and share best practice, can we talk about whether that is the best format for a health hub or whether a physical one would be better?
Ashley Dalton
That is something that we will take on board and consider as we move forward.
We have heard a lot about menopause and peri- menopause from many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell). We are supporting women through the whole menopause process. Menopause and perimenopause symptoms can be wide-ranging and debilitating. NHS England is developing a range of tools and interventions to help upskill more GPs in menopause care, including awareness of mental health symptoms during menopause, and developing a menopause workforce support package for employees. I can also confirm that we are using community diagnostic centres to pilot pathways for women who suffer from post-menopausal bleeding.
Ashley Dalton
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that, but I thank him for raising the issue.
We have also talked a lot about what underpins this topic: research and innovation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised that point in particular. We are taking strides in vital research. By the spring, the NIHR expects to launch its sex and gender policy, which will ensure that research is designed, conducted and reported in a way that accounts for sex and gender—a point raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury. That will support our understanding of how women might be impacted differently by health conditions.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about eating disorders and also about breast cancer, which a number of people raised. As I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates, that issue is important to me, as I was diagnosed with a breast cancer when I was under the age of 42. It is an important issue.
Health in the workplace continues to be an important issue for us, and we are dealing with that through our make work pay strategy and the Employment Rights Bill, which will set out some of those steps, including support for women experiencing menopause in the workplace.
On sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, the Cumberlege review made nine recommendations, of which the then Government accepted seven. I can confirm that the national pause remains in place.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy
By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.
[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 26 February 2025; c. 4-5.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy):
Emma Hardy
By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £180 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.
UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Quarter 3 Response Costs 2024-25
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The covid-19 pandemic impacted each and every person in the UK. The work of the UK covid-19 inquiry is crucial in examining the UK’s response to and impact of the covid-19 pandemic. There are evidently lessons to be learned from the pandemic and the Government are committed to closely considering the covid-19 inquiry’s findings and recommendations, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Cumulative total Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (including contingent labour costs) £5,049,000 £5,303,000 £5,674,000 £16,026,000 Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (full-time equivalents) 280 284 287 NA Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Cumulative Total legal costs £4,236,000 £5,818,000 £6,050,000 £16,104,000
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work—and she has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments, are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and are not precise for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the UK covid-19 inquiry are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs
The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.
Q3 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: 287 full time equivalents.
Q3 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £5,674,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Financial year 2024-25 (Q1-3), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff: £16,026,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Total inquiry response unit legal costs
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs (excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs) for Q3 are below.
Q3 legal costs: £6,050,000.
Financial year 2024-25 (Q1-3), total legal costs: £16,104,000.
[HCWS481]
Independent Water Commission: Call for Evidence
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
A secure water supply is essential for every home and business throughout the country. It is the foundation of our economy, our communities and our global security.
This Government inherited a water sector in disrepair. The rivers, lakes and seas that we all love have record levels of pollution. Droughts are set to leave parts of the country facing significant water shortages by 2050, particularly in the south-east, and it is forecast that the UK will need to find an extra 5 billion litres of water a day to fill the gap between supply and demand. A rising population and the increasing impacts of climate change are putting strain on the water system.
The water sector needs a complete reset. That is why, in October 2024, the UK and Welsh Governments launched the largest review of the water sector since privatisation: an Independent Water Commission, chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and supported by a panel of experts.
This is the third stage in this Government’s strategy on water. It follows the Secretary of State’s immediate steps to better protect consumers when he came into office, followed by new legislation—the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. This was signed into law this week as the most significant increase to enforcement powers in a decade.
The Independent Water Commission will explore the further changes needed to deliver a robust and stable regulatory framework that serves customers and the environment, attracts the investment needed to clean up our waterways, and restores trust in the sector. It is part of this Government’s determination to tackle the inherited issues in our water system head-on.
Today, Sir Jon Cunliffe is launching a call for evidence. This invites views from the public, parliamentarians, environmental groups, investors and all other interested parties on future changes.
The call for evidence will be live for eight weeks, with Sir Jon due to provide a final report to both UK and Welsh Governments in the summer. Interested parties can read the relevant documents on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/independent-commission-for-water-call-for-evidence and share their views through DEFRA’s online consultation tool, Citizen Space.
The Commission’s final recommendations will shape further legislation that will transform how our water system works and clean up our rivers lakes and seas for good.
[HCWS475]
Alcohol in Licensed Pavement Areas: Consultation Results
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Business and Planning Act 2020 introduced a number of measures to allow businesses to continue to operate during the covid-19 pandemic. This included a temporary easement to the Licensing Act 2003 that allowed premises licence holders who were only permitted to do on-sales (i.e. to sell alcohol for consumption on site) additionally to automatically make off-sales (i.e. to sell alcohol for takeaway and delivery, and for consumption within an adjacent licensed pavement area) without having to apply to their licensing authority for a licence variation.
The previous Government launched a consultation, which ran from 16 May 2024 to 11 July 2024, that gave three options to maintain these easements on a more long-term basis. These options were to make permanent the alcohol licensing provisions in the BPA, to amend the wording in the Licensing Act 2003 to extend the definition of on-sales so that it includes consumption in a licensed pavement area, or to amend the Licensing Act 2003 to permit on-sales-only premises licence holders the right to make off-sales to any area for which there is a pavement licence.
There were 67 complete responses to this consultation exercise, from licensing authorities, trade organisations and residents’ organisations, as well as members of the public. The majority of these respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with all three options proposed. In the light of those responses, the Government do not currently have a basis to proceed with any of the legislative options to maintain the temporary easements for the long term. As such, the off-sales measure will expire on 31 March 2025 and the Licensing Act 2003 will automatically revert to the pre-covid position.
While the Government must accept the results of the consultation exercise conducted under the previous Administration, we are disappointed that there was not a consensus in favour of retaining an easement from which many pubs and pubgoers have benefited, and which supports our objectives both to promote the growth of the UK economy, and specifically to support the nation’s pub trade. We therefore want to make it as simple as possible for those pubs who wish to continue making off-sales to secure the licensing permission to do so from their local authorities.
To that end, the Government will be amending the guidance made under section 182 of the Licensing Act to advise licensing authorities that—where businesses have been benefiting from the current easement and wish to continue making off-sales beyond April 2025—applications to amend a licence should be treated as minor variations. This process is quicker and cheaper than major licence variations and, for example, does not require a local newspaper advertisement.
The Government will monitor the decisions made around the country by local authorities on these requests for licence variations, in liaison with the beer and pub industries, and will assess any evidence that pubs where the current easements have been working successfully are being denied the opportunity to continue making off-sales beyond April 2025 without reasonable cause. In those circumstances, and notwithstanding the results of last year’s consultation exercise, we will consider what further steps may need to be taken through the licensing regime to support our local pubs.
A copy of the consultation results will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS477]
eVisas
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The Home Office is continuing to develop a border and immigration system that is more digital and streamlined, which includes the roll-out of digital evidence of immigration status, in the form of eVisas. eVisas bring significant benefits. They cannot be lost, stolen, or tampered with, unlike a physical document, and also increase the UK immigration system’s security and efficiency.
We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition to eVisas for all status holders. On 4 December we published the first eVisa statistics, showing the number of people who had created a UK Visas and Immigration account to access an eVisa. Since that time, we have continued to see steady take up of UKVI account creations and our outreach is continuing to ensure awareness of the transition for those who have not yet set up their UKVI account, to encourage them to do so as soon as possible. While the eVisa is created by the Home Office for each person to reflect their immigration status, creating a UKVI account offers a number of benefits, including people being able to update personal details and being able to view and share evidence of immigration status with third parties, such as an employer or a landlord.
Since the first eVisa statistics publication in December 2024, we have further analysed the eVisa data to provide additional quality assurance and enhance our understanding of who has not yet acted. Our analysis has shown that a number of people who opted to create a UKVI account during this period already had one in place as part of their visa application. While this should not usually present any issues for these individuals, it does mean that the published data includes a number of duplicate accounts. If people experience problems, they can contact the resolution centre using online webchat or by phone. In order to maintain consistency in the data, we are continuing to publish the total number of eVisa account creations, recognising that this contains duplicates. However, we are also clarifying our revised estimate of the numbers of immigration status holders who still need to take action and set up an account to access their eVisa.
We had previously estimated the number of biometric residence permit holders who needed to create an account to access their eVisa at over 4 million but have always been clear that this number is hard to establish accurately given the daily fluctuations in this data, with people’s leave expiring, people leaving the country before their leave expires or leave being cancelled or curtailed. Further analysis has shown that the overall number of people with a BRP was in fact lower than we had estimated, because of how duplicate BRP cards were handled in the data. We have also confirmed that some BRP holders who have not yet created a UKVI account had permission which expired during January 2025, and will either have left the UK already or will have the opportunity to create an account as part of their application for further permission (e.g. students making applications for graduate study.)
Today we have published the latest eVisa statistics on gov.uk which show that just over 4 million people have successfully created a UKVI account to access their eVisa up to the end of January 2025. We therefore now estimate that around 600,000 immigration status holders who need to take action to access their eVisa are currently still waiting to do so.
This means that a significant majority of the immigration status holders who needed to take action have done so, but we continue to encourage and support those who have not yet made the switch to follow suit. We are conducting further analysis of the data to inform our approach to reaching those yet to access their eVisa, and to help make their transition as smooth as possible.
We have also kept under review the use of BRPs and EU settlement scheme biometric residence cards which expire on or after 31 December 2024 but which were permitted for continued travel to the end of March 2025. In line with our ongoing commitment to ensure a smooth roll-out, we are announcing today that this measure will be extended for a further two months, up to and including 1 June 2025. We advise people with valid immigration permission, but with a BRP or EUSS BRC that expired on or after 31 December 2024, to carry the document when travelling up to and including the 1 June 2025. From the 2 June 2025, expired BRPs and EUSS BRCs will no longer be acceptable for evidencing immigration status when travelling to the UK. This measure relates to travel only.
We encourage people to ensure that they have checked that their current passport or travel document is linked to their eVisa before they travel internationally. If people no longer have a BRP or EUSS BRC, or were not issued with one, their permission to travel to the UK will be checked through other means. People may also wish to get a share code in advance of travel, which is valid for 90 days. This can be done by signing in to the view and prove service— https://www.gov.uk/view-prove-immigration-status —and choosing the option to prove their immigration status for “anything else”. They can then print, write down or store the share code to provide it when needed. Other people with valid, genuine, physical proof of immigration status can continue to use these documents to evidence permission to travel to the UK. Carriers can also contact the 24/7 UK Border Force carrier support hub if needed.
We highly value the input and perspectives from stakeholders operating in this space or representing visa users, recognising their diverse experience and insights are essential to shaping the successful roll-out of a new digital border and we would like to pay tribute to those stakeholders who continue to work with the Home Office to provide valuable feedback. Their assistance has already played a pivotal role in shaping our approach, ensuring the visa system is responsive to the communities it serves.
We hope this announcement demonstrates the importance the Government place on ensuring a seamless shift to eVisas. We remain committed to an open dialogue and fostering collaboration to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes for all. Finally, we will continue to engage with stakeholders, to help identify areas for continuous improvement and implement changes that enhance fairness, efficiency, and a beneficial experience for users.
[HCWS482]
Local Plan Making and Guidance
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Planning is principally a local activity. It is local plans that set out a vision and a framework for the future development of any given area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and essential infrastructure—as well as a basis for conserving and enhancing the natural and historic environment, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and achieving well-designed places.
Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need and we know that areas with up-to-date local plans deliver more homes overall than those without one. For these reasons, the plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system.
I am today updating the House on further steps the Government are taking to progress toward universal coverage of local plans and to realise the full potential of the planning reforms we initiated last year.
Responding to the 2023 consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms
While there are clear benefits to communities of having an up-to-date local plan, fewer than a third of local areas have one in place. That is partly the result of how inaccessible and cumbersome the plan-making process can be.
The current way of preparing plans is not optimised for community participation. Plans can be lengthy, hard to read and difficult for those without specialist planning knowledge to engage with. They also often take a long time to prepare, at least seven years on average, which means they can be out of date too quickly, and communities struggle to understand the many different consultation phases.
The Government want to make new local plans simpler to understand and use, so that communities can more easily shape them. We want them to clearly show what is planned in a local area—so that residents can more easily engage with them, especially while they are being drawn up. We want them to be prepared and examined more quickly to ensure they reflect current local needs. And we want them to make the best use of new digital technology, to enhance access and drive improved productivity and efficiency in the plan-making process.
Following detailed analysis of all the responses submitted, as well as extensive engagement with the sector, the Government are today publishing our response https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation/outcome/government-response-to-the-proposed-plan-making-reforms-consultation-on-implementation to the previous Government’s consultation on the new-plan making system. We intend to proceed largely as set out in that consultation, with necessary regulations, policy and guidance to be confirmed later this year.
Local planning authorities have also told us that they need clearer guidance and more practical tools to speed up plan-making. We are therefore launching today a new dedicated home for plan-making resources on gov.uk: “Create or Update a Local Plan” https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan This brings together all the essential tools and guidance councils need to quickly develop a local plan, underpinned by quality data. We will be adding more practical resources to this site over the coming months to help planners at all stages of the plan-making process.
Updates to green belt, local nature recovery strategies and effective use of land planning policy guidance
The Government are also revising planning practice guidance to support local planning authorities in their plan making.
We are clear that development must look to brownfield first, prioritising the development of previously used land wherever possible. However, we know brownfield development alone will not be enough to meet our housing need. That is why the revised national planning policy framework published in December 2024 included a new approach to the green belt, prioritising the release of lower-quality grey-belt land within it and introducing “golden rules” to ensure any green-belt development benefits communities and nature.
To ensure our green belt reforms are implemented effectively and to support a more consistent approach to assessing green belt land, we have today published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt for local planning authorities. This will support authorities with the production of local development plans whilst also making sure that planning applications and development on suitable grey-belt land can proceed in the short term in areas where up-to-date plans are not in place.
Guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/effective-use-of-land has also been revised today on making effective use of land setting out how to apply paragraph 125c of the NPPF. This gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, taking into consideration other policies including those relating to the protection of heritage assets when making decisions.
We have also published new guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment#local-nature-recovery-strategies on local nature recovery strategies as part of updates to the natural environment and plan-making planning practice guidance. LNRSs are new strategies being prepared across England to agree priorities for nature recovery and propose actions in the locations where they will have the greatest impact for nature.
They will also provide valuable evidence for plan making and may contain information to support decisions on planning applications, so the updated guidance provides clarity on how local planning authorities can have regard to LNRSs in both the plan making and decision-making process. One of the 48 LNRSs has been published (West of England Combined Authority) and the other 47 are expected to follow during 2025.
Funding support for local authorities
Alongside the publication of the revised NPPF in December 2024, we announced funding https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/funding-to-support-local-authorities-with-the-costs-of-local-plan-delivery-and-green-belt-reviews-successful-local-authorities to support local authorities with the costs of carrying out green belt reviews. Eligible local authorities were invited to submit an expression of interest to request a share of this funding.
We are today announcing that 133 local authorities will receive £70,000 of pump- priming funding each to contribute towards the costs of carrying out green belt reviews in their areas. This will be paid to those local authorities shortly. We are keen to hear feedback from local authorities as to whether this is a sufficient level of funding and we will be reaching out to affected local authorities in due course.
We also want to help local authorities continue to drive forward their local plans whilst taking new policy into account. That is why on 14 February 2025 we announced new funding to support local plan delivery for authorities at regulation 18 stage. This is in addition to the funding for local authorities with plans at regulation 19 stage, announced in December 2024. Eligible local authorities are invited to submit an expression of interest form by 28 February 2025 to request a share of this funding, and we will announce which local authorities will receive both regulation 18 and regulation 19 local plans funding in due course.
Pathways to Planning funding
The Pathways to Planning programme provides local planning authorities with a pipeline of talented graduates, adding value to local authority planning teams and contributing to the sustainability of the planning profession. Almost 90 graduate planners started work through the programme last year, and the current recruitment process has seen more than 2,000 graduates apply.
The Government remain committed to enhancing the capacity and capability of local planning authorities. We are therefore allocating £4.5 million for the Local Government Association’s latest Pathways to Planning initiative to fund salary bursaries for new planning roles in councils. We are setting ambitious targets for the programme, where we are hoping to exceed the 300-planner target by the end of 2026. Local planning authorities can indicate their interest in a salary-funded role on the programme’s expression of interest form https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=7uRi4U8FPEuNOXVSTKjy6Q3gBMH2WphCmXSUOX7QdS9UQkJQUUhRU05URUcxTkpQN0MxSTVaQVdURS4u and canlearn more about the programme here.
[HCWS480]
Independent Pornography Review: Baroness Bertin Report
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by the Minister for the Future Digital Economy and Online Safety, my noble Friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
In 2023, the previous Government appointed Baroness Bertin as the independent lead reviewer to explore issues surrounding the regulation, legislation and enforcement of online pornography. Throughout the review, she reviewed evidence submitted from the public, academics and civil society, as well as stakeholders in law enforcement, the pornography sector and health service providers. The final report provided to the Government is insightful and timely.
The report has been laid before Parliament today and it will also be available on gov.uk.
Baroness Bertin’s report highlights some of the harms caused by unregulated access to some online pornography. The review finds that online pornography can impact people’s health and mental wellbeing, and is potentially fuelling violence against women and girls offline.
Baroness Bertin’s review makes a case for bringing the regulation of pornography online into parity with offline regulation. In the time she has had to do the review, she has considered the existing evidence on the topic, but she has also highlighted where some issues are still poorly understood and more research is needed to understand the potential harms from pornographic content and how to mitigate those.
The review acknowledges the important protections that the Online Safety Act 2023 will put in place to protect young people from seeing harmful content online, including pornographic content. It also notes that the Act has made it a priority for in-scope services to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, which includes intimate image abuse, extreme pornography and child sexual abuse material.
This review has revealed shocking detail about the prevalence of violent and misogynistic pornography online, and the extent to which it is influencing dangerous offline behaviours, including in young relationships. Graphic strangulation pornography is illegal but is not always being treated as such and instead remains widely accessible on mainstream pornography platforms. There is increasing evidence that “choking” is becoming a common part of real-life sexual encounters, despite the significant medical dangers associated with it. The Government will take urgent action to ensure that pornography platforms, law enforcement and prosecutors are taking all necessary steps to tackle this increasingly prevalent harm.
Additionally, the review’s findings have noted that as technologies such as artificial intelligence continue to evolve and become increasingly sophisticated and accessible, they are reshaping the online pornography landscape. Individuals can now create sexual content, consensually and non-consensually, with nudification applications and other forms of software. Baroness Bertin has found that more needs to be done to protect those online from being victimised by non-consensual sexual content.
The Government are delivering our manifesto commitment to ban sexually explicit deepfakes: the Data (Use and Access) Bill introduces a new offence that will criminalise the creation of a purported intimate image, or deepfake, of an adult without their consent. It will also criminalise asking someone to create a purported intimate image, or deepfake, for you, regardless of where that person is based or whether the image is created.
We are introducing a package of offences in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment with intent to enable the taking of intimate images without consent. Through the offences at section 66B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the law already captures situations where intimate images, including deepfakes, are shared without consent.
Together these measures will ensure that law enforcement can effectively tackle this abusive behaviour. This demeaning and disgusting form of chauvinism must not become normalised, and as part of our plan for change we are bearing down on violence against women, whatever form it takes. We are putting offenders on notice: they will face the full force of the law.
The review has also made several recommendations related to the education system. This Government consider healthy relationships a key part of RSHE—relationships, sex and health education—and relationships education will support our mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. This Government will support schools to tackle misogyny and promote healthy relationships and positive masculinity.
The relationship, sex and health education statutory guidance is currently being reviewed following a public consultation last year. As part of this, we are working with stakeholders and teachers to ensure that the curriculum covers all content that pupils need to keep themselves and others safe and to be respectful in their relationships.
This Government are equipping teachers with the information, resources and training to teach young people about healthy relationships and behaviour, which plays a significant role in preventing harmful sexual behaviours. We have recently published a new guide for teachers on incel culture on the Department’s Education Against Hate website. Teacher training contains the teachers’ standards, including high expectations of behaviour, and we are working with schools on what more we can do to support them to root out misogyny and ensure that young people treat each other with respect.
This Government have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and this will require a renewed focus on prevention—including ensuring that online content is not encouraging offline violence and abuse. We will therefore take forward the findings of Baroness Bertin’s review, which will help to inform the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy to be published in the next few months.
I thank Baroness Bertin for her efforts in bringing this report together and shedding light on a complex yet deeply important topic. The Government will provide a further update on how they are tackling the issues raised in the review as part of their mission to tackle VAWG in due course.
[HCWS479]
Gatwick Airport Development Consent Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
The examining authority’s report on the Gatwick airport development consent order application was received on 27 November 2024. Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision must be made within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline is exercised and a statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline. The current deadline for a decision is 27 February 2025.
This statement confirms that today I have issued a “minded to approve” letter for the Gatwick airport northern runway development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.
Given that the examining authority’s report, for the first time, recommends an alternative DCO which includes a range of controls on the operation of the scheme and not all the provisions have been considered during the examination, I am issuing a minded to approve decision that provides some additional time to seek views from all parties on the provisions, prior to a final decision.
The deadline for the final decision is now extended to 27 October 2025—an extension of nine months. The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.
[HCWS476]
Pension Credit Applications and Awards: February 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The latest statistical release on pension credit applications and awards was published today. It includes data on the number of weekly pension credit applications received and cleared, as well as data on claims awarded and not awarded between 3 April 2023 and 23 February 2025.
Since this Government made the difficult but—given the challenging public finances—right decision to target winter fuel payments, we have been absolutely focused on maximising take-up of pension credit. The Government are forecast to spend £174.8 billion on benefits for pensioners in Great Britain in 2025-26. This includes spending on the state pension, which is forecast to be £146.6 billion in 2025-26. Crucially, our commitment to the triple lock for the entirety of this Parliament means that spending on people’s state pensions is forecast to rise by over £31 billion.
We want to ensure that all pensioners get the support to which they are rightly entitled. That is why we took immediate action on pension credit and have been running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, which has included adverts on television, radio, social media such as Facebook and Instagram, on YouTube, on advertising screens, including on GP and post office screens, as well as in the press. To promote pension credit through as many channels as possible, we have also engaged with key stakeholders and partners, including other Government Departments, local councils, housing associations, community groups, local libraries and service providers, as well as charities and third-sector organisations.
The new figures published today show that for the year to date 2024-25, the Department for Work and Pensions has received 300,000 pension credit applications. This represents the highest number of annual recorded pension credit applications seen by DWP since comparisons began.
Since 29 July 2024 when the winter fuel payment announcement was made:
DWP has received 235,000 pension credit claims—an 81% increase or 105,100 extra applications on the comparable period in 2023-24;
DWP has cleared 232,200 pension credit claims—a 92% increase or 111,100 extra clearances on the comparable period in 2023-24; and
of the claims which DWP has cleared, 117,800 have resulted in an award of pension credit—a 64% increase or 45,800 extra awards on the comparable period 2023-24.
It is important to recognise the volume of applications which the Department received during this period. We understand that pensioners expect their applications to be processed quickly and accurately, which is why we deployed over 500 extra staff to process this huge increase in claims. The latest statistics also show that outstanding claims have reduced from 85,500 in mid-December to just 33,700 by 23 February.
Finally, although around 1.4 million pensioners currently receive pension credit, too many are missing out. We must do more to ensure that pensioners receive all the help they are entitled to. Building on the success of our campaign, we are now exploring other options to drive up claims by:
Writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit—directly targeting this group to make a claim;
In the longer term, the Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, so that pensioner households receiving housing benefit also receive any pension credit that they are entitled to;
Undertaking new research on the triggers and motivations that encourage people to apply for pension credit—learning from pensioners’ experiences, we want to build the evidence of what works to boost take-up; and
Working across Departments including His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to use data more effectively to help identify pensioner households most likely to be eligible for pension credit, and to target them directly.
[HCWS478]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. I hope that we will have a quiet, uninterrupted session, but if by any chance there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Review of impact on businesses, high streets and economic growth(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act on—(a) businesses,(b) high streets, and(c) economic growth.(2) The review must consider—(a) the impact on different types of business, including small businesses;(b) the impact on businesses operating mainly or solely on high streets;(c) whether the provisions have had a measurable impact on economic growth, and if so what that impact has been.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament within six months of the day on which those sections take effect.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of sections 1 to 4 of this Act within six months.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 46 I will also speak to my Amendments 53 and 54, which are all borne from the lack of detail in the Bill and the failure to publish an impact assessment for its first four clauses. The Government are asking us to agree to a Bill without clarity on the substance and the financial impact, and one which will make a real problem for businesses on the high street. They are asking us to support the Bill despite not providing any assessment of how it will impact on the high street and, while they promise to reduce business rates, the only thing that we know is certainly being reduced at this stage is the relief we offer to retail, leisure and hospitality businesses.
My Amendment 46 calls for a review of the impact of Clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, high streets and economic growth. There is no impact assessment published alongside the Bill that covers its first four clauses and no commitment to publish one when the multipliers have been decided. This is entirely unacceptable; it seems unlikely that the Government would pursue a Bill without clarity as to what impact it will have. In order to have an informed debate, we need to know what the Government think the material impact will be. If they are so certain that they are reducing the amount of tax that businesses pay through business rates, it would make sense to publish an impact assessment detailing how such an objective will be achieved.
My Amendment 53 is borne from the same concerns about the lack of information and asks for an annual report as to how much money is raised through the provisions in Clauses 1 to 4. Again, there is no detailed information to accompany the Bill and we are being asked to agree to a measure despite not knowing how it will impact on the very businesses it taxes. Amendment 54 seeks to include an annual report that breaks down the revenue from business rates by type of business, so that it is possible to evaluate how successful this arbitrary threshold is at placing further burdens on online giants, rather than on small and larger independent shops and pop-up businesses.
The Government have changed their tone in regard to business rates after an initial promise that they would reform the whole system to balance the scales between the high street businesses and online giants—the Bill does not deliver on that. I would be interested to see which businesses end up with a larger tax burden as a result of the Bill. I urge the Government to seriously consider these amendments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, this group is about understanding the impact of the Bill. To help us focus on why this is important, my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I have produced our own notional one-dimensional impact assessment.
If a property had a rateable value of £100,000, before Covid it was paying close to £50,000 in rates. Then, when the pandemic came, if—and only if—it qualified for relief, that £50,000 would benefit from a 75% reduction. In this case, the business owner would have been paying only £12,500. Rolling forward, what do we find when the Covid relief is completely lifted? The rateable value has not changed; it is still £100,000. So, by our calculation, if—and only if—the full multiplier reduction is applied, that business will be paying £30,000 in non-domestic rates.
I am sure the Minister can spot where we are heading on this. Yes, the business will nominally have a reduction in its rates, but those are the rates it was paying before the Covid relief. In reality, it will have gone from paying £12,500 to £30,000; that is what will be hitting the business. I have two questions for the Minister. First, allowing for our slight approximations to make the maths easy, is this broadly correct and, if not, what is the actual analysis? Secondly, how on earth will this bring benefits and investment to the high street?
As the noble Baroness points out, it is right to talk about the impact assessment, both before the implementation of the Bill and once it has been implemented. The accelerated timeline for the Bill’s implementation has left insufficient time for stakeholder consultation, particularly regarding measures affecting distribution warehouses and out-of-town retail premises, as the noble Baroness just mentioned. Therefore, my noble friend Lady Pinnock and I have tabled a number of amendments to help probe different aspects of the impact the Bill will have. When we get to Report, we will hope to refine this—that is, if the Government have not put forward their own amendments, which I expect they will because this makes so much sense and is so important to the Bill.
Amendment 48 would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on Clauses 1 to 4 before they come into force—very similar to what we have just heard. Amendment 49 proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of the new multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses occupying a single site, compared with those occupying multiple sites. This is because the relief system had a cap on it. That cap goes. The question is: does the multiplier applied across multiple sites mean that some large multisite organisations will bust the cap and benefit substantially at the expense of single-site retailers or not? Because there is no impact assessment, we have no idea. This will, essentially, help us to differentiate the effect between the size and scale of businesses.
Amendment 50 is intended to assess the cumulative impact on businesses of the changes in the Bill with the expected removal of the retail, hospitality and leisure relief—coming to the point I was just talking about. Amendment 52 proposes a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to examine the effect of the introduction of the leisure multipliers on the amount of business rates paid by businesses in different council areas. In other words, how will this affect the regional distribution? The Minister, as someone who comes from the north, will understand that there are significant differences between what happens in the north and the south-east of England. Coming from Herefordshire, I would say that there is exactly the same sort of difference there, if not even greater. Amendment 73 is consequential.
These, taken with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, are all about how we know what the Bill will actually do. The Government have made bold claims about the effect they assert it will cause on Britain’s high streets. On these Benches, it seems there is absolutely no way of supporting those claims because there is absolutely no data.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will add a few words on this important group of amendments. It is not possible to do an impact assessment at the moment. This has been rushed, and the new valuation list will not be completed for another three or four months. Non-domestic rates are the third-highest cost to most RHL businesses, after rent and employment costs. The third-highest outgoing for these businesses is being discussed here and going into law as we speak before one of the critical ingredients of the P&L of those businesses is known. It will not make good law.
The amendments we have heard about in this group, and some of those to come in later groups, refer to a request for delay to the impact assessment so that these variables are known and businesses are not groping about in the dark trying to understand their profitability and do their business plans. It is not the right moment to be having this conversation, but all will be fine if we allow an extra year to do the impact assessments and the required consultations with the professional bodies that have the expertise, which can then be assessed by secondary legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments seek to introduce a number of provisions into the Bill requiring reports and assessments of various types. They are concerned with the impact on the RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—sector, including on local government revenues, businesses more generally and economic growth. Some reports and assessments would be required before Clauses 1 to 4 come into force, and others after.
First, I want to stress to the Committee the importance we attach to being clear and transparent about this policy—who will be affected and the impact it will have on revenue. The principles behind these amendments are sound. It is right that the impact of tax changes should be carefully considered in detail. However, there is a balance to be struck and some of these amendments would place an undue constraint on the Government that would likely delay the new multipliers coming into effect from April 2026. Others would duplicate existing reports or would require reports to be produced before we will have been able to collect any data from local authorities. Through a combination of existing reports and commitments already made, I am confident that we can give noble Lords the assurances they seek.
Amendments 48 and 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seek to require the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the new multiplier arrangements on businesses, high streets and broader economic growth. Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce a very similar requirement.
Noble Lords will be aware that policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions as defined in the Better Regulation Framework. Obviously, tax measures are introduced for very different reasons from other types of legislation and are therefore not under the same requirements to be accompanied by an impact assessment. This has been the settled position for many years. In fact, the exemption for tax from the meaning of a regulatory provision was captured in primary legislation passed by this House in 2015. Section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 excluded a statutory provision which makes or amends provisions imposing, abolishing or varying any tax, duty, levy or other charge. That exemption now exists in paragraph 2.3 of the Better Regulation Framework.
Nevertheless, the Government understand that there is great interest in the effects of the new multipliers, and the Treasury is committed to publishing analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements when the rates are set in the Budget later this year. The reviews that Amendments 50 and 52 seek to introduce are focused on the changes in business rates paid by qualifying RHL properties and other types of businesses. I believe that what these reviews seek to understand is how the business rates liabilities of affected RHL or other properties have and will change, reflecting on the provision of retail, hospitality and leisure relief since 1 April 2020 and the introduction of the permanent lower multipliers for qualifying RHL businesses and the higher multipliers from April 2026.
Noble Lords will know that retail, hospitality and leisure relief has varied year on year since it was introduced, reflecting the particular economic circumstances, including the terrible economic shock that was created by the Covid-19 pandemic. What is more important to point out, however, is that this relief’s expansion in response to Covid was a temporary, stop-gap measure that has been rolled over repeatedly, leaving businesses in a perpetual state of uncertainty until clarity for at least one more year was provided at Budgets. The new RHL multipliers are ending that uncertainty, introducing permanent lower tax rates that will help qualifying RHL businesses to plan ahead and get on with running their businesses rather than constantly worrying about what the next Budget may bring them.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, could I point out that these forecasts are all going to be hypothetical? In five months’ time, the VOA will produce, or have access to, the updated new rateable values nationwide. Current rateable values will be history. Therefore, we have to anticipate what those might be. The balancing act between the larger properties subsidising the smaller RHL properties will then be reworked, but we cannot do it at the moment, which is one of the reasons why we feel that time is required for delays to the impact assessment process to take us one further year ahead.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for making that point. He also talked about delays, which I will pick up in a later group when we talk about implementation; I have not forgotten about the important points he raises. On the point he just made, the Budget analysis takes into account the 2026 revaluation, so that point is covered by the Treasury in its work in the build-up to the Budget.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I did not quite understand that point. The Minister is saying that the revaluation has already been taken into account in the figures that the Treasury is coming forward with. Does that mean he can share the revaluation with us?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me clarify this for the noble Lord. As I said repeatedly on day one in Committee, the Treasury will publish an analysis when it sets its multipliers at the Budget, but the work that is going on in providing that analysis will consider all the issues, in particular the issue the noble Lord raised about the 2026 revaluation.
Lord Fox (LD)
It seems to me that the Government have done an impact assessment; if it is not an impact assessment, it is an analysis that may or may not be an impact assessment. The Minister is saying that he has some data but is not prepared to let us have it, so we have to make this law blind.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I think I have been quite clear in stating that there is clear evidence that there is no impact assessment on taxation. However, what we are asking to do in the Bill is to set the parameters for increasing the multiplier and the flexibility for the higher rate over £500,000; and, for the lower multipliers, to support RHL, as we committed to do in our manifesto. When the Treasury works up to the announcement and makes a decision on the multipliers at the Budget, it will of course publish analysis on what the impact of that will be in 2026.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry to labour the point. This may sound rude but it is not supposed to be. Given that the Treasury seems to be driving almost all of this, could we please have a Treasury Minister here, as well as the noble Lord, on Report? It would make sense to talk directly to the department that has actually made the decisions, rather than to the person who is carrying the message.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I take everything that the noble Lord says in a good spirit; I will come back to him on that point. Let me be clear on the remit of the Bill. On when the Treasury will set its multipliers, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I will go away and see. As I said on day one in Committee, I look forward to meeting all noble Lords who have an interest and amendments. I am happy to sit down and discuss this; if I can get one of my colleagues from the Treasury, subject to availability and diary commitments, I will of course pursue that.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I too do not wish to labour the point but, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that the ministry already has access to the new valuation list. Yet Colliers, a leading firm of rating surveyors with which I have had extensive discussions on this Bill, assures me that 1 June is when the work from the VOA will be completed. It may have been completed early but, if that is the case, can we please have that detail so that businesses can do their budgets and business plans?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I say directly again that the 2026 revaluation has not yet been completed but, obviously, the Treasury is working on it. It is having conversations with all stakeholders, of course. In fact, it is probably also looking at forward planning on the whole future of business rates. As I said on our first day in Committee, this is the start of a huge strategic focus looking at business rates; this is the first part of it. I assure colleagues that, as soon as the multipliers are announced at the Budget, noble Lords will have an analysis—not an assessment, but an analysis.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Thurlow, for their support on what I think is a really important part of the Bill. It is not about us knowing; it is about businesses knowing. We heard very strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about businesses, particularly those that are around the £500,000 and do not know now whether they are or are not, and the multipliers. They are trying to plan their businesses, hopefully for growth, if we hear what His Majesty’s Government want for them, but how can they do it when they do not know what the third-biggest chunk of their expenditure will be? We are trying to get the Minister to understand how very important that is to this sector.
I thank the Minister for his response but I still think, as can be heard from the questions, that we have a lot of concerns over the lack of clarity on this and, particularly, the full impact assessments. I am more than happy to work with the Minister and the Government to find a way around this, so that we can feel comfortable—not for us, as I have said, but so that businesses can fully assess the impact as soon as possible. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Review of effect on non-domestic rating policy(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must conduct a review of how the measures in this Act have impacted non-domestic rating policy.(2) The review must assess—(a) potential changes required to non-domestic ratings as a result of the measures within this Act;(b) what alternatives to non-domestic ratings, if any, the Government has considered.(3) The report of the review must be laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Chancellor to review the effects of this Act on wider non-domestic rating policy and consider alternatives, for example a commercial landowner levy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we have all agreed that the Bill is tinkering with what is essentially a broken system. The Labour Party clearly knew that because it pledged in its manifesto to reform the system, so it understands that the system is broken. Speaking to the last group, the noble Lord said that businesses need certainty and that the Bill will give them it. The certainty is that they will be paying more in business rates in two years than they are now. They know the direction of travel, but they do not know how fast they will get there or how much they will be paying. We know that, no matter how broken it is now and irrespective of its impact, the Government plan to keep this system in place for three years. I think that is what I heard the Minister say.
On the one hand, I suggest that this is more than a little cavalier. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has explained, there may well be quite a number of chickens that come home to roost during that three-year period. On the other hand, it gives the Government time to carry out their much-vaunted detailed review, to properly consult and to legislate for a better and fairer system that genuinely encourages investment. Amendment 47 would require the Chancellor to review the effects of the Bill on wider non-domestic rating policy and to consider alternatives. I am sure the Minister would agree that productive capital and investment should not be the target for this tax. I suggest that one way of ensuring this is to levy rates on the value of the commercial sites and also to remove exemptions for empty or derelict commercial premises. Revaluations should happen on a more regular basis, and I think we should agree through consultation how often that should be. The nub of this is that anything a tenant invests in their business should not increase the site rateable value. If it does, which is where we are now, you are taxing investment and growth, not the actual site value.
These are the ideas and sorts of things that the Government have time to consider. They have time to radically throw this system up in the air and make sure that what comes down is fairer, rewards growth and investment, and makes sure that the right people are paying the right amount. If we are to have this tinkered-about system for three years, can the Minister assure your Lordships that the time will be used usefully to deliver a system that is fit for purpose and delivers growth across our country?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47 addresses the issue that, despite the Government’s claim that they would reform the business rates system, the Bill does not offer that. We heard concerns from several noble Lords on the previous day in Committee that this is not a Bill that will support the high street and level the playing field, as promised in the Labour manifesto. My concern is that businesses will face substantially higher costs. These proposals are supposed to support the high street, with a so-called Amazon tax, yet this is clearly not the case. It is a blunt instrument that will substantially increase taxes on all properties with a rateable value above £500,000. As such, it risks harming the very businesses it is purportedly designed to help, such as anchor stores and other retail, hospitality and leisure facilities fundamental to the high street.
There is a second concern that we have already raised: the cliff-edge nature of these proposals. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have done some very basic analysis of this. For example, a retail, hospitality or leisure business with a rateable value of just under £500,000 would today pay rates of around £175,000, assuming a 0.2 discount and a multiplier of 0.55, whereas if it were to make a small investment and tip over that threshold, it would pay £320,000. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I allow for a little approximation in those numbers. There are plenty of examples of this. For instance, locally to me in Bedfordshire, Luton Hoo, which is currently looking at some investment, has a rateable value of £490,000. Will that investment go ahead, knowing the additional costs? Even more locally—as Members are aware, I am a councillor and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire—near my own ward, a garden centre in Toddington faces the same issue. Again, I am aware that it is looking at some investments.
We have also touched on the impact of future revaluations. The Minister has been keen to point out that this will impact fewer than 1% of properties and only 3,100 retail outlets. He said that he wants to be clear and transparent, so can he tell us how many additional properties will be above the £500,000 threshold after the next revaluation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers specifically to the idea of a commercial landowner levy as a proposed tax reform to replace the business rates system. I support the sentiment of requiring government to consider genuine reform, rather than the lack of change that the Bill provides. I do not agree with the specific reform proposed by the noble Lord, but I acknowledge the need to adapt the system to ensure that online businesses that operate from out-of-town warehouses pay a fair, proportionate share of business rates. Given that the Bill has been brought forth, it seems reasonable to assume that the Government have delayed any plans they had to reform the system, which will damage businesses up and down the high street. They promised lower business rates but are reducing the relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, sending an incoherent message to our high streets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 47 seeks to require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the measures in the Bill, once passed, on broader non-domestic rating policy and to set out what potential changes may be required and/or what alternative approaches to non-domestic rating have been considered. The Government are committed to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government commenced that journey at the 2024 Budget, when we announced our intention to permanently—I say that again: permanently—introduce lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, as well as a higher rate on properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above to ensure that the permanent tax cut is sustainably funded.
At the Budget, the Government also published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, setting out priority areas for business rates reform and inviting stakeholders to have a conversation with the Government on this matter over the course of this Parliament. The areas of interest for further reform as set out in the paper include: incentivising investment and growth, considering the frequency of revaluations and ensuring that the system is transformed to make it fit for the modern 21st century economy. The paper also focuses on tackling avoidance and evasion; for example, through the Government’s intention to publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.
I am delighted to say that those conversations with stakeholders on priority areas for reform have commenced and are ongoing. I thank all those stakeholders who have been in contact to offer their valuable insights and experience of non-domestic rating. Furthermore, on 17 February, the Government published the Business Rates: Forward Look policy note, which provides an update on key milestones for the Government’s overall business rates reform agenda. As set out in that note, we are reflecting on engagement undertaken so far and the views expressed as part of that process. It also sets out that we anticipate further stakeholder engagement on specific reform options ahead of the Autumn Budget, when final decisions will be set out.
I am aware that there is support from Liberal Democrat noble Lords and Members of Parliament for the replacement of business rates with a commercial landowner levy. What is important to the Government is that we have a tax that works. It is not the first time that this House has heard suggestions for a tax on land values or a levy on landowners: it was as common a debate in the last century as in this one. What all those debates show is great uncertainty and a lack of evidence of the benefits: any benefits to the high street would be far from certain. We are clear on the need for reform but, to minimise disruption for businesses, the Government will make improvements to the existing system over the course of this Parliament.
Before I conclude, let me address the points that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised on investment. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific examples of live non-domestic rating bills but, as part of the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, we will look at the effectiveness of the improvement relief scheme, which helps businesses that invest in their property. I look forward to our engagement, post Committee, in more detailed conversations. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. I agree that the system is broken and we are trying to fix it. It cannot go on year after year on an ad hoc basis. We need certainty and sustainability so that people can have a clear and fair system. As we said in our manifesto, we will continue to support leisure, hospitality and retail, and those above £500,000 rateable value—fewer than 1% of properties—will contribute to make sure that our system is fair and balanced.
I hope I have provided reassurance as to the seriousness with which the Government are approaching our stated task of reforming the business rates system, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for replying; I am not sure that I thank him for his reply. I thank him for acknowledging that the system is broken. When you try to fix something, there is no point in fixing the windows if the roof has caved in and you have subsidence. The scale of the brokenness means that the ambition to reform needs to be somewhat more than I detected from him.
I am grateful to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for bringing up the cliff-edge point: we have to talk about putting in steps to avoid that cliff edge. The example given was not specific but an imagined, general example. We do not need specifics: we know that if a business is valued at £495,000 and it increases its value just a tiny bit, it is suddenly in a massive tax bracket. The Minister must be able to see that that is a huge barrier to investment. The only way to deal with that is to have not a cliff edge but a gradual approach. We should investigate that process together.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord touched on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made about anchor stores and valuations above £500,000. Let me be clear: many anchor stories in RHL have rateable values of properties in other parts of the country that are less than £500,000, so, equally, they will also benefit from lower multipliers in that bracket.
Lord Fox (LD)
And if the Government adopt my impact assessment, which deals with multiple retailers versus single retailers, we will know how that works.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that this is the last time noble Lords will hear from me. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done between Committee and Report on Clauses 1 to 4. There is potential for us to work together to make this better, even though, as we have all admitted, it is tinkering around the edges. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lexden
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with other amendments in Lord Lexden’s name, seeks to replace “private school” with “independent school” throughout the Bill.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 54A, I will offer explanatory comments that also apply to Amendments 55A, 59A, 69C, 69D, 77 and 78. All are cast in the same form and have the same purpose: to make this a Bill that, in its Title and throughout Clause 5, refers to “independent” rather than, as at present, “private” schools. The issue is clear and straightforward, and I shall be brief, having touched on the general issue on Second Reading.
I want to probe the Government’s reasons for not conforming to established practice and usage, which have hitherto ensured that independent schools are called by their correct, formal name in legislation. There may perhaps in recent years have been stray references to “private schools” in legislation—my noble friend Lady Barran, so recently a Minister at the Department for Education, may be able to comment on that point—but never before, I think, has a Bill been brought forward that has abandoned standard practice in favour of another formulation, namely “private schools”.
Does this matter? Both formulations are in general, widespread, everyday use. The words “independent” and “private” are used interchangeably in relation to schools outside the state sector of education, a sector that of course includes academies, which have a measure of independence but are not independent schools. The question is whether the comparatively new way of referring to schools outside the state sector—no one, I think, referred to “private schools” until about 30 years ago—should supersede the term long established in law and employed universally, I think, by official bodies, most notably the Charity Commission and the Department for Education.
Schools that are charities are registered by the commission as independent schools. The Department for Education keeps a register of schools outside the state sector, which for many years was overseen by a distinguished senior civil servant rejoicing in the title of registrar of independent schools. These days, the department has an independent schools division.
No plans, I think, have been announced to sweep away the terminology that has been for so long in official use and replace it with another one featuring the term “private school”, giving what is now a purely informal practice firm official status. Surely, legislation should reflect standard current formal practice and not create confusion by resorting to a term hitherto unknown in law.
There is one further consideration. The term “private school” is not universally accepted as politically neutral. It can be regarded as implying criticism of schools outside the state sector—private in the sense of separate, exclusive, cut off from the rest of the world. That is the way in which some on the left in British politics love to portray our country’s independent schools. Their falsehoods are assisted by the term “private school”. I suggest that the term has therefore to be treated with care.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 54A and the consequential amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as chairman of governors at Brentwood School and as president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and the Institute of Boarding. I have just two brief points to add to the comprehensive remarks that my noble friend delivered with his customary eloquence, with which I agree entirely.
First, why do we need a definition in the Bill, given that the 1988 Act, as far as I can tell, does not use the term or make any reference to schools, and talks generically only of charities? If the concern is to make a differentiation between independent schools and academies as state-funded and independent schools, it would surely be much simpler to make clear that the Bill does not apply to academies. The only conclusion you can reach is the one that my noble friend reached: the novel insertion of this definition is simply to shoehorn what I am afraid is party-political dogma into this legislation, and that makes for bad law.
That leads me to my second point. At some point this legislation may well end up in the courts, when the legal definition of independent school, which has been long established in law, as my noble friend said, may become very important. Therefore, there needs to be certainty about definition, which there will not be if independent education is dealt with in different ways in different pieces of legislation. What steps have been taken to ensure that this definition is not compromised or contradicted in some way in other legislation, which will at some point down the line cause real legal uncertainty?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee and the Minister know by now, we on these Benches are opposed to the whole of Clause 5, and I will start my remarks by making the case that it should not stand part of the Bill; rather, we urge the Government to think again and remove it.
First, as we debated at Second Reading, there is the point of principle. On what basis should the Government identify a single group of charities, with no concerns about the delivery of their charitable objects, for separate treatment in relation to business rates from their charitable peers? Sadly, the only plausible reason is that it reflects some ideology that does not respect the right of parents to choose the education for their child. I am not suggesting that the Minister sees it in that way, and I accept that the Government’s plan to tax education for the first time ever in this country’s history were in their manifesto, but I cannot find another logical basis for this choice.
Secondly, this picture is confirmed when we look at the amount of money that will be raised from this change. The Government project that only £70 million will be raised. Finally, it leaves the risk that in future legislation in this area, this or a future Government will carve out another group of charities that they believe no longer justify the business rates relief. This feels a wrong-headed choice, and I very much hope that the Minister will encourage his colleagues to review it and remove the clause.
I turn to Amendments 55, 56, 59 and 62. Amendment 55 is consequential and necessary to enable the later amendments. I have tabled it to exempt specific independent schools from this measure. Amendments 56 and 59 are probing amendments to understand what is meant by the term “or other consideration” in the context of fees payable for the provision of full-time education. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee an example of where another consideration has been used in practice wholly or partly to replace fees.
Amendment 62 highlights the position of smaller independent schools, many of which charge significantly less than the independent school average of £27,642, which was the figure the Minister in the other place gave as the mean annual day fee as of January 2024. I appreciate that the Government are unlikely to agree with the fee level in my amendment, but it would be helpful for the Committee to hear whether there is a fee level below which this legislation would not apply. As the Minister knows, some faith schools in particular charge lower fees than the state school equivalent per pupil funding rate. Would the Government consider exempting schools that charge less than the per pupil funding rate from this tax.
As we have heard, Amendments 54A, 55A, 59A, 69C, 69D, 77 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black of Brentwood would replace the use of “private school” with “independent school”. I agree with my noble friends’ analysis of the importance of this and some of the factors that sit behind it. The term “private school” is much more informal, and in legislation it is more commonplace to use “independent school”. We support those amendments fully; I hope the Minister will give careful consideration to them.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Clause 5 is an interesting add-on to the legislation as a whole, which is focused on non-domestic rates as applied to business premises. Here, we suddenly have one sector of businesses being pulled out for special treatment, which is curious to me. It becomes a very strange Bill with Clause 5 added to it. However, for Liberal Democrats, as I have probably said many times in the course of my public sector career, education is the single most important and best investment that any Government can make in our children, their future and the country’s future. The clause is important to us because it relates to education.
The Government’s policy in this Bill, removing the current exemption for relief of business rates, combined with the introduction of VAT and the impact of employers’ national insurance increases, will undermine two important principles for Lib Dems. The first is that education should not be taxed. All education provided by an eligible body, including universities, music lessons and tutoring, is currently exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on these things—and, hence, neither should business rates. The exemption should not be removed from these schools. The second principle is that parents have a right to choose the education setting that they believe is the best for their children. We champion choice and believe nothing should get in the way of parents making those choices.
The best outcome of all would be that state-funded education was funded at the same level as that experienced by children in the private, or independent, sector. It is curious to me that the gamut of changes that the Government are making in relation to the costs imposed on the private, or independent, sector will not release sufficient funding to make a significant impact on children’s education in the state sector, so it is hard to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve.
It has been an interesting debate. Lots of points of definition have been raised, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the interesting points about the importance of having an accurate definition of the sector. I look forward to his response. But in summation: education is most important, and parents have the right to choose, as long as those choices do not have a negative impact on everybody else, which in this case they clearly do not.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 55 and 62 seek to carve out from the Bill all private schools that charge fees of less than £27,642 per year through exempting schools that meet this criteria from the definition of a private school. I am conscious that other amendments tabled by noble Lords seek to carve out other private schools from the Bill definition, and we will discuss these in more detail as part of today’s proceedings. However, it would be helpful for me to set out the purpose of Clause 5 for when the Committee decides whether to agree the clause. At the same time, I can elaborate further on the meaning of “or other consideration” as per Amendments 56 and 59, and the use of “private school” as opposed to “independent school” in response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
The Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. The removal of business rates charitable relief, as set out in Clause 5, legislates for the Government’s commitment to secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitment to education and young people, including the more than 90% of children who are educated in state schools.
Clause 5 removes the charitable rate relief from private schools by amending paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZB to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to exclude private schools from the rules in relation to the application of charitable rate relief. Amendments to the rules in relation to the application of charitable relief can be made only through primary legislation.
The Bill inserts new sub-paragraph (3) to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA to remove charitable relief from occupied hereditaments wholly or mainly used for the purposes of carrying on a private school. Ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields that are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.
The rest of Clause 5(2) is concerned with the definition of a private school. To answer directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the terminology “private school” has been used because the term “independent school” includes state-funded academies, which are not in scope of this policy and therefore of the measures in the Bill. The term “private school” has been used to avoid uncertainty regarding which schools are in scope, and I am sure it is not the noble Lord’s intention to bring academies into scope of this Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before he sits down, can the Minister respond to one point that I made? If he does not have an example today, perhaps he could write to me and share the letter with other Members of the Committee. Does he have a real-life example of where “other consideration” has regularly—or even occasionally—been used in practice to replace fees, either wholly or partly? I have visions of, I do not know, farmers arriving with trailers loaded with whatever it might be. If the Minister does not have an example now, perhaps he could let me know.
I also ask the Minister to confirm something. I take his point about the property value not necessarily being linked to the fees, but can he commit to considering, where a school charges less than the per pupil rate of state funding, whether this policy will still apply?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, as the Committee will understand, it is difficult for me to talk about examples at this time, but I take the noble Baroness’s point. I would like to hear more about the examples that she has, in particular to see what examples we can discuss in depth when we meet post Committee. It is difficult to talk about non-domestic rating examples now.
Baroness Barran (Con)
To be honest, I do not have examples, but the Bill suggests that fees might be paid by means of “other consideration”. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me about whether that has ever been used, either wholly, partly, regularly or occasionally.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on those two points; I will also pick them up when we next meet.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, please forgive me: I forgot to make a declaration of interest at the outset. I am a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, which consists of 700 schools—mainly smaller ones—that will be badly affected by this legislation and other actions of the Government in the realm of taxation.
The Committee will have listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to noble Lords. It is unlikely that the Minister’s reply will have given complete and utter satisfaction in every respect. We will return to these matters on Report. As far as my amendments are concerned, I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the reasons why the word “private” is very difficult because of its connotations. The problem with using it in legislation is considerable.
The Minister referred to the position of academies. Another way could have been found of dealing with VAT without introducing independent schools in the way that this has been done in legislation. There are many serious matters that naturally require further consideration and debate. That is why Report will be so important. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether institutions providing foundation courses would be considered private schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 57, I also speak to Amendments 58 and 68. Amendments 57 and 58 are linked and refer to the same part of the Bill. The second definition of an independent school refers to an institution that is
“wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19”,
which to me seems a definition that could be made clearer. My Amendment 57 is a probing amendment that seeks to understand whether an institution providing foundation courses required before university would be captured under this definition. It would, after all, be providing education suitable for those under the age of 19 but over compulsory schooling age. Indeed, there are further education colleges that provide such foundation courses and, if they were to be captured by this, it would be counterproductive. Of course, foundation courses tend to charge a fee but, despite that, they are not similar institutions to independent schools—or private schools, as I know the Minister would prefer us to refer to them. I would be concerned that, if they were included, it would have the potential to reduce access to universities for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this is not the case.
Amendment 58 refers specifically to the use of “wholly or mainly”, which the Minister referred to briefly in his earlier remarks. Can he clarify what this means in a numerical sense? My assumption is that it would be 50%, as it is for pupils with an education, health and care plan—the Minister is nodding encouragingly—but I would like to put the question to the Minister to confirm the criteria that the Government are planning to use. If it is different, what will it be and who would make that judgment? I wonder whether the Minister could give a couple of examples of institutions that might fall either side of the “mainly” line. If there are no examples to give today, perhaps he could write to me.
Amendment 68 seeks to protect private schools with a nursery attached from this change to the legislation. Early years providers are not included in the general definition of a private school, as the noble Lord just said in his remarks on the earlier group, but there exist a substantial number of nurseries attached to existing private schools. I hope that the Minister can see that it feels very illogical to exempt stand-alone independent nurseries from this tax but not those that are part of a wider school. Our amendment suggests exempting schools that have an in-house nursery altogether but, at a minimum, perhaps the Government would consider exempting that part of their property that relates to nursery provision. Have the Government considered this and, if not, will the Minister undertake to do so before the Bill returns on Report? Although the amount raised is small, this opens the door to the concept of taxing early years education specifically, which is a very concerning precedent to set, especially when it is a sector already suffering the potential costs of the employers’ national insurance increase. It feels counterproductive to do this at a time when the Government are clear in their commitment to encouraging early years education and giving children the best start in life. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, there are some very important and interesting issues in this group of amendments. The first is about the provision of foundation courses to enable young people to move into further education or training. It is important that the Minister has an answer to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that will put us at ease that they will not be penalised in this way. Often, young people who do foundation courses do so because they missed out earlier in their school careers, for many reasons that might be associated with their family or their own health issues. I do not think the Government would want to penalise those young people by putting at jeopardy those courses available to them.
The next issue, about nurseries, is interesting because different parts of a premises can be assessed separately by the non-domestic/business rate regime. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that even in an Amazon building, the facilities for the employees will be rated at a separate value from the rest of the building. For instance, I have been looking—surprisingly—at the implications for large hospitals, which were raised in the debate on Monday. Different parts of the premises will be rated in different ways. If there is a clinic, that is one thing; the main hospital is another; the café is another; a shop is another. It is possible to assess rateable values, for business rate purposes, in the same premises in different ways, so it is possible to assess nursery sections of a private school separately from the rest of the school. Therefore, it is possible to exclude these from the proposals in Clause 5. I look forward to the Minister being able to confirm that that is the case and that nurseries can be readily and easily excluded from business rate applications, even if the Government insist on removing the charitable status from the rest of the premises.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 68 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern early years provision and private further education institutions. The definition of a private school in the Bill includes institutions that wholly or mainly provide education suitable to persons over compulsory school age but under 19, where such full-time education is wholly or mainly provided for a fee or consideration. This brings private sixth forms into the scope of the Bill measure but excludes general FE colleges. The Bill also includes a specific carve-out for independent training and learning providers. Due to the mechanisms whereby the Government provide funding to these institutions, it was necessary to provide a carve-out in the legislation to ensure that these institutions did not inadvertently come into the scope of the measure.
The Government’s view is that all schools that offer full-time education to children of compulsory school age and/or to 16 to 19 year-olds for a charge should be within scope of the Bill measure. This is to ensure consistency and fairness in the Government’s treatment of private schools. The Bill measure includes stand-alone private sixth forms as well as those private sixth forms that operate as part of private schools that also cater for children of compulsory school age. Amendment 57 would remove entirely this part of the private school definition, the resulting impact of which would be that all private sixth forms would be out of scope and therefore retain charitable rate relief.
The noble Baroness indicated that through this amendment she is seeking to understand whether institutions providing foundation courses would be considered private schools. Foundation courses are a level 5 qualification and as such are classed as higher education. Foundation courses are in the main provided by higher education institutions such as universities. Institutions that are focused on the delivery of higher education are not within the scope of the Bill, and where they are charities they will continue to receive charitable relief. However, any private sixth forms that provide a few higher education courses, such as foundation courses, will still lose their relief if they are wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old. Given that business rates are a tax on property, the Government believe that this is a sensible line to draw for when the relief is removed.
Amendment 58 would amend the Bill definition of a private school. It would remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement in relation to the concern with providing full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old for a fee or consideration in such institutions. In business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means over 50%. Therefore, under the Bill definition, institutions that are more than 50% concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, and where more than 50% of such full-time education is provided for a fee or consideration, will be within scope of the measure and will no longer qualify for charitable relief.
The inclusion of the “wholly or mainly” test in the further education definition has been drafted in recognition that there may be some state-funded institutions where a small minority of pupils pay a fee for the courses they attend. The Government understand that these circumstances are rare but may include international students undertaking further education courses where they do not qualify for a state-funded place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for examples of institutions that may be around 50%. Regarding these schools, which mainly provide education suitable for those over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, it will be for local authorities to implement this test. I do not think it would be right for us to say whether a particular school passes that test, but we do not expect many of them to be at the margins.
Without including “wholly or mainly” in respect of new sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i), the Bill could inadvertently capture state-funded colleges of further education, which is not the intention of the Government’s policy. Similarly, it could risk capturing fee-paying institutions that predominantly provide higher education courses if one pupil who meets the broader further education definition is present. As set out, it is not the Government’s intention to capture higher education institutions within the Bill’s definition.
I should explain that the impact of this amendment would mean that the presence of one fee-paying pupil within the age bracket as per the current definition may result in the institution being brought into scope of the Bill, resulting in it losing charitable relief. In contradiction to Amendment 57, Amendment 58 would mean that more institutions would be in scope of the Bill and so would lose their rates relief. But I understand the purpose of the amendment, which is to understand better the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly”, and I hope I have been able to clarify that for noble Lords.
Amendment 68 seeks to carve out from the Bill private schools that also provide early years provision. For clarity, private nurseries that are on their own hereditament are not within scope of the Bill definition, and where they are charities they will retain charitable relief. The Government have decided that where private schools that provide for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.
It is for individual private schools to decide how they wish to meet additional costs as a result of the business rates measure. The allocation of costs in private schools that also provide early years provision on the same hereditament is a matter for those private schools. It is worth mentioning that government early education and childcare entitlements can be used for childcare in any approved childcare provider; this includes private school nurseries, although the numbers undertaking early years entitlement in private school nurseries are relatively small. Similarly, private school nurseries are also eligible to receive tax-free childcare funding as long as they are registered with Ofsted or an equivalent regulatory body.
Accepting these amendments would remove many private schools from the Bill’s measure. This would reduce the amount of revenue that could be raised and, consequently, may reduce the funding available to the Government to deliver on their commitments to young people and the state-funded education sector, where over 90% of pupils in England are educated. The outcome of the tax changes on private schools will have a significant impact on the Exchequer, enabling the Government to fulfil their commitments on investing in state education and young people. Together with the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, these policies are expected to raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
I hope that this provides further clarification on the drafting of the definition, as well as on the Government’s position regarding the inclusion of private further education and private schools that also cater for nursery-age children alongside compulsory school-age children. For the reasons set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for his remarks and for addressing the points I made in relation to each of these amendments, in particular Amendment 58. I heard the Minister say that relatively few schools or private providers will be at the margins of “wholly or mainly”. I thank him for the example of the international students who might be fee-paying.
On Amendment 68, I understand the Minister’s push-back in relation to exempting a whole school—I hope I addressed that in my opening remarks—but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her explanation of how local authorities can separate out different parts within a hereditament. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the department that this measure just feels really illogical. It will not be a significant amount of money that is raised by withdrawing the relief where an independent nursery is part of a school but not withdrawing it where an independent nursery is not part of a school, particularly in the light of the noble Baroness’s expert insights into how that could be achieved.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand how many students will be required to have an EHC plan in an institution to be exempt from private school status.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 60, I will speak also to Amendment 61. These amendments seek to probe the Government’s willingness to extend the definition for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and to test the appropriateness of the 50% threshold.
Amendment 60 probes the use of the “wholly or mainly” criterion and seeks to question why the Government have chosen a 50% threshold. It appears to be a rather arbitrary number, and although in our meeting before Committee, for which I am very grateful to the Minister, he indicated there were no schools close to being just either side of that threshold, we still have concerns. I would be grateful if he could confirm again at the Dispatch Box that the Government believe there are no schools in that bracket of being close to the 50% threshold. It would obviously be helpful if the Government could publish the data that supports that. If I have misunderstood in any way, perhaps the Minister could clarify.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are important, focusing on children with special educational needs and disabilities. SEND provision is in crisis across the country, whichever sector of school children attend. The reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has raised, is the huge delay in assessing children who may need an education, care and health plan, often because of the lack of educational psychologists. There are often very long delays getting what used to be called a statement of need but is now just an EHCP.
The consequences for schools in this sector is that they qualify only if their children have ECHPs, and because ECHPs are so difficult to access, many parents send their children to private school in desperation because their children’s needs are not being adequately met in the state sector. There is no criticism attached to that because there is huge pressure on the state sector. If you have a child with special needs then, if you are able, you look to where those needs are best met.
In the days before children with dyslexia were recognised, parents often took children with severe dyslexia out of the state sector and into one of the several independent schools set up around the country that had the expertise to help those children. I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments because we want all children to have their needs met, but schools helping young people with particular needs are in danger of having their relief removed because of the threshold in the Bill.
There is little recognition that children have special needs even without an EHCP, simply because of the huge backlog. The backlog exists because there is also a funding crisis within SEND. On all those issues, the Government really should think again, particularly on Amendment 61. I hope that the Minister will have some positive words in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are concerned with the carve-out within the Bill’s measures for private schools that wholly or mainly provide education to pupils with education, health and care plans. Amendment 60 seeks to remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement, the effect of which would be to carve out from the Bill’s measures private schools that provide full-time education to any number of persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained.
I understand from the accompanying explanatory statement that this amendment seeks to understand the definition of “wholly or mainly”. As I have said elsewhere on a previous group on business rates, wholly or mainly generally means more than 50%. In practice, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the measure. We expect any private special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; they will potentially be in single figures. Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they pay no rates.
I am aware that some concerns have been raised—the noble Baroness has raised them in clear and categoric terms—in relation to the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under or over the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. Therefore, we do not expect there to be many mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold.
To add to that point, if there are any marginal cases, the test in law is whether the institution is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to ECHP pupils. While it will be for the local authority to decide, this wording should avoid the need for schools at the margin to jump in and out of entitlement for charitable relief following small movements in pupils.
The majority of private special school places are funded by local authorities. The 2024 school census shows that in more than 80% of the sector more than nine in 10 pupils have an EHCP plan that stipulates that the place is funded by the local authority.
Amendment 61 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if that fee-paying school wholly or mainly catered to pupils who have special educational needs as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, and regardless of whether or not those pupils also have an EHCP. The Government are aware of the concerns raised with respect to pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief, because the school is not wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. The Government have carefully considered their approach to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.
The Bill provides that schools that are charities and wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rates relief. The Government recognise that where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charity relief. Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector cater for pupils with special educational needs. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met within mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched upon the issue of the wider problem in terms of delay, which I will address. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plans and the respective applications in time for the start of the next school year, so that parents can make an informed decision as to which school they send their child to. In special cases, the local authority is able to pre-pay one term’s fees if the education, health and care plan is not complete but the outcome is foreseeable. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to be granted an EHC plan in the future.
The Government are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish. Private schools can provide choice, high-quality education, economic benefit and public benefit through partnerships and means-tested bursaries, but most parents cannot choose private schools. We need to improve provision for the 93% of pupils at state schools, and that is rightly our focus. The Government are also committed to reforming England’s SEN provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. The Government will provide an uplift of around £1 billion in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.
Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector, as I said before, cater for pupils with special educational needs. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the way that this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state-funded schools. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs—with or without an EHCP—have their needs met in the state-funded sector. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited.
It is for the reasons cited that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments, but I hope that, with this further information, I have provided satisfactory explanation as to the Government’s approach and reassurance that the approach adopted ensures that the impact on those children with the most acute needs is minimised. I request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for the vivid picture that she painted in her remarks of the desperation of some parents whose children are struggling in a state-funded school, and who make huge sacrifices to send their child to an independent school. I also thank the Minister for his clarification, as I have understood it, in relation to my Amendment 60. I think he is saying that independent special schools are exempt in this legislation but mainstream ones will not be, because they are extremely unlikely to be anywhere near the 50% threshold in terms of EHCPs.
Baroness Barran
“(5A) An institution is not to be considered a private school for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) if it is wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education where at least 7% of gross income is spent on means-tested fee assistance.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exempt schools where they offer bursaries or other means-tested assistance to pupils that amounts to more than 7 per cent of their gross income.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 63, I will speak to all of the other amendments in this group. Amendment 63 would exempt schools that provide bursaries that amount to more than 7% of a school’s income. This is a small cost, but comes at a time when private schools are already facing higher costs from the Government’s decision to impose VAT on them. I am concerned that schools will not have room in their budgets to continue providing the same level of means-tested fee assistance. I hope the Minister agrees that the provision of bursaries is an important factor in enabling children from less affluent homes to access independent education.
Amendment 64 would exempt schools which provide education for gifted arts students, including music and drama. These schools tend to be small independent schools, which will not be able to absorb the costs that the Government are imposing on them. Our worry is that they will be forced to close, and the culture that is so essential to our society will no longer be available in the same way. The Minister will know of the real concerns in this sector and the impact that it risks having on our creative industries, which are such an important engine of growth in this country. These are students who attend a private school based on their exceptional talent. I hope the Minister will reflect on how best to avoid narrowing opportunities for children who access this small group of schools.
Amendment 66 would exempt schools where 10% of pupils have a parent or guardian in the Armed Forces. If I have understood correctly, it seems unfair that while the children of foreign diplomats and international military personnel will be exempted from these additional costs on independent schools, specifically VAT, the same benefits are not being offered to the children of our own Armed Forces personnel. As such, it seems fair to suggest that the children of those personnel, who provide invaluable service to this country, are treated with the same level of respect.
I very much support the spirit of my noble friends Lord Black and Lord Lexden’s Amendments 69A and 69B. Clearly, the spirit of Amendment 69A aligns with my amendments in this group, and Amendment 69B highlights the invaluable work that some independent schools do in relation to children in care. I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 69A and 69B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden as well as to Amendment 64 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I refer to my earlier declaration of interests and, for this group, I add that I am the chairman of the Royal College of Music.
On music, let me start with Amendment 64, which is an extremely important amendment. It would have long-term ramifications well beyond the terms of this Bill because specialist music education for gifted students is central to the future of our creative economy, and it therefore needs to be seen in a wider context. As noble Lords will be aware, the UK’s creative industries are vital to our future. With the economy stalling, this is one sector which, for the time being, continues to grow. It employs hundreds of thousands of people, earns huge amounts in exports and provides an essential component of the UK’s soft power, something that is more important now than ever. Right at the centre of the creative economy is music, which powers the rest of the industry.
In turn, the future of music depends absolutely on first-class, specialist music education in schools, conservatoires and universities to provide a pipeline of talent into the sector. Without that education, music dies. However, music education, including that provided by specialist schools in the independent sector, is in trouble and has been for a long time. Music has been squeezed out of the curriculum. The number of pupils taking music at GCSE and A-level has plummeted. Many schools no longer have dedicated music professionals teaching the subject. Indeed, if pupils have access to a dedicated music professional today, it is likely to be because of a partnership with an independent school. From primary schools right the way through to the end of full-time education, music is under threat as never before.
We see the results of that every day, most recently with the appalling decision of Cardiff University to close its school of music, the largest in Wales, something that the world-renowned composer Sir Karl Jenkins has put down to the decline of specialist music education in schools. The closure of the school follows hard on the heels of the closure of the junior department of the Royal Welsh conservatoire, which has enormous repercussions for music in Wales and beyond. At such a time of crisis for music education, which I have to say has not improved in any way since the general election, despite so many promises before it, the last thing we need is for independent specialist music schools, those providing education for gifted students under the music and dance scheme, as well as the leading choir schools to be threatened. It is crucial that they continue to provide music, dance and drama teaching to the most gifted students if we are to protect the pipeline of talent into the music industry.
The future of these schools and their continuing ability to provide world-class teaching will be much more secure if they are protected from full business rates. This is not a niche subject or special interest pleading; it is fundamental to the artistic future of our country and the success of the creative economy. Does the Minister acknowledge the vital importance of the pipeline of musical and dramatic talent into our creative industries? If he does, will he explain why the Government are putting it in jeopardy in this way?
Amendments 69A and 69B deal with boarding schools. Boarding schools play a vital role in our education system, with around 65,000 boarding pupils educated in the independent sector. They contribute just over £3 billion each year to our economy, generating £900 million in revenue for the Exchequer and supporting more than 64,000 jobs. Like the rest of the sector, they are a vital instrument of soft power and one of our strongest exports. Like the rest of the independent sector, they are already under significant strain as a result of not just VAT but the damaging increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. For many, especially the smaller schools, the end of business rates relief will be a huge added burden. Already the signs of the impact are clear: the Government’s figures show that visa applications to study at UK independent schools fell by 23% in the first two quarters of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023. That is a significant straw in the wind.
Recently, one agent told the Boarding Schools Association:
“This tax penalty is making our clients think twice and wonder if the UK is still the holy grail of academia”.
Another commented:
“The reputation of British boarding is already damaged and while it was the destination 10 years ago, it is now one of many”.
With international numbers down and likely to fall further, now is not the time to be adding to the increasingly intolerable burden on so many boarding schools with the withdrawal of business rates relief.
Boarding schools play a crucial role in a number of areas, including the provision of places for military personnel serving our country at home and abroad, as my noble friend said, and for vulnerable pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. My two amendments seek to recognise their importance and, in certain circumstances, exempt them from the withdrawal of relief.
Amendment 69A would discount boarding facilities from a school’s business rates bill if 10% of boarders are on a government continuity of education allowance, or CEA. This reflects the importance of boarding provision for the children of those who serve our country and often risk their lives for it. In the last academic year, 4,000 pupils were supported by CEA for 2,666 service personnel and their families. By easing the commercial pressures on them, this exemption would give a measure of continued support and protection to schools providing places for CEA pupils and reflect the inherent public benefit in ensuring that service families have confidence that they can provide a stable school life for their children.
In the same vein, Amendment 69B would discount boarding facilities from a school’s business rates bill if that school is supporting looked-after pupils supported either directly by local authorities or by charities. It recognises the hugely important role of boarding schools in educating some of the most vulnerable children and the significant pastoral support that they provide. One of the best known charities supporting this work is the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation. The RNCSF widens access to the opportunities available for young people facing the greatest barriers to their development. Along with local authority and community organisation partners, it works with boarding and independent schools to help them target their fully funded school places on the young people who need them most and help them access them effectively. To date, it has supported more than 1,000 pupils, 98% of whom get two or more A-levels, compared to 16% of disadvantaged children.
Brentwood is one school the RNCSF works with, taking students into boarding places, hosting regional interview days and supporting its excellent campaign to help children in care who are applying to university with their UCAS applications. This is clear public benefit work, supporting not only society’s priorities for vulnerable children but assisting our stretched local authorities support children in their care to achieve their full potential. This is, rightly, an intensive and involved process for any school to engage in to ensure that pupils have the right level of support and guidance around them at school. If anything properly fits the definition of a charitable activity clearly in the public interest, it is this. My question to the Minister is: why on earth do the Government judge that the facilities that care for and support these young people are unworthy of charitable relief?
These are all focused amendments which do not in any way challenge the central tenets of the legislation but recognise the special importance and public policy significance of crucial aspects of independent education. They seek to protect those schools educating gifted students whose careers will power the creative economy, children of military families who serve our country and those who are vulnerable because of special needs. I hope the Minister will accept them. Not to do so would, frankly, be callous and short sighted.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will add briefly to the powerful comments that my noble friend Lord Black just made on Amendments 69A and 69B, to which I have added my name, in order to pay tribute to the achievements of our country’s excellent boarding schools, which have been transformed so greatly for the better during my lifetime, and to support the measures proposed in these two amendments, which would exempt them from business rates on aspects of their work that are of great public benefit.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 66, 64 and 69B. Children in Armed Forces families have a very difficult time. My noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal’s husband was in the Royal Air Force for 30 years, I believe, and in that time they moved 24 times. By the time their children were nine, they were in their seventh school. That is why so many military families choose to find a boarding school as an option for their children, so that they can have continuity and consistency of education.
I cannot remember how many times I had to move during my school life; it was not seven by the time I was nine, but about five times. Each time you move, it is difficult to get into the system of a new school, make new friends and all the rest of it. There is a very strong argument for children of families in the military to have the exclusion argued for in Amendment 66. At a time when as a country we are thinking more about defence and security and, I guess, trying to encourage more young people to become part of the military in many different ways, they will think about what will happen to their families as they move so constantly. I urge the Minister to give special consideration to Amendment 66.
On Amendment 64, the noble Lord said that musical education has been neglected and allowed to decline. That is absolutely true, and we ought to give a bit of thought to how it has been allowed to decline and when. It is a cause of huge concern to me. I have a daughter who went from a state school to the Royal Academy, so I understand a bit about the importance of musical education. I urge the Government to give more attention to musical education in our state schools. What is particularly discouraging is the decline in opportunities for young people in state schools to learn a musical instrument. In the town where I live, they have declined considerably. In my view that is a tragedy, for the reasons that have been given.
Finally, on Amendment 69B, looked-after children ought to have a special place in our concerns. If there is a charity that I have not heard of that offers some young children who are looked after the opportunity for getting away from the place that has caused a lot of difficulty and trauma in their lives, I hope the Government will look at it sympathetically. I do not know enough about that—although I know quite a bit about children looked after within a local authority setting. But if there is a special opportunity for children who need to escape their surroundings to do so in this way, it ought to be given sympathetic consideration by the Government. I look forward to the Minister giving a good response to these pleas.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I have not added my name to these amendments, but I feel strongly about them. This vital group, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, is directly focused on those in need. I want to consider for a minute this group from a different point of view—the point of view, if you like, of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave the example of five schools by the age of seven—or seven by the age of five, I do not remember. I was one of those children. My parents were civil servants serving abroad, and they chose to keep me at home well into my teens, whereas most in similar positions were sent back to the UK to attend an independent school and be given the continuity of education that is required at home, wherever home may be.
The price I paid was 13 schools through the course of my education. Most of those were attempts to cram or correct for the next stage, because I was always turning up half way through a term, starting on a Wednesday in a class of 25 people—having never seen any of them before—after coming 3,000 miles. Then I was off again two years later, and there was a different syllabus—and a different language in one case. I ended up here in the UK knowing a great deal about Captain Cook, the South Pacific and the Māori but absolutely nothing about English history or any of the other normal curriculum subjects.
I spent my last few years at school on the back foot in a special independent school, trying to catch up. Had I not had that opportunity, I certainly would not be proud or competent enough to stand here today and address your Lordships. It taught me some self-confidence in the absence of any sort of academic success. University was out of the question. I give this example simply because it is terribly important that those serving abroad, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, are given the opportunity to give their children an equal start.
I am very pleased that I had the alternative, because my parents wanted to keep us at home, wherever home was. It did not really do me any harm at the end of the day, but I got no GCSEs, O-levels or A-levels, other than the odd one—usually called something like technical drawing or one of these back-door opportunities. I mention this simply to drive home, perhaps, the importance of what is being discussed, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Let us not destroy the opportunity for those young people.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that very eloquent contribution about the noble Lord’s personal journey. I will talk first to Amendments 63, 64 and 66, which seek to provide carve-outs from the Bill measure: in the case of Amendment 63, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 7% of gross income is spent on means-tested fee assistance; in the case of Amendment 64, for all private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education for gifted arts students, such as those attending specialist music and dance schools or performing arts colleges; and, in the case of Amendment 66, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 10% of students have at least one parent or guardian serving in the military.
The contributions that we have heard today reflect concerns about how the Bill may affect pupils from lower-income backgrounds, including those from military families, or those who are gifted arts pupils. Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. What is more, we do not think that Parliament should be putting in place incentives for charities to act in the public’s benefit in the way that Amendment 63 might encourage. Acting in the public benefit is something that a charity should inherently wish to do. Charitable private schools will continue to operate as charities and this Bill does not make any tax changes affecting their charitable status. For example, they will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus, as for-profit schools are taxed on their profits.
In designing the policy, the Government listened very carefully to representations and reached the view that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools wholly or mainly concerned with full-time education for pupils with EHCPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. This approach was adopted because to carve out some private schools and not others would be unfair. However, the Government listened carefully to concerns raised and, in relation to pupils from military families or those attending specialist arts schools, the Government have taken appropriate steps in relation to two government schemes.
I will elaborate further. The Government offer a means-tested bursary scheme for pupils who attend any one of eight specialist performing arts private schools. The music and dance scheme provides means-tested bursaries and grants totalling around £32 million per year to enable children and young people with exceptional potential to benefit from specialist music or dance training. It is available to qualifying families if their child has a place at any one of the aforementioned eight private schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for his remarks, although some of the points raised, particularly by my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lexden, perhaps deserve more consideration by the Government. I will come back to those in a moment.
In relation to my Amendment 63 regarding bursaries, I think that I am right in saying that the provision of education is a public benefit in its own right, not the provision of bursaries. The noble Lord may be trying to dial up the public benefit, but education sits firmly within that definition.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood was extremely eloquent in relation to my Amendment 64. I thank him for the examples that he gave of the impact of pressure on these specialist schools more widely, for the economy and for our higher education sector, as in the example of Cardiff University. As he said, these are not niche issues but absolutely central to our thriving creative industries. The Government rightly talk about growth as their primary objective but if their actions will limit growth rather than promote it, that is cause for really serious concern.
The noble Lord talked about adjustments for the music and dance scheme, but he will obviously be aware that the sector is extremely worried about what will happen after 2025-26. There is an adjustment for the current year but no visibility beyond that. Similarly, in relation to Amendment 66 and the recalculated rates for those eligible for the continuity education allowance, the same question mark remains over the longer term.
If there is one thing in this group that the Minister should reflect on very hard, it is Amendment 69B regarding children in local authority care who attend our independent schools. I join my noble friends in absolutely lauding the work of the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation.
In closing, to quote my noble friends again, whichever way the Government want to look at it, we either have clear public benefit from all the work that is reflected in the amendments in this group or we have drivers of growth, whether through international students—where, as we have heard, numbers are now at risk of falling sharply—or through providing a kind of fuel for our creative industries. Whichever perspective one looks from, threatening these schools is an unwise strategy and I hope very much that the Minister will reflect on these remarks. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(5A) An institution is not to be considered a private school for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) if it has a religious character or other special character and there is no maintained school or academy of the same character within the specified distance from the school.(5B) In this paragraph— “religious character” has the meaning given under section 69 (duty to secure provision of religious education) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;“other special character” has the meaning as defined by the Secretary of State by regulation;“specified distance” is the distance specified under section 444(5) (offence: failure to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil) of the Education Act 1996.(5C) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.(5D) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exempt schools that are faith schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 65 is a probing amendment to understand the Government’s thinking in relation to faith schools. As we have heard on numerous occasions in Committee, our concerns about the financial viability of the sector relate to the combination of VAT, the potential increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and now business rates. This combination is potentially most acute for faith schools, for three main reasons.
First, as the noble Lord knows, they often charge lower fees than other independent schools and have less financial resilience. This is particularly true for some Muslim and Jewish schools. Secondly, for parents where choosing a faith school is really important, there will often be no state-funded alternative at all locally, in the case of smaller faiths, or, for the larger faiths, provision with spaces available for these children at short notice.
Finally, if this is the case, we are concerned that this could contribute to an increase in children who are educated at home, which is something I know the Government plan to contain through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Our concern is that the combination of pressures on these schools will cause them to close with the unintended consequences that I have outlined. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what assessment the Government have made of each of these three risks, and how they plan to mitigate them. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 65 would mean that a private school with a religious or other special character maintained its eligibility for charitable relief where there is no maintained or academy school of the same religious character or other special character within the statutory walking distance as set out in the Education Act 1996. It would create an additional delegated power within the Bill whereby the Government, by secondary legislation, would be able to define what is meant by a special character. While the amendment does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from the contributions made in the other place, as well as from the noble Baroness’s contribution, that this could be used to carve out schools that follow a particular method of education or provide specialist tuition.
Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove the VAT and business rates tax breaks for all private schools. As we have said, removal of the business rates charitable relief is necessary in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state schools. The Government have carefully considered their approach and have decided that private schools that are charities will be carved out from the Bill measure only where they wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs.
It would be inconsistent and unfair to exempt any other types of private schools from this Bill measure. However, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith, ethos or other characteristic, such as following a particular education method. Pupils who follow a particular faith, education method or other characteristic can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs. The Government are not considering further exemptions to this policy, and therefore there is no need, as the amendment attempts, to give the Secretary of State the power to establish and define new designations of schools’ character in order to then exempt them from this measure. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister says again that this undermines the Government’s intention, but then in the next breath says that the Government value parental choice. It is one thing to say that a child can be accommodated in a state school—the Minister knows that there are certain parts of the country where even that is not necessarily a given, where state school spaces are very limited indeed and therefore one is putting pressure on parents and children to travel further than is ideal—but there is not the ability to place a child in a school with a specific faith designation, particularly for smaller faiths, in the way that he suggests. I do not think one can say that one values parental choice and then not offer parents something that they have strived to offer to their children.
Again, as in relation to my earlier amendment, these are schools, as I said in my opening remarks, where the fees, particularly in the Muslim and Jewish communities, are often two-thirds or half of a state-funded place. We are very concerned that this will result in children being educated at home, which carries with it certainly limitations in terms of socialisation for those children, at best, and, at worst, potentially wider risks to those children.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am conscious that the noble Baroness made a strong point; it has just come to my knowledge that I did not address it in my response. We estimate the overall impact to be that business rates changes will lead to around 3,100 fewer places in the private sector. Of those 3,100 pupils, the Government expect 2,900 to move to state-funded schools. The remaining 200 pupils will be international students returning to schools in their home nations, or domestic students moving into home-schooling.
The noble Baroness talked about home-schooling and mentioned the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Government will introduce a duty on parents to inform their local authority when they choose to home-educate their child. Measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that the most vulnerable children do not slip under the radar of the professionals who are there to protect them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene to say that the overall impact of this transition for private schools is on around 3,100 pupils.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that additional clarification, but the reality is that it is one thing if those 3,100 pupils are spread across the country, but quite another if they are in a handful of local authorities that are already full. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moynihan
“(5A) An institution is not to be considered a private school for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) if 10% of students are in receipt of bursaries or scholarships for sporting excellence.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 67 I will also speak to Amendment 69 in my name. Both highlight the importance to this country of the contribution made by the sports facilities of independent schools and the expertise of their coaches, support staff, groundsmen and groundswomen in the independent sector. Both amendments seek to find ways of protecting and promoting opportunities for young people in sport. Both reflect the deeply damaging effect that the combination of the imposition of VAT and rates, and the increase in national insurance contributions, will have on the future success of British sport at all levels.
I declare my interests in sport, which are set out in the register. I will today draw on my time as a former Minister for Sport, chair of the British Olympic Association during London 2012 and, more recently, my three years as chair of governors at Haberdashers’ Monmouth School and now as sports ambassador for that school, which is in support of the outstanding leadership work undertaken by the great Welsh rugby international, Richie Rees, director of the Haberdashers’ Monmouth School sports academy, who pilots the school’s successful sports programme.
In speaking to these amendments, I contend that the Government should encourage state school sport wherever possible and do everything they can to encourage the independent sector to promote opportunities for sport in its schools, and, most importantly, for school sport with the local clubs and communities that use their facilities. The strength that these programmes generate at the base of the pyramid is what, at its apex, delivers our world-class, leading sportsmen and sportswomen. I appreciate that in doing so, I need to justify the importance of sport in schools. That is not difficult. We live in a time of growing obesity. School sport promotes physical health improvements, develops social skills, encourages teamwork and is central to learning how to win and how to manage losing. Sport boosts self-esteem and confidence; it teaches discipline and resilience; it is a major mitigating factor against absenteeism in schools; it promotes optimism, generates pride and positively impacts on academic performance by enhancing focus and concentration.
The phrase “Mens sana in corpore sano” is as relevant today as it was when Juvenal wrote it. Our young people should be encouraged to be not only physically fit and well but mentally sound and balanced, and sport provides the framework for a healthy mind in a healthy body. It teaches resilience, yet the state sector in this country lags close to the bottom of the global league for engagement in sport, adequately trained PE teachers and sports facilities, many of which have aged beyond their life expectancy. This is not a party- political point; a steady decline applies to all Governments over the past 20 years. Local authorities have consistently fallen behind in the provision of, for example, swimming pools, sports facilities and open spaces. Sports is a discretionary line item spend in local authorities and, inevitably, has taken the first hit in budget savings.
I emphasise to the Committee that the independent sector needs government support, not state-imposed business rates as in Clause 5. I draw the Committee’s attention to the contribution that independent schools make to sport. At the Olympic Games in Paris in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Tokyo in 2021, 40% of Team GB’s medallists attended independent schools. In Rio in 2016, it was 31% and, in London in 2012, 36%. Yet only 7% of our children go to independent schools, so top Olympians are over four times more likely to have been privately educated than the UK population overall. For me—and, I am sure, for the Minister—the tragedy behind those figures is the reality that there are so many talented young people in our state schools who are capable of representing this country at national and international level, but whose talent in never recognised nor developed, who have no access to sports facilities and good coaching and who miss the opportunities that every country from New Zealand to Poland, from France to Germany and from China to the US provides.
As my friend the Minister—he is a friend in sport—knows, in Burnley, the provision of and opportunities for sports takes young kids off the escalator to crime. It is relevant to the work of every department of state, from prison management to foreign policy, from health to education. Yet a majority of state pupils aged 14 to 16 —over 50%—are now doing only an hour of sport a week in school. The figure is worse still if you take into account the time it takes for many pupils to reach the lesson and get changed. A third of our children cannot swim. British school sport is in crisis.
Sadly, this is not a growth section of the Bill, but another example of where we drive yet another nail into the delivery of sport in independent schools. The reason that is so important is that independent schools have, rightly, had to make sure that their facilities are open to local communities and that the local population can come to use those facilities in their catchment areas. For all the independent schools now faced with the costs of VAT and rates, they will have to cut costs and reduce sports bursaries and scholarships to meet the savings demanded by government.
This will negatively impact on the delivery of sport in the UK. It will have a major impact on our sporting success, not just in terms of medals and national representation, but in the development of sports coaches, pupils and support staff who move out into the community—into the fields of participation—and on the development of excellence in a sector that has seen a steady decline in participation and growing obesity in society. To level the playing field more resources must be invested, both in state schools and though support for the work that independent schools do with communities. The solution is not to jeopardise the success of our young, up-and-coming students who benefit from sport and facilities in the independent sector.
We must reflect on the fact that many children are failing to meet the UK Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines for sport and physical activity. It is recommended that children participate in an average of 60 minutes of sport and activity every day, either in school or outside, but 50% of them are missing the target, while 29.6% are not even averaging 30 minutes of activity per day. The total hours of PE taught in English state schools annually has dropped by 41,000 hours since the 2012 Olympics—a decrease of 12%. There has been a 7% reduction in PE teachers in England in the same period.
This Bill will, I contend, worsen the situation since support for sport bursaries, free access for local communities to many independent schools’ sports facilities and the dual use of such facilities will have to be cut in order to balance the books after the imposition of Clause 5 and VAT on school fees. This will impact all independent schools.
Let me give the Minister the well-known example of Millfield School, which delivered 13 out of the 14 Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB through its means-tested financial support mechanism. The school funded 13 out of 14 of the Millfield-educated and trained British athletes on Team GB for the Paris Olympic Games who brought home between them seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal: four gold, three silver and one bronze. All received means-tested financial support from the school during their time at Millfield, but how can that continue? Where will the money come from when the Government themselves predict a significant fall in children going to independent schools and urge those independent schools to make major cuts to their budgets?
It would be fine if, when we looked at the country as a whole, the Government could stand up and say, “Don’t worry, the state sector is doing fantastically well in the provision of school sport”. Sadly, the reality is that that is not the case. As I say, this is not a party-political point. It is a tragedy that more than half of children aged between 16 and 18 are now estimated to be doing no school sport. Swimming is in crisis. Last year, Sport England found that 30% of children cannot swim 25 metres unaided when they leave primary school, a 7% increase on 2017-18. More than 400 public swimming pools have closed since 2010. One-third of primary schools now deliver 10 or fewer swimming lessons to pupils before they leave. The many children who have accessed independent school facilities, at the cost of those independent schools, will now find that those independent schools have to make significant savings. I agree with Sir Keir Starmer, who bemoaned that children were being locked out of emulating their heroes last year due to the lack of PE provision. The dual use of independent schools’ sports facilities is critical to addressing that issue but it is under threat, which will make matters worse.
People who are not physically active as children are, in turn, far less likely to be active in later life. The crisis in school sport is contributing to the long-term obesity epidemic. By the age of 11, 22% of children are already obese, which increases to 26% among adults. This measure, coupled with VAT on school fees, will make the outcome worse. Inactive children become inactive adults, who then become inactive parents. We need to reset children’s lifestyles if we want to change the nation’s health. If we did that, we would save far more than the VAT, rates and national insurance contributions proposed by the Government. This is not a problem that has emerged over the past six months; I fully recognise that. The London Olympic Games saw an unprecedented urban regeneration legacy in the East End of London and a great Paralympic Games, but it saw little to no sports legacy, which I have consistently argued for both inside and outside the House.
These two amendments seek to stem the tide of dual use in independent schools and to move away from that tide going out by increasingly looking to a solution that ensures that we can protect and support school sport in independent schools, especially where it reaches out to local communities, local clubs and state schools, which come in to use those facilities. The Government are telling all independent schools to cut costs, make savings, and put up fees to balance their books. Would the Minister be prepared either to sit down and think through finding a way of supporting British sporting success by accepting one of these amendments or to take them away to see what can be done to support British success in sport in independent schools and, through dual use, in communities that desperately need to rely on such schools for the use of their facilities in future and that reach out, as many independent schools have had to do, to the benefit of young children in the community who simply do not have access to sports facilities except in independent schools?
Dual use has been a magnificent development in independent schools over the past 10 to 20 years. It is now firmly embedded, but it is under threat because it is so costly for schools to continue to have that dual use, free in many cases. I was recently at Tonbridge School and noticed that it has a new running track put down every four years. The reason it is every four years is because it has double the number of people using it because the local community come to use it. Now, it says it may have to make savings by resetting it every eight years and reducing the number of people who use it.
If we took one of these amendments or worked hard together to resolve examples like this, it would be to the benefit of sport in this country, in the independent sector and, just as importantly, in the state sector as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I have very little to say in response to the strong plea from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to improve sporting facilities and physical education for all our children in all our schools. The case he makes is undeniable, but if we wish to fulfil the aims of the strong case that has been made, it points to improving facilities and access in every school.
The town of Dewsbury, where I live, will no longer have a swimming pool. It is one of the most deprived towns in the country. That would be where my focus lies. I accept the case made where there is a private school that has strong a sporting history and excellent facilities, but in the area in which I live, there is none. I totally agree with the noble Lord, but the answer is more focus from the Department for Education on increasing sporting facilities for all our children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it will not surprise the Minister to know that I agree entirely with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan to ensure fairness and clarity in the treatment of private schools in relation to means-tested fee assistance and business rates. My noble friend was so eloquent and knowledgeable about the benefits of sport to all children. I am sure all across the Committee agree that he gave brilliant examples of both the physical and the mental health benefits. As someone who avoided sport at all costs in school and came to it later in life, I agreed with him and felt slightly guilty as I listened.
By preventing these schools being classified as private schools, the amendment highlights the value of their contribution and safeguards them from financial disadvantage. As my noble friend put so clearly, it would allow them to make sure that the sporting opportunities they offer can continue to grow, since they are so vital for our communities.
Amendment 69 addresses the valuation of sports facilities in relation to non-domestic rates and would ensure that the inclusion of sports facilities, which play such a crucial role in the development of young people, does not unfairly increase the business rates burden on schools. I am worried that the Minister will say that this amendment goes against the spirit of the legislation, so I am going to try a different approach to convince him both that this may amendment be one to focus on and to accept my noble friend’s suggestion to meet in order to try to find a way through.
First, as my noble friend said very clearly, whether we are talking about grass-roots local sport for someone as untalented and unable to hit a ball as I was or sport at the highest possible level, these schools provide opportunities in a way that we do not see widely in our communities. Secondly, my noble friend was clear about the importance of dual use for both local pupils in the wider community who do not attend the school and those who do attend the school.
The last thing I would stress is that the Minister has spoken on several occasions about the importance of raising money to invest in our state schools and the 93% of children who attend them. However, if we sat down to do the maths and tried to work out what it would cost to bring our state schools up to anywhere near the standard of what they can access in their local independent schools, I think we would find that, in capital terms, it is many times the amount that will be raised from VAT and the £70 million through this Bill.
I urge the Minister to take up my noble friend’s invitation to explore this issue and see whether we can find a way through. It is entirely reasonable to raise the bar and encourage independent schools to offer that dual use to make sure that their local communities benefit. Whether you take it from that perspective or a purely financial perspective, these amendments deserve great attention from the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will now speak to Amendments 67 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I just let him know that I have a great passion for rowing, developed at the time of Redgrave and Pinsent. Unfortunately, I was only two years old when the noble Lord won the silver medal in Munich in 1981, so I cannot classify him as my hero, but I know that he will be a hero to many across the country and the world.
These proposed amendments seek to introduce a carve-out in the Bill for private schools where 10% of students are in receipt of a bursary or scholarship for sporting excellence. I am aware that this type of fee support can be provided to any pupil who meets the requirements set by an individual private school; similarly, it can be provided on a means-tested basis. The other amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks to ensure that no part of a private school that is used primarily for sport is included in the valuation of the school for business rates.
Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way in which charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit—a requirement that accompanies charitable status. As I have stated elsewhere, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and the Government expect them to continue to demonstrate public benefit, whether that is through the provision of means-tested bursaries or through other means, such as sharing facilities or working with state sector schools.
Ending the VAT and business rates tax breaks on private schools is a tough but necessary decision to help deliver on the Government’s ambition to eliminate barriers to opportunity by concentrating on the broader picture and towards the state sector, where over 90% of children in England are educated. Barriers to opportunity also appear in the sporting world, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. The Government are committed to improving access to sports and physical activity for all. Everybody, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible provision of sports facilities and opportunities to get active.
These amendments would reduce the scope of the Bill measure by removing private schools from the definition and thus reducing the amount of revenue raised. This would limit the additional funding secured to help deliver the Government’s commitments on education and younger people. Furthermore, it would be operationally unfeasible to implement requiring local authorities to audit the financial operations of charitable private schools to ascertain whether they meet the threshold, as per the amendments, when calculating their business rates bill for the financial year.
I shall now address the other amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I understand that part of the reason for it is a recognition that some private schools share their sporting facilities with neighbouring schools or the general public. As I have said, the Government expect private schools that wish to remain charities to continue to demonstrate a public benefit, such as by making their sporting facilities available more generally. That will not change. The amendment seeks to remove sports grounds from rating valuations. Exemptions of this nature, where part or all of a hereditament is removed entirely from rating valuations, are the most general and exceptional forms of support in business rates. They are reserved for cases such as agricultural land, places of public religious worship and, as we have already heard during the passage of this Bill, certain property used for disabled persons.
Despite the clear value of shared sports facilities at private schools, I do not think that it would be right to confer upon them such a level of benefit, especially when exemptions of this nature are not available to other sports facilities or even to charities more generally. Although these facilities are being used for sports and may be shared with the community, they remain part of private schools and are clearly used for their purpose; indeed, for many private schools, such sports facilities are a vital part of their offer to parents. It would therefore hardly be consistent with the overall purpose of Clause 5 to exclude them.
This story is very personal to me because I was an aspiring cricketer and did not make it through the system. I know that that was because of a lack of facilities and support at my local clubs and my local school, so I understand entirely the premise of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to do. I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that I will take this matter away and reflect on it; I will speak to colleagues, officials and other colleagues in the Treasury.
Let me let noble Lords know that the Government are committed to improving access to sport and physical activity for everybody. Sport and physical activity are central to achieving our health and opportunity manifesto missions, with the biggest gains coming from supporting those who are inactive to move more. Everyone, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible sports provision and facilities. The Government’s arm’s-length body, Sport England, is investing £120 million between 2025 and 2029 to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give more and better opportunities to all young people to explore and develop their potential. This funding will increase and enhance opportunities for talented young athletes in England to explore and develop their athletic potential, regardless of their background or financial circumstances. Through creating more inclusive talent pathways, the Government want to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give all young people more—and better—opportunities to explore and develop their potential. Sport England also wants to drive greater diversity within national teams, which will in turn demonstrate to the next generation of young people that they could have the same potential to reach the Games.
The PE and sport premium is a ring-fenced grant for eligible primary schools and other educational establishments. In March 2023, as noble Lords will recall, the previous Government announced more than £600 million of funding for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years. Schools must use funding to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of the PE, sport and physical activity that they provide.
I just want to say that this is a vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something interesting: she was not interested in sport early on but got into it in later life. Let me be absolutely clear: I learned to swim only last year. I was taught by my daughter; my 10 year-old daughter taught me to swim. I would have loved to have swum much earlier but I did not have the opportunity, resources or means to do that, so I recognise exactly the sensitive nature of what we are trying to do. The Government are supporting this through their work and funding. In particular, I recognise that the PE and sports premium is a ring-fenced grant. We must make sure that all children are supported. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution but, for the reasons I have set out previously, at this moment in time, I am unable to accept these amendments; however, I hope to go away and reflect on what the noble Lord said. In the meantime, I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with satisfactory information in relation to the difficulties and technicalities in these amendments, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
It has been a pleasure to have an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I congratulate him on his love of and belief in cricket. I must say that one of the great heroes of Burnley, the noble Lord’s hometown, is Jimmy Anderson, and he, at his best, would have been very useful yesterday, when we were getting beaten by Afghanistan. He was no doubt inspired by Jimmy Anderson. Just for the record, the Minister very kindly mentioned the silver medal I got, but, although I may be looking old, I actually got it eight years later—not in Munich but in Moscow. It takes its toll, this place, after 20 years. I wish him well with Burnley’s promotion prospects. He is sitting alongside a very fine, assiduous Whip, who has heard quite a lot of football in the last couple of months. I wish him well but please, go easy on Leeds, because that is my club and we want to make sure that we get there first.
On a serious note, I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the importance of public benefit and charitable status and that he is seeking to continue to expect that to be delivered by independent schools. It is incredibly difficult for independent schools that now face up to 25%, if you put together the VAT, the cost of national insurance and the impact of this Bill. It would be difficult if you were to slap 25% on the costs of any business. Many parents find it exceptionally difficult to pay the fees to go to an independent school and get the benefit. It is difficult for the Government to turn around and say, “We are going to increase those fees by 25% by state diktat”, and still expect schools to do everything they are doing with the local community, at their cost. So, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will have a conversation, take this away and just see if there is something we can do, particularly where independent schools work effectively with local communities and provide opportunities for local children to use the facilities and often benefit from coaching expertise. We need to continue to support that and it is very difficult to see how we can support it at the moment, when around 25%, on average, will be lost to the balance sheet of those schools.
I look forward to meeting the Minister on that subject but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Section 5: impact assessmentThe Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, conduct an assessment of the expected impact of section 5 on state schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe potential knock-on consequences of the measures in section 5 of this Bill on state schools.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 70 is in the names of my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, neither of whom is able to be here. They estimated that this group of amendments, being very close to the end of Committee, would be debated in the Committee day allocated for next week.
The purpose of Amendment 70 is straightforward: it would require the Government to assess the impact of Clause 5 on state schools. It is reported that independent schools are already losing about 10,000 pupils, who are withdrawing from private education, and that is before the implementation of VAT, the decision on which was made earlier this year. If that is the case, the removal of that number of pupils will cost the state sector £92 million, because those young people will now have state-funded places in the state sector.
Two questions then arise. One concerns the additional cost, which is borne by the Government. The second concerns the fact that there are often clusters of private schools in certain locations. There is a clutch of private schools in Newcastle upon Tyne. There are two private schools in Bradford and two private schools in Wakefield—I am moving south. When you get to the south of England and London, there is obviously a large number of private schools. If children are withdrawn from them due to the rising fees, there will be an impact not just on the cost of their education but on finding appropriate school places in their localities. That is the first impact.
The second impact, which is of particular concern, is on children with special educational needs and disabilities. This measure will put pressure on the state sector, where, as we already know and as I said earlier, SEND is in crisis. It could be very difficult indeed for those young people to find places where there is the proper support to meet their needs. The additional funding and, in the case of young people with particular disabilities having to be accommodated in the state sector, the additional facilities needed to support them could unduly add another cost to the state sector. This is not being considered by an impact assessment on the provisions in this Bill; hence the need for an impact assessment, as set out by my noble friends, so that the Government can demonstrate that they have actually considered what the overall impact will be.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that score and I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group but I shall speak in particular to Amendment 72A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lexden. I refer to my earlier declaration of interests.
The Minister has been very emollient and courteous in batting off all our amendments today; I thank him for the way he has dealt with them. Although he and his colleagues throughout government like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend otherwise—as we have seen, I am afraid—the impact of their onslaught on independent education, of which the removal of business rates is just one strand, will have profound ramifications for not just the sector and the children educated in it but a wide range of public policy areas. This is a bit like that game of Jenga, which we have probably all played, where blocks of wood are taken out until a point comes where the removal of one of them causes the whole edifice to crumble. That is what is in danger of happening here, with the sustained attack on independent education in danger of causing policy failure in a wide range of other areas.
Consider quite how far-reaching are the consequences of this policy underpinned by Clause 5. It impacts on public health and the care of vulnerable children; on the future of music, drama and the arts in the UK, which we have talked about today; on military families and defence personnel; on state schools, whose class sizes will increase; on multiculturalism and respect for different faiths; on jobs, export and investment; on local communities, volunteer groups, charities and so on, which depend on partnership with independent schools; on sport, as we have heard so eloquently described; and on soft power and Britain’s standing abroad. As a result of this web of different aspects that will be affected and will impinge on so many different aspects of government policy, it is vital there is an impact assessment of the consequences of Clause 5 taken in conjunction with the Government’s other policy changes. That is what my Amendment 72A provides for.
Apart from everything else, Parliament has a continuing responsibility to scrutinise the Government’s actions in this area. That is what this House, in particular, is here for. To do that, we need not just the data provided by the industry’s own excellent associations but data from across government and a detailed assessment of its implications. Given the profound changes to policy that Clause 5 exemplifies, ripping up five decades of orthodoxy about parental choice, such an impact assessment is the very least we should expect to allow us to fulfil our responsibilities and make clear to the public what its consequences are.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 71 and 72 in my name and express my support for Amendment 72A in the name of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. Amendment 71 would require an impact assessment on rescinded facilities that private schools offer to state schools. Amendment 72 would require an annual statement of how many pupils have been moved into the state system as a result of Clause 5. Many in this Committee have expressed concerns about the impact of the combined tax measures on private schools introduced by this Government. We had a number of examples from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. The changes announced in this legislation, combined with VAT applied to private schools, will no doubt harm many institutions. Indeed, as we have heard, we are already seeing the consequences of the Government’s decisions, with a number of private schools, including, most recently I think, Bedstone College in Shropshire, closing their doors.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden said in relation to an earlier group, there appears to be an emerging trend of small, rural private schools being particularly vulnerable. This raises the real risk of thousands of pupils across England being displaced and moving into the state system. As we discussed earlier, in particular parts of the country, that is not much pressure on the state system, but is potentially the reverse. However, in some parts of the country, such as Bristol or Surrey, schools are operating at full capacity. It is essential that we have proper oversight and transparency of the impact of this legislation on the state sector. It is with that in mind that I tabled Amendment 72. I also welcome Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is clear that all of us share many of the same concerns.
On Amendment 71, as we have heard, many private schools have a long history of collaboration with state schools and of sharing their facilities and resources. My noble friend Lord Moynihan gave an eloquent exposition on the value of sports grounds, but theatres and science laboratories provided by private schools offer many state school pupils opportunities that otherwise they might not have. Therefore, the closure of such schools would be felt by state school students as well as private school students as they would lose access to these resources. The Minister says—and I understand why—that it reflects the Government’s expectations for these schools to continue to offer public benefit, and one option for that is sharing their facilities, but, as we have heard, their income is being pressured from a number of different directions, including by this legislation, so I urge the Minister to consider my Amendment 71 and all the others in this group.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 72A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lexden, are focused on the impact on state schools as a result of the Bill measure. They seek to require the Government to undertake a variety of assessments of the impact of Clause 5, covering between them: pupil movement; the impact on the state sector; partnerships between private and state schools; changes in staffing; and the availability of faith education to families which desire it. Furthermore, Amendment 72A from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that any assessment is conducted in the context of broader tax changes affecting private schools since 1 January 2025, effectively seeking to create an all-encompassing review of the Budget tax changes and their effect on private schools.
The Government carefully considered their approach in designing the policy to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. On 29 July, the Government published a technical note on removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools. The Government received and carefully considered over 17,000 responses to this note from a range of tax specialists, private schools, bodies that represent private schools and others. A detailed government response to this was published at the Autumn Budget. During development of these policies, the Government also met numerous key stakeholders representing schools, local authorities and, in the context of the VAT change, the devolved Governments. Furthermore, at the introduction of this Bill, the Government published a note setting out analysis of the impact of the business rates measure. This is available on the Bill’s page.
Two common themes in the amendments proposed are the impact on the state sector in pupil movements and partnership activity with private schools. As I have said previously, the Government estimate that in the long-run steady state, there will be 3,100 fewer pupils in the private sector as a result of the business rates measure. Of these 3,100 pupils, the Government estimate an increase of 2,900 pupils in the state sector in the long term. This represents approximately 0.03% of the total state sector pupil population.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, talked about the important point of SEND places. The Government work to support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for all children of compulsory school age who need them, and work to provide appropriate support where pupils with SEND require a place at state-funded schools. She raised some really interesting points about reform. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. We are providing an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding in financial year 2025-26.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Barran, both talked about whether regional variation with regard to pupil movement may arise as a result of the Bill measure. They said that some regions may be more affected than others. The Government work with local authorities to support place planning and ensure there is capacity in the state-funded sector to meet demand. We have confirmed nearly £1.5 billion of capital funding through the basic needs grant to create school spaces needed over the current and next two academic years, up to and including the academic year starting in September 2026.
As noble Lords know, all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place, and government support ensures that every local authority has sufficient places for children who need them. The Department for Education monitors place demand and capacity as part of its normal processes and will work with local authorities to meet any pressures. Data on the number of school pupils is published every summer. This provides information on the number of pupils at different types of school, so anyone can see how pupil numbers in state-funded schools and private schools have changed.
There have been suggestions that the cost of pupil moves from the private to the state sector will cancel out the revenue raised from the measure. Based on the average 2024-25 per pupil spending in England, the Government expect the revenue cost of pupils entering the state sector as a result of the measure to steadily increase to a peak of around £20 million per annum after several years. Overall, this means that the expected revenue will substantially outweigh the additional cost pressures.
Pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that. For individual schools, the Government therefore expect changes in pupil numbers caused by these changes to be managed in the usual way.
I have spoken only about business rates as that is the scope of the Bill. Noble Lords may also be interested in the impact of the removal of the VAT exemption, which has been mentioned. I direct them to the tax information and impact note that was produced to accompany the VAT change, which is publicly available on GOV.UK.
During the course of the Bill’s passage, we have heard a small number of examples of schools stating that they will reduce partnership activity with local state schools or will no longer be able to provide fee assistance. It is for individual private schools to determine how they manage any additional costs arising from the Bill’s measure. However, as set out previously, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and they will need to continue to demonstrate public benefit as a requirement of that charitable status.
Data published by the Independent Schools Council indicates that a lot of partnerships relate to the hosting of joint events or providing access to facilities also used by private school pupils. In many of these partnerships, the activity undertaken also benefits the pupils who attend private schools, so it would not be in the interest of the private schools to stop this activity. The removal of charitable relief from private schools does not reduce these schools’ obligation to show public benefit. The Government do not expect partnership activity or fee assistance to decrease significantly.
I will touch briefly on the other areas that noble Lords have suggested should be examined, starting with looked-after children. Local authorities can place looked-after children at private schools where that is in the child’s interest. We do not expect placements funded by local authorities to be impacted by tax changes, as the local authorities can reclaim VAT. As with partnerships, we do not expect charitable schools to stop supporting these pupils as part of their demonstration of public benefit.
Faith has been a common discussion point in not just this group but earlier groups of amendments. As discussed earlier, on a previous group, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. Do I know that? Yes, I am the Faith Minister. Many stakeholders have been speaking to me about this issue. Pupils who follow a particular faith can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one and, as previously stated, all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs.
On the issue of staffing, the Department for Education annually publishes teacher numbers in private schools. Employment of staff is a matter for individual private schools. We do not anticipate that they will substantially reduce staff as a result of the business rates measure.
I appreciate that there is concern in this area, but we should remember that the removal of charitable relief from private schools will raise important revenue that will help the Government to deliver on their commitment to the cohort of the more than 90% of children who attend state schools. This will break down barriers and ensure that all have access to the same opportunities.
I am unable to accept the amendments, but I hope that the further information I have provided, in relation to the analysis and assessment from the Government that have already been undertaken and that we will continue to do, has reassured noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Lexden (Con)
The Minister has spoken at length about the Government’s hopes, intentions and plans. Surely, having done all that, it becomes more important to find out what happens in reality over the next few years: how independent schools are affected and how many children have their education disrupted. These matters need to be clearly established, and that surely points to a proper and full impact assessment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord had made very strongly and passionately. In relation to this particular aspect and in contrast to the earlier part of our discussion in Committee related to multipliers, this is not a tax-particular perspective, which is why an impact note for the Bill is available. Of course, we are speaking to stakeholders and will continue to do so to ensure that we take everything into account. We have taken everything in account while bringing this Bill forward.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. He made the case for Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friends, I think. When I moved the amendment, I cited the 10,000 children expected to move from the private sector to the state sector, and the Minister cited 3,100. That is a discrepancy. Why? It is because they are both estimates. The Minister’s estimates are based on the Government’s analysis of expectation, but so is the private school sector’s.
The second pair of estimates that were cited related to the cost to the state sector of young people moving to it from the private sector. The estimate by the private sector is £92 million a year, whereas I think I heard the Minister quote a figure of £20 million being the anticipated cost after a number of years. He is not shaking his head—maybe I did not hear that figure correctly. However, the point I am making is that, in both cases, there is a discrepancy because these are estimates, not actual figures.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I just want to clarify the point that I was making: the additional revenue to support the transition to the state sector represents substantially much more revenue than the cost to support that transition.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I accept the argument that was being made but the point I am making is not that point—that there is a net benefit to the Treasury, so the Government believe—but that both sets of figures were estimates that differed widely. This adds weight to the argument, which has been made in our debate on this group of amendments, around the need for an impact assessment following the implementation of the Bill. It is unfortunate that the Minister seems to be refusing to have one or suggesting that one is not needed.
With those points, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 70.
Lord Thurlow
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to delay the introduction of amendments 1 to 4 from 2026 to 2027 to allow more time for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, most of the amendments this afternoon have concerned schools. I want to return to commercial premises in my contribution on this group. Amendments 75 and 76 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, are included; theirs deal with schools but the core principles of our three amendments are similar.
As we have heard from noble Lords, there is widespread concern at the haste with which the outstanding consultations and studies are to be carried out—presumably to coincide with the rating revaluation, which cuts in in a few months’ time. I am afraid that that is not a good enough reason to curtail the chance to do these studies properly; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has just made a powerful intervention on precisely that. We can rush it and create bad law or do it properly and get it right.
As I explained in our debate on the first group this afternoon, there is currently under way an update of rateable values, which, until I heard the Minister’s comments at that time, I understood was not to be completed until June. I am delighted to hear that it is possibly available immediately, as we would all love to see the figures.
It is unfortunate timing, as those businesses and schools will not know their new rateable values until then, yet here we are legislating in ignorance of this new and significant fixed cost. As explained, it is the third-highest cost to an RHL business after staff and rent. I stress that this amendment would change nothing concerning the material content of the Bill. It is merely timing. I simply want a further 12 months to assess the impact on these hundreds, possibly thousands, of businesses, particularly those small businesses that are trying to make decisions regarding future investment, which the country needs to invigorate growth, but cannot until they know their cost base.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Thurlow, which relates specifically to Clauses 1 to 4. The business community was clearly expecting something rather different from what we have before us now, based on the Labour Party manifesto, so ably referred to by my noble friend. At the very least, we should be told the plans for where and when this longer-term reform, which was promised, will be mapped out. While the Treasury cannot make an accurate impact assessment until the new valuation figures are known, equally, businesses and their professionals have no idea either.
This rather matters, because it is not just a new list, as we heard from the noble Lord, which itself would come with inevitable transition arrangements, there is also the impact of the lower multipliers and the increased burden of supplements, which we believe will not be known until the Autumn Statement: that part will not be known, even if the contents of the new valuation list are known in advance. I am very doubtful whether lower multipliers will do much to move the dial on this, but I think the supplements will probably be a different matter altogether.
There is another point, which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, touched on a few minutes ago. Parliament is entitled to be properly informed about the likely impact. I have suggested previously that this is not impossible, even without firm figures. The fact that the Government are not prepared to do this is, I feel, of particular concern, because they therefore cannot demonstrate that their policies on multipliers are actually competent and will achieve the support supposed and the rebalancing that has been claimed. For those reasons, I support the amendment, and particularly that more time should be allowed to consider the impact, to in some way soften the introduction and give businesses space to consider their options.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 75 and 76. Amendment 75 is a probing amendment to ensure that the Government have considered and made an assessment of how the provisions of the Bill will impact on the ability of students on bursaries to access universities. Despite the picture that the Government are trying to paint, private schools provide genuine benefits to their local areas and offer education at a significantly reduced rate to families, including low-income families, through their bursary schemes. We also know that pupils from independent schools are more likely to go to university. If, as was discussed in earlier groups today, these schools cannot find enough money to provide bursaries, or not in the same quantities as before, these students will no longer be able to access the same opportunities. With this in mind, I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government have thought about this and perhaps give the Committee his assessment of its impact.
Amendment 76 would delay the implementation of Clause 5 until 2026 to allow schools time to prepare properly. Despite this not causing a large fiscal impact on schools, they are facing a number of changes and have not being given time to adapt and readjust their budgets—most notably, of course, in relation to VAT—and this is having a real and very negative impact on the ground. As we have heard in Committee this afternoon and as the Minister knows, some schools have already closed as a result of the very abrupt imposition of VAT in the middle of the school year. The amounts in this section of the Bill will make very little difference to the Government and there is no real reason to implement immediately. Rather, it would show some good will on the part of the Government to give schools time to prepare.
Turning to Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, although we are not supporting this specific amendment, I agree with him that what is lacking from the Bill is any firm indication or clarity about what its impact will be. My understanding, and perhaps the Minister can confirm this, is that the Government will not decide the multipliers until after the spending review, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, suggested that it might be earlier. Therefore, as we have discussed throughout Committee, not having published an impact assessment is a failure on the part of the Government. I agree with the noble Lord that not enough is known about the impact that the Bill will have on our economy and, crucially, on our high streets.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will now speak to Amendment 74, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and Amendments 75 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook. These amendments seek to delay the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Amendment 74 seeks to delay from 2026 to 2027 the commencement of Clauses 1 to 4, covering the new multipliers. The reasoning behind this proposal, as provided by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to provide more time to allow for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.
As I have set out elsewhere during the course of the Committee proceedings, the Treasury has committed to publishing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget. To clarify, the 2026 re-evaluation of the multipliers is ongoing and is not yet completed. We expect it to be published around the Budget.
As noble Lords will remember, the Bill is the Government’s first step in transforming the business rates system, and to delay it would delay the Government’s progress in undertaking this broader ambition over the course of this Parliament. Furthermore, it would delay the introduction of the new permanent tax cuts for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that those businesses would have to wait a further year for the lower multipliers.
Amendment 75 seeks to delay the implementation of the removal of charitable rate relief from private schools, pending an impact assessment focused on access to university for pupils in private schools in receipt of means-tested fee assistance. Amendment 76 would more generally delay by one year to April 2026 the same measure in Clause 5.
I understand the concerns that the swift implementation of Clause 5 from 1 April this year does not give private schools or local authorities time to prepare for the change—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just touched on. However, the Government announced this change in July 2024, stating then that it would be implemented from April 2025, subject to the passage of legislation. As such, private schools have been aware of this change for some time. Private schools that are impacted by the change already pay business rates. They already have a rateable value, they do not have to register with their local authority, and it is very simple for them to calculate their additional business rates bill. As these schools are already known to local authorities, the removal of the charitable relief should also be straightforward from their perspective. The Government are engaging with local authorities to support them through this change.
Delaying implementation of the Bill would forego approximately £140 million per year in funding, delaying the Government’s intended investment to deliver their commitments to education and young people and to support investment in our state sector, where more than 90% of children in England are educated.
The amendments call for an impact assessment. As Members of the Committee know full well, tax measures are not subject to full impact assessments. I continue to say this to the Committee because it continues to be correct, as it was under previous Governments. Despite this, my department has produced detailed analysis of the impacts of Clause 5, which was published alongside the Bill, as I stated earlier.
Amendment 75 also raises the question of access to higher education. Access to higher education should be based on ability and attainment, not background. Opportunity should be available to all, and it is the Government’s aspiration that no groups are left behind. That is why we are seeking, through this Bill, funding for new investment in the state sector.
I am also aware that there is concern across the Committee that the Bill’s measures may result in private schools that are charities reducing their charitable activity, of which the provision of means-tested bursaries is one such activity. It will be for individual private schools to determine how they will meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill’s measures, but they could, for example, reduce surpluses or reserves, cut back on non-essential expenditure, increase fees or use a combination of different approaches.
It is important to note that the measure does not remove the charitable status of these schools and charitable schools will continue to operate as charities. They must continue to demonstrate that they meet public-benefit tests, and the Government expect all charitable schools to continue to demonstrate this to retain their still very favourable status as charities. No other tax changes specific to their charitable status will affect private schools. They will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus.
As I have said, we cannot agree to delay the implementation of these measures. I hope that noble Lords can see this and will agree not to press their amendments.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this final group, and I thank the Minister for offering an opportunity to meet to discuss this in more detail, which I will take up. I remain concerned about the unintended consequences of the rush to get this through, for both schools and businesses but, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Beaver: Reintroduction in England
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reintroduce the beaver in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that beavers can benefit biodiversity, improve water quality and reduce flooding, among other things. However, beavers can also potentially cause damage to property and infrastructure through flooding and foraging. This means that reintroductions must balance the benefits and the risks, and be carefully considered and planned. Defra continues to work with Natural England to develop our approach to beaver reintroductions and management.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, although it is disappointing, given that the benefits of beavers in the UK are already very evident. I wonder if she is aware of the case in the Brdy protected landscape area in the Czech Republic, where beavers demonstrably saved the local government €1 million by putting a dam exactly where it needed to be to prevent flooding. Could not so many communities in England now be benefiting from that kind of protection at no cost?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we recognise the benefits that beavers can bring. Although reintroduction worked extremely well in that particular case, they have to be released into the right place at the right time with proper management. That is what this Government are working towards.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on identifying the damage that beavers do. I declare an interest: illegally introduced beavers have destroyed the willow trees at the bottom of my garden. They are ringing trees on the River Tay that are more than 100 years old, undermining the banking. Although there may be a case for introducing beavers in some places, it should be done very carefully, and those who do it illegally should be held to account.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to say that we need to manage beaver release correctly. A licence is, of course, required to release beavers in England and these are available only for release into enclosures. The licensing scheme, which is managed by Natural England, creates controls so that any potential damage is minimised.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, though I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about his willows, does my noble friend the Minister agree that where beavers are allowed to flourish they help other species to flourish too? That is a fine thing for one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
A 2020 evidence review by Natural England found that beaver reintroductions can bring benefits through the restoration of lost natural ecosystems, including boosting biodiversity and increasing other species. I am sure noble Lords listen to “The Archers”, as I do, on which there was a story around beavers this week. What we will have learned from that regarding species is that where you see beavers you will also find tits.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
On Tuesday, I visited the South Downs National Park, which has introduced a pair of beavers. Their introduction can have benefits for other animals. They are large animals that are not aggressive to other species such as the mink, but they appear to act as a deterrent for the mink. Where water voles have been reintroduced alongside beavers, volunteers have noticed the benefit that the number of mink has reduced and thus the water voles thrive. Are the Government considering the reintroduction of both species in areas where they used to be abundant?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government’s approach to reintroductions more widely needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We are committed to providing opportunities for the reintroduction of formerly native species where the benefits for the environment, such as the noble Baroness has demonstrated, are clear, but any reintroductions of any species must follow the published Reintroductions and conservation translocations: code and guidance for England.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I completely support the Government’s view on beavers and what the noble Baroness said about them bringing other species, but I will put in a plea for another wild species, which is the hare. At the moment, you can hunt and shoot hares 24/7, all through the year. We need to introduce a time, when hares are pregnant and breeding, when they are off the cards for people to shoot. This is really important, as the population of this majestic animal is dwindling rapidly. People in China are betting on hare coursing in Norfolk and places such as that, and they put cameras on the dogs to watch them tear the hares apart. This is truly shocking. It is an amazing, wonderful, beautiful animal.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, hare coursing is not allowed in this country. I congratulate the previous Government on tightening up the rules around this, which was really important. The particular issue around the shooting of hares is that there is not a closed season, which there is for other species. This is an anomaly, and we should look at it very carefully.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the stand that this Government have taken. If beavers are to be introduced in areas where they are currently not found, to what extent will farmers, drainage boards and others in the catchment area be consulted?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can be very brief and clear: we intend to do full consultation with stakeholders and work closely with them around any introduction.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I take my noble friend back to her previous answer on the reintroduction of other wild species? I am very glad to find that she is a fellow fan of “The Archers”. She will be aware that there were recently some very serious illegal releases in Scotland, which resulted in not only the use of precious resources but the death of at least one of the animals. Can she say what sanctions are available to be brought to bear against people who do that? Whether their intentions are good or ill, they are not doing anybody any favours.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend. The Government condemn any illegal release of beavers. They not only are unlawful but, as she said, can lead to damage and conflict, and they undermine legitimate releases. Just to confirm, it is an offence in England under Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release a beaver into an enclosure or the wild, except under the authority of a licence from Natural England. Regarding penalties, doing so without a licence carries a penalty of either an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a host to an illegally released beaver—not by me. As the Minister pointed out, the reintroduction of beavers to the UK may well have a role to play in managing waterways and reducing the risk of flooding. We have discussed nature-based solutions in this House before on the then Water (Special Measures) Bill, and I would be most grateful to the Minister for an update on progress on nature-based solutions within the water sector.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Government are very serious about this. Nature-based solutions will be incredibly important if we are to get the outcomes and results that we want. We are continuing to make progress, and I am happy to keep the noble Lord updated as that progress continues.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, bearing in mind the experience of the introduction of the grey squirrel in this country and that beavers have been introduced into Scotland, is there not every likelihood that it is only a matter of time before the beavers establish themselves in England—with or without consent from Natural England?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, any introductions are being very carefully managed and licensed. We have a five-step management approach to beavers, which can also come in if there are illegal releases or releases that have spread into areas that are less appropriate. That five-step approach has a number of actions to cope with beaver numbers as we move forward with this programme.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, it is often the unplanned and unbudgeted aspects of species reintroduction that cause the conflict. In Scotland—where, like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I live—the original beaver reintroduction study concluded that there was little impact on agriculture. Beavers were released, legally and illegally, and given full protection. The study, although technically correct, failed to mention that the reason for the small impact on agriculture was largely due to the fact that there was very little agriculture in the study area. The subsequent expansion of beaver numbers has caused conflict as they go into agricultural areas. Can the Minister ensure that any study or consultation prior to a reintroduction is comprehensive, includes a plan for problem areas and has a financial contingency?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that there will be proper consultation and thorough consideration of any aspects of reports or information before any releases take place. I finish by stressing the fact that beavers bring huge benefits as well as potential risks.
Private Rented Sector: Affordable Rents
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that rents in the private rented sector are affordable.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Before we proceed, may I just remind colleagues that this is called Question Time for a reason. We want questions, so that the Minister can give an answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government entirely understand concerns about the affordability of rents. We have inherited a private rented sector that is failing many low-income renters. The Renters’ Rights Bill will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, as well as taking practical steps to end the practice of rental bidding and prohibiting landlords from demanding large amounts of upfront rent. In addition, the Government are committed to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England over this Parliament. This boost to supply is critical to improving housing affordability.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, but current rents remain unaffordable for the 34% of renters in poverty—a figure likely to rise with the freeze of local housing allowance. Private rents increased by more than 8% last year and market rates are already out of reach for so many. The First-tier Tribunal will not resolve any of these issues. Are the Government considering any form of rent stabilisation?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We have discussed this in the Chamber before, and the Government have been clear: we do not support rent controls. Heavy-handed rent controls tend to mean higher rents at the start of a tenancy, and they can make it much harder for prospective tenants to find a home. They also encourage the growth of unregulated sub-letting, which can leave the most vulnerable tenants very exposed to higher costs and minimal protections. Those rent controls always come at a cost, often in reduced investment in housing supply and quality standards. We prefer to use this mechanism to strengthen tenants’ rights.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, has my noble friend seen the very interesting briefing from UNISON, which has 1.3 million members? The brief calls for measures to stop escalating rents; increased enforcement and the regulation of landlords and their agents; changes to the benefits system, incentivising work; and measures to end the right to buy in conditions of housing shortage. We urgently need to find a way to ensure that rents in the private sector become affordable. Could Ministers arrange to meet UNISON representatives to discuss their very interesting proposals for reform?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. Of course, I am always happy to meet with trade union colleagues, particularly on important issues such as this. I thank him too for his reminder of the information in that UNISON report. Many of the issues raised in it are being tackled in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and in the leasehold and commonhold reform Bill which we will be bringing forward later in the year. On the right to buy, we have already taken significant steps to make sure that the funds from the sale of social housing go back to those councils to enable them to build more social housing.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, rents in the private sector are rising because supply is falling as many smaller landlords decide to sell up. While there is much of value in the Renters’ Rights Bill, there is nothing in it to increase supply, which is what tenants want. Will the Minister turbocharge the discussions between her department, the Treasury and the pension funds and insurance companies in order to get serious, long-term institutional finance into good quality accommodation for rent and to redress the imbalance between supply and demand?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all his expertise on this subject. A few weeks ago, I attended an investors’ summit in the City of London where there was great enthusiasm about investment in the housing market. We welcome those institutional investors and recognise the crucial role that the build-to-rent sector in particular is playing in building those 1.5 million homes. Last year, we announced a £700 million extension to the home building fund to support housebuilders and to catalyse that institutional investment. This should support the construction of 12,000 more homes, including build-to-rent. We also announced a £3 billion guarantee for SME and build-to-rent housebuilders through the reopening of guarantee schemes, which should deliver the construction of around 20,000 new homes.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, could the Government also turbocharge getting rid of Section 21, which legalises insecurity in the lives of people paying rent?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the insecurity that Section 21 presents. It is also a huge economic burden on local councils as they pick up the tab for emergency accommodation coming out of Section 21 evictions. That is why our Renters’ Rights Bill contains clear proposals to get rid of Section 21 once and for all.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, in some areas, selective licensing schemes have been introduced because of the poor performance of private landlords. They can make a real difference in improving standards. Would my noble friend the Minister consider looking at best practice in those schemes, and at whether local authorities could be encouraged to adopt them in areas where landlords are poorly serving their tenants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am pleased to commend those local authorities which have taken steps to regulate private housing in their areas through the use of selective licensing schemes. We continue to look at how we might better support that going forward.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, when supply goes down and demand goes up, prices increase. What assessment have the Government made of reports that landlords are leaving the rental market at the highest rate ever? Many are citing rental reforms as their reason for leaving.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If I am honest with the noble Lord, I think the pressures on housing come from 14 years of not taking the housing market seriously. We have carefully assessed what the impact of the Renters’ Rights Bill might be, and we do not believe that it will have a significant impact on the supply of private rented housing in the market. Supply has been consistent for several years, and we want to maintain that and to make sure that the Renters’ Rights Bill delivers the right balance of support for both landlords and tenants. There are many really good landlords, and we want to give them the help and support they need through the Bill, as well as supporting our tenants.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, market rents in the private rented sector are often unaffordable for those on low incomes, which is why I greatly welcome the Government’s announcement this month of more funds for social housing. Roughly what proportion of the 1.5 million new homes the Government are planning for this parliamentary Session will be affordable to those on average incomes and below?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is a key question, and I am afraid it is not possible for me to give a specific answer because we have just set aside social housing in local plans. We will be asking local authorities to determine their local need for social housing.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, one consequence of sustained high rents in the private sector is the conversion of family homes into HMOs. Are the Government monitoring this trend, and what action are they taking on the loss of family homes in this way?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the right reverend Prelate makes about the conversion of family homes into HMOs. I do not have those figures here, so I will write to her with a response.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, evidence from Scotland shows that only 4% of tenants with a rent rise use the First-tier Tribunal to challenge that rise. How will the Government ensure that more tenants are aware of and use this right? Does the Minister accept that, in a system where demand significantly outstrips supply, a tribunal decision that the rent is fair does not make it affordable?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness makes, but tenants will be able to dispute rent increases they think are above market rate by referring their case to the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market, and it will determine the rent. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence, and the tribunal will not be able to determine a rent increase higher than the landlord had originally proposed—all through our Renters’ Rights Bill. So we are improving the position for tenants, and for landlords, who will be able to make their case at the tribunal.
Prostate Cancer: National Screening Programme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we are investing £16 million in the Prostate Cancer UK-led TRANSFORM trial to look for better tests than we have currently. Evidence shows that the current best test available, the PSA test, is not accurate enough to use in men without symptoms. As noble Lords will appreciate, policies must be evidence-based, so the UK National Screening Committee is actively reviewing the evidence for prostate screening programmes and will complete its review this year, to be followed by consultation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that just a year ago I was unexpectedly and rapidly diagnosed with prostate cancer and received wonderful treatment from the NHS, to which I pay tribute today. Some 12,000 men die each year, many needlessly, because of late diagnosis. It is a postcode lottery. It is quite clear that in areas of socioeconomic deprivation, and among black men between the ages of 45 and 70, there is a much higher incidence. When can we expect to hear news about a national screening programme? What assessment is being made of the new tests that are being reported at the moment, which are much more successful in diagnosis?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the right reverend Prelate had such good care in the NHS. His comments are appreciated, and we are very pleased that things have out turned so well for him. The issue, as I know he will he understand, is that we cannot offer an inaccurate test to high-risk groups, not least because that increases the risk of adverse effects, unnecessary treatment and misdiagnosis. We are not yet in a scientifically and evidence-based position to offer the national screening programme, and that is why we are taking the action that I outlined in my Answer.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, while we wait for a more reliable screening tool, what are the Government doing to inform men about the very clear risk factors that are known about? To that I would add that maintaining a healthy weight reduces the risk. Additionally, what can the Minister do to reassure men that, if they are in any way worried about any symptom, they are not wasting their GP’s time if they go along and get it checked out?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I encourage everyone, men and women, to be aware of any changes in their bodies. They are not wasting the time of their GP. That is exactly what they should do. As she says, men are disproportionately affected by a number of health conditions, including some cancers, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. As part of addressing this, the Secretary of State has announced that we are developing a men’s health strategy, not least because we know that men are less likely to come forward to deal with health matters.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of a national screening programme and given the difficulty in getting access to GPs, particularly in deprived areas, how are the Government improving access to GPs? In some areas, it is two to three weeks before people can get an appointment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that the important thing is that people ensure that they do not ignore the situation. I agree that the situation that we inherited was hugely difficult, particularly in some areas, around GPs. In the 10-year plan, which will be published in the coming months, there will be a big focus on the move from sickness to prevention, from analogue to digital, and from hospital to community. In all three pillars, greater access to GP appointments will be included.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister rightly highlighted, there are detection gaps, and one in 50 people have aggressive disease at the time of diagnosis. When this proves to be hormone-therapy or chemotherapy resistant, how many centres can offer strontium, which can be very effective for metastatic bone pain, as that is how some people present?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss this with the noble Baroness. Having looked into it, we do not currently hold this data. However, where strontium therapy is appropriate and preferred to improve patient outcomes, it will be offered. This is, of course, a clinical decision.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, when I worked in Belgium, a urologist told me that men over 45 years old should seek a test every year for this. When I came back and asked my GP, he was dismissive of that, saying that I should seek a PSA test. When I asked a nurse at my next blood test for a PSA test, she said, “Are you sure? They’re not very reliable”. Given that the last Government introduced trials, and that one of the tests seems to be 96% accurate, can the Minister say any more about that trial and its evaluation, and whether we are any closer to a definitive test? If not, what guidance is available to medical practitioners for the PSA test?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The advice and guidance is that GPs should counsel asymptomatic men about the potential benefits and harms of PSA testing, so that they can make an informed decision. However, the guidance is that GPs should not proactively offer a PSA test, for the reasons that we have covered. That is why we are investing in this trial, to find a better test so that we can address this. This is a complex area, as often it is, but we are making progress, as I have already outlined.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, it is very welcome that new diagnostic tests are being investigated. However, can we be careful not to give out the wrong message? I was diagnosed with prostate cancer—and I was completely symptomless—thanks to the PSA test. In giving out that message, can we make it clear that GPs should not stop men getting a PSA test, even when they are symptomless, if they are at the right age and in the right bracket?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with my noble friend. As he knows from his experience, tests are available. The point is that they should be used in the right situation. As he knows, one of the issues is people being asymptomatic, which is why it is very important that men take note of their health and report any change or concerns that they have.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I am also here thanks to early diagnosis. I understand what the Minister is saying about the PSA test, but very many people are here today because they had such a test. It worries me that the message is that, because it is not reliable, it should not be at the forefront. I ask the Minister not to rule out using PSA tests more widely. If it is the best we have got, it may be the only thing we have got.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for sharing his personal experience. I am not suggesting that the PSA test should not be used, but we are talking about extending it and using it in a screening program. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to reassure your Lordships’ House that that is why we have the trial, which will report later this year, to find a better answer; the answer we have currently is not where we need it to be. Yes, there is a role for it, but we must strive for better than we have got currently.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, 13 years ago, a PSA test saved my life. I had an operation in Leeds hospital and I now have no sign of that, and every year they test me by the same method. I encourage the Minister not to give mixed messages. We need a very clear message that, at the moment, the PSA test saves a lot of lives.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree about the need for clear messages, and I hope the noble and right reverend Lord will agree on the need for striving to do rather better.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, in many deprived communities, and in the black community in particular, there is a very high incidence of prostate cancer. Before they get to the PSA test, what work is being done to educate communities even to be involved with seeking out that test in order to protect their health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to raise this. I am glad to say that the TRANSFORM trial I referred to will help to address this by ensuring that a significant proportion of participants are black men, who suffer disproportionately in this regard. That is really important, because previous trials have not included enough black men. The trial will address those disparities, and therefore the results that we get from that will be really important. It is always the case that working with specific communities to get the right message out is key to what we do.
Copyright and Artificial Intelligence
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their initial assessment of the scale and balance of responses to their consultation on copyright and artificial intelligence.
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, the Government consulted on several issues regarding copyright and AI. That consultation closed on 25 February and over 11,500 responses were received. We welcome this significant engagement from across the creative and AI sectors. Our priority must be now to analyse the evidence that has been submitted. Proposals will be set out in due course, including a fuller breakdown of the types of respondent to the consultation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. I declare my interests as an author, like many Members of your Lordships’ House. Does she agree that the intellectual property of creatives in this country is no less precious or important than the intellectual property of tech companies that have, frankly, already been scraping the internet for creative work and ripping these people off? Wherever the policy lands in the future as a result of the consultation, will the Government consider offering assistance to creatives, many of whom are really not very well off, to ensure that they have restitution for the grand theft that has already been perpetrated?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course the Government recognise the concerns that many in the creative industries have about the potential impact of AI on that sector. This is why we want to act now to give UK creators greater control over their works and more transparency about how their work is being used, as well as creating the ability for them to be paid for it. That is exactly what the proposals in our consultation aim to achieve. But I should say that this is a complicated area, because AI adoption also has the potential to drive growth across the economy, including in the creative industries. For example, 38% of creative industry businesses are already using AI technologies. So this is a complicated area, but we know we have to find a solution and protect the interests of creatives in the future in the way that the noble Baroness has alerted us to.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Government intend to take out the transparency amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Kidron in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. What provision are they going to make to ensure that creatives know that their copyrighted work has been pirated by AI models, so that they can then take action?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government agree with many of the points made during the debate on the data Bill, and in other discussions in this House, that further transparency is needed from AI developers about their use of web crawlers and the materials that they use to train their models. However, we have a consultation out and it would be premature to commit to specific legislation until we have analysed the responses to that consultation and heard all the voices in this sector. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Viscount that we intend to resolve this issue. It is one that the previous Government failed to resolve and we need to resolve it now, so we will take action as soon as the consultation has been analysed and resolved.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, there has been widespread concern that the Secretary of State in the Minister’s department has been very happy to meet representatives of big tech and AI firms but less willing to meet representatives of our thriving but threatened creative industries. Of course, in due course his meetings will be published through the Government’s quarterly transparency returns but, given how germane this is to a contentious area of policy currently under discussion, will she give consideration to publishing that list of meetings sooner?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, that information will be published in the normal way. What I will say is that the Minister for AI and Digital Government and the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism have been extremely active in engaging on this subject. They have held round tables with the creative industries and the AI sector during the consultation, which is a joint consultation involving DCMS and DSIT. This morning, the Secretary of State for DSIT explained that, and also said that he is of course open to meetings with the creative sector. All that is on the table and there is no problem about dialogue or engagement. That will go on in the next few months as well, while we seek to find a solution to this issue.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, regardless of whatever future plans are brought forward, will the Minister confirm that, if the outcome of current challenges shows that our current IP regime is legal, the Government will provide assistance to those creators whose IP has been stolen on an industrial scale by AI companies?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that this is a complicated copyright area and there are some legal cases in the offing. It is a complicated area that needs a holistic approach. Our view is that addressing the issue in isolation will not provide sufficient legal clarity or resolve the issue in a way that I think that most noble Lords would expect. The consultation will help guide us on this issue and I urge noble Lords to await its outcome, which I hope will provide some solutions.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, despite what the Minister says, there is a basic concern about the framing of this issue by the Government, their perceived need for a balance between the tech companies and the creative industries, and the logic of that in terms of the need for someone to give something up. Should any side have to give up something that is already theirs, morally and in law: namely, work made by artists, who therefore hold the copyright? This is not about balance; it is about rights.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Earl is right, and we are trying to find a way to ensure that those rights are upheld. However, all these sectors need to grow in our economy. As I was just explaining, the creative sector uses AI, so it is not as simple “us and them” situation. AI is increasingly being used by all sectors across our economy. We need to find a way through this that rewards creators in the way that the noble Earl has outlined, which I think we all understand.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I recognise of course that the task of analysing the results of the consultation still needs to go ahead. That said, does the Minister agree with us that digital watermarking is going to be a key component of the solution to the AI and copyright issue? If so, what does she make of the number of digital watermarking solutions that are now coming to market? In her view, is this to be welcomed or should we be pursuing a single standard for digital watermarks?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Viscount has made an important point about watermarks, and that is certainly one solution that we are considering. The issue of transparency is crucial to the outcome of this issue, and watermarks would certainly help with that. I do not have a view as yet on whether we should have one or many, but I am hoping that the consultation will give us some guidance on that.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is right when she says that AI is extensively used in the creative industries and the music industry, and has been for a long time—as a servant, not a master of creatives. Is this not an opportunity to look at those companies such as DAACI that try to use AI in an ethical way which ensures that creators are rewarded for their input?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that proposal. Again, I hope that all these companies will contribute, or have contributed, to the consultation, because those are exactly the sorts of standards we want to achieve. We want to make sure that creators get the right awards; that is certainly our intention through this consultation. We need to find a way through this. We are working hard and we will not give up until we have found a way to resolve the issue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, all pointed out the way in which big tech has already stolen large amounts of property. Had that property been cash or gold, we surely would be getting a different reaction from the Government—yet it is actually the same thing. I have a constructive suggestion to help the Minister. How about a universal basic income for the creative sector as compensation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful suggestion. Hopefully, she has fed that into the consultation. I am sure it will be considered as one of the many proposals to resolve this issue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government received representations, formal or informal, on this subject from the Government of the United States and, if so, will they publish the substance of those representations?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
To my knowledge, we have not received any representations from the US Government. I am sure any such discussions that take place will become public very quickly.
Business of the House
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 5 March to enable debate on the report from the Conduct Committee on the Review of the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct to begin before Oral Questions that day.
Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government’s announcement in relation to breakfast clubs builds, obviously, on the approach of the previous Government, who ran a breakfast club programme from 2018. As we know, the vast majority of schools have a breakfast club; some are free and others charge a very low fee.
Although I understand and absolutely respect that the Government are following through on their manifesto commitment to deliver breakfast clubs in primary schools, can the Minister clarify for the House what will happen to breakfast clubs in secondary schools funded by the previous Administration when that funding ends? Similarly, the Statement talked about the growth in childcare provision and the very significant funding going into that, which also builds on previous Conservative government policy.
On the specifics of the scheme, the Minister will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report last year calculated that the £315 million announced by the Government for breakfast clubs would fund only the food element in all primary schools. As she knows, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill proposes half an hour of childcare as well as breakfast. Can the Minister clarify what percentage of funding for the new breakfast clubs the Government will provide? What discussions have the Government had with schools on how to cover any shortfall?
The Minister will have seen the report from the BBC yesterday of a small primary school in Lancashire that was part of the 750-school pilot phase and felt that it was not able to continue because, in its case, the funding did not cover its costs. Obviously, there has been wider commentary on this issue. Can she shed light on whether there is truth in the rumours that some schools were invited to take part in the pilot but were unable to and, if so, what the main reasons for that were?
Can the Minister also confirm what percentage of schools in the new scheme had no breakfast club provision before this?
I have tried to work out the Secretary of State’s assertion that the scheme will save families £450 a year. Maths is not my strongest suit but perhaps the Minister can help me. The Government, as I understand it, are funding 60p per child and 78p for those children in receipt of pupil premium. On my maths, £450 a year is about £2.30 per school day per child. Equally, if you put it the other way round, the government funding of £315 million spread across 4.5 million primary school children is about £70 a year. So can she set out what assumptions the Government are making that are behind the statement of the £450 saving to families?
Finally, I wonder what assumptions the Government are making about the uptake of the scheme. A range of breakfast clubs already exist, of course, with and without additional childcare, and the Government have said they aim to learn from the pilot. Given that the vast majority of schools already have breakfast club provision, I am unclear what the Government need to learn from this pilot as opposed to what has gone before. All this matters, of course, because the Government’s choice—and it is a choice—is to fund breakfast for all children in primary school, including those whose parents were happy to pay for that breakfast and could do so without financial difficulty. It would be helpful for the House if the Minister could explain why.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the Floor of the House even if it is a few days behind the Commons. The main thrust from my party is that we would rather have had the emphasis of this put into lunchtime meals, because, from the information I have received, about 40% of children who are eligible for this take it up, and anybody who has dealt with any child, or indeed rush-hour traffic, knows that you have more trouble getting children to school early in the day to get breakfast than you would do at lunchtime, when everybody is there.
That is a fundamental flaw in the system of getting the nutrition in. The second flaw is what is in one of these breakfasts. If it is a sugar-laden breakfast cereal, you have the equivalent of a turkey twizzler in the morning. If it is just preserve on a bit of white bread, you will fill somebody up, but what is the nutritional guarantee?
We have more experience in lunchtime meals—it is easier to get a balance in the meal. You will get a bigger bang for your buck. We also have the idea that people are used to eating that meal at lunchtime, so it will probably be slightly easier to get acceptance. If you are going to do this, what are the steps you will take to make sure it reaches more people? If you are going to put this money in, what is the benefit?
I had prepared a slightly less extensive list of other questions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has got to before me. I will not weary the House by repeating them. The basic thing is the strategy to make sure that you get the best nutritional outcomes for those pupils and get to a higher percentage of the school population. I think we are entitled to know about that from the Government.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their responses to the Statement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State, in which she spelled out very clearly the delivery plans for the Government’s commitment to deliver on their pledge to provide free breakfast clubs in every state-funded school with primary-age children. Let us reflect on what that means for those children. Evidence shows that, where schools run breakfast clubs, they report improvements to pupil’s behaviour, attendance and attainment. We want every school, child and family to have the chance of those benefits.
In response to the noble Baroness, I think that is where this scheme builds on—in some ways it is fundamentally larger and more significant—the national breakfast club programme, which has previously been running. I know there will have been some enormously good work and pupils will have benefited, but it is not universal; it is not open to every child and every school, and it is not necessarily free. That is the difference in the proposals this Government are putting forward, which are being tested and will be evaluated and developed through the early adopters scheme the Secretary of State announced earlier this week. Some 750 schools, chosen from a whole range of different sizes, regions and levels of deprivation, will have the opportunity to test it.
In response to the question about the continuation of the national breakfast club programme, we have committed to continue that until March 2026 for all those involved. After that, we will make decisions based on the spending review which, of course, is coming soon. The funding made available in the early adopters scheme is not just for food; it is for delivery, staff and food. Compared with the previous scheme, an average school would receive £24,000 as part of this scheme, which is £21,000 more than they would have received as part of the national breakfast club programme. We can see there the scale of the ambition of this breakfast clubs policy.
On the case reported by the BBC, I can assure the noble Baroness that the BBC has now changed that story because it was wrong. There are 754 schools that have accepted and will be part of the early adopters scheme. There is a very small number the department is in discussion with about the details of those arrangements and making sure that they are able to continue. But the vast majority of the schools have taken up this very important opportunity. I think we will learn a lot from their experience about how we can ensure the national rollout.
On the £450 figure, of course, not only are children being provided with breakfast, but they are also being provided with 30 minutes of free childcare as part of the breakfast scheme. A calculation of the value of 30 minutes of free childcare five days a week gives us a figure of up to £450 that could potentially be saved by parents. At a time when parents face considerable cost of living pressures, I am sure that this will be widely adopted and welcomed by parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, argued that this should be something that is happening at lunchtime as opposed to breakfast time. The Government already rightly spend a considerable amount of money on free school meals for those who are eligible, but what is being provided here is something universal for all children and free at the beginning of the day. Although it was some time ago for me, I had some sympathy with his picture of the parent in the morning struggling to get themselves and their children organised, and to get themselves to work and their children to school.
However, I have to say that I think that struggle would be made easier by the idea that your child—I would not want anybody to think this ever happened to my children—is not being flung out of the car just before school to start the day in some disarray without having had a proper breakfast, or the time to settle into the school day in a way that is likely to make them calmer and more able to learn. The idea is that not only are we providing children with a breakfast, but we are also providing them with a calm start to the day, and we are providing their families with an additional 30 minutes of childcare first thing in the morning when it is often very needed in order for parents to get to work.
On the point the noble Lord raised about the quality of the food, of course that is important. It is not true that school food standards only apply at lunchtime. They also apply to what will be served in breakfast clubs. That will ensure the quality of food available for those children.
Breakfast clubs will ensure that every child, no matter their circumstances, can achieve their full potential by providing a supportive start to the day. I hope noble Lords will feel able to celebrate and support the scheme, and that we are all able to learn from the 750 early adopters how we can make this policy a real success.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the innovation set out in the Statement, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that it is of such importance that it should be properly evaluated. She mentioned evaluation in answer to one of the other questions, but it would be very helpful if she could tell the House what this evaluation and monitoring will consist of. There is some scepticism about take-up. If we are to succeed in reaching children living in poverty, it is important that we get to those children from very disadvantaged homes. That should be part of the evaluation.
We also need to see what works and what does not. I would be grateful if my noble friend could put more flesh on what she said about evaluation and tell us when it might be completed. What steps will the Government then take to publicise it, so that local authorities and teachers can see it and officials and Ministers can move to make changes where they are needed?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. It is at the heart of the early adopters scheme that, exactly as she says, we are able to see in different circumstances, with different types of schools and different needs of children—there are 50 special schools included in the 750—how the scheme works and therefore learn what more we need to do.
In order to ensure that that happens, we will engage with academics to be able to evaluate it. We will make sure that there is peer-to-peer learning throughout the early adopters scheme. We will then want to reflect further on that evaluation to think about how we develop and roll out the scheme nationally. I am sure that I will be able to come back to this House with more information about what we have learned from the early adopters scheme and how we are intending to put that into operation to deliver the whole scheme.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, there are many different schemes in addition to the one the Government have just announced, which aim to provide breakfast for children in schools. How and through which government departments will these be co-ordinated? I ask this because I fear that there is a siloed approach to many of these schemes, which means that there will be gaps in the service provided If there were proper co-ordination through a department that is overtly in charge of these schemes, those gaps would not occur.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that some good schemes are already in place but, to reiterate, none is universal or free. The breakfast club commitment that will be brought into law through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will come to this House soon, will ensure that there are no gaps because there will be universal provision across all state-funded schools with primary-age pupils. It will be co-ordinated by the DfE, supported in some of the ways I have outlined. That is how we will get coherence and opportunity for everybody. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also pointed out the benefit of a universal scheme: it removes the stigma associated with schemes targeted specifically at some children.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as someone whose daughter has just started breakfast club this week for the first time, I absolutely recognise their value for children and parents. The Minister was helpfully clear that the key difference in the Government’s approach is that it is about universality and a free-to-use service. She was also clear that the intention is for the funding to cover food and childcare, but there is a bit of a tension in those two statements. The IFS has been clear that the funding available is sufficient to cover all pupils if it covers only food costs, but that it would cover only about 60% of pupils if it covered food and childcare costs. While I welcome the Minister’s clarity that the intention is to cover food and childcare, it seems that the Government are missing about 40% of the funding needed to do so on a universal basis.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We do not believe that that is the case. With the considerable additional money that will go into schools—£24,000 for an average school—we believe that it is possible to cover all the elements I outlined. However, part of the reason for having the early adopter scheme is to be able to look at how these 750 schools are delivering and the extent to which the resources are right for them to do so, and to use that to plan for how and what resources are necessary to roll that out nationally.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I welcome this Statement. How will the Government ensure that breakfast clubs will be accessible to learners with special educational needs and disabilities who may usually be supported by one-to-one staff during the school day?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. As I suggested earlier, 50 of the 750 schools in the early adopter scheme are special schools and will receive a higher rate per pupil. They will give us the opportunity to see what design, level of staffing and type of organisation work best for those children. Equally, for schools that are not special schools, we are clear that these breakfast clubs need to be available for all children, including those with special educational needs. Being able to evaluate and look at the experience of the early adopters will help us ensure that we can deliver that.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, I once represented an area that had massive child poverty and where children had great needs. I have been told by children that it was not their turn to eat that night. I have been told by teachers that children stand by their friends to have the leftovers of their packed lunch because their family cannot provide food for them. Is there any flexibility in this scheme for children who find it almost impossible to get to a breakfast club because of its timing? Many of the children I once represented are in temporary accommodation and homes. They move around quite a lot and often find themselves having to access their school via three or four bus journeys, which makes it almost impossible for them to get in for an 8.30 am or 8.15 am breakfast club. If we could feed those children at break time to give them that extra start and boost, I am sure that would be most welcomed by teachers, parents and children. Is there flexibility to allow that to happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an enormously important point from a position of considerable experience. The intention is that this club happens before school and provides childcare and food, but I take her point about children in particular need of food who find it particularly difficult to access it at that time. I will certainly take that away and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Minister Morgan, who are responsible for this and, I am sure, will want to think carefully about it as part of the early adopter scheme.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in the Statement, the Secretary of State asserted that there are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand. I am very conscious that it is a statutory duty of local councils to provide sufficient childcare places, so I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and place in the Library evidence that they are underserved. When I was in government and took this up with the Department for Education, I was assured that there was no evidence of childcare being underserved. Going further, I respectfully say to the Minister that the increase in employer national insurance will have a massive effect on childcare provision. I would be grateful if she could address whether any impact assessment has been done on that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The last Government, rightly, had an objective of ensuring a considerable expansion of the availability of childcare entitlements. For example, there was an objective to increase the free entitlement, from this September, from 15 hours to 30 hours for all children from nine months to two years to match the entitlement delivered for three and four year-olds, which was ramped up last September. The problem was that, while there was a pledge, there was no plan to ensure that that provision was available in all parts of the country. That is why this Government have worked enormously hard, alongside local authorities, to make sure that that plan is in place and backed up by sufficient investment—£8 billion will be spent on childcare entitlements, which is a £2 billion increase in funding for entitlements compared to last year. It is also why we announced the £75 million expansion grant to support providers for children using the new entitlements, delivered through local authorities. On the national insurance contributions point, we will also make available £25 million for public sector providers of childcare via local authorities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
For the scheme to be successful, will the Minister address some of the concerns raised by teachers about which facilities will be made available—ideally, it should not be a classroom—and who will provide the care? I am sure she does not wish teachers to have to extend their already long working day.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks precisely some of the questions that the early adopter scheme will enable us to consider. I agree that teachers should not be extending their day to do this. Schools will find different ways to think about the staffing of these clubs, which we can look at in the early adopter scheme, and the accommodation in which to do it. I do not necessarily agree that it would not be appropriate to use a classroom; some schools might think that is the best way of doing it. There is the flexibility, if necessary, to use premises close to the school if that is more appropriate. However, those are very legitimate questions. The early adopter scheme will help us iron them out and find the best practice that I am sure schools will develop.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I want to follow up one of the questions that has already been put to my noble friend. I was very pleased to hear the number of SEN schools that are part of the project. Has the Minister had talks with transport authorities about getting children with SEN to their school earlier, in time to have the meal? We all know that those transport arrangements can go awry for all sorts of reasons; if talks are not being held, this might add extra complexity that could jeopardise the system.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point, which links to the point about children with turbulent lifestyles and how they can get to school on time. I will certainly take it back to my honourable friend Minister Morgan, to think about in the development of this. As he is very good at this sort of stuff, I am sure he has already thought about it, but I will make sure that he has.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, child obesity is one of the biggest problems that we face. I welcome the direction of travel and the opportunities this presents to address some of the long-standing problems. The Minister mentioned that school food standards would be applied. I see a wink from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the Benches opposite, given the number of interventions I made to her about the quality of school food standards being, in my view, inadequate, and the lack of enforcement. Can the Minister say what enforcement we will be applying? What standards will we have about the quality of the food? Is it not important that we spend more time looking at that, during this experimental period, to get the model right for the future?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend’s point about school food standards is a broader one and very important. I have previously told the House that, during my first time round in the Department for Education, I had the joy of being heavily lobbied to introduce school food standards in the first place, and I am very glad that we did. However, my noble friend makes the legitimate point that it is important that we keep those school food standards under review. There may be some learning from this scheme. I know that my colleagues in the department are keen to ensure that we have not only the right standards but the right ways of ensuring that they are delivered universally across schools. That is something that my noble friend will have the opportunity to badger me about in future months and years.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, there seems to be uniformity, in that everybody has to have breakfast. Why cannot some schools have breakfast and others have lunch? I always went to school in the morning and always had lunch at home, so I did not have breakfast. I do not think my concentration was affected at all. It is a matter of choice, and one that should be given to students.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Choice depends on there being provision. At the moment, there is not universal free provision of breakfast clubs for those children—probably their parents, frankly, at that age—who choose that to be the right thing for them. There will not be compulsory attendance at these breakfast clubs, but they will be available for anybody who wants them. I come back to the point about lunch, and reiterate that the Government are already rightly spending a considerable amount of money on providing free school meals at lunchtime for around 3.5 million children and young people. That will remain for those children.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, notwithstanding the results of the pilots, can the Minister tell us whether the department, or indeed head teachers, are encouraging children to stay at home to have breakfast, because it is quite valuable for the family unit? I realise that breakfast clubs are an idea, and I am interested to see what the pilots are doing, but this could be run in parallel.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There is enormous value in families being able to sit down and eat together. My personal experience is that breakfast is not necessarily the most likely time to bring fruitful conversation and calm family time. To reiterate my point, any family who wants to carry on having breakfast together as a family should of course be able to do so. The point is that, for those who want their children to have a smooth start to school, the opportunity to be part of the club for 30 minutes, and the chance to have their breakfast at school, this will be provided through the scheme.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I want to follow up the point made by noble friend Lady Coffey on the impact of the national insurance rise on childcare providers. The Minister recognised the impact that rise will have on childcare provision by saying that public sector providers will get an additional £25 million to help meet those costs. However, a lot of childcare provision is in the private sector. How are those providers meant to meet the additional costs when the rates that the Government are paying for the provision of additional free hours are not going to change?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could have a broader debate about why it has been necessary for this Government to introduce an increase in national insurance contributions, but let us not do that today—everybody knows why, given the legacy that we had. I talked about support for the expansion of childcare and the additional £75 million that is being provided as part of the expansion grant. That will be available to private sector and other childcare providers, to support them in developing the necessary childcare.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister would place in the Library information about the local authorities that the Department for Education believes are underserved with childcare places. I asked the question earlier; I would appreciate it if that letter could be placed in the Library.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will undertake to come back to the noble Baroness about that. The point I was making is that we are talking not only about the current situation, in which quite a few parents would suggest that they have not been able to access childcare provision at a cost they can afford. I do not think the noble Baroness is suggesting that every parent who wants to access childcare is able to do so. That is why I gave some credit to the previous Government for recognising that, along with the significance of childcare provision, and making the pledge to increase the free entitlements. The problem was that they did not put alongside that pledge a plan and investment. It has taken this Government to turn a promise into a reality.
Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish
That this House takes note of the progress of the Post Office Horizon compensation scheme and of the contribution of Fujitsu to the compensation of victims.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. I am looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, both good trade unionists who I have worked with and known for many years.
Along with my good friend—and I call him a good friend—the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, I have been involved in the campaign for sub-postmasters for over 15 years. I hope that our efforts have made a little contribution to exposing this scandal. The main efforts that need to be recognised in this scandal are those of Alan Bates and the sub-postmasters. They have ensured that we have got to where we are today, when the truth is finally coming out about what went on around the Horizon scandal.
I first became involved with this cause in 2009, when I was Member of Parliament for North Durham. A constituent of mine, Tom Brown, came to see me. He was an upstanding, hard-working postmaster who had received awards from the Post Office for fighting off an armed robber at his post office. He was accused of stealing £84,000.
Tom had raised with the Post Office the issues around the Horizon system, but he was completely ignored until auditors arrived to close his post office down and was subsequently taken to court for stealing £84,000. In that two-year process, Tom was made bankrupt. ironically, on the morning of the case at Newcastle Crown Court, the Post Office said it had no evidence to put forward. It was too late for Tom by then: his life had been ruined. Tom gave evidence to the public inquiry but, sadly, passed away last year before its conclusion. He was one of too many who passed away, never to see the justice that they deserved.
The Post Office Horizon issue has been described as a scandal, but I argue that it is worse than that. It is the worst example of when the state, with all its powers, not only goes unchecked but leads to collusion. Moreover, the state was in a position where it can bury the truth, even at the expense of individuals who are hard-working, upright citizens going to prison.
Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I, along with other parliamentarians from both Houses who have been involved in this campaign, have been lied to. Has it been a lonely furrow to plough over those years? Yes, it has. Certainly, when you talk to the campaigners and the sub-postmasters, you find that they have felt frustrated over the years that they have been not only ignored but lied to as well.
Without Alan Bates and the campaigners—the 555—who took the case to court, I am not sure that the truth would have emerged. Even when the case took place in 2017, the Post Office and the state were still prepared to spend £100 million of taxpayers’ money to try to bury the truth to ensure that it did not come out. To the credit of the campaign, its financial backers and Lord Justice Fraser, they did get to the bottom of the case, but again, they had to settle because the Post Office and the state used a tsunami of cash to try to stop the process. The dam did burst in that case to make sure that evidence that had been hidden for many years but known to many of us who had been involved in the campaign saw the light of day. Remarkably, the ITV drama on the Post Office brought it to a wider audience. The subsequent public inquiry has shone an even deeper spotlight to reveal the truth, and I look forward to its findings. I pay tribute to Sir Wyn Williams and the staff of the inquiry for the work that they have done.
The Government have paid out £633 million to victims through the Horizon compensation scheme. We have four schemes: the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order scheme, the overturned convictions scheme, and the Horizon convictions redress scheme. If you were starting afresh, would you start with four schemes? No, you clearly would not, because the claimants have quite clearly found the way all four schemes have operated to be frustrating and bureaucratic.
The advisory board has sought to try to ensure that there is fairness across the four schemes, and that we have a system whereby individuals can get some independent legal advice and, at the end of the process, can have the process and their claims looked at independently from the Post Office. The victims quite rightly do not trust the Post Office. The scheme with which I have the most difficulty is the Horizon shortfall scheme, because it was run by the Post Office. There is quite clear evidence that there was an attempt to try to settle many claims as quickly as possible to ensure that the Post Office did not have to come to the Government for more money. The advisory board has recommended that there should be independent processes at the end for claimants to be able to have their cases reviewed, because there is clear evidence that there are individuals who have accepted settlements without legal advice that, I would argue, were under settled.
If noble Lords want to know why victims distrust the Post Office, I can tell them that there is potentially a fifth scheme that surrounds the Capture system, which pre-dated Horizon. It only came about because I found out about it by accident. I went to see a postmaster in Northumberland a couple of years ago, who said she had been a victim of the Horizon scheme, but when I looked at the dates I discovered that they pre-dated Horizon, which surprised me. When I went to the Post Office and the Government to say that this was surely a Horizon case, they said that it could not be because the dates were too early.
We then found out that there was a pre-runner of Horizon called Capture, which again has thrown up other issues, including more than 200 individuals who were either prosecuted or had their lives ruined. Because of that, the Government instituted an independent report—the Kroll report—and have agreed to compensate those individuals. That shows the culture there has been at the Post Office of not coming forward. You would have thought that, with all the publicity around Horizon, someone might have come forward and said, “Well, we might need to look at the earlier system”. Again, however, we had to drag out of the Post Office, kicking and screaming, any information that was needed.
This comes to broader point. As I said, would you start with four schemes in the complex system that we have? No, we would not. There is a need in government—and it might possibly come out of the inquiry—to set up a body to look at how we pay compensation to victims of misjustice: certainly, for example, those affected by the infected blood scandal. But this scandal was not the result of mistake or failure: this was conspiracy—a cover-up—involving government, Ministers, the Post Office and Fujitsu.
Fujitsu was the main contractor. In terms of that company, sub-postmasters were always told that this system was infallible, that it could not be accessed remotely, and that whatever was put in by the sub-postmaster was somehow their mistake and their fault. It was quite clear, however, that there could be remote access to it, and this was known. It is clear that that could happen from Lord Justice Fraser’s judgment in the sub-postmasters’ case. Again, we were given the impression that it was the perfect system but that judgment found that there were 29 bugs, some of which went unchecked for many years.
Was this known at the corporate level? Yes it was. For example, in 2001 Fujitsu paid the Post Office £150,000 for a data breach. However, it is worse than that, because Fujitsu not only covered up the fact that the system was full of bugs and could be remotely accessed but took an active part in the prosecution of sub-postmasters. It had, as part of its contract, a litigation and fraud support unit, which provided the Post Office with data to support prosecutions. This was known as ARQ data. Lo and behold, this ARQ data was never checked, so in the case that went forward not only did Fujitsu employees gave testimony against the sub-postmasters but the data they were given was not accurate or even checked. We know this because Anne Chambers, who was a Fujitsu employee, raised this at corporate level in 2006 and asked why this data was being given without any checks whatever. That, again, was raised and completely ignored by Fujitsu.
That begs the question: what was Fujitsu actually doing? We know now that all this was known. In his testimony to the public inquiry, Paul Patterson, the director of Fujitsu in the UK, admitted to all of this. Likewise, Rob Putland, who was the senior vice-president, admitted to it when he wrote to the BIS Select Committee of the House of Commons in 2020. All the information was there, so it raises the question: why were these red flags not raised within Fujitsu itself?
At the public inquiry and the Commons Select Committee, Mr Patterson said that he apologised to the sub-postmasters and that Fujitsu would make a contribution to compensate victims. As of today, no money has been paid by Fujitsu to victims—and this is a company that is still making multimillion-pound profits from government contracts. That information is available in Computer Weekly, where, last week, Karl Flinders had a very good article showing that Fujitsu will potentially make, over the next few years, over half a billion pounds in new contracts. It said that it was not going to bid for new contracts, but what it is doing is extending existing contracts. That is happening at the same time as the taxpayer is paying out nearly £600 million in compensation to victims, and many victims are still waiting for compensation.
Fujitsu is hiding behind the public inquiry. It knows the evidence that it has given to the public inquiry is there. Nothing will be revealed from a public inquiry’s findings that we do not already know. So I suggest that it should make an interim payment of at least £300 million now to cover the cost for victims. Some major changes are also needed within Fujitsu. When the process for bidding for new contracts starts, the Government should bar Fujitsu from taking part in any future contracts if major change has not taken place. That would be a tragedy for the 7,000 people in the UK who work for Fujitsu, nor would it be good for UK-Japanese relations, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I raised a few weeks ago with Mr Suzuki, the Japanese ambassador to London. I understand that, in a few weeks’ time, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will go to Japan, and I suggest that he should meet senior Fujitsu representatives to press the case for them to make proper compensation, even if only on an interim basis.
In conclusion, yes, this a scandal, but it is also something that we cannot allow to happen again. We need to put in place things that not only prevent it happening again but change the culture, both within the organisations and in how we address these issues. We need a new system independent of government—an ombudsman system—which does not then mean that we need to have a public inquiry every time. Clearly, we need to strengthen whistleblowing, and the Government need to look at the way in which non-executives and others are appointed to outside bodies which, clearly, do not raise any questions. Finally, Fujitsu needs to pay up. It needs to make sure that it will not keep taking money from the UK taxpayer while it makes no financial contribution to this scandal.
I finish with this point. Tom Brown, who gave evidence to the public inquiry, was asked what he wanted from the inquiry. He said that he wanted the truth. That is what we owe Tom and all the other victims of this scandal. I beg to move.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I too declare my interests as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board and as chair of the advisory panel of Thales UK.
I congratulate my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on securing this debate. He has been with me every step of the way in his vigorous campaigning on behalf of the sub-postmasters. It is at least partly thanks to him that we are where we are now, and that we are getting somewhere. Discovering the Capture issue is thanks to him. We are getting somewhere, but we are not far enough along, and I will come to that.
I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber. What an excellent choice they have made in their topic for their maiden speeches. It is a hugely important topic, and your Lordships will all want to welcome them to this battle. There is no party politics in this, because all the political parties comprehensively failed the sub-postmasters—we are all to blame. We all need to work hard together to achieve an improvement in the position of the sub-postmasters and their redress, holding to account those who were responsible for this mess and establishing a better set of institutions to try to ensure that it does not happen again.
The debate is about compensation, specifically drawing attention to the role of Fujitsu. Before I come to that, there is one important matter that I ask the Government to consider. In doing so, I welcome the Minister back to her place—without a stick—and I hope that she is well on the way to recovery. The important matter is that the politicians failed in our initial attempts to get this matter sorted out through politics; I failed and even the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, failed. As he said, the only thing that got us to where we are today was Sir Alan Bates’s courageous group litigation, funded by litigation funders. Following the PACCAR judgment in the Supreme Court, it would probably be impossible today for Sir Alan to raise such litigation funding. A cross-party group of your Lordships’ House will meet the Attorney-General next week to discuss this, but I raise it now to flag up its importance and relevance.
Returning to Fujitsu, I am grateful to Mr Stuart Goodwillie and Mr James Christie for their fascinating and helpful briefings online. Let us not forget what Fujitsu did. ICL, the company that produced Horizon and that was bought by Fujitsu, provided a computer program to the Post Office which it knew was seriously flawed. As Richard Christou of ICL told the public inquiry, Pathway, the ICL front company in the contract negotiation,
“was determined to win the tender, and decided to undertake as little negotiation as possible in order to better its chances of obtaining the award”.
Fujitsu had a duty under its contract to provide evidence for prosecutions that was admissible and accurate. It did help the Post Office prosecute the sub-postmasters, but with evidence that was false. Knowing of the flaws in the Horizon system, it told the courts that there were no such flaws.
Moreover, Fujitsu had a large operation altering the accounts of the sub-postmasters without the knowledge of the sub-postmasters. It told everyone that it could not alter those accounts, despite carrying out an extensive operation doing exactly that. So Fujitsu did much more than stand idly by while the sub-postmasters were maliciously prosecuted; it was an active, knowing and essential participant in the whole ghastly fraud. If it were not a company but an individual, it would be facing years, or possibly decades, in prison. Yet it is a company, and one on which the Government have become unacceptably dependent. Each year in which the Government extend some contract or other, saying that there is no alternative, they should ask themselves, “If this were Prisoner Smith in cell block J4, would we really be giving him a contract worth tens of millions of pounds?”
What is Fujitsu doing about this? What money has it offered? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish: nothing. It has accepted its “moral obligation”, but the taxpayer is paying out hundreds of millions now. There needs to be an interim payment from Fujitsu now. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, suggested £300 million; £700 million would be less than half the cost that the taxpayer is currently estimated to bear. If it does not do that, why should the Government offer it further extensions of its existing contracts, still less grant it new contracts? That is Fujitsu.
But what about the auditors, Ernst & Young? A couple of weeks ago, I told your Lordships that I asked the inquiry to include the auditors in its scope, but the inquiry chair decided that that would extend the length of the inquiry disproportionately. But here we have Ernst & Young certifying that the audited accounts represent a true and fair view of the Post Office’s financial state—missing a liability of £1.87 billion. What on earth were they doing? I will tell you what they were doing. In 2003-04, they decided to audit, out of a total of 12,000 Horizon branches, not 10% of them—1,200—which would have been respectable; not 1% of them—120—which would not have been respectable; but one. One branch. When the Post Office’s chief operating officer, David Miller, was asked in the public inquiry,
“do you consider it was a satisfactory way for the Board to satisfy itself of the accuracy of the company accounts?”,
he answered: “It was very limited”. One, out of 12,000 branches.
On 5 June last year, Alice Perkins told the public inquiry of a meeting she had with Mr Grant, the partner at Ernst & Young, when she became chair of the Post Office. He told her: “With Fujitsu”, the Post Office
“drove a very hard bargain on price but they took back on quality/assurance”.
So, he knew that the quality of what Fujitsu was providing was suspect. Where does that appear in the Post Office audited accounts? As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would say: spoiler alert—it does not.
Mr Grant also told her:
“Horizon – is a real risk for us … Does it capture data accurately ... Cases of fraud—suspects suggest it’s a systems problem”.
In her evidence, Alice Perkins said:
“Horizon is a real risk for us”,
meaning that Horizon was a real risk not to the Post Office, but to Ernst & Young. That too does not appear in the audited accounts. As James Christie says on his website:
“The Horizon system has never featured as a risk in any annual report. It surfaced only indirectly in the 2019 report, but as a litigation risk, which was incorrectly thought to be mitigated by contesting the litigation that took place”.
Well, we know how that ended up.
“Even this risk had vanished in the 2020 report”.
In a management letter to the Post Office—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for drawing my attention to it—Ernst & Young wrote:
“We were unable to identify an internal control with the third-party service provider”—
that is, Fujitsu—
“to authorise fixes and maintenance changes prior to development for the in-scope applications”,
that is, Horizon. If there was no internal control, what were the external auditors doing about it? Nothing. How were the owners—the taxpayers—meant to know this was going on if the auditors were not telling them? How were the sub-postmasters, those who were being sent to prison, made bankrupt, having their lives ripped apart, meant to defend themselves?
If the public inquiry will not hold the auditors to account, it is a task that must fall, first, to the Financial Reporting Council and, ultimately, to the Government. The Government need to drive this. It should not be down to the advisory board—this part-time group—to be driving this forward. We need action now.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I look forward to the two maiden speeches.
I am a relative Johnny-come-lately to the story of this scandal. There are a number of people who deserve our thanks and regards: first, the sub-postmasters and their families, who have suffered terribly from the incompetence, arrogance and bullying of the Post Office. Sir Alan Bates, of course, stands out. The noble Lords, Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, have also been on the case for a long time and I thoroughly applaud their work. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for instigating this debate. They both made excellent speeches.
ITV played a big role in reaching a wide and outraged audience with its admirable hit series “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. There are lawyers, such as Neil Hudgell, battling for the postmasters. Among journalists, I must single out Nick Wallis. It was his BBC Radio 4 series five years ago that first alerted me, although he had been working on the issue for a decade previously, when he was a presenter on BBC Radio Surrey. An article on him three years ago described what happened:
“It was a tweet that any journalist might have ignored. It came … from a taxi owner asking if he could pitch for the local radio station’s taxi account … Davinder turned out to be the husband of Seema Misra who had been thrown into prison on her son’s 10th birthday while pregnant, for supposedly stealing £74,000 from the Post Office … Davinder insisted not only that his wife was innocent but that it was the Post Office computer in her sub-Post Office that was at fault”.
It was November 2010. The rest, as they say, is history; a very painful one.
Sir Alan Bates, brilliantly played by Toby Jones on TV, is of course the most famous of the wronged sub-postmasters. Lee Castleton is another well-known name. He recently tweeted:
“Why is it so difficult to be open, fair and quick. It is disgusting that Betty Brown at 92, is still waiting for the return of Her money. JUST PAY HER what she is owed”.
Someone replied:
“Still can’t help but feel they’re still putting 2 fingers up to us”.
The Financial Times reports that
“many victims are still locked in a glacial, bureaucratic process of offers and appeals that could end up back with the courts”.
Some 72% of the budget for redress has still not been paid. One recalls the adage, justice delayed is justice denied.
The worst problems are in the Horizon Shortfall Scheme—the HSS—which I will mainly speak about. Tony Downey is a former sub-postmaster caught up in this terrible injustice, together with his wife and business partner. He has been granted only 20% of his claim. Tony has written to Sir Wyn Williams, chairman of the Post Office Horizon inquiry, and is allowing me to quote from his letter:
“The Post Office agree we paid the shortfalls, they agree they made us both bankrupted with their action and they agree this made me sick and unable to work since, they agreed at the meeting that the forced sale of the property was related to the Horizon. However they will not pay me the lost income as in other schemes, they will not pay the bankruptcy or costs of my wife and business partner, they will not pay me the full amount of the head of claim for sickness, they will not pay for the loss of the property”,
which was, I think, the family home.
Tony Downey, Christopher Head OBE—another wronged postmaster—and journalist Nick Wallis have drawn attention to a curious feature of way the Horizon Shortfall Scheme is being administered by the Post Office that might help explain why claimant sub-postmasters with complex cases are receiving offers way below their claims. The HSS assessors seem to be—indeed are, and have said that they are—working to a set of guidelines different from the published principles and are refusing to share them with the claimants’ lawyers. One claimant has commented:
“We guess they include every get out clause possible”.
One of the claimant lawyers replied to Post Office lawyers as follows, and it bears quoting fully, which I have permission to do:
“The Post Office approach to HSS claims is on the basis of breach of contract and assessing damages had the contract been ‘validly terminated’. We fundamentally oppose that basis of calculation which is at odds with the Principles that are widely published in relation to the HSS, and therefore the narrow contractual approach taken by Post Office does not satisfy the tests presented in the Principles document. The document to which you”—
that is, a Post Office lawyer—
“refer appears to be fundamentally different to the widely published one and seems to be separate guidance used by the Panel and has never seen the light of day publicly, so how can we or a Postmaster be on an equal footing in this claims process, when you refuse to disclose guidelines used by the panel? This would not be an acceptable situation in any other claims or legal process in this country”.
As far as I can see, he is absolutely right that a narrow contractual approach, which effectively gives a sub-postmaster only redundancy money, is not at all the same as the Post Office’s published Horizon Shortfall Scheme Consequential Loss Principles and Guidance document, whereby:
“The object of the assessment will be … to put the postmaster into the position that the postmaster would have been in but for the Horizon Shortfall”.
For former sub-postmaster Tony Downey, this is the difference between getting redundancy money amounting to two years’ or so income and being fully compensated for inability to work since a nervous breakdown in 2007 after being suspended, audited twice, bullied to pay shortfalls in order to get reinstated, having to sell the business at a loss, both he and his wife having to declare bankruptcy, and losing their home. He says:
“We had gone from owning a mortgage free property now worth £900,000 with a successful business and savings to having nothing and the scheme is unable to put us anywhere near the position we should have been”.
Inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams wrote in his July 2023 first interim report on compensation:
“It would be tempting for some to be sceptical about whether”
full and fair compensation,
“can be achieved … a commitment to provide compensation which is full and fair is not the traditional stance taken by a defendant in our adversarial system of civil litigation”.
That was very prescient. What will the Government do to oblige the Post Office to follow the published principles on consequential loss, not revert to being a traditional adversarial defendant? Can the Minister ensure not only that the Post Office’s secret guidelines, which are not in accord with the published principles, are made available to all claimants and indeed to parliamentarians and everyone else, but that it stops using them?
The Business and Trade Select Committee reported on 1 January on redress for the Horizon scandal. The government response was not available yesterday or first thing this morning. I imagine the Minister can assure us that it is imminent; by my calculation, the deadline for the response is tomorrow at the latest. Your Lordships will probably all have read the committee’s recommendations, one of which was that the Post Office should be removed from administering any of the schemes. It says, and I strongly agree, that the Post Office acted as “judge, jury and executioner” when pursuing sub-postmasters and that now it
“should not be deciding on what financial redress is owed to victims of its own scandal”.
I do not have time to discuss the other recommendations from the committee, but I just point out that the present reality is that claimants not only have to fill out a complex form with no legal support but face a scenario of snakes and ladders. This is well-described in a letter that a former sub-postmaster, Christopher Head, wrote yesterday to inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams—he has made it public, so I can quote from it. He describes how a claimant faces
“the risk that should she pursue a claim above the Fixed Sum, she could be offered less and then have to enter the long drawn out dispute processes that could continue for years … There is also no guarantee she would get close to the fixed sum award let alone the sum claimed. All this must be done without any legal advice, unless the individual is willing to pay for their own representation, which is out of reach of most people”.
Mr Head rightly says:
“Claimants should be able to receive these awards”—
the fixed awards—
“in any of the schemes and then be invited to raise a further claim for the remainder of their claim should there be sufficient evidence to do so and a likely chance of success … without any risk”.
How does the Minister react to that suggestion, and can she tell us whether the department will take over the Post Office scheme?
I will conclude by quoting briefly from an interesting and heartfelt book by the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May, entitled The Abuse of Power. In her words, she,
“describes many examples of injustice against ordinary people perpetrated by the powerful and mighty”,
with
“often a sense that protection of the institution is more important than fairness, justice or seeking the truth”.
That is what we have seen with the Post Office. She concludes that
“we need to reconsider who we are as a country and the urgent need for those in authority to ensure that in all they do, they are putting the country and the people first”.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to rise to make my maiden speech today in this place. I want to start by thanking Black Rod, her staff, the doorkeepers, police, and all the staff of this House for their warm welcome and support in my first few weeks here, and particularly for their help towards my family and friends on the day of my introduction—there was rather a large number of them.
I would also like to thank my supporters, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, one of my closest friends in politics and life, whose advice and guidance over many decades has been and continues to be invaluable to me, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who has given me time, advice and guidance over the last few weeks.
Today, I want to give some background as to who I am, where I come from, and what motivates me and the areas where I feel I have most to contribute in this place.
I was born in my parents’ home, a council house in the village of Whitburn, the place I live today—I have never lived more than two miles from it in my entire life. My roots are very strong. I am a very much a northern woman who will stand up for the north at every opportunity I can.
My dad Harold worked as a blacksmith’s striker at the local colliery, and my mother Laura looked after the family and did little cleaning jobs to make ends meet. In my experience, that is the hardest work anyone can do. She was a very strong northern woman and was an enormous influence on me.
My brother Dennis, almost 15 years older than me, was an electrician at the colliery, and my sister Joan, who is 10 years older than me, was still at school when I was born. It is no underestimation to say that I was a little bit of a surprise to my family when I arrived. I was delighted that Joan was able to attend my introduction with her husband Derek, as sadly, only Joan and I are left from that family group.
Growing up, the community in my village was a very tight one, and still is. Neighbours were like family, and everyone looked out for each other. Most people did not have a lot of money—most men worked either at the local pits or the shipyards—but everyone believed in hard work, taking care of your family and your neighbours and wanting the best for everyone, and they had enormous aspiration for their children, although they would not have described it as that.
My family were not political, although they were very interested in current affairs. We watched the news, read lots of newspapers and discussed the issues of the day. I got involved in politics during the year-long miners’ strike of 1984, when, whatever the merits or otherwise of that strike, as a young woman coming from generations of miners on both sides of my family I felt that the Government of the day was attacking my way of life and the community I came from. I could not stand back and let that happen; I had to take a stand and make my voice heard in trying to defend my community, so I joined the Labour Party. I did not know it at the time, but that decision was to influence the path my life took in a way I would never have imagined or even thought possible all those years ago.
I have had the privilege of working for my party as a regional organiser, for my trade union—the GMB—for a charity, and then I had the honour of being the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Sunderland Central for 14 years.
My family is at the centre of my life. I have four grown-up children: Rebecca, Miles, Georgia and Helena, all of whom attended my introduction, along with five of my eight grandchildren, as well as my wonderful husband Andrew. They are at the centre of everything I do, and it is fair to say that I could not do what I do without their love and support.
My community, my strong sense of working-class values, my family and my passion for the north are the things that drive me and make me want to make a difference and contribute to public life. Over the years, I have developed an interest and expertise in all things connected to digital, culture, media and sport, having had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee in the other place for nine years; and the Middle East, with my involvement for several years as the co-chair of the Britain-Palestine All-Party Parliamentary Group. I also have a passion for promoting the north of England, its potential and its continuing regeneration.
I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Beamish, someone I have worked with in different roles for more than 30 years—there is a theme here from the north of England, where we all know each other—moved this debate on the progress, or perhaps lack of progress, on the Post Office Horizon compensation scheme today. More than a decade ago, two constituents came to see me at a surgery about the Horizon scandal. It was one of those moments in my time as a Member of Parliament when I was absolutely flabbergasted at the horror of what I learned had happened to my constituents. The female constituent had an exemplary work life in banking before she decided to take on a sub-post office. The couple had lived in a comfortable detached house in a very nice part of Sunderland that they had worked hard all of their lives to buy. When the Horizon system showed they owed hundreds of thousands of pounds that was missing, they had to sell their home and use the proceeds of that sale and all of their savings to pay the money back to the Post Office, to avoid prosecution and most likely prison.
This was wrong. It should not have happened, but, sadly, their story, as some of the stories that have already been talked about today, is just one of hundreds of cases. The victims of the Horizon scandal have waited far too long to get meaningful compensation. As has been described, even for those who have had some compensation, it has not been full or adequate. The Horizon system was introduced in 1999; the problems were actually known about before that. It is now time for Fujitsu to play its part and step up to the plate to pay some compensation. I urge all of those involved in this to move as quickly as is practically possible and pay all the victims of this scandal the moneys they so deserve.
I look forward to participating and making informed contributions in the future in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, for her wonderfully warm and family-loving speech, and for naming her children and family in such an affectionate and supportive way.
She will not know it, but we are both Sunderland lovers. Maybe that is the reason I was selected to pay tribute to her wonderful and seriously, gratifyingly positive maiden speech. I am wearing the tie of Sunderland Football Club. She will not know, but I have attended the Stadium of Light on six occasions and the Academy of Light of four occasions, taken there by the owners of Sunderland in order to see the great playing craft of so many of the players, in particular Jermain Defoe, from whom I have a shirt with the number 14—my number—and the signatures of all of the players of Sunderland Football Club. I was delighted and honoured to attend so many times in the noble Baroness’s home town and constituency.
Many of the tributes that are owed to the noble Baroness include for her deep love as a governor of schools and her passionate campaigning on the issue of asthma, which affects so many, both ourselves and those we know. I know she will bring enormous expertise to this House and the punch that an elected Member who is now here in the upper House can bring from having heard the painful rhetoric of constituents, especially on the issue that we are discussing today.
One other thing unites us. In my research—which was very slim, because so much is wonderfully written about the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott—I discovered that we also share the fact that she voted against all Brexit measures in the House of Commons, and I voted against them all here in the House of Lords. We both realised what another tragedy of injustice was being imposed on us by the miscreant Government of the time. On that, her great policy wisdom is well noted and I am sure the whole House will look forward to her ongoing strength of position and commitment and welcome her to the House of Lords.
This debate is essentially about compensation matters. We tend to interpret compensation as meaning money. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, for their arduous, persistent fight on behalf of those whom many of us only became intimately aware of because of Alan Bates and the ITV drama. It really hit us in the eyes when we watched it, let alone when we listened to the BBC’s own documentary. Through the drama and the documentary, we became aware of something that was happening below our noses, so close we should have smelled it earlier but we just did not. There was such clever scheming by the Post Office and Fujitsu.
I have been looking at this through a slightly different lens—a lens which many in this House will know matters to me enormously. The offences Act, passed last year, which essentially annulled the prosecutions of the postmasters, uses these words, already quoted:
“Some were convicted and imprisoned. Some were made bankrupt”.
Malicious allegations were made against them.
“Some lost their homes. some suffered mental or physical health problems … Some were harried as thieves by their local communities. Some suffered breakdowns in relationships with their partners, children or other families and friends. Several died by suicide”.
There is another actor in this horror, besides the Post Office and Fujitsu: the courts. I realise by flagging this that I am treading on very delicate territory, but there were 700 convictions in cases provided by the Post Office and a further 283 sub-postmasters were prosecuted by others, including the CPS, totalling just short of 1,000 prosecutions. I am not sure of the exact number who went to prison. Could the Minister tell the House in her reply how many went to prison as a result of this crass injustice?
It raises the very ugly case that potentially 1,000 courts heard 1,000 cases and thought it was okay. At what point did the justice system, the Ministry of Justice or the Law Society ask, “What the hell is going on?” Why is every court so disconnected from every other one? If judges did not ask, “What, another one? I’ve read about this, I saw this, there was a note about this”, or if clerks did not bring this to their attention, what is the role of judges? Judges are meant to be highly intelligent, impartial adjudicators of the law and its principles. Those principles include intelligent, evidence-based prosecutions, not just taking by swallowing what has been brought by an institute of the state—notably the Post Office—backed up by its deceitful accompanying company, Fujitsu, which simply wanted to bury the detail.
I will ask a difficult question of the Minister: was the wool pulled over the eyes of the judges? What assessment have the committee, the Government or the Ministry of Justice made of the wrongs done by the courts? I believe that it is a matter not just of what needs to be paid out in compensation—that is clearly the real cause of this debate, although it is somewhat flagging—but of from whom the apologies should come. I would like to see handwritten apologies from every judge to every prosecuted individual, especially those who went to prison, and face-to-face meetings that accept that there was deceit at multiple levels of this procedure. We will not have honest justice if there is no honest apology, recognition and accountability. That lies with the courts, as well as with the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has failed in multiple cases—and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I realise that this is a sensitive thing to ask, because we have a tradition in Britain that we do not question judges. Following a question raised in the other place recently by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about a deportation issue—and therefore an allocation of refugee status based on falsified information—immediately somebody representing the court stood up, because there was a criticism of a decision of the court, and said, “Don’t question our decisions”. But is that not exactly what this is about? How can there be a thousand cases with not a single judge saying, “Excuse me? Throw it out”? I am sufficiently aware of so many people’s cases that I know of some where the courts—the Old Bailey or the High Court—and the judge have decided on day 1 or day 2, or week 1, of a case that there is no substantial evidence from the prosecution. They concluded the case and released the individual. Why did that not happen here?
I am asking a sensitive and important question. I am asking the Minister—I realise this is not her area—to communicate to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice that they ought to wake up to our so-called supremely effective independent judicial system and ask the hard questions about the intelligence and agility of the courts and judges to deal with cases of such manipulation.
As many noble Lords know, I spend a lot of time in prisons, and I was in a prison yesterday morning speaking with a man on a 32-year sentence. He has attempted on five occasions to have the Criminal Cases Review Commission assess his case based on falsified forensic data. It refuses to do so. The CCRC has just lost its chair; it has been a flappingly useless institution and needs to be completely renewed from top to bottom. It is another part of the system of injustice, emboldened by the state because we will not ask the hard questions.
Two years ago, we all heard the case of Andrew Malkinson. He was released finally, after 17 years, after a falsified rape case, in which he was innocent. He is still awaiting the compensation agreed by the High Court. As we think about how to improve the financial compensation due, which in my mind is Fujitsu’s bill and not the taxpayers’, we need to recognise that honour, dignity and respect for those falsely prosecuted—and especially those imprisoned and those who lost homes, property, savings and work—requires those who did that injustice to them to look them in the eyes and admit they were wrong. Only then can we restore transparency and honour to our justice system and bring dignity to the postmasters.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, not only for securing this debate but for all that he has done. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I guess that, in modern parlance, they are both superheroes.
This is not a matter of financial redress; it is, as we have heard, about the lives of real people who have suffered through the failures of a system that has wronged them for far too long. I wish to highlight one such person, whom I have mentioned many times in this House, albeit from the other side: Rita Threlfall, a 70 year-old woman who, alongside her family, has endured an unimaginable amount of stress, uncertainty and financial strain as a result of this scandal. Rita’s story is one of far too many, but I share it with noble Lords today because of the specific personal emotional toll it has had on her life.
Rita and her husband, Kevin, ran their business together in my hometown of Liverpool. I am northern too, but from the north-west, not the north-east. For many years, their post office was more than just a livelihood; it was their life, their future and their pension. This future was cruelly taken away from them. Rita’s claim for compensation was submitted two months ago, in January 2025. She was expecting an offer within the 40 working days stipulated, but that deadline is fast approaching—in fact, tomorrow marks the expiration of this deadline. To date, she has received no offer and has heard nothing further, aside from a request for additional information about her husband Kevin’s earnings—a query that has only added further stress to an already harrowing situation. Rita’s claim includes loss of earnings for her husband, as he worked in the post office alongside her, and she remains perplexed by the request. She paid her husband a salary for his work in the business, but the authorities continue to ask for further documentation—a process that Rita and Kevin have found incredibly painful.
Rita has been waiting for 15 years since she was first wrongly convicted in 2010. Despite the repeated assurances that the claims process would be expedited, she remains in the dark about the timeline for resolution. For her, and countless others in a similar position, this has been a crippling experience. Her emotional and financial struggles have only deepened over the years. Rita became a pensioner four years ago, yet she is now living off a state pension which is simply not enough to cover her living expenses, let alone the debts she incurred in the loss of her business. Rita and her family are struggling to make ends meet. As a businesswoman, she had always planned that her business would provide financial security in her retirement. Since the scandal took it all away, she has been unable to invest in her pension or secure a proper future for herself and her husband. Although her two children are doing their best to support their parents, they are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the pressure of daily living costs.
Rita’s anxiety and stress levels have soared, while her weight has plummeted, as a result of this prolonged ordeal. Her health, physical and mental, has suffered immensely. During our conversation this week, she shared with me that she feels overwhelmed by the uncertainty of it all, constantly wondering how much longer she must wait and what the outcome will be when it finally arrives. The emotional toll is staggering. For years, she has lived in fear of her future, unable to plan for anything and uncertain about whether she will ever receive the compensation she so desperately needs and deserves.
When I talked to Rita earlier this week, her distress was palpable. She spoke about her 70th birthday celebration in January, an event that, for a moment, allowed her to reflect on happier times. Rita and Kevin had to leave their home in Liverpool due to their financial struggles, and they now live in Stoke-on-Trent. For the occasion of her 70th birthday, all her family, including the youngest member, a six month-old, gathered at the local cricket club to celebrate with her. It was a rare moment of joy amid long years of pain. Yet even in that moment of happiness, Rita could not escape the overwhelming sadness of what had been lost, including her proximity to her family, her post office, her livelihood, her future and her dignity—they have all been taken from her, and the compensation she so desperately needs is still pending.
As of now, Rita has received nothing since the interim payment in December 2022, which, as we know, did not begin to cover the damages caused by the closure of her business. Rita remains in limbo, waiting.
This is why I urge the Government to act swiftly and decisively. This is not about statistics or balance sheets; it is about real people, whose lives have been shattered. Behind every claim is a person like Rita, who has endured unimaginable hardship, financial ruin and emotional turmoil. Rita, like so many others, has suffered more than enough. She deserves justice. She deserves compensation and she deserves it now. Every day that passes without resolution prolongs the suffering for those who have already lost so much. We cannot and should not allow bureaucracy and delays to stand in the way of what is right.
Given Fujitsu’s acknowledged role and its stated moral obligation to contribute to compensation, can the Minister explain why the substantial contracts that have been talked of today remain in place? Why were many of them awarded after 2019? What assurances can the Government provide that no further public money will be awarded to Fujitsu unless it has fully met its financial obligations to the victims of this devastating miscarriage of justice? Can the Minister also confirm that employees and suppliers are paid monthly and regularly by Fujitsu, in stark contrast to Rita and her colleagues who, rather than being paid, are being humiliated?
The Government must provide clear and transparent communication to claimants about process, ensuring that they know what to expect and how long they will have to wait. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, when he suggested £300 million from Fujitsu—I think that was upped by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I argue that it should pay exactly as much as the taxpayer has. It is a lot of money, but it should be paid.
I would also like the Government to do more to support those who are struggling with the emotional and financial strain of this scandal and provide them with the tools and resources that they need to move their lives forward. As I said at the beginning, this is not just about money; it is about rebuilding lives that have been torn apart. At 70 years old, Rita should be enjoying retirement with her family, yet instead she finds herself battling anxiety, financial hardship and the lingering effects of a fight that she should never have had to endure. Her family is doing all it can, but why should it have to? Why should any victim of this scandal have to rely on loved ones to survive, when it was the failures of others that put them in this position?
The Government must step up with not just words and sympathy but concrete measures that provide real, immediate relief for the victims. Rita and countless others like her have been waiting far too long for justice. I stand here today not as a Member of this House but as a human being imploring the Government to take immediate action to right this wrong. We cannot continue to allow these victims to suffer. We must act and we must act now.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
I want to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Beamish for initiating today’s debate and give my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lady Elliott on her excellent maiden speech.
I feel very privileged to join this House and acutely conscious of how much I have to learn of its conventions and procedures. I am fortunate to have the guidance and wisdom of my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady O’Grady, who both supported my introduction to the House. John has been a mentor and close friend of mine ever since I first walked through the doors of the TUC headquarters, Congress House, in 1975—quite a long time ago. Frances, who succeeded me in the position of TUC general secretary, has demonstrated ever since that her talent and integrity wholly justified my confidence that the TUC’s leadership would be in great hands on my departure. I am also delighted that another very close colleague, now my noble friend Lady Carberry, has also joined us in this House. She will give great service.
Ainsdale, now in my formal title, is an area in the town of Southport, which has suffered greatly in the wake of those terrible events some months ago. I applaud the spirit of the Southport people in their response to that outrage.
Throughout my childhood in Ainsdale, my dad worked as a bricklaying instructor in a local approved school. The term “approved school” was the language of the time; now I guess it would be called a young offender institution. We had a house in the grounds of the school; perhaps I am the first noble Lord to have been brought up in such an institution—or looking around all the Benches, perhaps not.
I sometimes saw my dad defuse a difficult situation, with angry young men about to kick off, by using patience, calmness and reason, and sometimes humour too. As I have discovered, both in the TUC and during my time as chair of ACAS, these can be important factors in the resolution of any difficult conflict.
I have tried to learn from all my experiences as I have made my way through life. After leaving school, I served for a year as a volunteer teacher in Ghana through the VSO—Voluntary Service Overseas—programme. This began to open my eyes to the vast diversity of life experience across the planet we share. At the end of my degree course at City University, I spent a year as president of the student union, able to observe and play a part in the university’s most senior governance structures. A year followed working for an industrial training board before I saw an advert for a job at the TUC. The advert told very little about the vacancy to be filled. It was only after I reached the interview that I discovered they were looking particularly for someone to do research and briefing on industrial training policy. My experience at the ITB, I think, got me the job and I was there for the next 37 years—serendipity.
Today’s debate is an opportunity to highlight again a terrible injustice suffered by a blameless group of workers, inflicted by an irresponsible and overmighty employer which appeared to feel that it could act with impunity. Fair compensation is long overdue and this scandal, to my mind, reinforces the message that trade unions are as vitally needed today as ever to provide effective representation for people at work and to hold employers to account.
The half a century since my entry to the TUC has seen remarkable changes in the world of work and of trade unionism. The mid-1970s saw the agreement between the Labour Government of the day and the TUC of what was termed the “social contract”. That saw the level of inflation in the economy reduced from around 24% in 1975 to 8% by 1978. That was a staggering achievement that appears largely forgotten now as the “winter of discontent” followed the breakdown of that agreement. History, of course, is written by the victors. That was followed by a long period of the demonisation of trade unionism, even termed at one point as “the enemy within”, with workers at GCHQ—Government Communications Headquarters—even being told that being a union member was not consistent with loyalty to the nation.
The Labour Government of 1997 righted that wrong at GCHQ and made other progressive changes. Trade union recognition rights were underpinned by law. The minimum wage lifted living standards for the lowest paid. The UK rejoined the European mainstream on rights and protections for people at work by signing up to the European Social Chapter, from which the previous Government had opted the UK out. But despite those achievements, there are long-term trends that have still left working people relatively poorer. In simple terms, inequality has grown as the coverage of collective bargaining and effective workplace representation has been weakened. A rebalancing is long, long overdue.
Good employers have nothing to fear from this. The story of trade unionism is often told by reflecting on major disputes. I understand why the drama of such events appeals to news editors but for most trade unionists the real story is of agreements being made, with good employment relations being a crucial part of the mix in building competitive and successful organisations. Change is so much better managed with understanding and consent.
One letter I received as TUC general secretary reflected that reality in a graphic way. It came from 12 individuals who had together come through an educational programme established by their trade union under the TUC’s Unionlearn initiative, in a partnership between their employer and a local college, to deliver basic literacy and numeracy skills. They told me that the experience and skills gained had completely transformed their lives—to their benefit, of course, but also to the benefit of their employer; a win-win if ever there was one. Crucially, those individuals would never have had the confidence to get involved if the invitation had come just from their employer or the local college. It was only the support of the union that persuaded them to risk re-entering a classroom, in which they had always previously felt a failure. The letter to me, thanking trade unionism for making that difference, finished by saying that it was the first letter any of them had ever sent in their life. That was truly humbling. At its peak, Unionlearn was helping over a quarter of a million people a year back into learning, and I hope our new Government will restore the support that made that possible.
During my time at the TUC, I also served on the Court of Directors of the Bank of England under the dedicated leadership of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. That brought me up close to the global financial crisis of 2008-09, with all the terrifying risks to the fabric of our financial system.
Since leaving the TUC, I have been fortunate to serve on the boards of Transport for London and Openreach, and the Financial Services Culture Board, each with hugely important public interest missions, and from each of which I have learned a great deal. I was proud to chair ACAS for six years; it does such important work, often behind the scenes, in resolving so many difficult disputes. My time as a trustee of the Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts has also been a delight, dedicated as it is to opening up the hugely successful education and professional training it provides to young people from all backgrounds, so delivering opportunities to make the careers that their talent deserves.
Now, as I embark on this new chapter, I am sure that I will again have an opportunity to learn many new lessons from noble Lords and noble Baronesses in all parts of the House and from the dedicated staff, who have all given me such a warm and kind welcome, for which I thank them most sincerely. I look forward to this next phase of my lifelong learning journey.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure for me to follow that excellent and inspiring speech by my noble friend and fellow Lancastrian—we are doing the northern bit at the moment, so I will join in with that. As my noble friend Lord Barber said, he comes from Ainsdale, an area with famous golf courses, where I think it can be said he had a misspent youth on many occasions—he is a very good golfer when his new knee permits it, by the way.
My noble friend’s appointment to this House, as he said, represents a reunion for both of us, because we have been friends and colleagues for about 50 years, with 30 of those spent together at the TUC. We rarely fell out, except perhaps about football from time to time, with his love of Everton, which I never understood. I was extremely pleased to see him succeed me all those years ago as TUC general secretary and for him then to flourish in that role and win this wide regard and respect, which is reflected in the different things he has done in his career. His determination, calmness and courtesy have long been hallmarks of his style, and I am sure they will be widely perceived within this House when noble Lords get to know him a little better. The range of tough jobs that he has done, and the people who have turned to him for help in tricky situations, is very impressive. We are looking at a stellar career that spans the private, public and voluntary sectors. That first speech was excellent, and the House can look forward to many more from my noble friend, as we can from my noble friend Lady Elliott, who gave a very warm speech, which would have gone down well with even the non-Sunderland supporters.
I turn to the subject of the day. The Horizon scandal is perhaps the worst British scandal in my lifetime. Here we had a respected and prestigious public body persecuting many innocent victims in what, ultimately, was a futile attempt at a cover-up. It went on for years, and it still goes on. People have lost their livelihoods, their savings and, in some cases, their freedom and their lives with the pressure that they had been put under—and it was all down to a dodgy, faulty computer system and an unwillingness to admit that a big mistake was made.
As I said, it is not over yet. Compensation schemes are in place but are being criticised for being too slow and, depressingly, Fujitsu is still dragging its feet on paying up—honeyed words are not enough. The point being pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and others about the role of the auditors, Ernst & Young, in whitewashing the accounts of the Post Office reminded me of what happened in the wake of the Enron scandal—a scandal of a similar scale, in some respects—where it was the auditors who paid a very heavy price. Do noble Lords remember a firm called Arthur Andersen? Well, that was the end of it at that time. I am not saying that Ernst & Young is in that position, but it needs to come clean and make some contribution because, in my opinion, it shares the guilt for what has been going on.
Generally, I think we need to finish this saga and put it behind us. I want to ask the Minister a couple of things. Have the Government yet drawn any conclusions from the initial reaction to the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office and how this can be used to ensure that none of these terrible things that have been happening can happen again?
I recognise the Government’s contribution to delivering compensation. We all pay due tribute today to the doughty campaigners—Sir Alan Bates and his colleagues—as well as to our colleagues, such as the noble Lords Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who brought all this to light. I add my tribute to them, as this House has done many times, for the steadfast and determined role they played in seeing those enormous wrongs righted.
Those wrongs were a product of the damaged culture in the Post Office, with its emphasis on being defensive, its opposition to anybody who looked like a whistleblower, and its feeling of being beleaguered—that it was the victim rather the one causing victims. That culture was deep-rooted. I am interested in what can be done to make sure that is completely eradicated, because many of the people are still there. I guess that they will remain there because, individually, they have not done any criminal wrong. It is the corporate story that is so bad. What can be done to make sure that the culture is repaired and changed? The Post Office used to be loved and respected for its competence and openness but, at the moment, it is reviled by a significant section of our community.
Finally, can the Minister tell us how many convictions have been quashed and how many have received their due compensation, including in relation to Capture, the preliminary scheme which was around earlier than the Horizon system? Let us see a determined effort to close this shameful chapter in the history of the Post Office. It is long overdue. As a nation, we must put it behind us.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for bringing forward this debate. This issue has worried me for a very long time. I remember the great campaign in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, as well as by others in the Commons. Some of us here mentioned it, but we knew we were getting nowhere and were labelled as nutters. After a while, because we wanted to get on with other important things, we just had to give up. I am delighted the noble Lord never did and that we are finally getting there.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said, the problems started years ago with the ICL Capture system and the PFI contract Pathway project to computerise the Post Office. It started going wrong very early on. I remember a parliamentary visit to ICL. Among other things, they showed us Horizon, though it was not called that then; it was either Capture or it may have been called Pathway. They said, “Sadly, it doesn’t work and we’re going to knock it on the head”. Very soon after that, Fujitsu took over and, suddenly, a bit later, this new Horizon system appeared in the Post Office. I was very surprised because, only a couple of years earlier, they had known perfectly well that it was not working.
A lot of people were taken off or left the Pathway project to work on the millennium bug to make sure that it did not take the country down—which it did not. It infuriates me when people say that so much money was wasted on the millennium bug. It was not. People pre-emptively sorted out the software so that things did not go wrong at midnight. In a way, the lesson is that lots of failures are needed and people must be paid to sort them out, but this is not the sort of lesson we want to learn.
I was told that part of the problem was that the Capture system was based on spreadsheets. The other trouble was the system for transferring the data centrally, which took place in a short, one-hour window in the evening, over telephone lines which, back in those days, were very dodgy—in some places, they are a little better today. That system often did not work, particularly with the software they were using, which was designed for very small datasets. The datasets they were transmitting were much bigger. There were lots of errors and lots of time was spent trying to sort them out. Very often, they did not work.
There is another problem in the system which you get in large organisations and everywhere else—confirmation bias. For a long time, those on the security side of the Post Office were sure that with the amount of cash sloshing around in the system, some postmasters out there must have been pocketing some of it. Therefore, when the Horizon system said, “Yes they are”, they said, “There, we’re proven right”. They were willing to believe that Horizon was right and not the others. That is the trouble with large organisations: you get these attitudes and they do not shift forward very easily.
Fujitsu knew the software problems and told the Post Office. It is on a PFI contract and therefore has a duty of client confidentiality and is not allowed to talk outside, so none of this was meant to leak. We were told by the Post Office and others that maybe they were crooks, but they obviously did not think about this very hard or investigate it properly. Auditors are all very well, but if they are investigating stuff that they do not know and understand, it is quite tricky, as they do not know what they are looking at.
Also, having dealt with accounting software in the past, I have noticed that large auditing companies do not understand cash-based accounting. They work on P&L accounting. You have lots of little accounts and you can push things away. You have control accounts between your sales or ledger accounts and your main nominal account, for pushing things into. You can tamper with them, which you cannot with cash-based accounts. In a cash system, the other side of your central bank thing, which tells you where the money is, is the individual postmasters’ accounts. If you tamper with one, it tampers with the other. The people doing the tampering probably realised that but were not listened to, so you have this big problem of not understanding things. Certainly, I have discovered that big auditors do not understand cash accounts. I have had this trouble in other small businesses.
It is just a ring of failures—of understanding, listening and looking at the problem properly. It is sad. However, the problem really is that there must have been people telling lies somewhere down the line. Those lies must have surfaced in some of the evidence given to the courts. There must have been people giving evidence to the courts or briefing the lawyers who were not telling the truth, in which case they are guilty of perjury. The only way of stopping this from happening in the future is to prosecute some people for perjury. There must be somebody in the Post Office, though not necessarily at the top; I do not know where it happened. I do not see why we cannot investigate who briefed whom with what to conceal the truth.
We should look also at how good the expert witnesses are. I do not know who the courts were relying on, particularly in the early days when they were being told that the systems worked. You must be very careful. We have had problems with expert witnesses in other areas as well. The courts need to start thinking about it.
Also, I seem to remember that barristers and expert witnesses owe their first duty to the courts, not to their clients. Sometimes our legal profession should think about that quite seriously, because that is how you can get these huge miscarriages of justice. We also need to remember that large bureaucratic organisations often like to conceal things that do not go right. I remember years ago trying to get a large part of an organisation—I had better not say which one—to adopt some software which would have been very good at tracking all the stuff around contracts so that you could tell exactly who had done what, what had gone wrong and everything like that. They said, “Oh. no, we can’t have that. The first rule is that if at first you don’t succeed, bury all trace that you tried”, because it would not be career-enhancing. Anyway, that is enough of the cynicism.
The sad thing about it is what happened to the postmasters and postmistresses. It was dreadful. It was known about for a long time and a lot of people colluded to hide it. I would like to see some heads roll. Who pays for it? Fujitsu made a lot of money out of those contracts, so I do not see why it should not ante up towards it. The Post Office must too, as it is hugely responsible for the whole thing. It owed a duty of care to its postmasters and postmistresses. We need to dig deep, but I would like to see some heads roll for lying to the courts. It really worries me when our court system is not working properly.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for securing this debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay, on their wonderful speeches. I look forward to working with them.
The survivors of the Post Office scandal have already suffered enough, and the slowness and adversarial nature of the compensation schemes are simply adding another layer to the cruelty they have already suffered. I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can she explain why some claims are being minimised to as little as 5% when they have been fully prepared by financial assessors? Why are the claimants being asked repeatedly for more expert medical assessments? Why should Horizon shortfall scheme applicants have to wait for their first offer before qualifying for any legal help? Why is 92 year-old Betty Brown still waiting for compensation after the Minister, Gareth Thomas, pledged that he would find a solution six weeks ago?
We are seeing scandals within scandals. There is the tragic case of Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan, who I met last December here at a seminar organised in the House. In 2005, under pressure from the Post Office, her husband committed suicide. No wrongdoing was subsequently established. In summer 2020, Mrs Jayakanthan applied for compensation under the Horizon shortfall scheme. In November 2023, her application was refused because the company through which her husband contracted for his post office had gone into liquidation, and in the Post Office’s view her losses did not fall within the terms of that scheme. I urge the Minister to meet Mrs Jayakanthan and examine that case in detail, because justice must be seen to be done.
As has been mentioned, the cost of compensation must not fall solely on the public purse. What claims have been made against the directors’ and officers’ insurance taken out by the Post Office?
Then there are questions about Fujitsu. It played an active part in the prosecution of innocent postmasters and perverted the course of justice, but it has not returned even a penny of the fees that it collected over the years from the Post Office. Even worse, the company is currently bidding for a new £370 million government contract and is confident that it will be able to renew its contract with HMRC, which was worth £240 million when last signed in 2020. Why does Fujitsu continue to be indulged and why, despite massive evidence, has it not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice? Why has it not been forced to make any contribution? As has been said, it should really bear at least 50% of all the compensation that is to be paid. Have the Government had any conversations with Fujitsu about funding Lost Chances? That is a charity set up to assist children whose parents were impacted by the Post Office scandal.
From a September 2024 report prepared by Kroll Associates, we know that Horizon’s predecessor, the Capture system, which operated from 1992 to 1999, was also flawed, and the Government are committed to redressing affected postmasters. The point here is that Ernst & Young was the external auditor of the Post Office from 1986 to 2018—the entire period of the Capture and Horizon scandals. Publicly available evidence shows that the firm knew the flaws. It could not have carried out effective evaluation of internal controls and satisfied itself that the Post Office kept proper accounting records, or that its directors were able to prepare true and fair statutory financial statements. Auditors did not qualify the Post Office accounts, which did not contain any provisions for contingent liabilities arising from wrongful prosecutions, which are now falling on the public purse.
On 11 February 2025, in reply to a call from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for an inquiry into the conduct of Ernst & Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, told the House
“I look forward to ultimately hearing the outcome from the FRC”,—[Official Report, 11/2/25; col. 1105.]
implying that the regulator is looking at it. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have formally asked the Financial Reporting Council to investigate accountants involved with the Post Office? When was that request made? What is the scope of that request? Ernst & Young was the auditor for the duration of the Capture and Horizon scandals; therefore, all those audits need to be re-examined by an inquiry. Have the Government asked the FRC to look at the conduct of Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers as well? PwC succeeded Ernst & Young.
I will now ask some questions about the 61 or more prosecutions of postmasters by the DWP for alleged frauds, none of which have been quashed. These prosecutions took place mostly between 2000 and 2006. The Government’s position is that these were not connected with the failings of the Horizon system. Well, they certainly took place when there was a conspiracy of silence and cover-up by the Post Office, the state, and government officials.
To accuse someone of fraud there is a presupposition that the underlying accounting records are 100% correct. We know that Horizon, Capture and the manual accounting systems used before them were flawed. We know that sub-postmasters were given minimal accounting training. So, what did the DWP use as a benchmark to say that somebody committed fraud? How did it know that that benchmark was reliable? I have not seen any evidence to support that.
The cases were handled by DWP solicitors, who would then instruct counsel to represent the DWP at court. Too many sub-postmasters, facing the full might of the state without any legal aid, were advised to plead guilty to a fraud they insist they never committed. Sadly, many have since passed away and their families have long sought to clear their name. Since the date of those DWP convictions, court transcripts and bundles of evidence relating to those convictions have been destroyed. The DWP has been unable to provide any court transcript to back up its insistence that its position was correct, so how sound could these convictions have been?
We have to remember that before the 2019 High Court case of Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Ltd, the authorities insisted that the convictions were sound. The rest, as they say, is history. We need an independent inquiry. I pursued this with the Minister on 24 July. She replied:
“On the individuals and the question of whether there should be an independent inquiry, we believe that the best way to deal with this issue now is through the current arrangements being set up, rather than by having another third party involved. I am sure that all these matters will be taken into account in the eventual recommendations”.—[Official Report, 24/7/25; col. 505.]
The problem here is that Sir Wyn Williams did not consider the DWP prosecution of postmasters part of his remit. I am sure the Minister is committed to securing justice for all, and I encourage her to revisit this issue and commission an inquiry. We can only win justice, and that is highly desirable.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on securing this important and timely debate. I echo his credit to the postmasters for their decades-long search for justice. My noble friend Lady Ludford highlighted the role of Nick Willis, whose reporting over decades exposed what was happening to many members of the public. I want to pay tribute to the many solicitors and barristers who worked with the victims over the years as well, long before they were listened to. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who highlighted the delays and attempts to minimise compensation despite agreed routes to compensation. This is a key issue, and he is right that these are further scandals within scandals.
I congratulate the two new Peers on their maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay, spoke about the lack of progress of the compensation scheme. She is right and even though there has been some progress, as we have heard in this excellent debate, there are certainly problems and particularly snail-like reviews of complex cases. The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, brings his wealth of experience in the trade union movement to this appalling miscarriage of justice. He highlighted how employers could mistreat staff with absolute impunity. He has been, and I am sure will continue to be, an exceptional advocate for workers and the trade union movement. I also agree with him about skills. As a former director of UFI, I worked closely with Unionlearn. I believe it was transformational, and I hope that work can be resurrected. From these Benches, we welcome both new Peers and look forward to their contributions to your Lordships’ House.
Just over a year ago, the country was reeling from the exceptional ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, which brought to the country’s attention the appalling miscarriages of justices faced by many postmasters. Early on, we focused on the Post Office. This debate rightly takes us to some of the other issues, specifically Fujitsu. The noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, whose constituents were affected, have led the campaign for many years in Parliament on these issues and continue to lead the debate. The speeches were once again clear on progress and the remaining issues facing postmasters.
In February 2024, the Treasury supplementary estimates outlined the money set aside for the GLO scheme and, separately, the value of provisions relating to the Post Office for some of the other schemes and some of the Post Office’s legal costs. I looked at the Treasury supplementary estimates for the Budget last year, and the numbers had slightly changed. Without wanting to question the Minister about exact sums, it would be useful to know six months on whether those estimates still hold or if, in light of compensation agreements, we are going to have to expect further rightful compensation.
The noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Sikka, raised the essential issue of Ernst & Young’s audit practices. I hope the inquiry report will lay bare these failures and its practices in giving clean bills of health, because it just did not query items. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, spoke of the Enron scandal and the role of auditors, and about the cultures of organisations when things go so badly wrong. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, spoke about the auditors’ shortcomings and of cash accounting. What are the Government doing to ensure that organisations, whether private or publicly funded, understand the role of auditors, make sure they have people able to assist them and, in particular, that the audit profession reviews what it does?
We had a very helpful briefing from Protect, the whistleblowing charity, which raised an interesting point in relation to the Post Office contractors—the sub-postmasters, who blew the whistle on the Horizon scandal. They would not have enjoyed legal whistleblower protections because they are self-employed. Will the Government use their powers to extend legal whistleblower protections to self-employed contractors?
The small number of postmasters who were not cleared under the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act was brought up by a number of speakers. In May last year, the Law Society gave parliamentarians a briefing when we were considering that Bill, setting out the reasons why some were not included—judicial reasoning that they would have been convicted of something else. I remain particularly concerned about this. If the evidence for the other items was also coming from the Post Office and Fujitsu, why is their evidence in those cases suddenly valid? I hope that this will be reviewed, particularly by the criminal justice system and the judiciary. As the Law Society commented, it is difficult for Parliament to insist on things with the justice system.
Can the Minister say how the appeal cases of those few who were excluded from the general cancellation of the wrongful convictions is proceeding and whether there is any doubt about the substantial evidence provided by the Post Office and Fujitsu on those convictions?
There has been some mention, as there has been elsewhere in Parliament over the last year, of the Capture scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said it is now clear that there are certain problems. I am grateful that he highlighted the issues in the first place. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, outlined some of the technical problems with Capture. Who among us does not remember dodgy phone lines when attempting to transmit data in the 1980s and 1990s? I certainly do.
It is really important to see whether there are miscarriages of justice in this scheme. Since this time last year, when we have discussed the Post Office Horizon scheme I have kept raising what will happen when it is realised that the Capture scheme victims also deserve to have their convictions overturned. I asked then whether it would be possible to amend by regulation the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act rather than having to start with new legislation, because it would be dreadful to have to start all over again. Can the Minister update the House on that and on what the Government plan to do about the Capture scheme? We saw the report published last autumn; it is really important that we get speedy responses on this issue.
Sitting behind all of this is Fujitsu. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is right to highlight its consistent lying for so many years that it was not possible to adjust Horizon remotely, which supported the prosecution of postmasters. Only through seeing Fujitsu staff on the witness stand at the inquiry having to admit that they regularly changed data did we realise the scale of what had been happening. I echo his concerns about Fujitsu’s silence. It is appalling that it has not yet announced how much it will contribute to the compensation. Above all, after they realised what was happening, why did the last Government—and the new one—give it and continue to consider it for new contracts?
My noble friend Lady Ludford highlighted the omissions from the Horizon shortfall scheme and how different standards are now being used by some of the assessors, which is very concerning. I have heard about this too, so can the Minister say whether these are being addressed? The example from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, of the struggles that Rita is facing demonstrated that this is not a technical issue; it is not done and dusted, and it is still affecting postmasters’ lives today.
My noble friend also made the point that the Post Office should not be responsible for negotiating with the victims. This also applies to other inquiries, where government department staff often operate the compensation scheme. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority is at least at arm’s length from government and therefore separate from the institutions responsible. Will the Government have a review to consider whether this might be a model for the future? The one thing we do not want to see is a repeat of the long years of mistrust and problems with the compensation—the speed at which it is being awarded, and the detail of what is being awarded.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for securing it. I greatly enjoyed hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott, and very much look forward to hearing her contributions on standing up for the north. We have an opportunity to create a genuine northern powerhouse, and it would be brilliant to achieve that. It was also extremely interesting to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber—from Ghana, ACAS, TfL, Everton Football Club and Mountview Academy to the TUC, bringing together more than 5.5 million working people. He said that he is looking forward to learning from his noble friends, but I think your Lordships’ House is equally looking forward to hearing from him.
It would be remiss of me not pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and, rather than my words, please let me quote from some of the many articles that highlight his amazing contribution which resulted in justice for postmasters.
“One of the figures who comes out of the Post Office scandal with universal and unequivocal praise is Lord Arbuthnot”.
“His actions, with purpose and forethought, that he stuck with through the process, show the instinct and intelligence to approach this carefully and allow all sides the opportunity to show their character before committing to the cause with fire and brimstone”.
We should all be incredibly grateful that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, did commit to the cause with fire and brimstone, because this was, unfortunately, one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in recent times. A scandal that saw honest, hard-working individuals—our local postmasters—wrongly accused, prosecuted and, in some cases, driven to financial ruin. Depression, prison time, moving country and attempted suicide: these are just some of the tales told by the victims of the scandal.
The Post Office is a pillar of our communities and has long been a trusted institution, but, between 1999 and 2015, hundreds of postmasters faced devastating consequences due to the faults in the Horizon IT system, supplied by International Computers Ltd, which was later fully incorporated into Fujitsu. These errors falsely suggested financial shortfalls, leading to suspensions, wrongful prosecutions and untold suffering. So my first question to the Minister is: what measures will His Majesty’s Government implement to prevent such a miscarriage of justice from occurring again?
The Government have indeed acknowledged this injustice and have worked to provide compensation, with the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill being introduced to ensure that victims receive full and fair redress. As of 31 January 2025, approximately £663 million has been paid across multiple schemes, which is part of a total £1.8 billion set aside for compensation costs. But, despite these efforts, we must ask: is justice being delivered swiftly enough?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble friend Lord Polak mentioned legal complexity and speed of claims. The Business and Trade Select Committee recently raised serious concerns about the pace and complexity of the compensation process. While payments have increased, delays persist. The committee’s report describes the process as akin to a “second trial” for victims. Postmasters should not have to navigate an overly bureaucratic system to receive what is rightfully theirs after what they have already been put through. The committee has stated that while redress schemes are moving faster, they are still “not fast enough”. So we have to ask the Minister: what specific measures can be taken to accelerate these compensation payments?
The recommendations put forth by the committee must also be seriously considered. We must remove the Post Office from administering any redress schemes, we must offer upfront legal advice to claimants and we must introduce strict timelines to expedite claims. Furthermore, His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe that an independent adjudicator should oversee the process to ensure fairness, with legal costs being scrutinised to prevent further exploitation of the victims.
As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Beamish, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Hastings, and Lord Polak, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Elliott and Lady Brinton, Fujitsu cannot evade accountability. The company must take financial responsibility for its role in this disaster. As the inquiry nears its conclusion, it is imperative that Fujitsu contributes meaningfully to the compensation efforts. Justice demands nothing less. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised concerns that progress on addressing the scandal has only been expedited due to public scrutiny and the ongoing inquiry. The NFSP has questioned what will happen once the inquiry concludes, particularly regarding Fujitsu’s contribution to compensation. It has suggested that Fujitsu may be delaying action in the hope of minimizing its culpability and avoiding public scrutiny over its financial responsibility. As the inquiry nears its conclusion, it is imperative that the company contributes meaningfully to the compensation efforts, so we need to ask: what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with the board of directors at Fujitsu?
It is not just financial compensation that must be addressed, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Polak. The emotional wrecking of lives caused by this travesty must also be looked at, so we would like to know how His Majesty’s Government will support affected postmasters beyond financial compensation to help them rebuild their lives. Achieving justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again must be the Government’s priority. When we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of the postmasters and their families caught up in this scandal have been changed for ever. They have faced financial ruin, untold personal distress and a loss of reputation that no amount of financial compensation can ever fully restore. It is of paramount importance that we recognise our clear moral duty to right those wrongs to the best of our ability. His Majesty’s Government must set out a plan for how they will notify eligible postmasters of compensation. What steps will they take to ensure that all affected individuals are reached?
Finally, please allow me to quote my noble friend Lady Fookes, a hugely respected veteran of both the other place and your Lordships’ House, who spoke with such great authority when she challenged His Majesty’s Government on a similar topic. The same applies here for all of the postmasters who deserve compensation:
“The government machine needs to get more of a move on than it usually does in these matters. Will my noble friend take as his motto a cry often heard in the streets: ‘When do we want it? We want it now’”.—[Official Report, 18/5/23; col. 368.]
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, first, I welcome my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay and congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I am sure this House would agree with me that they both bring a wealth of experience, particularly in speaking up for working people, and I look forward to working closely with them as they navigate their way through our shared UK growth missions. My noble friend Lady Elliott—I am sure the House agrees—will be an important northern voice in this Chamber. I am sure that the House will also agree that we will all benefit from my noble friend Lord Barber’s experience in arbitration and conciliation. We have a lot to learn from him in that regard.
I am pleased to respond for the Government and . I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this Motion and allowing us to debate this very important issue. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Beamish, alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, as members of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. They have helped guide and shape the Government’s work in this area.
Like my noble friend Lord Beamish, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the 550 who took the case to court and finally shone a light on the role of the Post Office in deliberately hiding the truth. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that certain members of the press—ITV has obviously been mentioned—and in particular Nick Wallis, played an important role in shining a light on this in a very dogged and determined way, and brought it certainly to my attention for the first time.
I welcome this opportunity to provide an update on the progress of the Horizon redress schemes and to discuss the contribution of Fujitsu to the costs of the scandal. This scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in this country’s history. Redress for the postmasters whose lives were scarred by it is of great importance for the new Government. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Elliott, gave very moving examples of the individuals impacted by the scandal and their lives being torn apart as a result. We recognise the devasting impact that the Post Office’s actions had on many postmasters’ lives, their families and their communities.
The Government remain focussed in our efforts to ensure that all postmasters receive full, fair and swift redress for the terrible ordeals to which they have been unjustly subject. That is why the Government have set aside around £1.8 billion for redress for the 2024-25 financial year onwards for those postmasters affected by this grievous miscarriage of justice. This is in addition to the around £200 million already paid to victims in previous years; this is not a ceiling but an estimate.
I turn now to the progress of the redress schemes. My department and Post Office Ltd publish monthly updates on progress. Since the end of June last year, the total amount of redress paid to victims of the Horizon scandal has more than doubled. Across this period, 1,409 more victims have settled their claims. Approximately £663 million has now been paid to over 4,300 claimants.
As we have identified, there are four separate redress schemes. This is by no means ideal, but, as noble Lords know, the reasons for it are historical. I will describe separately the progress of each scheme. I will start with the Horizon shortfall scheme, which covers postmasters who were not part of the group litigation and do not have a criminal conviction. It is run by Post Office Ltd, with funding, oversight and governance provided by the Department for Business and Trade. Approximately £315 million has been paid under this scheme. However, it has delivered redress too slowly, for two reasons. First, the scheme received many more applications than were originally anticipated: 7,000 and counting rather than a few hundred. Secondly, amounts are decided by a panel independent of the Post Office. This is intended to ensure fairness, but it makes the process slower. Combined with the huge volume of cases, this has caused real problems.
In March 2024, the Minister for Postal Affairs announced an optional fixed sum offer of £75,000 to those applicants who did not wish to complete a full claim. This has greatly accelerated progress. As well as providing speedy redress for those who accepted the offer, it has substantially shortened the queue for everyone else.
The Government have also acted to give postmasters assurance of fair redress. Many postmasters have had understandable concerns about any scheme run by the Post Office, even though redress offers are recommended by an independent panel, which the Post Office has never undercut. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked whether there was secret guidance to the Post Office lawyers on this issue. In response, I say that the principles of the Horizon shortfall scheme are public; offers are set by an independent panel, with a KC, an accountant and a retail expert. There is also a process to dispute the offer.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister when we are time-pressed. Can she undertake to explore whether the Post Office really is operating to those published principles? The material that I have seen seems to give credible backing to the suggestion that it is not. Indeed, there is an exchange featuring Post Office lawyers saying that they are working on a contractual basis and not a consequences-of-loss basis, which is entirely different.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. Perhaps if she has some of that evidence, she could share it with us. I am not dismissing what the noble Baroness said. If she has that evidence, we will of course look into it. It is important that justice is done in this case, and is seen to be done.
In light of these concerns, in September the Minister announced that the Government are setting up an appeal process for postmasters who are unhappy with the full assessments of their claims, as recommended by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board. We expect to receive the first appeals in the spring. The Government have committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals process. The Government are also actively looking at other ways in which the pace of redress can be sped up and have been supported by the recommendations from the advisory board and claimants’ lawyers in this area.
Post Office prosecutions of innocent postmasters were perhaps the most reprehensible part of this scandal. Some 111 of these unfortunate individuals had their convictions overturned by the courts. The Post Office set up the overturned convictions scheme to ensure that such people get fair redress for malicious prosecution and other losses. Approximately £65 million has been paid under this scheme. So far, 82 of the 111 exonerated people have submitted full and final claims for redress. In response, 73 redress offers have been made and 66 accepted and paid. This scheme provides the option of an upfront offer of £600,000 to claimants, ensuring swift redress is provided to those victims who do not wish to submit a full claim. This is larger than the fixed offer in the HSS, reflecting the greater harm done to those who were convicted. As of 3 January, 58 people have chosen to accept that offer.
The House will recall the widespread concern that people convicted as a result of the scandal were not being exonerated by the courts, often because the evidence had gone or because they could not face a further legal fight. These people were therefore exonerated en masse by Parliament in May of last year. As of 7 February, 557 individuals in England and Wales have been sent a letter, informing them that they have at least one conviction quashed by the Act. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are running parallel exercises.
In July last year, the Government launched the Horizon convictions redress scheme to address the suffering of these people, wherever they are in the UK. I am pleased to report that it has made excellent progress. Under this scheme, eligible applicants are entitled to an interim payment of £200,000. They can then opt to have their claims individually assessed or take the fixed offer of £600,000. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that 72% of people in this redress scheme have not yet been paid. Most of the costs of redress relates to convictions which were rightly overturned by Parliament. No full claims have yet been received from those individuals and the Government are not going to slow down the redress. When people claim and we get the full claims, we aim to make to make an offer within 40 working days in 90% of the cases.
As of 31 January, 383 initial interim claims had been received, of which 364 have been paid; 232 full claims have been received, with 208 of those paid and 24 offers accepted and awaiting payment. The department’s target is for the first offers to be provided in response to 90% of full claims within 40 working days of receipt. A total of £156 million, including interim payments, has been paid to eligible claimants under this scheme. BBC News recently ran a story of two more claimants having received their £600,000 claims. It is very good to hear those individual cases of justice being done, even if it has taken far too long.
This brings us to the GLO scheme—the group litigation scheme. The group litigation court order case celebrated in last year’s ITV drama provided redress which proved to be unequal and unfair when compared with that provided by the HSS. The GLO scheme is intended to put that right.
The scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office. Last year, Sir Alan Bates expressed concern that the scheme was not delivering fast enough. The Government agreed, but the problem was that we were not receiving the full claims. However, those concerns have now been eased. Out of the 492 postmasters eligible for the scheme, the department has received 408 completed claims. When it receives claims, the department acts quickly. It aims to make offers in 90% of cases within 40 working days of receiving a completed claim. As of 31 January, 89% of offers were made within that target period.
If any postmaster cannot resolve their redress through such bilateral discussions, they can go to the scheme’s independent panel. So far, only five cases have required help from the panel. By contrast, 257 cases have been by agreement between the department and the postmaster, either in response to the first offer or a subsequent challenge. This demonstrates that the department is making fair offers.
A total of £128 million, including interim payments, has been paid to postmasters under the GLO scheme. The Government expect to have paid redress to the great majority of the GLO claimants by 31 March 2025.
My noble friend Lord Sikka raised a question about the DWP convictions. I can assure him that the Minister for Transformation is looking into this, a review is being established, and I hope to provide more information about that. My noble friend also raised questions about the Lost Chances charity. A meeting has been arranged between it and my colleague, Minister Thomas.
We have been talking about the Horizon redress schemes but, as noble Lords have pointed out, a predecessor system known as Capture also involved errors and bugs which affected some postmasters. I pay tribute to the tireless advocacy of my noble friend Lord Beamish on behalf of this group.
In response, the Minister announced on 17 December last year that the Government will be providing full and fair redress to postmasters who were victims of errors and bugs in the Capture programme. The Government will continue to discuss this work with my noble friend Lord Beamish, and we will return to the House in the spring with an update.
Fujitsu supplied the Horizon software at the heart of this scandal. The sorry tale of its introduction has been fully explored by Sir Wyn Williams’ public inquiry. The Government of course welcome Fujitsu’s acknowledgement of a moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal and continue to talk regularly to Fujitsu about this. The Post Office Minister will be meeting Fujitsu’s Europe CEO shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked: if Fujitsu were in jail, would we be giving it the millions that we are currently giving it? It is of course true that Fujitsu has admitted wrongdoing, but at the moment we do not know whether it is criminal. Deciding on that before reviewing the evidence is part of what has caused the scandal, and we should not repeat it. In its apology, Fujitsu recognised that it has a civil liability, and this will be dealt with through the financial contributions which it has promised.
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others raised the issue of errors made by the Post Office auditors. The noble Lords have referred the performance of Post Office auditors to the Financial Reporting Council, and my department officials have also spoken to it. It is the right body to consider this, and the Government should not second-guess it. But, going back to the issue of Fujitsu’s contribution, the full amount cannot be determined until we have Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will set out the full facts of what happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Sikka raised the potential for an interim contribution from Fujitsu. I would say that it is too soon to decide on Fujitsu’s final contribution to the costs of the scandal, but I agree with noble Lords that an interim contribution would be very welcome and appropriate in these circumstances. Given the nature of the discussions that will need to take place on Fujitsu’s contribution, the Government will not be giving a running commentary on them. But I can promise that we will keep the House informed of progress at appropriate moments.
The Horizon system is still in place, unfortunately. A new version was introduced in the late 2010s, which the High Court accepted was “relatively robust”, but it is none the less very much in need of replacement. There can be no overnight fix for this lack of investment.
We are working with the Post Office to secure a new system which is fit for purpose, and which will not involve Fujitsu. In the meantime, the Post Office is, unfortunately, still dependent on the Horizon system to run its branches. I understand the widespread desire to see Fujitsu out of the Post Office picture immediately, but the only way to achieve this would be to shut down all local post offices and deny citizens the vital services which they provide. We do not think that we can do that, and so Fujitsu must remain for the time being. The Post Office has extended its contract until March 2026 but is looking to reduce its input as soon as possible.
Recognising its responsibility for the scandal, Fujitsu has voluntarily paused bidding for new government contracts. However, the Post Office is not the only area where government needs help which is only practicable to get from Fujitsu. So, while we agree with Fujitsu’s decision not to bid for government contracts in general, there will be situations where existing contracts need to be extended, or new ones begun, although generally in connection with existing services. Of course, we understand why that is undesirable, but it is being done only because currently there are no viable alternatives.
There have been allegations in the media that Fujitsu is seeking and receiving contracts beyond those limits. I assure the House that this is not the case. The Crown Representative and his team in the Cabinet Office, who oversee all the Government’s dealings with Fujitsu, are keeping a close watch on the situation.
I agree with noble Lords that individuals and companies responsible for the Horizon scandal must be held to account. The Metropolitan Police is keeping a close eye on the Williams inquiry and has a number of staff working on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked about the involvement of law processes. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that it has more than 20 live investigations into solicitors and law firms relating to the scandal. There are other channels of accountability, too, and all of these need to be investigated in due course. My noble friend Lord Monks rightly raised the question of the wholesale culture change needed at the Post Office, and my noble friend Lord Sikka raised specific questions about the culpability of the directors. This will all be covered in Sir Wyn Williams’ report, which will establish what happened, what went wrong and why.
The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, raised the question of an independent body—
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister for interrupting. I know she has had a lot of questions to answer; I very much hope she will send detailed replies to a lot of the questions I asked. One matter was the case of 92 year-old Mrs Betty Brown, who, despite promises from the Minister six weeks ago, is still waiting for her compensation. Secondly, I asked whether the Minister could meet me and Mrs Gowri Jayakanthan, who had been refused any compensation and whose husband committed suicide, unfortunately, under pressure from Post Office allegations. Would the Minister be good enough to meet us, please?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to go on to say that a number of noble Lords have asked very specific questions, and I will of course write. I will just deal quickly with the idea that there should be an independent body for redress in the future. That is certainly something that we are looking into, and it is a very helpful suggestion coming forward from the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, among others.
Horizon was a terrible scandal, and it is right that we should continue to keep it in our minds through debates such as this. The Government are determined to learn the lessons from it, which is why Sir Williams’s report will be so important, to deliver full and fair compensation, as quickly as possible, to those postmasters who were so unjustly used. I thank noble Lords for this very helpful debate.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. We have had an informed debate. The important thing about this scandal that I have recognised over the years is that you have to keep bringing it to the surface so that people do not forget the gravity of what we face.
I will pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, made about the judiciary. In reply, the Minister talked about solicitors, but the noble Lord—and I agree with him—was talking about the judiciary as an institution. When the last Government overturned the convictions, there was a huge hue and cry from the judicial establishment, saying how terrible it was that this was taking place. I suggest that people read some of the transcripts of the court cases and look at the role of judges.
The one that sticks in my mind is the Capture case of June Tooby. Her protestations that Capture was the problem were completely ignored and thrown out by the judge, who was not prepared even to hear the consideration. Although cases are being taken against solicitors, the judiciary needs to look at its role in this. There is no way this could have happened if a few inquiring minds had asked questions. I ask the justice department to look at that.
On the role of auditors, that is unfinished business. I am sorry, but I do not accept that it is good enough for the Government just to say that it is down to the regulators to look at that. Over the years, sub-postmasters kept asking what had happened to their money. The accountants did not know where the money was in the system, even though it was signed off—and no doubt Ernst & Young and others were paid millions of pounds for their advice.
I understand the position of the Government and others in wanting to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’s report to be published, but I think that is being used as an excuse. Most of the information is out there now, and certainly in Fujitsu’s case it is—it has admitted to its role in this.
I welcome the Minister’s support for my suggestion that Fujitsu should support and pay an interim payment. I just hope that, when Minister Thomas meets Fujitsu, he makes that point strongly. I also urge that, when the Secretary of State visits Japan next month, he raises that directly with the main board in Tokyo.
At the end of the day, the contribution that got to the heart of it was that of the noble Lord, Lord Polak—it was a human story. We all have those, and if you have met any of the victims, you can replicate those human stories. At the end of the day, this is about individuals who were hard-working, solid citizens. They were pillars of their local communities and were absolutely devastated and ruined by these acts against them.
In closing, all I would say is that compensation and changing the systems are important, but we should all remember that, at the end of the day, when the state gets things wrong, it is the individual citizens—people such as Rita, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who has gone through hell for the last few decades—we should think about.
Iranian Regime: British Citizens
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they are making to reduce the number of British citizens being held by the Iranian regime.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful that time has been allocated to this debate and I look forward to the range of contributions, as well as to the Minister’s response.
I declare my personal interest in the subject. I come originally from Iran; I was born in the beautiful and historic city of Isfahan and I left as a teenager, with my family, following the impact of the Islamic revolution on the small Anglican Church community of which we were a part and, in particular, the attempt on my father’s life and the murder of my 24 year-old brother.
As I have said before in this Chamber, none of this has left me with ill will towards my homeland, but rather a profound sense of sadness at its current plight. I retain a deep love for Iran, its beauty and ancient civilization, and I have great respect for my fellow countryfolk, many of whom suffer in an increasingly intolerable situation or find themselves part of the growing diaspora community. I still hope one day to travel back to Iran, but for now this is not possible because of the current regime.
Many in Iran feel trapped. They are desperately seeking political change, but they face stark choices: submit to the unbearable strictures imposed on everyday life, attempt to leave or risk the realities of brutal and crushing suppression. The situation is intolerable, under a regime that has persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and killed so many people.
Noble Lords will be aware of the plight of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. I am sure that His Majesty’s Government are doing all they can to secure their release. As this is an extremely sensitive situation, I will refrain from commenting on their case further, other than to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the Foremans and their family at this difficult time. Unfortunately, the Foremans are not the first foreign or dual nationals to be held captive in Iran, and I fear they will not be the last.
While the Government’s travel advice is clear, I ask the Minister whether anything more can be done to communicate this advice to those working in the travel sector, so that they can advise prospective travellers of the very real risks.
I respectfully ask the Minister if he is willing to acknowledge the reality that these detainees are, to all intents and purposes, hostages. Let us call this situation out for what it is; other countries such as France are willing to do so. I cannot help thinking that the more that European and other countries speak, as well as act, with one voice, the greater the pressure on Iran to change its approach.
There are many foreign or dual nationals languishing in Iran’s jails, typically arrested on spurious allegations and denied access to a fair and free trial, contrary to international law. There have been at least 66 foreign individuals detained—held hostage—by Iranian authorities since 2010, 16 of whom had either British or dual nationality. The highly unjust detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was testament to Iran’s disregard for human rights and it exemplified the callous and cruel way in which the regime continues to treat foreigners, as well as its own citizens.
I have learned so much about tenacity, honesty, devotion and dignity from Richard Ratcliffe’s fight for his wife’s release, and from Nazanin herself since her return. I pay tribute to them both and thank them for their friendship. As much as I welcomed HMG’s efforts in that case, the long and painful process illustrated that securing the release of nationals or dual nationals is never straightforward.
Religious minorities are also systematically persecuted in Iran, and religious freedom is severely curtailed for everyone except Persian-speaking Shias. Having said that, basic civil and political restrictions impact the vast majority of the population, Shia or not, but Christians who have converted from Islam are among the most vulnerable to persecution. They are regularly arrested and can face lengthy imprisonment on bogus charges of acting against national security. I am also acutely aware that the now tiny Anglican community in Iran has still not been allowed to reopen its church buildings since they were closed during the pandemic. The pressure and the uncertainty about their future grow daily, even as numbers continue to dwindle.
Although this is not just a debate about religious freedom, it is incumbent on all of us to stand up, speak out and defend the freedom of religion or belief wherever we can. This freedom is essential for individuals and societies to flourish, and it is the cornerstone on which all human rights are supported. In a dangerous world, Iran presents a threat from many angles—threats that reach out across the globe and affect British national security. The longer the regime stays in power, the longer it can carry on suppressing its own people and being a destabilising presence in the Middle East and more widely.
I urge the Government to work as much as they can in harmony with other nations who also have hostages held in Iran to campaign for the release of all foreign and dual nationals currently in Iranian jails and to champion that which unites us: belief in democracy, freedom and tolerance. I understand that the Minister will not be able to comment in detail, but can he reassure the House that HMG will do everything they can to make sure that they are represented at the Foremans’ forthcoming trial? It is a right of any Government under international law, but one which Iran has been known to deny.
I am very grateful to have been able to highlight this case today and to discuss the plight of all those experiencing oppression in Iran. I pray for the release of all British and dual nationals who have been arbitrarily arrested in Iran and for all those who are suffering oppression because of the regime. I pray too for better days ahead for Iran and Iranians.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate and for her introduction to it. As she said, she has very personal knowledge of this regime. As she knows, I knew her brother when we were both students together. I remember still his return to Iran, thinking that he was safe.
It was with a sinking heart that I heard about these new cases in Iran. The battles that we had over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was wrongly detained for so many years, seemed to go on for ever. I am sure that she and her family thought the same. It was very clear that Iran was using her as a pawn—a hostage—to secure what it wished. The same was clearly true of Anoosheh Ashoori, as it was for citizens of other countries. And, as the right reverend Prelate has said, those in Iran are themselves under great pressure. We are glad that both of our dual nationals were finally released, but they lost years of their lives. We were always told that publicity did not help and to leave this to the diplomats, but it was Richard Ratcliffe’s efforts that brought his wife home.
It seems we do not know how many British nationals, including dual nationals, are being detained in Iran. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, over 60 foreign and dual nationals may have been detained there since 2010, 16 of whom apparently had British or dual British nationality. Could the Minister update us on the numbers of British citizens the Government believe are currently detained there?
The Iranians standardly accuse those whom they have detained of spying. Now we have the cases of Craig and Lindsay Foreman—tourists who trusted that they could safely explore the wonders of Iran on their journey to Australia. The FCDO rightly advises against such travel; one supposes that people may think that they are just ordinary citizens and that the Iranians are friendly people, so surely they will be of no interest to the country’s leaders, but innocent citizens can still be seen as useful pawns to such a regime.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has considered several cases in recent years, identifying “systemic arbitrary detention” in Iran and describing this as
“a serious violation of international law”.
We know that Iran has been under serious pressure in the current Middle East conflict, as have its proxies in neighbouring areas. Seizing innocent citizens of other countries may seem an easy way of securing leverage.
I ask the Minister for an update on the Canadian-led initiative, which we have discussed before and he was involved in, which seeks to tackle such hostage-taking by regimes. I note that this has now been endorsed by 80 countries, but what actions are recommended and what strategies are proposed? There is always the tension that ransoms paid, in whatever way, can encourage further taking of hostages. Other countries, though, go about the release of their citizens differently from how the UK approaches it.
When we were talking about Nazanin’s case, as the Minister will doubtless remember, there was discussion of the use of Magnitsky sanctions against individuals who played a part in her detention. Without going into particular sanctions, is this a route he still regards with favour? We knew that the revolutionary guard drove the taking of such hostages; what is the present Government’s view of the revolutionary guard?
As the cases dragged on in Iran, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquired in 2023 into such hostage-taking. It criticised the then Government for being
“too slow—or entirely unwilling—to call out countries guilty of state hostage taking”.
Among other things, it recommended the appointment of a director of arbitrary and complex detentions to advocate for detainees and their families. The then Government rejected this proposal. However, the new Government, in their manifesto, stated that they would strengthen support for British nationals abroad. They also promised to introduce a new legal right to consular assistance in cases of rights violations, which Redress and Prisoners Abroad have advocated. Can the Minister tell us when this will be introduced?
In November last year, the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped to announce the appointment of a special envoy for complex detention cases. However, he could not give a date for this. Several months on, will the Minister, facing this debate, now announce this?
Clearly, in the latest case, because these are not dual nationals, the UK should be able to get consular access, which Iran denies to dual nationals. Is that being granted?
We are in a world where the allies on whom we thought we could rely are now allying with those whom we identify as a threat to global stability. It is a topsy-turvy world, except that this is perhaps too warm a description. As international order is under threat, our citizens, as well as the national citizens of Iran who we have heard about, are potentially at greater risk. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the new Government are addressing this.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford for tabling this debate and for the sensitive way in which she has introduced it. I add to hers my best wishes and prayers for the Foremans, their family and friends, and my thanks to the Minister and all those officials who are working so hard behind the scenes in the FCDO. I also extend my thanks to the ambassador in Tehran and to all those working at the embassy there. I am sure they are doing all they can to resolve this desperately sad situation.
Picking up on some of the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has just made, I welcome the Government’s plan to create a special envoy for complex detention cases. Recent events have only highlighted the need for further support for British nationals detained overseas, and I look forward to hearing further details about this. The legal right to consular access promised in the Labour Party manifesto has already been referred to. When do the Government intend to introduce this? It would be an important, crucial step in strengthening the protection for British nationals detained abroad.
My colleague knows far better than me—indeed, she knows personally—the suffering of those under the Iran regime. In 2024, there were at least 901 executions, including 40 in a single week in December. There has been an increased number of women being executed. The use of the death penalty and of politically motivated executions is truly harrowing. Recently, I raised with His Majesty’s Government the cases of six Iranian men accused of “armed rebellion against the state”, all of whom have been sentenced to death. I also urge the Minister and his colleagues to do all they can to intervene in the cases of Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, who are at imminent risk of execution.
Broader issues of nuclear weapons and armaments are not my area of expertise at all, but what I have seen and heard recently regarding China’s support of Iran’s rearmament has caused me deep concern. An increasingly desperate Iranian regime is an increasingly dangerous one. It is facing civil unrest at home, the defeat of Hezbollah and setbacks because of Israel. It is critical that we take steps to prevent Iran’s nuclear escalation, including stricter sanctions on Iranian oil shipments to China.
I fully appreciate that the Minister may not be able to comment on some of the details of planned future sanctions or on the Foremans’ case. We understand that. I am grateful for all he is doing. I conclude by urging that we continue to do all we can as a nation to stand up for human rights, international law and, critically, democratic freedoms not only in Iran but in all those parts of the world where these are no longer found.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on securing this important debate and on her clear exposition of the problems facing Britons in Iran, whether they be British-Iranian dual nationals or British nationals. It is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He has slightly broadened the debate, but it is utterly relevant that he has done so.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke movingly of her own family’s experience of her brother’s death, the threat to life and having to flee the current regime in Iran. During the last 45 years, that regime has doubled down on its infamous and bloody approach to human rights.
As chair of the human rights committee for Liberal International, last week I attended the opening meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee and, the following day, the annual Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, where we heard of many of the appalling practices of the Iranian Government, with moving testimony from the sister of Mahmoud Mehrabi. Mahmoud was sentenced to death in Isfahan for “corruption on earth through lies on Instagram” because he called out corruption by local officials. Mahan Mehrabi cited the 1,500 Iranians shot in three days during the November demonstrations, with thousands imprisoned and, like her brother, sentenced to death. We also heard of children aged 15 being sentenced to death and executed, which is clearly illegal under international law.
I start with these examples to reinforce the point that the Iranian treatment of British nationals is not, sadly, out of character with their barbaric human rights record. Worse, it is clear from evidence over the years that their behaviour of arresting foreign nationals and accusing them of spying is a standard tool for state kidnapping of foreigners in order to use them to blackmail other countries.
In that context, the most recent detention of Craig and Lindsay Foreman is another egregious detention on security charges and is depressingly familiar. Iran claims that, despite them saying they were tourists, they were spying. While I appreciate that the Foreign Office’s strong official advice is against all travel to Iran because British nationals and British-Iranian dual nationals are at
“significant risk of arrest, questioning or detention”,
what high-level representations are being made to help these two people swiftly, so that their detention is brief?
We know that in recent years, Iran has arrested dozens of Iranians with dual nationality or foreign permanent residency, mostly on spying and national security charges, of whom at least 15 have had links to the UK. They include Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whom others have already spoken about. As my noble friend Lady Northover has said, Richard Ratcliffe’s campaign was absolutely outstanding, despite government advice not to say anything. She was released after six years in detention, including years in isolation, on the same day as Anoosheh Ashoori, three years ago in March. It is now clear that Iran used this as leverage for the debt for an order of tanks that was cancelled shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution. The then Foreign Secretary in 2022, Liz Truss, confirmed that the debt issue had been resolved after highly complex negotiations. She said then that the money could be used only for humanitarian goods purchases. Can the Minister confirm whether this has happened?
Mehran Raoof, also an English national, remains in prison after spurious convictions. He was arrested in 2020 and remains in solitary confinement in violation of the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. He is a prisoner of conscience and must immediately and unconditionally be released. A fortnight ago, the Arbitrary Detention and Hostage Affairs APPG heard about the different approach that the UK takes in these cases, compared with the US, Canada, France and others.
Morad Tahbaz, a UK and US national, was first arrested in 2019 and jailed. He was born in London and holds both British and US citizenship. He is the founder of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation. He was released into home furlough in March 2022, but he was then rearrested two days later. Public pressure from the campaign group Bring Our Families Home, which works to bring home the wrongfully detained and hostages, ensured that US negotiators were able to have him released as part of a US-Iranian prisoner release scheme. The UK Government have a long practice of not negotiating for their own citizens in these circumstances. Are the new Government going to review this practice?
Finally, what pressure are the Government putting on the Iranian Government, via the UN and directly, to cease these abhorrent practices of kidnapping individuals, not just British nationals but Iranian citizens as well?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend in a debate where only Bishops and Liberals have spoken so far. I am not sure that has ever happened before during my 12 years in this House. Therefore, it has been a very high-quality debate in my humble opinion. I commend the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to us.
I had the pleasure of being in my place during the right reverend Prelate’s maiden speech, when she spoke so powerfully of her family background and of the contemporary situation within Iran. It is absolutely right that this remains part of our proceedings and is at the top of our mind. With the tumultuous events happening in the world, we should not forget that there are, as she put it, whole swathes of people who are trapped, imprisoned politically and literally by a regime that denies the very basic human rights that we in this country take for granted.
I commend my noble friend Baroness Brinton for her work within the global network. I am convinced that, even though many young people in Iran see a regime where there is for them perhaps little hope, they will know that there are people around the world who are listening to their struggle, are watching the regime and ultimately will take action. It is therefore right that the Minister has been asked a number of questions about what actions the Government will be taking.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was right to refer to the extreme use of the death penalty. There is unanimity in this House on opposition to the death penalty, but the extreme nature of it should focus all democratic Parliaments around the world on those who are unable to defend themselves in a very flawed judicial process.
We have debated on a number of occasions the malign involvement of Iran in its near neighbourhood, more recently within the Red Sea and the Middle East but also in north Africa and—an issue very close to my heart—in Sudan. We see on a daily basis the regime seeking to destabilise and to interfere in other nations.
To return to the domestic situation in Iran, all contributions have mentioned the profoundly moving work of Richard Ratcliffe in support of Nazanin; it has been an inspiration for anyone who has had the privilege of meeting them. I did so with their daughter, who was getting to know her mother again. On a very human scale, one of the consequences of Nazanin’s detention was that it was the detention of the mother of a very young child. Something that struck me was that after she was detained in 2016, six Foreign Secretaries had her file on their desk, but it was the different approach at ministerial level that led to a consensus, I hope, that there should be a more systematic way of approaching those who are denied basic access to consular services. We therefore support the Government in their efforts to establish an envoy for complex cases, but also a statutory underpinning of the right to consular access where there are human rights violations. Like others, I ask the Minister to confirm that progress is being made and in what timeframe we will see legislation brought forward, so that we can properly debate it and ultimately support it.
There are other measures that the Government can take, not just sanctions on the human rights aspect. I debated the Iran sanctions regime, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We have a unique approach to our sanctions—a countrywide ability to have sanctions that are flexible and that can be activated immediately if the United States, Canada or the European Union does so. That reinforces the point, which has been made in the debate, that we should be working with our allies to put more pressure on the Iranian regime, especially when it comes to the flawed judicial processes that are abused by a political regime when such individuals are detained.
The UK could do more regarding the judiciary in Iran. In the debate in January last year, I asked the previous Government, specifically the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to move on that issue. The US, under both the Biden and Trump Administrations, is seeking to exert pressure, and I hope the UK will follow.
I want to put on record that, because of the malign influence of Iran on its near neighbourhood, and because of those individuals who are struggling, there are two aspects of the policies of both the previous and current Governments that I hope we can reflect on. First, there continues to be no safe and legal routes for any Iranians, especially young Iranian women, if they are seeking refuge from persecution and trying to come to the UK. We know that the Iranian diaspora in the UK is strong, welcoming and stable, so anyone persecuted in Iran would be able to seek shelter here, but there is no safe and legal route. I hope the Minister might reconsider that and speak to Ministers in the Home Office. It is not too late, and it would make a meaningful difference. It would also provide hope for many individuals who see the UK as a potential area of refuge.
Finally, all the programmes that are currently scored as official development assistance in near-neighbourhood countries are defending human rights and those persecuted for promoting democracy and seeking resilience against interference. Those are the very programmes we want to see in place, because they are about the security of the United Kingdom, but they are going to be slashed. I hope that, at the very least, we can protect those programmes scored as ODA which are about national security and are pro-democracy.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing forward this important and timely debate, and I join with other noble Lords in congratulating her on her speech, which was informative and personal in so many different ways.
First and foremost, let us remember that it is our duty as a nation and a society to safeguard the freedoms, safety and well-being of our citizens wherever they may be in the world. In recent years, Iran has arrested dozens of Iranians with dual nationality or foreign permanent residency, mostly on spying and national security charges. At least 15 have had links to the United Kingdom. However, the most recent detentions are particularly concerning.
The Iranian regime has, as we are all too aware, a long-standing history of violating human rights. The imprisonment of innocent British citizens is a blatant example of such behaviour. These individuals are often detained on politically motivated charges, subjected to appalling conditions and denied their basic rights. Such actions must not be tolerated, and we must act with urgency to secure their release.
Although we cannot ignore the broader geopolitical context—the challenges posed, for example, by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its role in destabilising the Middle East and its continued support of militant groups across the region—we must be resolute in our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. We must also recognise that this issue is not just about diplomacy; it is about standing firm in our values. As a nation, we believe in the principles of justice, freedom and human dignity. When British citizens are wrongfully detained by a foreign Government, especially one that continue to undermine basic human rights, it is our duty to do everything we can to secure their release.
We must also ask ourselves whether stronger or more assertive actions are needed to send a clear message to Tehran that the arbitrary detention of British citizens will not be tolerated. If we are to ensure that those detained are returned to their families, we must consider all avenues. The Government must continue to press for the release of these citizens, and we as a Parliament must stand united in this call for justice. The United Kingdom has long been a champion of the rule of law and the rights of individuals across the world. It is incumbent on us to ensure that those principles are upheld at every opportunity.
Can the Minister provide an update on the specific diplomatic steps the Government are taking to secure the release of British citizens detained by the Iranian regime? Also, given that the right reverend Prelate mentioned human rights in the area, what additional measures are the Government considering to strengthen international pressure on Iran to adhere to basic human rights standards and release those held unjustly?
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned, as did other noble Lords, consular access. I look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on that issue.
In addition, how are His Majesty’s Government working with international partners to prevent the detention of British citizens by hostile regimes? Are there opportunities for greater co-operation to address the issue in the future? This has been an interesting debate, and I am really glad to have taken part in it. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this debate and for her personal reflections on her birthplace. I was also moved by her contribution on “Desert Island Discs”, which reflected on some of those issues and what a wonderful country Iran is. Sadly, it is being distorted by its current Government.
I am grateful for contributions from all noble Lords, many of whom have developed deep knowledge of this area, not least, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, in joint campaigns with Richard Ratcliffe, working together to ensure Nazanin’s release.
I will try to respond to all the points raised. As noble Lords are aware, Iran has a long history of seeking to exploit the detention of British and other foreign nationals. The regime’s actions sit within a wider set of malign behaviours—not least its continued repression of women and girls, human rights defenders and religious and ethnic minorities. Religious minorities, including Baha’is, Christians and Sunni Muslims, suffer discrimination in law and practice. This includes discrimination in access to education, employment, child adoption, political office and places of worship.
The Baha’i community continues to face arbitrary arrests, land expropriation and denial of burial rights, while Christians, as the right reverend Prelate said, face shocking sentencing and ongoing incarceration for the act of practising their faith. Iran must allow every individual their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, in accordance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Since October 2022, we have sanctioned 94 individuals and entities for their human rights violations, including—to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—decision-makers responsible for Iran’s oppressive hijab laws and political and security officials involved in the crackdown on protesters. The United Kingdom’s dedicated Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, David Smith, leads our work to promote tolerance and mutual respect.
Noble Lords have raised the horrific, consistently high rate of executions, which is, of course, a deliberate attempt to instil fear and stifle dissent. The United Kingdom is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle, and we make very clear representations on that. The UK has 450 sanctions in place, including designations against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and those responsible for Iran’s attack on Israel in October.
I turn to our advice about travel to Iran. British travellers are at significant risk of arrest and detention in Iran. Since 2022, we have used our public travel advice to advise against any travel there. Having a British passport or connections to the United Kingdom can be reason enough for the Iranian authorities to detain someone. The Foreign Office actively promotes its free travel advice service to travellers and industry alike. I understand that travel pages are viewed more than 28 million times per year. Nevertheless, we will look at what more could be done to ensure that the advice is seen as widely as possible.
I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for the care with which she has approached the subject of detention cases. They are among the most difficult, complex and sensitive cases handled by our officials and are enormously distressing for the families of those detained. For reasons that will be obvious to those familiar with the Iranian regime’s behaviour, I cannot make detailed comments on individual cases, nor can I refer to the possible numbers. Many of the individuals involved do not want publicity, but if noble Lords wish to speak to me privately, I will try to reassure them of what we are trying to do. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that the British embassy in Tehran is in contact with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the recent case and we will continue to raise this directly with the Iranian authorities. A specialist team from the FCDO is in frequent contact with the family, providing regular updates and advice. This case will continue to be a priority for the Government.
As noble Lords referred to, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Government are committed to strengthening their support for British nationals abroad. We will, as they reminded me, introduce a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations and will soon appoint an envoy for the most complex detention cases. To reassure noble Lords, work is under way on both, and we will come forward with details fairly soon.
I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that we work very closely with our international partners to tackle unfair detentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned, we signed the Canadian Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations in 2021, helping protect citizens of all countries who live and work abroad. This is of course an issue of interest and importance to the House, and I welcome the creation in 2024 of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arbitrary Detention and Hostage Affairs. I will work closely with it and keep it up to date on our progress.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, says about overseas development assistance. I reassure him that our first priority is security. For the security of this nation, we had to make some very difficult decisions this week, but they will not deflect from how we allocate and ensure that whatever assistance we give to those neighbouring countries is properly maintained. The Prime Minister made it clear that that will be a priority for the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Sudan.
I conclude by assuring all noble Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the use of language, could he say a bit more about the reluctance to call this out for what it is and to refer to hostage taking, when other European countries are willing to do so?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not want to be drawn into using language that might be considered to refer to specific cases. I want to avoid that at this moment in time but, having signed the Canadian declaration, we are clear about the growth of this policy of state detention for those sorts of purposes.
In conclusion, supporting British nationals detained in Iran will remain an absolute priority for this Government, alongside advising against travel to Iran to prevent such incidents. We will continue to strengthen our consular support globally and, most importantly, we will work together with our international partners to build and sustain the international consensus against the use of detainees as leverage for other purposes.
Prenuptial Agreements
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
That this House takes note of the law relating to prenuptial agreements.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it may interest noble Lords to know that I am often taken to one side by elderly female Peers to beseech me to reform the law in this area. They are reluctant to marry, or remarry, long-term partners because of fearing the loss of assets should there be a subsequent break-up, a loss that would deprive the children of the first marriage of their expected inheritance. One might be surprised at the energy of the beating hearts under the ermine. One should not be, because the Office for National Statistics has shown that the number of so-called silver splitters—divorcees over 65—has increased by 75% in the last 20 years and lawyers are advising them to make prenuptial agreements, commonly known as “prenups”.
Those who have been through a divorce once do not want to experience the financial consequences a second time. Others decide not to remarry legally. Judging by the number of letters I get from members of the public when the possibility of reform is reported, they are well aware of, and intensely anxious about and upset by, financial provision law; that is, the law about splitting assets on divorce. I have never received a letter in support of the existing law on this topic.
A prenup is an agreement made between a couple, either before or during their marriage or civil partnership, which governs the way in which their assets are to be divided on divorce. Many foreign jurisdictions expect couples to enter such binding arrangements. They are not, however, legally binding in England and Wales, although the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Radmacher v Granatino that they should be upheld if fair and freely entered into. They are popular here with couples with inherited wealth, or wealth acquired before marriage; couples who have children from a previous relationship; foreign couples; same-sex couples; and young career people who have built up assets before they marry.
Various studies have tried to estimate the number of couples who do make prenups, albeit, as I said, with no guarantee that they will be respected by the courts. The estimates vary from 13% to 20%. Certainly, prenups have become more common in the last few years. They no longer feel unromantic, unusual or just for the rich. They do not predispose to divorce, which is an argument used in the past. Indeed, in countries where prenups are more common the divorce rate is lower than ours. Such agreements are more likely to provide less ongoing maintenance for a spouse, in keeping with the trend away from such support, but should—and usually do—provide for support for the children. All this applies equally to post-nups; that is, similar agreements entered into during an ongoing marriage. Couples believe these agreements to be binding, following the judgment in Radmacher v Granatino.
What is the problem that requires reform—and this debate? In summary, the Supreme Court judgment opened the door to challenges to those agreements by requiring them to be “fair”, a concept that lies in the eyes of the beholder judge. That has meant that excess judicial discretion has undermined their usefulness and led to constant challenges to the validity of agreements which the couple, having had legal advice at the outset, believed were valid, until advised that it might be worth attacking them when the break-up occurs and one of them wants a larger award than that provided for in the prenup.
There are many examples. A case called KA v MA, which concerned the effects of alleged duress, ended up with the wife getting £1.35 million to meet her housing costs on top of what she had already agreed, with £300,000 in legal costs. The rest of the fees had to come from that allocation to the wife, no doubt severely depleting it.
In another case, Ipekçi, the ex-husband had signed a prenup with his wife. She was the heir to the Avon cosmetics fortune. Nevertheless, he was still awarded £1.3 million for a house and an allowance for the rest of his life, in part because his legal advice was suspect. They met when he worked as a concierge at the Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York. Later, he was employed at a well-known London hotel, at which I have stayed, but these things do not happen to me.
It is this doubt about enforceability that is wrecking the usefulness of prenups. The doubts centre on what is fair and what are the needs that some judges hold must nevertheless be met. The accumulation of cases leaves real doubts over the ability to predict the validity of any current prenups. Judges still insist on applying their own vision of what is fair and exercising the much-criticised set of factors in Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. Discretion, I am afraid, is what we know to be the source of the problems in financial provision law.
A problem in today’s divorce law is how to define the needs of the divorced spouse, usually from the wife’s perspective, and who should meet those needs. That is why that word needs clarification. Judges have given so many different interpretations that we do not have a workable standard, not even under the guidance of the Family Justice Council. Some judges are more parsimonious than others where there is a prenup, but they all agree on the need for housing where there are children, provided there are sufficient assets. What is fair, and whether that standard should be applied to a freely entered-into prenup, is another undermining issue.
So we come to reform. The Law Commission has done detailed and profound work in this field, as I shall describe and which I support. Nearly all the other organisations in the family law field have come out in favour of statutory enactment of the enforceability of prenups. It has even been suggested that we should follow the example of some civil code countries and expect engaged couples to see a lawyer and choose from a menu of financial models to govern their financial relationship during and after the marriage. Such discussions would be less intricate and cheaper than what people spend on an average wedding.
I have on several occasions taken a Bill through this House—the Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill—which would reform the whole of that law, not just prenups. In it, I suggested that prenups should be as binding as any other contract, provided that there was no duress, that the couple had legal advice before signing, and that there was full disclosure. But the Government have failed to act on this and have ignored the Law Commission’s recommendations to put prenups on a statutory basis. Think how much money and how much court time would be saved if the tens of thousands of prenups that are challenged now could be presumptively binding. Think how much money and court time could be saved if couples could avoid all the fees and general waiting times and aggravation of fighting in court over their assets on divorce if the law was reformed.
It is true that many couples settle before a court hearing, but they would have started proceedings, and that too is expenditure that could be avoided. Recent court statistics show that the court process can take from six to 12 months; that there were 44,563 financial provision applications in 2023; and that in 2024 they were up by 7%. Tens of thousands of cases might never have to come near court. Millions would be saved if the Government would reform the law.
In 2014, the Law Commission’s report on matrimonial property needs and agreements recommended that prenups should be put on a statutory footing and should be made by deed no less than 28 days before the marriage, after legal advice and with disclosure. In my view, it was unfortunate that there was a potentially destructive discretionary element in this proposal; namely, that the parties could not, by agreement, opt out of meeting financial needs, undefined.
Indeed, with advances in AI, it has been suggested by the pre-eminent family judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, that the time will soon be with us when AI can produce an agreement that would be bound to be upheld as valid, because AI would know what was meant by “needs”, and that would satisfy a judge. This country is lagging behind in achieving that cost-saving certainty. Scotland and New Zealand, for example, have legislated for binding prenups and have experienced no difficulties.
The Law Commission presented a draft Bill to enact its prenup recommendations, and it is oven-ready, as we say, needing only to be heated up to the right degree by this Government. Not only is the Bill ready but, in December 2024, the Law Commission reported again and recommended the statutory enactment of a prenup law. It has been 16 years since the fundamental decision in Radmacher and 10 years since the Law Commission prepared the ground for statutory reform. We are decades behind most other countries, wasting money and court time and upsetting couples’ legitimate expectations of certainty. If the Bill were enacted, it would persuade older couples to take the plunge; I envisage a queue of weddings taking place in St Mary Undercroft. It would bring us into line with Australia, Ontario, the French civil code, New Zealand and the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes. It would respect autonomy and the freedom of contract, but our Government have said no more than that they are considering the reform as part of a wider consideration of family law reform.
Governments have failed to take up reform because they are unable to address the issues of principle about who maintains whom, to what level and for how long, and the effect of social changes. The lawyers who act for the highest earners on divorce—with the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton—may well fear a loss of business, although I am sure that the wealthiest couples will always have complex arrangements that will require legal advice. At the other end of the scale, most couples do not get any legal aid for divorce, and are left without the knowledge and framework that they need at the most emotional time of their lives. A straightforward law on prenups would be of immense value to them.
Prenups are popular, harmless and protective. They offer an escape from the bad, unreformed financial provision law, and represent freedom of choice and contract. Why can we not legislate for them now? What has held it up is the ill-founded belief that all financial provision law must be reviewed and amended at the same time. That is simply not the case. Prenups are a free-standing area, and even if wholesale reform is delayed, enacting prenups would enable couples to avoid the uncertainty, expense and bitterness of the current law and any future law to come.
I mention future law because the Law Commission’s report of last December was only a “scoping” report. It put forward four models for reform, and, unfortunately, scoping gives the Government an excuse to do nothing. I wish that the Law Commission had been allowed to get on with a wholesale reform of financial provision law, which is now over 50 years old and costs the state and couples so much expense and aggravation. I hope that it will not be brushed under the carpet; it could take a long time to occur. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and I were promised a review of financial provision law within three years of the passing of the divorce Bill in 2020, and we dropped amendments to the Bill in reliance on that promise, which has not been fulfilled.
The current financial provision law—all of it, not just prenups—is so uncertain and unpredictable that it could well be said to be in breach of the rule of law. I urge the Government to get on with reforming it and to take up the challenge in the latest Law Commission report. In the meantime, will the Minister get on with putting prenups on a statutory basis? The Bill is ready and there is no reasonable opposition. We need to get on with this and not wait for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which is wholesale reform of our antiquated financial provision law. I beg to move.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this debate. I thank her very much for bringing it to the House’s attention.
First, I declare my interest as listed on the register: I am a solicitor of 45 years, specialising in family law. I wish to make it absolutely clear that nothing that I say in this speech reflects any of my current matters before the courts. Indeed, it could not, because, before the end of this legal year, I have five cases being argued which involve prenuptial contracts—two in the High Court, two in arbitration and one in the Court of Appeal. In some, it is argued that it is not appropriate to enforce, and in others that it is appropriate to do so. I am also a patron of a Marriage Foundation.
The origins of prenuptial contracts not being enforceable stems from the notion that it was unconscionable to contemplate the breakdown of a contract which is intended to last for life. That is possibly the reason why the words “prenuptial contract” are not specifically addressed in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended. The only reference to marital contracts in that Act is that the court has an overriding discretion to alter any contract made before, during or after a marriage. When the Matrimonial Causes Act was enacted, divorce was considered unusual and applied to few. Now, regrettably, there is hardly a family in the land which has not, in some shape or form, had to face the reality that many marriages do not last for ever.
The far-reaching changes to social norm over the years are themselves simply a sufficient base to call for reform of the law. Indeed, as Sir Paul Coleridge, a former High Court family judge, said in his address to a family law conference in 2013, when the MCA was 40 years old:
“Since family law is intended to regulate family life as it is lived now and not in the distant past, it follows that the current divorce and financial provision law … is no longer, I suggest, fit for purpose. It was designed in a wholly different era to deal with a wholly different society and way of life … The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 with all its layers of crustacean growth needs to be humanely killed off and given a decent burial and the heroic efforts of the Supreme Court to maintain the life support system need to stop. The Act has, quite simply, had its day”.
That speech was made in 2013. The following year, two changes were made which are worth taking note of. The first was that the appeal system from the High Court judge to the Court of Appeal was altered, and the refusal of leave, quite frequently from a single family judge, was the end of the road. Prior to that, there was the ability to appeal against the refusal of leave and to be heard, quite frequently, by a non-family judge. The Supreme Court, which is largely composed of non-family judges, was the “life support system” to the Act to which Sir Paul Coleridge refers, but getting there now is almost impossible, as family judges in the Court of Appeal are marking their own homework, and that is not capable of challenge.
The second change was the Law Commission’s report, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements. It made recommendations for the introduction of binding nuptial agreements, which were referred to as “qualifying nuptial agreements”. These would be enforceable contracts that would not be subject to the scrutiny of the court, which would require certain procedural safeguards to be met, and which, importantly, could not be used to contract out of an obligation to meet financial needs. The 2014 report was commissioned as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s plea in Radmacher v Granatino—a case that I am all too familiar with, having been on the losing side—for Parliament to legislate in respect of these contracts.
Absent the implementation of guidance by Parliament in respect of nuptial agreements, we are back with the discretion of the tribunal. The clear message of Granatino that prenuptial contracts should be enforceable unless it would be unfair for them not to be leaves the fairness to the trial judge, which is totally discretionary. No prenuptial contract is able to prohibit children’s maintenance—the court has an overriding jurisdiction over that which cannot be ousted.
As a consequence of Granatino, there are many more prenuptial agreements in circulation, all stacking up, and when a divorce occurs there is an increasing number of cases awaiting adjudication—hence my five cases mentioned earlier. The very reason for entering a prenuptial contract is removed when the period of a marriage is the same as the length it takes to adjudicate the financial relief on divorce. People are entitled to know how the judges are going to exercise their discretion. The Law Commission provides enormous help in this respect and its recommendations should be enacted. The uncertainty of outcome would be reduced and the already overburdened courts would be relieved of some unnecessary work.
The idea that prenuptial contracts favour only the rich is not accurate. When a person of significant wealth is intending to get married and asks how their assets could be protected, the correct answer is: by not marrying. The financially weaker party is then left with no rights whatever, except when there are children of the family, when a claim under Schedule 1 to the Children Act is all that is available to them. If, however, the law of enforceability of prenuptial contracts was more certain, there would be a greater incentive to enter into marriage. Wearing my other hat as a patron of the Marriage Foundation, it is also in the interests of society that people are encouraged to get married in circumstances where evidence points to the fact that married relationships are more likely to endure, for the benefit of any children, than if the parties were mere cohabitees.
In other countries, it is commonplace on marriage for nuptial contracts to be entered into—typically community property or separation of property. The courts now have to grapple with the enforceability of these contracts.
I ask the Minister, rather than being distracted by the temptation to consider overall reform of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, to concentrate on the reasons why the Government cannot deal with this isolated stand-alone area of the law, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says, is oven-ready. It is akin to having a leaking roof and water dripping down the walls, but not having the roof fixed until you have decided what colour to paint the walls. Eventually, the delay will cause the roof to collapse, with all the collateral damage that causes.
The development of ancillary relief is complex and there are no easy answers, as the most recent Law Commission paper has set out. Every Government seem to encourage alternative dispute resolutions, but these do not work when the law in itself is uncertain. All Governments shy away from grappling with this issue.
I have received significant support in my mission to make the law clearer from mediators, mostly notably Helen Adam, who attended a panel convened by Siobhan Baillie to consider reform of the current law. Helen, in exasperation, recently sent me a message. After conducting a mediation, she had sent her clients—parents of three young children—to solicitors for advice, where they were given entirely different advice and so were unable to settle in mediation. Those parents face the prospect of further costs, stress and acrimony in their legal proceedings ahead, none of which is in the interests of their young children. She says this happens all too regularly. In her last plea she writes:
“Maybe we need to get the press involved to get a Bates v the Post Office-type documentary, to bring this scandalous legal situation into the public domain”.
Delay is in nobody’s interests, least of all the minor children of the family, where the previous Government sought to expedite the dissolution of marriage by no-fault divorce without the promised follow-up of enacting any reform in relation to financial relief. Until the money is sorted out, the parents are not free to move forwards. At least if the law on prenups was more certain, mediators would have more success when dealing with these.
This brings me to my last point, which is the purpose of Parliament. I fully endorse the Lady Chief Justice’s protection of the judiciary: it can only enforce the existing law, and the appeal process is what protects litigants. When Parliament is invited by the Supreme Court to legislate, as it was in Granatino, and 14 years later nothing has happened, we have to look to ourselves in shame.
I conclude with two pleas. First, please can the Government address this matter and fix the leaking roof? There will be plenty of time to discuss the colour of the walls, but that too should not be pushed off too far into the long grass. Secondly, until this is resolved, please can the Government reinstate the appeal process by restoring the right to appeal against the refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, so that the life-support system of the Supreme Court referred to by Sir Paul Coleridge is more accessible?
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing the debate on this Motion and for raising such fundamentally important issues, which she set out so clearly. I also acknowledge with respect the considerable wisdom and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on these matters.
It has been my personal privilege to prepare many couples for marriage over the years. It is a hopeful time, where couples seek to express unconditional love and trust, and commit to share all aspects of their life, both at the time and looking to the future, whatever it may hold. I believe it would be detrimental for all parties if prenuptial agreements were to become a normal part of preparing for marriage, whether religious or not—although I entirely acknowledge the arguments in favour of these agreements, particularly the clarity they provide in financial matters, especially where there are pre-existing children, and their role in reducing litigation upon divorce.
However, I urge the House to reflect on prenuptial agreements’ broader implications for the institution of marriage, its gift to wider society and the potential consequences for the financially weaker parties. Historically, marriage has been regarded as more than just a contractual arrangement between two individuals. If we are to put matrimonial nuptial agreements into statute, it may appear as if we are saying to couples who come to marry that, to save themselves legal costs and uncertainty, they should include in their preparations a plan also for their divorce.
Furthermore, although advocates argue that prenuptial agreements encourage fairness and discourage litigation, we must be mindful of the power imbalances that may arise, which can be emotional, psychological and, of course, financial. The reality is that such agreements often favour the wealthier party, leaving the financially weaker spouse—often women—at a disadvantage.
When there is some sort of pressure to marry, individuals may agree to terms that are significantly unfair or that fail to consider future circumstances, such as career sacrifices, child-rearing responsibilities, unexpected financial hardships or even unexpected windfalls. Therefore, I believe the courts should retain a measure of discretion to ensure that any final financial agreement is equitable, rather than being bound by contracts that may no longer reflect the realities of the marriage or divorce. For this reason, of the models set out by the Law Commission in December 2024, I would favour that which codifies the current case law while retaining wider judicial discretion.
Although it is true that courts currently have the authority to assess and override prenuptial agreements in cases of significant inequality, there remains a risk that their increasing normalisation may lead to undue pressure on prospective spouses to sign away their rights without fully comprehending the longer-term, more serious consequences. For example, many prenuptial agreements incorporate acknowledgements that each party is content with the financial information that has been provided and does not wish to ask further questions before signing. Yet I am sure it is likely, at times, that one partner may be anxious about asking further questions in a way that may imply a lack of trust and so risk undermining the relationship at a time when the focus, in preparing for marriage, is very much orientated towards joyful expectation.
Marriage is not merely an economic transaction. It is, above all a covenant: something good and beautiful. We must ensure that our legal framework continues to foster the values of partnership and protection for the vulnerable. Whatever our views across this House, I hope we can acknowledge the value of good preparation for marriage, drawing on the very large range of excellent resources and support that is available. That includes support offered by organisations such as Care for the Family, one of a number of charities that have dedicated themselves in recent years to supporting churches in particular across the country as they offer support to those preparing for marriage, whether they are part of the church or not. In addition, they go on offering resources to support relationships at later stages of family life and in parenting—especially when challenges inevitably arise and the strain on the relationship increases. Let us, as a House, in the midst of this debate, value the work that is done by many individuals, organisations and faith-based communities to support preparing for marriage.
Therefore, in conclusion, I urge the House to approach the matter of nuptial agreements with some caution, ensuring that any legal recognition that they receive does not come at the cost of transparent fairness and justice and the true spirit of marriage, as a most ancient and sacred institution given by God that, at its best, benefits the whole of society.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I too am a patron of the Marriage Foundation and a former family judge who tried a lot of financial cases. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, that I am one of two Court of Appeal judges who managed to persuade them that there should be leave to appeal in family cases. But my experience in the past was that Court of Appeal family judges fairly regularly disagreed with High Court judges. So it is not a question of marking your own work: you are marking the work of somebody else in the same subject—therefore, with a great deal of experience.
I am very much in support of the idea of prenups becoming part of legislation. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has brought this debate. It is useful that we discuss this, and I hope it will put some degree of pressure on the Government to start thinking seriously about doing something useful. I entirely agree with the suggestion that there is no reason why this relatively simple part could not become part of the law without waiting for a much more complex situation in relation to the rest of family financial affairs—which, as has already been said, can be very complicated.
However, I have two concerns. I respectfully disagree with the right reverend Prelate on the idea that there should not be legislation, but he has made a significant point. There are two issues about which I would be concerned if prenups became part of the law without a degree of discretion for the court. Perhaps, as a judge, I have more faith in the judiciary than either of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton: that does not entirely surprise me.
The two issues are these. The first is the point so well made by the right reverend Prelate: when the agreement is made, there has to be transparency. You have to put on the table what you have and what you do not have because, from cases I have tried, I know that debts can be as important as assets. Before you enter an agreement, you need to know the state of affairs of both the intending spouses. If one side does not come clean, and it becomes obvious on divorce that there has been non-disclosure and a serious lack of transparency—I am talking not about £10,000 but about millions—or, in a family that does not have much money, that one has money stowed away somewhere that has only just come to light, in such a situation, the judge must have a discretion to put the matter right.
I do not see that discretion being applied in a case where the judge is satisfied that the prenup was entered into with both sides understanding what they were going into and with sufficient transparency for it to be fair at the moment of the agreement. As has been said, it is a contract, but it has to be a contract that can be put right by the judge in extremely unfair circumstances if one of the two spouses has not played fair. So I am looking not at fairness generally but at fairness in a lack of transparency.
The second point that I am concerned about comes at the moment of divorce, or generally just after. There are circumstances which change dramatically: that was my experience when I tried cases. A couple starts marriage in a particular situation and, at the point of divorce, one of the spouses has an extreme change of circumstance. I am looking at illness. You may have a prenup that says that both of them have jobs with relatively equal incomes and neither of them has much in the way of assets, but then you get to a point, 30 or 40 years later, when one of them has multiple sclerosis and is unable to work. At that moment, are you to say that the prenup should apply to the wife, or indeed to the husband—because there is no shortage of wives who earn as much, more or even much more than their husbands? I happen to be one of those.
I can see a situation in which my husband and I made an agreement, when we both started at the Bar with relatively similar incomes, and then I made much more money and became a senior judge and he got a serious illness and could not work. Would it be fair that he should not get a penny because that is what we agreed at the moment of marriage? In my view, there has to be some possibility for this to be looked at. I also look at another situation: if a couple had had reasonable assets when they married but then one of them went bankrupt. There are extreme situations.
I am asking that the judge have a residual discretion to deal with those two instances: the moment of going into the agreement, and the moment when the agreement comes into force. I therefore do not entirely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, in wanting a prenup never to be changed. But I do see the idea that for the majority of people who enter into such a prenup, that should be the beginning and end of what their financial affairs should be.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate and on her persistence on this issue in the face of government inactivity. It is also a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with her immense experience of these cases. I declare an interest as a practising barrister, and, although not one primarily concerned with family law, one who has a forthcoming case which concerns a prenuptial agreement entered into by a husband and wife, the issue being whether or not the parties are to be bound by that agreement.
The burden of what I wish to say is that it is high time Parliament intervened. The result of intervention should be fewer cases such as the one I have just referred to. There is evidence, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, that the courts are being increasingly troubled where one party or another to a marriage does not wish to be bound by a prenup, claiming that they did not enter into the agreement freely or that the circumstances have changed since the marriage, making it inequitable to rely on the agreement.
The law in relation to what used to be called “ancillary relief” on divorce gives the court a very wide discretion but gives it no clear guidelines as to how to apply that discretion. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 simply lists the vast number of factors that have to be taken into consideration. The result has been that the courts themselves have developed the law, which, although it has avoided some cases reaching court which might otherwise have done so, still leaves a considerable degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of proceedings that might be contested. I have here this very large volume from the Law Commission—the scoping paper referred to by a number of noble Lords. The Law Commission produced a clear and helpful summary of the issues, as one would expect, but did not come to any very firm conclusions as to what the appropriate legislative response to the uncertainty created by this wide discretion should be.
The Law Commission, however, has made some very clear suggestions for reform of prenuptial agreements. For a prenup to be “a qualifying nuptial agreement” it should be contractually valid on ordinary principles, it should be entered into by way of a deed, there should be disclosure of material financial information by both sides, and both sides should have independent legal advice. There is an additional proposal that such an agreement would not qualify if made less than 28 or 21 days before the marriage ceremony. I agree with all the other proposals, but I am slightly doubtful about the 28-day cooling off period. However, that is the sort of detail that could be ironed out during the passage of any Bill through Parliament.
Why has there been no response to what is now a series of quite old recommendations by the Law Commission? In 2014 the then relevant Minister, Simon Hughes, said there was insufficient time because there was to be a general election in 2015. I was a Minister in the MoJ at the time, although not one with responsibility for this particular area of the law, but I remember answering a question in your Lordships’ House and giving a similar answer to the one Simon Hughes had given. The answer given, on the other hand, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, to a similar query in 2022 was that the Government were considering the matter in the context of a wider review.
In the meantime, as we have heard, the courts took some significant steps to clarify the position in the case of Radmacher v Granatino. The Supreme Court had decided by a majority of eight to one, and I quote one particular passage which summarises their view:
“It would be natural to infer that parties who entered in enter into an antenuptial agreement to which English law is likely to be applied intend that effect should be given to it”.
The dissenting voice was the formidable one of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. On reading her judgment, she seems to have been concerned, understandably, that there was a possibility of a significant change in roles post marriage, which would mean that the agreement was unfair. I note the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about what might be regarded as a very significant change in circumstances. As I apprehend what she was suggesting, it is not meant to be a general discretion but a discretion in very exceptional circumstances. The risk, of course, of having a discretion at all is that it can mean we are back to square one, as it were. If there is to be that discretion, I would respectfully suggest that it be severely circumscribed and limited.
My submission to the Government is that the time for action has come. We are still four and a half years away from a general election; there is thus plenty of time for this sort of legislation. I acknowledge that law reform is not always high on the list of priorities of a Government trying to make a significant change in this country, but surely the time has come to respond. The Minister may not be a particular expert in this field—although he has great expertise in other fields, of course—but I ask him to take back to the department the concern already expressed in this debate, and that I suspect will be expressed in speeches after mine, and ask his colleagues to prioritise reform in this area as soon as possible.
The response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, that reform should be part of a “wider picture”, is not one that I suggest the Government should make. It is very tempting to say, “Well, if you are going to address changes to financial provision on divorce, you want to tackle all the issues in one go”. But in the light of the ambivalence in the suggestions in the scoping report about more generally legislating, it would be most unwise simply to wait and produce legislation that covers all the uncertainty. It would be much more sensible, I suggest, to grapple with this relatively simple change to the law, which would be consistent with the law in continental Europe and probably in Scotland. It would also reflect, largely, the desires of those who consider entering into a prenup.
It is worth reminding noble Lords that it would not be compulsory to enter into a prenup, but where the parties have significant assets and are concerned about the future, particularly in the case of second marriages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the absence of legislation runs the risk of dissuading people from getting married at all—and not all of them, of course, are in your Lordships’ House. When I last looked, public policy remains in favour of marriage; it even finds reflection in the European Convention on Human Rights. I suggest to the Government that the time has come for action.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this important debate at the early stages of this Government; as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, just pointed out, they have four and a half years to go. As my noble friend Lady Shackleton pointed out, this matter is always kicked into the long grass; it is therefore a good time for it to be brought out.
The Law Commission made recommendations in 2014, which it is currently reviewing, but calls to make properly drafted prenuptial agreements binding were made long before then, including by noble and learned Lords in this House, so it is hard to be optimistic about change, but, as a non-lawyer I want to take a slightly different tack. As an aside, I am in very good company with and have empathy for another non-lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who is preparing to respond to many legal eminences.
This Government have said that, for them to act, any measures will need to further one or more of their five missions. My argument is that making romantic relationships a little less romantic meets the opportunity mission test. Binding prenuptial agreements would, albeit indirectly, boost opportunity for children to do better. That is quite a leap, so I will elaborate. They would strengthen marriage by making it more intentional and less risky, thereby, it is to be hoped, helping to increase marriage rates throughout society. According to Louise Perry, more marriage would be better for women too, as they are the vulnerable party in our informal hook-up culture, where unplanned pregnancy means they are often left, literally, holding the baby.
Crucially, more marriage means more children benefit from the stability that the commitment of marriage brings to family life. Children of married parents are considerably less likely to experience their own relationship breakdown. This was emphasised by the Centre for Social Justice in its 2009 Family Law Review. Its starting point, unusually but importantly, was that any reform of family law needed to support family stability and address the prevailing culture of family breakdown. Then and now, this is the underlying social emergency at the root of and driving so many other social issues. Some 44% of children do not grow up with both their parents. Children who endure family breakdown are around twice as likely to experience homelessness, alcoholism and mental health issues; to get into trouble with the police or spend time in prison; to underachieve in education; not to live with the other parent of their children, and to become a teenage parent themselves.
Marriage makes a difference. The Millennium Cohort Study found that 88% of married parents were still together when their child was five years old compared to only 67% of parents who were cohabiting when their child was born. More starkly, children born to cohabiting parents were almost three times more likely not to be living with both their parents when they were five years old compared to children born to married parents. Attributing this difference in stability to marriage is often dismissed in favour of other coexisting factors that make people more likely to form lasting relationships, such as higher levels of income or education, but low-income married couples are significantly more stable than low-income cohabitees. How relationships are structured matters.
Anthropologically speaking, the whole effort of getting married, the ritual itself, the decision to commit and the explicit public nature of that commitment, and even the financial investment in marking that change of relationship status, are all qualitatively different from the slide into cohabitation which is very common. Psychologists such as Professors Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades at the University of Denver have extensively studied how sliding into cohabitation differs from deciding to get married and how that affects relationship durability.
As we have heard, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her minority judgment in Radmacher v Granatino, which tested the binding nature of a prenup, spoke of the importance of maintaining a distinction between marriage and cohabitation. She also said that Parliament, not judges, needed to make the law in this area. In 1998, the last Labour Government published Supporting Families, the UK’s first ever Green Paper on family policy, and made a strong case for doing this. It is worth repeating what they said then:
“allowing couples, either before or during their marriage, to make written agreements dealing with their financial affairs which would be legally binding on divorce … could give people more choice and allow them to take more responsibility for ordering their own lives. It could help them to build a solid foundation for their marriage by encouraging them to look at the financial issues they may face as husband and wife and reach agreement before they get married”.
This speaks of the greater intentionality that prenuptial arrangements bring to marriage; people think about the future. Indeed, this measure was included in the section in the policy proposals on supporting marriage—still a very valid aim of social policy. It pointed out:
“Providing greater security on property matters in this way could make it more likely that some people would marry, rather than simply live together … Nuptial agreements could also have the effect of protecting the children of first marriages, who can often be overlooked at the time of a second marriage—or a second divorce”.
In its Family Law Review, the CSJ points out:
“England and Wales is unusual across Westernised family law jurisdictions in not having binding pre-marriage agreements … or other marital agreements”.
While prenuptial agreements should not be mandated or normative, it is responsible to consider what a couple would want to happen in future circumstances. Arguably, when the couple are in flush of premarital romance and well disposed towards each other, that is a good time to think about how finances should pan out if things do not work out.
Of course, some strongly hold that premarital agreements plan for failure, reflect distrust and undermine the commitment of marriage. I would argue, as Labour did in 1998, that this intentionality and ability to plan address the realism of the future. Moreover, it is ironic that while it is possible to have a cohabitation agreement to protect assets if a relationship fails, married couples in England and Wales are subject to the very uncertain outcomes of our current divorce law, which can create many perverse incentives.
The CSJ lists many other advantages of making prenups legally binding, such as the greater security that they give to those re-entering marriage who have been scarred by divorce, lower legal costs, fewer delays as judges have not the need to determine arrangements from scratch, and international norms which mean that prenups are expected to have legal force. Disadvantages include the difficulties of predicting future events and including these in the agreement. The vulnerable, weaker party—or the one who is keener to marry—may feel obliged to sign despite possible downsides for them. This leads to the issue of how much residual discretion, which we have heard about, should be allowed to the courts not to treat prenups as binding in particular cases. The more the discretion, the greater the opportunity for fairness and justice, yet the greater the risk that agreements are not binding at all. The lesser the discretion, the more unfair outcomes there will be, even though there is fairness in upholding agreements. Hence, in 1998, the Government permitted a narrow discretionary factor of “significant injustice”. Judge-made law could elaborate the circumstances in which “significant injustice” may be found.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether this Government will make the prevention of parental relationship breakdown a key part of their mission to break down barriers to opportunity—and of course of their child poverty strategy. Poverty is a consequence of family breakdown as well as a cause of it. Bolstering marriage is essential, as the last Labour Government realised. Perhaps counterintuitively, making prenups binding is a low-cost tool in the box to do that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I have practised in family law as a barrister for many years and latterly have worked as a family judge. I do not find it altogether easy to recognise the picture of how the law now works, as portrayed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but never mind; that is a debate for another day.
Given that the median duration of marriages ending in divorce is now just under 13 years, it is a good time to assess the effect on law and practice of the important decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher 15 years ago. Typically, the parties to prenuptial agreements may legitimately wish to ring-fence inherited or previously acquired assets or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said, wish to ensure provision for children of previous relationships. Not surprisingly, agreements are now said to be popular with the farming community, with their particularly illiquid assets. All who enter into such agreements will naturally wish to avoid the costs and hazards of litigation.
The perception and use of prenuptial agreements have developed remarkably. They were felt by some to devalue a view of marriage for life, distastefully requiring the involvement of lawyers in what was supposed to be the happy period leading up to the marriage ceremony. They used to be seen as required only by wealthy older men after several unsuccessful trips around the matrimonial course, who wanted to protect themselves in case the latest candidate for matrimony turned out to be a gold-digger—at least, from the man’s point of view. They were also seen as disadvantaging women, who were asked to waive some or all of what they might expect to receive if the marriage later ended in divorce, and as allowing parties to contract out of the responsibility to meet each other’s needs.
In a classic American case, the very wealthy husband, 25 years older than the wife, presented her with an agreement only a few hours before the marriage ceremony, and threatened to cancel the marriage if she did not sign. She had sparse knowledge of his finances and did not have any independent advice, only a session with a lawyer selected by the husband. That lawyer, to his credit, advised her not to sign. However, in spite of that advice, she signed the agreement and the marriage went ahead. Thirteen years and two children later, there was a divorce and costly litigation across two state jurisdictions.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher has reduced the prospect of such a scenario in the United Kingdom. Rushed agreements with limited legal advice and limited disclosure, particularly if they appear unfair and very different from what the court might otherwise order, cannot expect to be upheld, and in reality can be worse than having no agreement at all.
The Law Commission’s later well-researched and reasoned recommendations in 2014 included the crucial requirements for there to be independent legal advice for each party and sufficient financial disclosure, and for the agreement to be completed at least 28 days before the wedding. Although those recommendations are not yet in statute, they undoubtedly already reflect current good practice and have helped to make agreements more popular and effective.
I noted with some surprise the doubt expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, questioning the need for a cooling-off period of 28 days. However, there is a need to protect those who get married in a fever, to quote the old song.
The remaining area of controversy concerns whether and in what circumstances the court might go beyond an agreement, freely and properly entered into, that would otherwise be expected to be binding upon the parties. There is a clear distinction between agreements unfair from the outset and agreements that may later operate unfairly if access to legal remedies is severely restricted. It was recommended by the commission that the court’s jurisdiction to make provision for needs should not be ousted by qualifying agreements, so that no party would be left unjustifiably without resources following separation. To that extent, the mere fact of an agreement cannot make fair what may otherwise appear or become particularly unfair.
The Law Commission said there was little evidence of how agreements operate in practice and that it would be helpful to have more relevant information about how popular they are, how they are treated in litigation and how many cases settle on the basis of agreements. I suggest that it would also be helpful to have reliable overall evidence of the difference between the outcomes that prenups produce and the outcomes that the court would otherwise direct. I suspect that the majority of prenups are not seen by the courts because the couples involved manage to stay married and leave the agreement in a drawer, and that many other agreements are seen by the courts only because the parties simply wish to comply with it by submitting it in support of an agreed order, to reflect what has been agreed.
It is likely that those prenups that are challenged, at least by those with enough money to do so, come before the court only because of inadequate drafting or unforeseen changes in circumstances, or because of an irresistible dispute about jurisdiction if the agreement was made outside England and Wales. However, I seriously question the number of challenges that was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but statistics will prove one or other of us right or wrong.
Carefully prepared agreements, although unromantic and transactional, can provide couples with a sense of security and certainty, reducing some of the acrimony and expense in the event of later permanent separation, and reducing the temptation to divert or conceal assets ahead of a divorce. Specialist legal practitioners can now help parties to achieve fair, realistic and civilised agreements, capable of later revision, that the courts will uphold. Indeed, if in doubt, the parties can now ask the court for an early decision as to whether the agreement is determinative of their financial affairs.
Nevertheless, there remain parties who sign agreements and marry, having ignored, rejected or not understood good legal advice that they could or would be better off marrying without the agreement. The Law Commission described the argument for autonomy as strong but as raising concerns that some may still enter an agreement unwillingly or with unrealistic optimism. The chances of that are not likely to be much diminished by any legislation. As the right reverend Prelate suggested, contractual autonomy has to be seen in the peculiarly emotional context of these agreements.
It is clearly premature to anticipate a final report by the Law Commission on the much wider question of whether and how substantial reform of financial remedies legislation should be undertaken, and any decision by the Government on that. Paragraph 7.98 of the commission’s recent scoping report suggests that, if there is not to be major change, its recommendations relating to agreements could be implemented straightaway, but, if major changes are expected, the recommendations about agreements will need to be reconsidered. We should be grateful to the noble Baroness for making us think hard about that.
If there are major wholesale changes, many existing agreements could well need postnuptial revision and renegotiation. An important component of any good advice is what a court might do in the absence of a prenup to protect the economically weaker party. Until it is clear what the law is to be in the foreseeable future, it will be hard to give satisfactory advice to those who need it about what might happen at a much later date.
If reforms are undertaken piecemeal, with prenups legislated for in advance of substantive law reforms, there is a risk that some agreements based on the substantive law in force when the agreement was reached would become unfair, and so would either produce an unfair result or have to be renegotiated, if the parties were willing to do so, failing which they might have to go to court. However, I accept that, to some extent, that risk exists irrespective of whether the law relating to prenups is reformed as the noble Baroness has proposed, and irrespective of changes that may be further down the track
Accordingly, meanwhile, until clarity is reached and a decision is made about how we should proceed, I suggest that the approach that has developed following Radmacher now works well, and that the family courts can and should be trusted to continue to deal with individual cases as required.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing today’s debate and for her tenacity on this issue and the wider issues of family law reform.
With the Law Commission’s recent report, Celebrating Marriage: A New Weddings Law, and its ongoing work on the issue of financial remedies on divorce or dissolution, which includes reviewing its own 2014 report on the matter, it seems we might be on the cusp of much legislative work in this area. So I too would be grateful to know whether His Majesty’s Government’s position, which I agree with, remains that all these issues about financial remedies should be dealt with together. If there is limited legislative time, which is often what the Government say, I reiterate the point I have made at Oral Questions that the greatest injustice to be dealt with in this area is currently those people entering a religious wedding ceremony that, when conducted, turns out not to be valid under UK law.
For participants, especially women, even the current remedies of Section 25 of the MCA are but a dream. Many are left destitute, particularly if they then have adult children, where there is no Schedule 1 claim. I accept that that law is not as well baked, or oven ready, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. However, I do think that for those women it should have priority.
On the subject of today’s debate, I wonder whether the comment by a previous Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, that prenuptials are the province of a “small and privileged cohort” is correct. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has outlined, and if the Co-op Legal Services statistics are in any way accurate, about a fifth of married couples may have such an arrangement at the moment.
If you google “prenuptial agreement” in the UK, the AI answer is that, as per the case of Radmacher v Granatino, your prenup will be relevant as long as you entered into it freely with full disclosure, you have legal advice, and it is not unfair. I accept the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, about the breadth of the discretion for “unfair”. That will be comforting to read if, say, your prenup entitles you only to a return plane ticket to the Philippines—only you and not any of your children. Yes, this has been a case. All the reform suggestions outlined would present a remedy for this. I presume it would be prima facie evidence of duress under the proposal outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. But many people will just look now to AI, so a law change will change that answer when someone looks up a prenuptial agreement.
Can I be assured by His Majesty’s Government that any reforms will have a comprehensive publicity campaign so that the public, particularly vulnerable groups, understand any change? One has only to look at how many people think common-law marriage exists as a legal concept to see how necessary awareness is. I also ask His Majesty’s Government to look at what is covered in the citizenship curriculum. Surely young people need to know and understand an institution, and its legal ramifications, that so many will eventually enter.
Despite much Law Commission work, there remain areas of the prenuptial jurisdiction that have not yet been discovered or considered. It is one of the privileges of being in your Lordships’ House that you are approached to raise issues that the Government may need to consider. Unfortunately for this nation of pet lovers and owners, the law still treats pets as mere chattels. They are treated as property for the purposes of Section 25.
There are currently about 13 million dogs and about 10 million cats as pets, so it is actually not a minority issue. The United Kingdom is becoming something of an outlier legally in relation to this. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, from his role at the International Academy of Family Lawyers, will be aware of this as well. The recent decision of District Judge Crisp in FI v DO on 20 December last year in the Manchester family court outlined what might become a test for other cases to decide, as in that case, who gets custody of the dog.
But the most interesting part of that judgment was this:
“The dog is a chattel. At times it seemed to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application which featured the dog when the wife was cross examined about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements. I set this out because I have no doubt that if this feature could have been agreed other matters may have been able to be agreed”.
Such, of course, was the emotional attachment that this couple had to the dog that they were in court. A change in the law could avoid some litigation, I would hope.
On 28 January this year, District Judge Hatvany put a blog piece titled Of Dogs and Divorce on the Financial Remedies Journal website, which said:
“Our legal system has a reputation for being the finest on the planet. Yet in court, the legal test for who gets to keep the family dog is the same as that for any other inanimate content of the family home. The roots of this absurdity lie in the common law, which insists that pets are properly no different in principle from furniture even though we all know that this does not reflect reality. This probably stems back to mediaeval times when dogs were kept for hunting and cats for mousing, but in the 21st century it’s laughably outdated. In other jurisdictions, courts are beginning to recognise that pets aren’t just property. There seems to be no effective mechanism in English courts, however, for resolving the issue of who gets the family dog”.
I am informed that this niche professional journal got a large response to this blog piece on pets. When I was weighing up whether to sign up to speak on this Motion in such eminent company, I was reassured that “You and Yours” on Radio 4 this Monday had the subject matter of “pet-nups”. Do His Majesty’s Government have a view on pets in prenuptial agreements and on whether they should continue to be considered chattels? Is the committee that your Lordships established under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 looking at this matter?
This is happening in other jurisdictions. Colombia amended its law in 2016 and its case law recognises that emotional bonds to animals within families do not equate to making animals equivalent to humans. Proposals are apparently afoot to amend the Italian legal code to
“regulate the custody of family pets upon separation or divorce”,
and New York has a best interests test on deciding the custody of a companion animal. In many of these changes, the jurisprudence stems from a recognition of the sentience of animals, so it looks like the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 might inadvertently have started us on this journey. These changes also recognise humans’ emotional connection to animals and move away from the division that anything non-human is merely an object. I hope His Majesty’s Government will look at these comparators to see whether they have affected prenuptial arrangements in those jurisdictions.
I thank the working group on pets and divorce, barrister Sarah Lucy Cooper and solicitor Estella Newbold-Brown for their work on this and for drawing this to my attention. This group also has the support of the previously mentioned High Court judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, and the Kennel Club. Will His Majesty’s Government agree to meet them to understand the solutions in this area of the law and how often it is an issue in proceedings?
In principle, I share the sentiments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her vigorous dissenting judgment in Radmacher. I also note the comments of the right reverend Prelate that this is a covenant, not a contract. It reminds me so much of the wisdom we used to receive from the late Lord Sacks in explaining to us the difference between covenants and contracts. I am pleased to learn that there would be an irreducible minimum here: a spouse would not be left so destitute as to be dependent on public funds and an agreement should not be allowed to leave the burden on the taxpayer rather than on the other spouse who has means.
As I conclude, I realise that I may have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous—from women who are left destitute and without remedy as they are not legally married to the custody of family pets—but this reflects the variation and breadth of issues that the breakdown of a marriage or civil partnership can reveal and the issues that the Government need to consider when legislating for a prenuptial, or pet-nuptial, agreement.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Deech for her tenacity in campaigning for the reform of this area of family law. Unlike my distinguished friends next to me, my noble friend Lord Meston and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, I am not a family law judge. I have simply been a divorce lawyer in South Africa, practising under the corpus juris civilis in Roman-Dutch law. I shall not speak for 11 minutes and will keep my comments brief.
When we debated my noble friend Lady Deech’s Private Member’s Bill, the Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill, way back in 2018, we were led at the time to believe that, following the Law Commission report, prenuptial agreements would soon be placed on a statutory footing and be enforceable. That was subject, of course, to both parties entering the agreement without duress, it being fair, it being reasonable and both parties receiving independent legal advice before signing the agreement. Sadly, seven years later, prenuptial agreements are still not enforced by courts in England and Wales, and the can is constantly being kicked down the road.
If I can revert to my experience of being a divorce lawyer in South Africa, where we refer to prenuptial agreements as antenuptial agreements, they have worked very well for decades. It does pose a problem when South Africans move across to the United Kingdom: if a couple were, sadly, to divorce in this country, they would not be able to get divorced with that prenuptial agreement.
I am also very familiar with the Radmacher v Granatino case in 2010, which many noble Lords have mentioned, and I am also cognisant of the fact that London has the reputation of now being the divorce capital of the world. Clearly, public attitudes have changed, and the public is now broadly supportive of prenups.
The time has come to simplify divorce processes, reduce the emotional strain and, with that, reduce the costs. Simpler, streamlined procedures would benefit both divorcing parties as well as the legal system. While many lawyers advocate for reforms to make the process more efficient, I accept that opinions differ, based on personal practice, experience and client consultations. My noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss made a very powerful point about change in circumstances, and to that degree I support post-nuptial agreements.
Clearly, there needs to be a balance between efficiency, fairness and adaptability. For prenups to be enforceable, there needs to be full disclosure and transparency of both parties’ assets and liabilities and the financial condition of both parties. Also, both parties need to have independent legal advice, and have it weeks—if not possibly months—before they get married. Prenups should be signed by both parties voluntarily, and the terms should be free, fair and reasonable.
Pivotal to any reform must be the consideration of children’s needs, ensuring that the financial provisions for the welfare and needs of children are at the very centre of any settlement. To this end, maintenance provisions for children born in the course of marriage would need to be determined separately to the prenup. I would also encourage promotion of financial disputes outside of the courts, through what are called ADRs, including mediation and collaborative law, aiming to reduce the burden on the legal system and the emotional stress of both parties.
In the context of prenuptial agreements, inheritance, gifts and premarital property can generally be included or excluded based on specific terms of both parties. I do not have the answer to this, and it reinforces the need for disclosure and transparency. I also agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that we need to promote public awareness of these changes, ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights and obligations within a marriage or cohabitation context. The bottom line is that huge amounts of money are being spent on negotiating financial settlements in acrimonious divorces—I speak as one who has been divorced—which often ignore the best interests in the marriage.
I am totally in favour of providing safeguards and protections, but the time has come to simplify the proceedings and bring in more certainty and more enforceability. We constantly hear from Ministers at the Dispatch Box that, “All options are being considered, and a response will be given in due course”. I hope that, when the Minister winds up the debate, we can get a clearer timetable for prenuptial agreements to be finally incorporated into family law and be enforceable.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, what a very interesting debate. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing it. I have no legal training. I am not sure if I am the only person speaking in this debate who is not a lawyer or a judge of some sort, but I am speaking here on human grounds and common sense, and as a bitter divorcee.
It is a bit sad—I agree with the right reverend Prelate—to think that marriage, which is, or was, a lifetime commitment to another until death do them part, has now to enable a division of chattels, should that marriage end in divorce, even before entering the said marriage, but we are where we are. In 2023, there were 76,089 divorces in the UK, which is about 38% of marriages ending in divorce. This is down from 113,505 divorces in 2021, when 46% of marriages ended in divorce. So we should welcome anything which makes this challenging process better, safer, fairer, easier and less traumatic.
Even though, currently, the courts almost always uphold prenups so long as they are fair, who knows what outcome you will get? Based on the rate of divorce and the contributions from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate today, it seems to me that the time has come for the legitimate status of prenups to be enacted. There are clear pros, as identified by many of your Lordships who have spoken so far, but I am concerned that the negatives have not been erased. What happens when a prenup—which now will have the rule of law on its side—is unfairly drawn but is now a legal contract agreed to by both parties? The noble Baroness referred to that. How will we know the status of the individual agreeing or signing, whether they were coerced, or whether they knew the consequence?
I am particularly concerned about women because, in general, it is still women who earn less, even if they work full-time; it is still women who give up work for the early years after having a baby; it is still women who lose their place in promotions due to absence; and it is still women who are not employed, despite employers theoretically not being allowed to ask a young woman if she intends to have children.
On the other hand, prenups do offer financial protection and ensure that a woman’s personal assets from inheritance or business ownership of investments remain protected in divorce. They can shield a woman from debt, including her husband’s debt, after divorce. They can clarify how finances will be handled in the marriage, and they can support career sacrifices where the woman gives up work to look after the children while the husband furthers his career. Legal battles can be reduced. I am definitely a bit “on the one hand, on the other hand”, but I do come to a conclusion in favour of prenups being legalised.
A fair prenup that takes everything into consideration might be a very good thing, but my concern is even more agitated by the formation of the prenup itself. They may be poorly negotiated, particularly if one partner is wealthy or more powerful. Some prenups waive or limit alimony, which is problematic when a woman has sacrificed her career for marriage. The current protection under default marital laws might protect her better than a prenup, which might restrict her rights. She might be pressurised into signing a prenup—again, if the partner is wealthy or legally savvy, as are many noble Lords who have spoken today. Women would have to be able to have independent legal representation and to afford it, and that might be a challenge as well.
Therefore, if prenups are to become legal, I would want a number of safeguards against those negatives, because it appeared to me from my research for this debate that a prenup may favour whoever negotiates it better or who can afford the better legal adviser. Of course, the key to the success of this is to have strong legal representation and not sign anything under pressure. In the Radmacher v Granatino case, which has been raised by many noble Lords in the House, and with which I am now familiar, the prenup was actually upheld, but it set the precedent for what courts consider fair or unfair.
Then there are the costs: the cost of obtaining legal advice for a prenuptial agreement in the UK obviously varies, based on the complexity of the assets involved, the reputation and location of the solicitor, and the specific needs of the couple.
For straightforward cases with minimal assets, there may be fixed fees starting from £500. Agreements of moderate complexity—those involving more detailed financial arrangements—may cost between £2,000 and £4,000. For high-complexity cases—those with intricate assets, business interests or international considerations—costs can start at £5,000, without a ceiling.
Then there is asset complexity; the more complex the financial situation, the more time and expertise will be required to draft the agreement. In my experience —forgive me for saying this—lawyers always find extra things to charge for. The other issues are legal representation, as both parties need independent legal advice, which doubles the costs; negotiation time, as extended negotiations or revisions can increase fees; and geographical location, as solicitor fees vary depending on where they are in the UK.
Thankfully, some platforms are coming along that offer prenuptial agreement services at a fixed fee of £1,500—the total for both parties—aiming to make it more affordable and accessible. Each member of the couple will have to consult with a qualified family law solicitor to obtain a precise quote tailored to specific circumstances. Costs are significant, but, obviously, if this is to become legal, a well-drafted prenuptial agreement providing clarity could save considerable expenses, as has been mentioned, where divorces can cost a fortune.
As it stands, prenups that would or should be thrown out are those that leave one party in financial hardship; those that were signed under duress, without legal advice or with hidden or misrepresented finances; and those where time has changed the circumstances in which the prenup was agreed. We have not discussed many of the soft challenges. They include the potential for a prenup to undermine trust in a marriage; the sense that the couple feels that it is a bit like planning for a divorce—which, in this day and age, in my view is quite wise; the potential to create a power imbalance; the fact that it can be emotionally hurtful; and the idea that it might look and feel like an insurance policy. On the other hand, prenups can strengthen trust, encourage open communication, prevent future conflict, strengthen a relationship by setting out clear expectations, protect both partners fairly and show maturity and responsibility.
In summation, if prenups are to become legal entities, which I believe they should, they must have some indispensable clauses: on full financial disclosure; on independent legal advice; on no coercion or duress; on asset protection and separation; on debt liability; on spousal maintenance; on inheritance and family assets; and on future children. There should also be a sunset clause ensuring a revisiting of a prenup after a certain number of years. As has been said, they should also be signed at least 28 days before a wedding.
In conclusion, if a prenup is written one-sidedly, the wealthier or more powerful partner will benefit. However, if it is fair and negotiated well, both parties can benefit by protecting personal assets while ensuring financial fairness. That is what we and the Government must aim for. I am much persuaded by the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. It is time to make prenups legal.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate. I begin with the advantage, shared with the Minister, of never having practised in the area of family law; accordingly, we can both bring a fresh eye to this long-running saga.
I find myself almost entirely in agreement with the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, particularly on the need to bring forward suitable statutory provision for prenuptial contracts—and I use that word advisedly. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who followed the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her point about the scope of a prenuptial agreement and its inability to forbid or exclude child maintenance.
I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that, clearly, children and their maintenance should not be part of such prenuptial agreements. There should be separate provision for the maintenance of children, when it is required, and that is reflected in, for example, the law of Scotland—which I will come on to address in a different context—where there is express provision for a periodic allowance for children up to a certain age that cannot be excluded by any prenuptial agreement.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell pointed out that of course marriage is not just an economic transaction. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, made clear, those entering into matrimony need to take responsibility for the financial consequences of marriage. Accordingly, there is no reason why we should not look at the economic aspects of that relationship and the way in which it is going to be addressed.
While supporting prenuptial agreements on a statutory footing, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, expressed the view that there should be some means of addressing changes in circumstances. I cannot find myself in agreement with that. It seems to me that we would be merely exchanging one set of discretions for another—a point the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, touched upon. At present, the court has very wide discretion. I am not sure that replacing that with a narrower discretion is the appropriate way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has the advantage on me with regard to his scope of family law. But I cannot find myself agreeing with his inclination towards the status quo. It does seem to me that the time has come for action. Indeed, the time for action has passed. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, on the matter of awareness, but I will not seek to elaborate on the issue of chattels. I leave that to others to consider. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that, if we are to put in place a statutory basis for prenuptial agreements, we need to have certain safeguards.
There is no compelling logic to a person leaving a marriage wealthier than when they entered it. I do not agree with the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, to some expectation upon divorce. I do not see why that should be taken into account. A prenuptial agreement is neither unique nor, in our present social position, to be regarded as unconscionable. It is an example of what is known to the law as a contract. A contract made between two competent and consenting persons should be enforced in the absence of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. On the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, if there is material non-disclosure, that should be grounds for voiding any such agreement.
Adults entering a relationship should be free to decide for themselves the consequences and terms on which they may terminate that relationship. The same logic applies here as would apply to other forms of business or professional relationship, albeit acknowledging —as the right reverend Prelate pointed out—that marriage is not just an economic transaction. Parties should be entitled to agree that their existing wealth should never form part of what is termed “matrimonial property”. Parties anticipating their respective contributions to the common wealth during a marriage should be entitled to agree how their matrimonial property should be dealt with in the event of divorce.
At present, the law of England and Wales is a muddle of uncertainty, fed by discretion. Since 2010, we have been told that a prenuptial agreement may be enforced if regarded as fair—but, fair, we are told, at the time it is being implemented: that is, at the time of divorce, taking into account many changes in circumstances. That is part of the problem, because anyone who has entered into a prenuptial agreement, with which they are unhappy many years later, will simply say, “Well, it was fair at the time, but I don’t think it’s fair now”—thus, recourse to the courts, to litigation and to legal costs. That temptation to challenge will always be there and ultimately will only benefit the lawyers.
If I leased a car for five years, I could ask whether at the time of the lease the contract was fair. But to apply that test five years later, when the vehicle has lost its bloom, has become less reliable and is inclined to break down—rather like some marriages—seems inappropriate, in my submission. In the law of Scotland, a prenuptial agreement is treated as what it is: a contract. There is a statutory test of fairness and reasonableness, but it is applied to the contract at the time it was entered into, which is both logical and consistent with legal theory.
Section 16 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act states that the court may set aside or vary such an agreement if it was not fair and reasonable at the time it was entered into. A modest statutory amendment could bring England and Wales into line with the more developed and logical jurisprudence of Scotland. I therefore invite the Minister to indicate whether, and indeed when, the Government will address this issue, which has been outstanding now for more than 14 years.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this important and timely debate about a topic that has a real impact on people’s lives. I also thank the noble Baroness for taking the time to talk to me last week, and I thank noble Lords for the important issues they have raised today and for their kindness to me.
I am participating in this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I must therefore declare at the outset that I am not an expert on these matters, save that my wife and I celebrated our 28th wedding anniversary last week.
As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham set out so clearly in their remarks, marriage is a hugely important institution and the foundation of many happy relationships. That said, marriages and civil partnerships can of course break down. I wish to recognise, as many do, that divorce can be one of the most stressful and difficult times in people’s lives.
I will start with some context. As your Lordships will know, it is almost three years since our divorce law underwent its most significant change in half a century. The introduction of no-fault divorce now allows couples to end their marriage or civil partnership without having to blame each other. No-fault divorce has removed the legal requirement for conflict. As Juliet Harvey, then national chair of Resolution, said, one year after no-fault divorce was introduced:
“This historic change marked the end of the blame game for divorcing couples”.
It is perhaps fitting that the Bill introducing these measures passed with cross-party support both here and in the other place, gaining Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. At this point I must reference the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who played a crucial role in taking the Bill through this House. From speaking with officials in my department, I know how much they enjoyed working with him on this legislation.
I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, take the view that no-fault divorce is just one part of the divorce reform story and remain concerned about the law that relates to a divorcing couple’s finances. This leads me to the specifics of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, which asks the House to take note of the law relating to prenups. I am aware that many of your Lordships will know the legal background. However, for the benefit of those who may be less familiar, including myself a week ago, I will give an overview of how the law in this area has developed.
In the 19th century, the courts concluded that agreements relating to a couple’s future hypothetical separation were invalid. This was because at the time, it was a public policy concern that these sorts of agreements might encourage separation or divorce. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, mentioned, in the landmark 2010 case of Radmacher v Granatino, the Supreme Court decided that a couple should be held to their prenup and post-nup agreement, if it is freely entered into, with a full appreciation of the circumstances, unless it would be unfair to do so. The current law continues as set out in the Radmacher case.
Central to developing law in this area, the courts have considered how to protect the finances of those who are vulnerable, including children, and how to make sure that vulnerable individuals are not coerced into signing prenups.
Your Lordships will of course be aware that the previous Government asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the law on prenup and post-nup agreements. Its report was published in 2014 and recommended the introduction of “qualifying nuptial agreements”. These agreements would be enforced by the courts in specific circumstances. However, couples would not be able to use them to prevent each other providing for each other’s financial needs, including those of their children.
We have come back into government just over 10 years after the Law Commission’s report on this subject was published. The report regrettably never received a full response from the previous Government. I know this has been a source of frustration to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord St John and Lord Faulks, and I can assure your Lordships that this Government are looking into the issue with utmost care.
It would be remiss of me not to mention at this stage another report that the previous Government did not respond to, which was the Law Commission’s 2022 report on wedding reform. Again, I assure noble Lords that this Government are looking into this issue, including in relation to humanist weddings, and will provide an update in the coming months.
Since 2014, the Law Commission has however done further work on the law relating to financial settlements following divorce. In December last year, it published an important scoping paper, which outlined its assessment that there are problems with the current law, and possible ways the law could be fundamentally reformed. The Law Commission further outlined how changing the law on prenups and post-nups could form part of wider financial remedies reform. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report and will be setting out next steps in due course.
I also wish to assure your Lordships that the Government have an ambitious reform agenda for unmarried couples. This includes delivering our manifesto commitment to strengthen rights and protections for cohabitants. We are working on delivering this manifesto commitment, and plan to launch a consultation later in the year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, will see that cohabitation reform will address some of the issues raised in respect of religious-only marriage. I am afraid that, on the subject of pets in the family, it is not my pet subject.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, was right to express the importance of mediation, and may be pleased to hear that we have also committed to funding the mediation voucher scheme until at least March 2026. This scheme has helped over 37,000 families to date. Mediation helps couples take a less adversarial approach to making agreements following separation.
I have heard the calls in this debate, including from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that prenups be dealt with separately from wider reform and that we legislate for them now. The Law Commission does not see prenups as a discrete issue, but, as I have heard today, some noble Lords disagree. The Government will take all these views in the round before setting out their position.
It may be helpful if I set out for your Lordships what the Law Commission says in its 2024 report. It says that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup and post-nup proposals would depend on the type of wider financial reforms that could be put in place. The Law Commission takes this view for a couple of reasons. First, it is of the view that it would be unnecessarily complicated to enact its 2014 proposals now, if future reforms would apply different rules for prenups and post-nups that would come into being at a later date. This would result in different law applying to different agreements, depending on the timing of those agreements being put in place.
Secondly, the 2014 proposals for prenups and post-nups were based on the central role of financial needs in the current law. The Law Commission said that any legislation is likely to need to be unpicked if there is future wider reform of financial remedies. I absolutely assure your Lordships that the Government are considering the Law Commission’s 2024 report and the issue of prenups in this context.
This debate is invaluable and timely. I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and his team of officials will take on board the range of perspectives heard today in the Chamber when considering next steps. In fact, I am looking forward to meeting him on Monday, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I will take his comments back to the department, and maybe to the colleagues he knew very well when he was there.
I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss for her contribution to this debate. Given her lifetime of service to family justice, including as President of the Family Division, it is important to have her careful and considered input on this topic today. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for highlighting the need for fairness and transparency for prenups. The Law Commission’s 2014 report recommended that a couple must have received important information about each other’s finances when making a prenup. We will certainly be looking into this recommendation in depth.
The Law Commission’s 2014 report addressed the issue of the family court having the discretion to intervene if there has been a major change in circumstances, by recommending that a couple would not be able to contract out of providing for each other’s needs on divorce. This is a very important issue, one that I assure noble Lords that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will think very carefully about.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising important questions about the formation of prenups. In particular, there is the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also raised about fairness for a spouse who may have signed a prenup without anticipating what the future might hold. No young couple getting married can precisely predict the future. They may win the lottery, or their health may deteriorate to a point where they can no longer work. No one can be certain about how life will pan out.
The Law Commission’s 2014 report considered this issue and recommended qualifying nuptial agreements. These types of prenups would not allow a couple to contract out of meeting each other’s financial needs on divorce. The Law Commission recommended this type of prenup to ensure that needs that have arisen because of unforeseen circumstances are not ignored by the court just because there is a prenup in place.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is aware, the definition of “needs” in financial cases on divorce has been the subject of much case law. As I previously stated, the Law Commission does not see prenups as a discrete issue. However, the Government will take on board all the views your Lordships have raised today in considering next steps.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his contribution to this debate. I know how important these issues are to him and acknowledge his continued efforts to make sure that my department works across government to ensure the best outcomes for families who are separating.
As I have already said, and as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, marriage is very important in our society and is the foundation of many successful relationships. I listened with interest to the noble Lord’s perspective that prenups would boost the marriage institution, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby will be interested in this point too. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, on her question about appeals.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the right reverend Prelate for raising the important issue of the impacts of prenups on women. This is an important policy question. I am aware that the Law Commission considered this specific point in its 2014 report and made recommendations in relation to protecting spouses’ financial needs when they divorce. The safeguard recommended was that parties cannot contract out of meeting each other’s needs when they divorce.
I further thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his suggestion that the prevention of parental breakdown should form part of the Government’s opportunity mission. The Government already do much to support separating couples. The Department for Work and Pensions is delivering the Reducing Parental Conflict programme to reduce parental conflict and improve children’s outcomes. Through this programme, funding is made available to local authorities in England that work in partnership with a range of experts from relationship and family charities. The Government will now consider these recommendations in the context of the Law Commission’s 2024 financial remedies review.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, rightly expressed the need to reduce court delays. These delays have a significant impact on families, and we are committed to improving court timeliness. In 2014, the Law Commission said that its recommendations for prenups and post-nups may reduce the number of financial provision cases going before the courts in general. We will look at this further as part of our consideration of the Law Commission’s 2024 report.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, be pleased to know that the Government are already taking action to reduce delays in financial cases. We are supporting the Family Procedure Rule Committee to launch a new express pilot for financial cases in particular regions. This pilot will reduce the number of court hearings in lower-value financial cases from three to two. As part of this, dispute resolution would be the central focus of the first hearing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, will, I hope, be pleased to know that the Government continue to explore the use of technologies such as AI to improve the efficiency of courts and legal processes. The Ministry of Justice has established a new justice AI unit, led by the department’s first AI officer, to develop a comprehensive AI strategy for the department and its agencies. I confirm that our chief AI officer is a very popular person for everybody to meet.
The Law Commission says, in its 2024 report, that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup and post-nup proposals would depend on the types of wider financial reforms. The Law Commission does not, therefore, see prenups as a discrete issue. As I have heard today, some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, disagree. The Government will take all these views in the round before setting out their position.
Today’s debate serves as a reminder that the law relating to prenups raises complex questions about the role that the courts and couples should take in the division of financial assets when divorcing. I understand the frustrations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the previous Government had little enthusiasm to address prenups. I hope my repeated assurances in this debate that this Government are carefully considering the Law Commission’s December report have been helpful. As referenced earlier, I know that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report and will be setting out our views in due course.
It has been extremely helpful to have this debate. In fact, it is the first time that I have heard the words “romance” and “love” in a debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time dealing with family justice matters and I will take what I have learned back to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on Monday. I hope he thinks I have done this topic justice—if noble Lords will excuse the pun.
I hope I have covered all the points raised today and that your Lordships will forgive me if I have not. If anything has been missed, I will write on those issues.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness for tabling this Motion. It is because this issue is so important, both for couples and their children, that the Government must take the time to get this right.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, as a mere academic lawyer, I am grateful to and impressed by all the real lawyers who brought their wisdom to bear in this debate. I say to the Government that their commendable concern for financial prudence ought to guide them in this respect: there is no doubt that couples and courts will be spared unnecessary expense if they go ahead and legislate.
I will pick up a number of points, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not address all of them, bearing in mind the time. I was moved to hear the right reverend Prelate talk about marriage, but it is not its financial elements and prenups that have degraded—as he might say—marriage to the level at which he and others have expressed concern. Marriage has been emptied of all its former aspirations by changes in the law. The recent change in divorce law, while welcomed by many, means that one can get a divorce without presenting any reasons and relatively quickly. That sort of change must do more to affect a couple’s entry or not into marriage than anything about the finances that may face them when that marriage comes to an end.
I wish, like the right reverend Prelate and others do, that divorce was not so common, but it is so we have to be realistic. The burden of many impoverished divorcees falls on the state anyway. No amount of contracts or provision for settling financial matters in the court takes us away from the fact that many couples have few assets and that their divorce means two sets of housing rather than one, an increased reliance on state benefits and that whatever is paid as maintenance is clawed back in universal credit. The presence or not of prenups will do little to affect that financial element.
I absolutely agree with all noble Lords who have expressed concern for children. Children cannot and should not be part of prenups or post-nups, because those are agreements between two adults. I do not think we have shown enough concern for children. I have read many judgments concerning wealthy couples, running to many dozens of pages, and on the last half-page is a throwaway comment about so much per month or week for the children and their school fees. That is it. There is no concern about how the huge amounts expended on legal fees detract from the children or general concern about how many fathers—it is usually fathers—are allowed to walk away from their responsibilities to their children without any recourse and without state child maintenance legislation having much effect at all. It is high time we took more concern for children’s financial situation in divorce.
I do not think that we should worry too much about the cost of making a prenup, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, spelled out, because those costs are but a pinprick compared to what people have to spend when they enter into an acrimonious divorce which needs to go to court. Nor should we be concerned about this convoluted argument that the Law Commission put forward that, if the overall law were to change, one would have to go back and alter the prenup law. After all, the law relating to money and divorce keeps on changing. Every time there is a Supreme Court judgment or a Court of Appeal judgment, things change profoundly and might require couples to revisit their prenup, so I do not think that is a firm argument. I urge the Government once again to go ahead and enact prenups because that will save money all round and it is a discrete issue, as most people have said. In fact, virtually everyone here this evening has said that prenups should be enacted statutorily.
As for cohabitation, if one changes the law relating to cohabiting couples now without reforming the law relating to financial provision, then cohabiting couples going to court will find themselves caught up in the same network of inefficient, uncertain financial provision as existing married couples do. There is no reason to delay statutory enactment of prenups law. The Minister—whichever Minister—will find in the Ministry of Justice files and files gathering dust. I have dealt with seven different Ministers over this issue over several decades and somewhere there is foot-dragging which is no longer justified. The Government want to save money, to help couples and to support children. Now is the time to do that, so I end by urging the Minister to go back to the ministry and tell them to get on with it.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement repeat to your Lordships’ House. Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team are to be congratulated on the work they did on the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Government are right to have accepted the report’s recommendations. The Deputy Prime Minister, speaking in the other place, rightly recognised the suffering of the victims, the bereaved families, the survivors and those in the immediate Grenfell community.
When I was a Minister in government, I worked closely with the Grenfell community and my heart goes out to them. Their bravery and determination in campaigning for change so that this never happens again have been exemplary and, as always, I pay tribute to them all. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said yesterday,
“The tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives—54 adults and 18 children—will always remain a scar on our national conscience”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 779.]
We on these Benches offer our sincere apologies to the bereaved, the survivors and the Grenfell community for the failures that led to that horrific night in June 2017.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings are damning, revealing decades of systemic failure, dishonesty and negligence. They are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and the industry. I welcome the Government’s decision to accept 58 of the recommendations and it is right that Ministers have committed to act on them.
We support the creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one department. These reforms are long overdue. We also support steps to professionalise fire engineers and to reform the construction products sector. The systematic dishonesty from firms such as Arconic, Kingspan and Celotex revealed by the inquiry is appalling, and government must respond robustly.
The Government’s response is promising, but they must deliver proper accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and, where appropriate, government officials cannot remain mere rhetoric. We need action urgently, and the Official Opposition will be following this closely to ensure Ministers act in a timely way.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have not accepted the inquiry’s recommendation for a single regulator to oversee the testing and certification of construction products, leaving that instead with the existing assessment bodies? We know that the Building Research Establishment was criticised strongly by the inquiry, so what steps are the Government taking to address the concerns?
We also welcome the remediation acceleration plan, but we know that the targets rely on voluntary engagement from developers. Can the Minister explain what options are available to Ministers where developers fail to comply, and will Ministers work to deliver solutions for non-qualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? No resident should be left behind.
We have concerns about the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028—the Grenfell community has waited long enough for change. Can the Minister explain the reason for the delay of another parliamentary term for full delivery?
Finally, we fully support the Metropolitan Police investigation, but this must be delivered more quickly. Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences, whether through fines or criminal sanctions. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have reviewed existing legislation to ensure we have the appropriate laws in place to prosecute similar criminal negligence in the future?
The tragedy of Grenfell must be a turning point, and we support the Government in seeking to deliver a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. We are committed to working with this Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise. As always, my thoughts and prayers are with Grenfell and their community.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire seven years ago in the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower inquiry from Martin Moore-Bick is an excellent analysis and provides a strong challenge to the Government for the decisions they need to make.
It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State’s Statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the inquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the Government
“accept the findings … and will take forward … the recommendations”.
That is simply unacceptable.
The inquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference, which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this wholly avoidable tragedy—I emphasise that it was wholly avoidable. The Government have a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and where the constructors deliberately omitted fire safety features, are fully remediated, and that the cost is borne entirely by those responsible for those failings.
Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety. Added to that is the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything.
The ministry’s figures show that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings of above 11 metres will need remediation, yet only 4,771 have so far been identified—of which less than half have had work started. The National Audit Office has called for the costs of this work, over and above that funded by the taxpayer, to be placed on developers. That is absolutely right. Can the Minister explain how the costs of this essential work are to be met? For information, the estimate is around £7 billion.
I turn to the 58 recommendations in the report. It recommended a single construction adviser, which the Government have accepted and will appoint. I fully support that. However, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report of 2018, made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, also recommended that there be a formal log of every element during construction work, including building improvements which may follow. The report recommended that that log should be signed off by the person responsible for the work. This seems to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is to be implemented?
One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackitt report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the Statement simply refers to a “review” of building control? Currently, constructors can appoint their own building inspector. The failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner-cutting in Grenfell Tower and in many other buildings. Does the Minister agree that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made?
The failure of the regulatory system that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high-rise blocks is at the heart of this scandal, yet the Statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The Government have published a construction products Green Paper, which is positive but long overdue. The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime, which was exposed in the report as being deficient. What are the Government’s intentions for the future of the Building Research Establishment?
Finally, the report refers to “higher-risk buildings”. It states that
“to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is … arbitrary”,
and recommends that the use of the building is vitally important. Are the Government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency, as required by the recommendations in the report?
What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose. It is more than seven years since that dreadful fire. Survivors need to see that radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives cruelly ended must not have been in vain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your comments today. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that what happened on that terrible night in June 2017 must never be allowed to happen again. It was a national tragedy and an immensely personal tragedy: 72 innocent people, 18 of them children, lost their lives. The Grenfell inquiry exposed damning and painful evidence of political, corporate and individual failings over decades. I thank the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his team, for their hard work over seven years to shine a light on these failings. Yesterday in the other place, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s final report and apologised on behalf of the British state.
I want to say again how deeply sorry I am and this Government are for the failures that led to the tragedy. We accept that the inquiry’s final report must be a catalyst for a long-lasting system change. That message has been re-emphasised by the points raised today. That is why the Government accept the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response addresses all the recommendations and sets out wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. Alongside this, we published a construction products Green Paper with detailed proposals for rigorous system-wide reform to address the critical gaps in how construction products are regulated.
Reforming construction products means that safety will come first. The culture that allowed the tragedy to happen will be transformed. We are focused on prioritising residents, ensuring that industry builds safe homes and providing transparency and accountability. In doing so, we will rebuild trust. The Government commit to publishing progress on implementing the inquiry recommendations every quarter from mid-2026. Also, we will provide an additional update to Parliament. The Government’s response is explicit on the need to bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, to have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. Yesterday I joined the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Norris in meeting the bereaved and victims of the horrible tragedy. It was an emotional and difficult experience, but they need justice.
I will now focus on the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock. On why we are not committing to meet the inquiry’s recommendation on the single regulator, we accept the inquiry’s recommendation and will create a single construction regulator. However, we must avoid creating a conflict of interest within the regulator. We do not believe it appropriate for a single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products and issue certificates of compliance. This would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. It would set the rules, test and issue certificates, and police compliances with those rules. Through our Green Paper, we are putting forward wider measures to significantly strengthen conformity assessment in order to provide the confidence and rigour that is essential as part of that system-wide reform.
We are acting now through the regulators to ensure that enforcement action is taken against safety breaches and that new buildings meet our more rigorous standards. The new building safety regime is stopping bad designs becoming bad buildings. The inquiry exposed regulation of the construction industry as too complex and fragmented. Merging responsibility for regulating construction products and professionals, and monitoring the operation of building regulations, provides the best basis for a regulatory system with clear standards, no regulatory conflict and clarity and certainty on how the industry must conduct itself. In autumn 2025, we will set out further details of the pathway to establish the single regulator.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made, the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on every recommendation directed at us. There are 58 in total. Where we have accepted nine recommendations in principle, we will deliver the intended outcome in a slightly different way, to ensure that it meets the aims and is a lasting success. We want to be clear that the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take forward action on every recommendation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. I want to update the House. We are focused on speeding up remediation. The plan will create certainty about which buildings need remediation and who is responsible for that. The plan will make obligations for assessing, completing and regulating remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance, and give residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities. We will update regularly on that process. The legislative commitments are detailed in the remediation action plan.
On construction products, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked what action the Government are taking to address criticisms over the key institutions found culpable in their role. The Government have taken full account of the criticisms in the inquiry report, including those of identified institutions. We are addressing those criticisms through the government response to recommendations, as set out in the Green Paper, as part of the measures for system-wide reform.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the news that the Government have accepted all 58 of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations—at least, I welcome it in principle, in the same way that the Government have accepted some of the key recommendations in principle.
Recommendation 25 asks
“that it be made a legal requirement for the Government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”.
The Government say they will establish a record on GOV.UK of all recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, that they will consider making that a legal requirement, and that Ministers will commit to updating Parliament on progress on implementing recommendations.
The problem with this is that it is no different from what happens now. In all the inquiries that I have been involved with, we always get updates on GOV.UK, and, frankly, they do not satisfy anyone because they tend to be dry and unintelligible. Ministers come to Parliament to update us, as the Minister is doing now, but there is no mention of the suggestion that the Government need to detail the steps taken in response to recommendations. Instead, the Government talk about the recommendation of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee to establish a new committee to deliver that accountability. I sat on that committee and the response from the Government to that was, “This is a matter for Parliament”. I am not clear what is different now and where this gets us. If the Minister could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the points that she has eloquently raised. I did not mention this, but I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for the work they have done for many years on this issue, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her role as a government Minister in this area. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her work with the bereaved and victims’ families in this area.
On her particular points, we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendation on oversight. There needs to be better accountability for and oversight of how recommendations are implemented. We totally accept that. Robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved, and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight.
We will create a publicly accessible record on GOV.UK of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry framework. My department will publish quarterly progress updates regarding the Grenfell inquiry recommendations on GOV.UK until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament, to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.
I say to the noble Baroness that my office is always available, and I am happy to sit down with her and noble Lords across the House if there is anything pertinent that they think the Government need to be doing more of.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, my point follows on nicely from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I do not find the Minister’s response totally satisfactory because, in the Government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry report, they accept the need for “robust” scrutiny of the implementation of the recommendations of both public inquiries and inquests. But transparency and accessibility by means of a public record of recommendations is not the same as robust scrutiny of implementation—they are two different things.
Both your Lordships’ Statutory Inquiries Select Committee and the Grenfell inquiry said there should be scrutiny by Parliament, and the Government’s response is silent on that crucial point. Without that, we are, frankly, no further forward. We have seen the disaster that happened at Grenfell following a failure to implement the recommendations of the Lakanal House inquest and the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. If we had had robust scrutiny of implementation following the Lakanal House disaster, Grenfell probably would not have happened and certainly 72 lives would not have been lost. So are the Government prepared to accept that there needs to be scrutiny of implementation of public inquiry recommendations and inquest recommendations by Parliament?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. The Government are committed to ensure lasting transparency and accountability by creating a publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations. We need to learn from past mistakes to stop them being repeated and ensure that a clear process is there on reforms. As I said in my previous answer, we will report back to Parliament annually, ensure we have quarterly updates on GOV.UK and continue to meet families and victims.
I was with victims yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister, listening to the concerns and, naturally, frustrations. Lasting transparency is important; we also want to commit to enforcing a legal duty of candour through a new Hillsborough law. Your Lordships may recall that this is something we have talked about. We need to compel public authorities to disclose the truth, ensuring transparency in major incidents, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord. We want to hold those responsible for failings to account, and we are committed to that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I thank the Minister for the information on PEEPs. When is “later in 2025”? It would be useful to know, and I look forward to seeing the detail. I remain concerned that the detail is not quite as clear as some of us with disabilities would like.
Following on from the other points noble Lords have made about the recommendations in principle, with recommendations 43 and 48 it seems that the Government are not quite doing it in full because it sounds like, first, it is onerous and, secondly, it might cost money. Yet one is dealing with voluntary organisations as first responders, and the second, and in my view much more important one, is about codifying the training required for local authorities and other category 1 responders. Why are they only in principle and not accepted in full, with the resources needed?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, on the question on PEEPs, the Government have committed funding this year, 2025-26, to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. Future years funding will be considered at the upcoming spending review. I will come back to the noble Baroness on which part of the year in particular.
The noble Baroness asked why we are not accepting those recommendations in full. I want to be clear: we accept all the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. However, we have to look at how we work through the recommendations. The commitment is clear—we accept them in principle. But there are different ways of dealing with this. As I said to her on the previous issue about the single regulator, there are some conflicts and we want to make sure that we do this, which is long-lasting, sustainable, makes a difference to people’s lives, and makes people feel comfortable and confident in the system as something they believe in.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to highlight that the Grenfell United bereaved families and survivors group said that a single construction regulator could be a significant step forward if it was well resourced and tough on industry failure. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the new regulator will be totally independent and have impartial oversight?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl makes a good point. We will create a new single construction regulator to bring together oversight and enforcement. This will close gaps in regulation and ensure that those responsible for building safety are held to account. We accept the recommendations and will respond to them. That is something we are working on but, as I said earlier, we have to work through this. As we accept the recommendations in full, we need to do it in a way that does not have any conflicts of interest. It will take time, but rest assured that, for the issue the noble Earl raised, we will take that back, feed it into the system and ensure that we cover the pertinent points he raised.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, given the rigour, skill and knowledge shown by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and taking into account the question asked earlier by my noble friend, will the Government consider inviting Sir Martin in one year’s time and in two years’ time to prepare a short report on the implementation of his recommendations? I am sure that the public and this House would deem it to be of great value.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as always, makes a very important point. We are working on the response to Sir Martin’s report. We accept the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. I will take that suggestion away and we will have conversations to ensure that we deal with the recommendations and work through all of them. We will explore the opportunity for noble Lords, if not here then in another setting, to have an opportunity to listen to Sir Martin’s recommendations and how the Government are doing.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the report from Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Government’s Statement, but there is a legacy issue from what was put in place by the previous Government in terms of support measures for a defined range of properties considered most at risk following the tragedy. In light of the measures put in place concerning remediation under PAS 9980, which is the relevant standard, can the Minister explain what steps are now proposed to prevent that proportionate approach—bearing in mind there is an issue between critical life safety on the one hand and the safety of the building on the other hand? Those are two different risks. What does he propose to prevent that proportionate standard? There is also the issue of the lack of the Building Safety Regulator powers in relation to avoiding full remediation responsibilities where building regulation standards at the time of construction had not been met. The problem is continuing to impede remediation and to trap innocent homeowners with high insurance costs. I wonder if he could comment on that. He may need to write to me.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I kindly accept the invitation to write to the noble Earl, due to the specific nature of the very important question he raised.