Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government are committed to supporting people to save and invest, and we want to build a better investment culture. Currently, 85% of people with savings income do not pay tax on it. As we announced at the Budget from next month, we will expand the help to save scheme to all universal credit claimants in work.
Alex Mayer
The nation’s favourite way to save is through premium bonds. Does the Minister think that they are good for the country and a valuable way of encouraging saving? For everyone who has them, they are quite exciting every month.
Emma Reynolds
I think that premium bonds do provide excitement, not least in my parents’ household, where they are very popular. They are already well promoted and popular, and we have seen annual investments in premium bonds increase by more than 50% since March 2019. The funds raised through them go towards supporting vital public services.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to extend the help to save scheme, which has been running for seven years. Martin Lewis describes it as
“a very clever scheme and one that will work for many people.”
May I urge the Minister to look at what needs to be done to raise awareness of it, because the actual uptake is very low, given that the Government have been giving £1,200 over four years? It is critical that the right investment in promoting it happens, because it is such a brilliant scheme.
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree with one of my predecessors more. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is a great scheme and now that we are expanding it, we will take that opportunity to promote it better.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know how important it is to encourage savings, because so many people are a paycheque away from poverty, but there has been a lot of discussion about lazy capital in cash-only ISAs, for example, and other savings accounts. I know there is a drive by Government to see greater investment. Would the Minister like to expand on the Government’s thoughts on that? In particular, can she make any comments about the security of the cash ISA?
Emma Reynolds
Cash savings provide a vital source of savings for a rainy day, and we recognise that. Equally, we want to build a better investment culture in our society, so that it is not just the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who can have the opportunity of better rewards by investing in British companies and others in our economy.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
On that point, it has been widely reported that the Chancellor is planning to slash the amount of cash that savers can save in ISAs from £20,000 to £4,000 a year. Will the Chancellor rule out this punitive measure, which will see savings drop and push even more people into income tax?
Emma Reynolds
We are committed to promoting savings and investment, as I said in an earlier answer. One measure we are looking at is the Financial Conduct Authority’s review of the advice guidance boundary. As I said in a previous answer, I do not want it just to be the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who reap the rewards of investing in our economy. We keep all taxes under review.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The City of London has been a leader of innovation in the world of finance and savings for a few hundred years now, and it has been successful because it has always seized opportunities and innovation when presented. In that spirit, we are pleased that the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech embraced the concept of securities tokenisation, but we now find that the catalyst for this innovation in the UK—a pilot for the digital gilt instrument known as DIGIT—has found itself in a two-year black hole. Innovation is not something that can hang around for two years, so will the Minister give assurances that she will do everything she can to deliver DIGIT as soon as possible?
Emma Reynolds
That sounds like a criticism of the previous Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to innovation and to DIGIT.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Putting more money in people’s pockets and ensuring growth is felt in all regions of the UK is a core part of our mission. The Government have a clear focus on investing in the infrastructure needed to support cities and regions to grow and thrive. In January, the Government announced a partnership between East Midlands airport and Prologis to build a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park, unlocking up to £1 billion of private investment and 2,000 jobs at the airport site.
Louise Jones
The town of Staveley in my constituency of North East Derbyshire hosts one of the three sites for the east midlands investment zone, which is a fantastic opportunity for us. The Chesterfield-Staveley regeneration route is, however, vital to making the most of the site and it has been long campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). It is a huge priority for my constituents. Will the Treasury work with us and our excellent Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to bring this hugely beneficial project to fruition?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in campaigning for developments that will boost growth in both North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield. The Department for Transport is considering the scheme for the Chesterfield Staveley regeneration route, and I will suggest to the Roads Minister that he meet the relevant Members as well as the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward.
Jen Craft
The Government’s decision to increase defence spending is not only an ironclad commitment to national security in the face of generational challenges but an investment in British industry, able to unlock new jobs and opportunities across the country. Industry in the east of England has a significant defence sector, which received £1.5 billion of Government investment last year. Can the Chancellor explain how the additional defence funding has the potential to benefit my constituents in Thurrock as well as those in the wider region?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend says, defence has an important role to play in the growth mission as well as keeping our country safe and secure, and on Friday the Defence Secretary and I hosted a roundtable at RAF Waddington in Lincoln to announce a new defence innovation hub to harness that potential. Defence has a strong presence in many of our constituencies—indeed, according to the most recent data, Ministry of Defence spending in the east of England accounted for £1.5 billion—and down the road from my hon. Friend’s constituency is the historic MOD Shoeburyness range, which, along with other sites, is operated by the MOD and QinetiQ as part of a long-term partnership worth more than £5 billion. In the years to come, there will be more investment in defence from both the public and the private sector.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
As part of their pursuit of the ever-elusive goal of economic growth, the Government have rebranded the UK Infrastructure Bank as the National Wealth Fund. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility has cast doubt on the effectiveness of that as a driver of economic growth. Can the Chancellor tell the House how much the rebrand has cost?
Rachel Reeves
The National Wealth Fund is doing important work in enabling us to leverage in private sector investment. The most recent of those investments include mining in Cornwall and energy charging points in our roads. At the end of last week, I announced that the fund would play a more important role in funding and supporting investments in the defence sector, which will become even more important in the years ahead.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I recently visited a business in Kirkby-in-Ashfield in the east midlands—funnily enough, I did not see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) there—where I was told that the increase in national insurance contributions would cost the business £240 a year, which will prevent it from recruiting people and giving its employees a pay rise next year. Does the Chancellor agree that it is time to reverse this ridiculous decision and help to drive growth in the east midlands?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget in October I had to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government, but there are huge opportunities to grow the economy in the east midlands. We recently agreed the £9 billion Unity deal with Rolls-Royce to support the Royal Navy submarine fleet, which will provide a major boost for economic growth in the east midlands, creating and maintaining 5,000 long-term jobs. That is good for our country’s security, and good for the people of the east midlands.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government have taken difficult decisions to repair the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the employer national insurance contribution changes
“will reduce the level of potential output by 0.1 per cent at the forecast horizon”.
It also predicts that growth will pick up next year and that living standards will rise faster during this Parliament than during the last, and in the long term it expects the autumn Budget policies, if sustained, to increase the size of the economy permanently.
Monica Harding
My constituent Alison runs Stepping Stones nursery school, which has been operating in my constituency for 30 years, offering wraparound care to busy families. The increase in employers’ national insurance contributions alone will cost it £16,000 a year and it is still struggling with an increase in utility costs, while other nurseries in the area are also struggling and, indeed, closing. Headmasters, a hairdresser in Walton, is struggling with £15,000 of extra costs, owing primarily to this tax rise. Can the Minister explain to businesses in Esher and Walton how the Government’s national insurance policy will deliver growth or higher living standards, given that it seems to be doing neither?
James Murray
The Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions was one of the toughest decisions that we took at the Budget, but it was necessary to restore stability to the public finances. It is only on the basis of having stable public finances and fiscal responsibility that we can boost the investment and growth that will make people across Britain better off.
Munira Wilson
As the poor growth figures show, the Chancellor’s jobs tax is really hurting businesses, not least in our hospitality sector. In my constituency, pubs such as the Eel Pie and the King’s Head, as well as the family-run restaurant Shambles, are really struggling with soaring costs and putting off hiring people. If the Chancellor will not reverse her jobs tax, will she at the very least consider extending the current 75% business rates relief for hospitality until the new system that she has announced is in place?
James Murray
The hon. Member speaks about business rates relief. We have to remember that the business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure was due to end entirely in April 2025 under the plans we inherited from the Conservative party. Despite the toughest of contexts, we decided to extend the 40% relief for another year before the permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure come in from April 2026.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that planning reform is essential for higher growth and lower taxes? Is he, like me, concerned that the anti-growth Opposition we see before us in this House will vote against the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, which is possibly the most significant piece of pro-growth legislation that this Parliament will see in decades?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the centrality of planning reform to getting the economy growing. Indeed, one of the first actions that the Chancellor announced on taking office was to scrap the ban on onshore wind turbines in the planning system, which had been holding back our clean energy transition. I hope that some Opposition Members might take the opportunity during today’s questions to confirm that they will support our reforms to the planning system, because they are indeed vital to growth in this country.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of business to see waiting lists in the NHS reduced, roads repaired and the public finances fixed? Does he agree that if Opposition parties do not agree with Labour’s plans, they should set out how they would pay for such improvements?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that stability in the public finances is crucial to ensure that we boost investment and growth across the country. He is also right to point out that having public services back on their feet, after years of decline under the Conservative party in government, is essential not only to making people in this country healthier, more able to get around and better off, but to getting our economy growing, because it is on that basis that businesses will invest.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Even before Labour’s jobs tax comes into force, we can see the damage that it is doing. Three quarters of a million jobs in hospitality will be subject to employer national insurance for the first time, costing £1 billion. Given that major hospitality and retail businesses are warning that lower-paid and part-time workers will suffer most, will the Chancellor think again? Can the Minister at least commit that there will be no further increases during this Parliament?
James Murray
The businesses to which the hon. Gentleman refers, like businesses in all sectors of the economy, benefit from the stability that this Government have brought to the economy. He wants to talk about unemployment and the rate of jobs. We recognise that making changes to employer national insurance contributions was a tough decision that will have consequences, but the unemployment rate will fall to 4.1% next year and remain low until 2029. When taken together, the Budget measures mean that the employment level in this country will increase from 33.1 million in 2024 to 34.3 million in 2029.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Health and wealth are two sides of the same coin, and we will not get economic growth without a healthy population. But as a result of the national insurance contribution changes, the Care Provider Alliance reports that 73% of social care providers will have to refuse new care packages from local authorities or the NHS, and that 57% will have to hand back existing contracts. What assurances can the Government provide to the huge number of people who are very scared that they will have to go without care and see their lives deteriorate?
James Murray
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but it is also important to point out that tough decisions on taxation must be made to fund the very services she is keen to support. On her specific point about these pressures, we announced at the provisional local government settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care to support authorities in delivering key services. This will be allocated through the social care grant, which will bring the total increase in this grant in 2025-26 to £880 million, meaning that up to £3.7 billion of additional funding will be provided to social care authorities in 2025-26.
Daisy Cooper
Ministers will be aware of analysis from the Nuffield Trust showing that that additional grant is being dwarfed by the additional costs that the Government are introducing.
On the great British high street, we know that our high streets are beautiful features of our cities, market towns and villages, but hospitality, retail, beauty and other service sectors are saying that the combination of national insurance and other changes will be a real hammer blow. If high street shops start to close, that is bad for economic growth and bad for confidence. What mechanisms will Ministers put in place to monitor the impact of the national insurance contributions changes on the vibrancy and resilience of our high streets?
James Murray
All measures in the Budget were of course analysed by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of their announcement, and we keep in constant contact with industry representatives to see how policies are working in practice. I draw her attention to my earlier remarks to her hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about our business rates reform, which is a vital ask from the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. After years of chopping and changing from the Conservative party—changing reliefs from one year to the next, and offering no stability whatever to people in that sector—we are introducing permanently lower rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector from April 2026, and avoiding the complete end of relief that the Conservative party left in the in-tray when we arrived in office.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The growth mission is the central mission of this Government, and transport is an important enabler of that growth. The spending review delivered a £1.1 billion cash increase to the transport budget in 2025-26 compared with 2024-25, representing 1.5% real-terms growth with record spending. Further announcements will be made in the spending review.
Kevin Bonavia
In my constituency, Stevenage borough council is working to secure jobs and opportunity, with town centre regeneration under way and over 590 council homes delivered, but outdated infrastructure is holding back growth. Businesses have been clear with me that upgrading Stevenage station gateway would unlock growth, with the prospect of 15,000 jobs being delivered and a £1.5 billion benefit to the economy each year. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can make the most of this opportunity to unlock economic growth through more infrastructure investment?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that investing in infrastructure will enable growth in cities, towns and villages across the whole of our United Kingdom. We will set out further detail alongside the spending review in our 10-year infrastructure strategy in June. No doubt Stevenage, being sited between London and the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, will benefit enormously from announcements already made, but decisions on specific schemes will be taken by the Department for Transport following the spending review.
Dave Robertson
The midlands rail hub project would represent major investment in rail infrastructure across the west midlands. Crucially, it would mean more frequent trains on the cross-city line, which serves Lichfield. Before the pandemic, that was the busiest commuter line in the country outside London. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that more trains will be coming on this line, and coming soon?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong champion for his constituency, for raising this rail project. In relation to such projects, the case that he has made will be an important part of our consideration in the months ahead as part of the spending review. I will arrange for him to meet the appropriate Transport Minister as we make those considerations.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The great university cities of York and Hull are unusual in that they do not have a direct rail line between them. The whole region—Labour MPs, Liberal Democrat councillors, Conservatives—is united in believing that reopening the Beverley to York line, so that the two great minsters of Hull and York can be reconnected, would bring economic growth and a brighter future for the area. Will the Minister agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss this project and how it could help unlock the growth that we all seek across the House?
Darren Jones
I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade his party, when in government for 14 years, to open that line. I can reassure him that this Government take rail infrastructure seriously, and I will happily consider any detail that he wishes to write to me about.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Economic growth through infrastructure development could be helped in Scotland and Northern Ireland with more money going to Cairnryan port and the road infrastructure to it. Allied to that, any help that the Department, the Minister and the Chancellor could give in resolving EU-related trading issues would considerably help Northern Ireland business as well as Scottish business.
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the Government have entered negotiations with our counterparts in the European Commission to improve trade between the UK and the European Union. I had a great meeting to discuss these issues last week in Cardiff with Finance Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive as well as from Scotland and Wales, and noted that we have given a record-breaking increase in funding to the devolved Governments, so that they can get on with such projects, working in partnership with us where we still have responsibility.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
At autumn Budget 2024, we set out the first major steps in our approach to regional growth through devolution, investment and reform. The January growth speech regional investment package built on that. We have made clear the Government’s focus on attracting inward investment across the country and to investing in infrastructure needed to support cities and regions to grow. We have made it clear that the importance of investing in major city regions across the UK will play an important part in that endeavour. For example, if we improve the productivity gap in Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, we estimate we can deliver an extra £33 billion in economic output.
Graham Stringer
Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was nearly as shocked when you called me as I was when listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio 4 talking about economic growth. She said there had not been a new runway built in this country since 1945. Manchester airport would be very surprised to hear that, because its new runway has been operating for nearly 25 years. I was shocked by that but not really surprised, because I think many officials in the Treasury who advise her show a startling ignorance of the English regions, and that leads to a certain prejudice in the formula they use to calculate whether a scheme should go ahead. Can the Minister and the rest of the Treasury team provide coaches to send Treasury officials around the English regions to talk to people who know about growth? Secondly, will he look at the formulas that decide where economic growth happens, which are biased against the regions?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions; I will do my best to answer them. I can confirm that Treasury officials routinely engage with local and regional officials across the country, including frequently in Manchester with Mayor Burnham and his team. I would point my hon. Friend gently to some of the announcements made by the Chancellor, including support for the Old Trafford development in Manchester. I congratulate the operators of Manchester airport on running a successful business, which we will continue to support in the normal way.
Michelle Scrogham
At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a range of support measures for small businesses, including vital support for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. Will the Minister confirm the measures being taken to support the independent and important craft brewing and distillery sector in Cumbria?
Darren Jones
As the House has already heard today from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, we have made permanent decisions to give businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors certainty that their discounts will apply to business rates relief for the long term, not just on a one-year rolling temporary basis, as was the case for years under the previous Government. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) that the likes of Shed One gin, Wolftown and Kin vodka in Cumbria will benefit enormously from the Government’s policy. I look forward to visiting those establishments with her in due course.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Golden Valley development in Cheltenham will bring significant growth to the west. It will also back our national security by supporting GCHQ. Now that the Chancellor has approved an extra 0.1% of defence spending for intelligence and cyber, will she work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Cabinet Office to agree more funding for this nationally significant development? If the defence point is not good enough, we could point out that the development will unlock a lot of nice new houses too.
Darren Jones
I visited Airbus in Newport last week to look at some of the advanced technologies we have in this space. I was told about the important connections between Newport and the hon. Gentleman’s region, with GCHQ and the industrial impact that it has on the supply chain in the UK. The increased spending on defence announced by the Prime Minister will have a significant, positive impact for businesses such as those and for his region. We look forward to setting out further details of that spending in the spending review.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Marches region, of which North Shropshire is a significant part, is held back by the A483 road running between Llanymynech and Oswestry, which is very dangerous. There are frequent crashes and hold-ups on it, which both hinders local growth and, obviously, is a danger to life for people living in the area. Will the Minister work with his colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that if we cannot get a bypass, we at least get vital improvements on that road?
Darren Jones
I can commit to working with DFT colleagues on projects such as that and others around the country as we make decisions in the upcoming spending review. I would make an observation that it is not just about the decisions on spending; there have been problems in the past where decisions have been made and U-turned, and then made and U-turned again. That is difficult for the supply chain and difficult for investors and local communities. In our multi-year capital budgets and our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which are coming in the months ahead, we will give stability to the UK economy so that we can get on and deliver projects such as the one the hon. Lady mentions.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Chancellor has lauded the new National Wealth Fund as a key part of the Government’s regional growth ambitions. The trouble is, it is not actually new; it is just the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new colour scheme and £7 billion it did not need. The Prime Minister announced at a recent Labour party political conference that he will allocate £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for Grangemouth, but it is supposed to be operationally independent. Will the Minister therefore confirm that that is still the case and that the full independent investment process was followed? Will he also confirm that the unexpected resignation of the National Wealth Fund CEO just days before that announcement is not connected?
Darren Jones
I find it odd that Members on the Conservative Benches do not welcome an additional £7 billion of investment into our economy; it is rather a testament to their poor performance on investment over many years in government. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, I can confirm that each of the business cases for Grangemouth will have to go through the normal process for sign off, and that John Flint leaving the National Wealth Fund is not in any way connected to the decisions taken by this Government. We look forward to appointing his successor in due course.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
This is an important question when, shockingly, household incomes in the north-east hardly grew over the long 14 years of the previous Conservative Government. We need to raise public and private investment, which is why we are working with the north-east combined authority on its local growth plan. The Office for Investment is working particularly closely with the north-east, alongside Liverpool, on developing local growth opportunities.
Mary Glindon
With the town’s access to the world’s biggest offshore wind farm, a cluster of advanced manufacturing firms and an expanding energy skills academy, more of Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend’s potential is yet to be tapped. What discussions is the Minister having with the Energy Secretary to ensure that the investment is there and that green supply chains are anchored in places such as Tyneside?
Torsten Bell
I have spent far too much of my life talking to the now Energy Secretary, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the potential of green energy supply chains in her constituency and across the north-east. This is a Government committed to securing economic gains alongside energy security from the energy transition —in stark contrast to the previous Government, who thought the net zero transition was something on which to create dividing lines, not jobs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
At Budget, the Government announced major steps towards delivering a once-in-a-generation increase in social housing, including a £500 million boost to the affordable homes programme, increasing annual spend to £3.1 billion—the biggest annual budget for affordable housing in more than a decade. Earlier this month, the Government also announced an additional £350 million to fund affordable homes. That is the difference a Labour Government can make to people across the country waiting desperately for secure housing. Further investment decisions will be set out at phase 2 of the spending review.
Cat Smith
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Lancaster Guardian for its recent investigative report into the reality for many families living in temporary accommodation in the Lancaster district? That is paired with a frustration I hear from local house building developers over delays in the planning process in the district. What more does the Minister think can happen in Lancaster to ensure that families in the district actually have secure housing?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that we are doing everything possible in this place to streamline and improve planning legislation and planning processes. We are providing clear signals to everybody across the country that we need to build and build rapidly, not least to meet our housing target. Local councils play an important role in this process, as they make decisions on local developments. I understand that in Lancaster city council she has had some struggles with members of the Green party, who are becoming blockers as opposed to builders. I say to them and to people across the country that they need to get behind the build agenda, because that is what the British people voted for.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
To what extent is the Chancellor concerned about multiple potential breaches by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of its charter since it issued Spotlight 63, which impacts rental housing supply and is causing real concerns among my constituents—both landlords and tenants? Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss this matter?
Darren Jones
I am afraid that I have no idea what the answer is, but if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall make sure that he gets an answer.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government are committed to spending taxpayers’ money efficiently. At the autumn Budget, we launched the Office for Value for Money to realise benefits from every pound of public spending. Through phase 1 of the spending review, Departments were set a 2% productivity, efficiency and savings target to ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is well spent. The next phase of the spending review has gone further. I have asked each Department to conduct a line-by-line review of existing day-to-day budgets to identify where spending is no longer aligned with this Government’s priority or is poor value for money.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the Minister for his answer. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I see on a weekly basis the waste that existed under the previous Government, from the billions spent on badly procured covid contracts to a Rwanda scheme that delivered nothing. What steps will the Minister be taking to make sure that we deal not only with value for money for the taxpayer, but the legacy of waste under the previous Government?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but that is their legacy. Not once in 17 years was a zero-based review done, not once did former Conservative Ministers require their Departments to go line-by-line through their budgets, and not once did they think that the responsible thing to do was to go through to check how every pound of taxpayers’ money was spent. Instead, there was an argument each year: how much more money am I going to get; how much more borrowing will there be to pay for these bills; and how many more promises am I going to make that I know I will not deliver. The British people were sick to death of that approach to politics, and this Government are taking a fundamentally different approach.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides excellent value for money in Mid Sussex for Beacon House, which is a specialist mental health and trauma clinic. Unfortunately, however, the clinic’s financial future is looking uncertain. Does the Minister agree that investing in mental health is always a good idea when it comes to getting people back to work and well again and able to contribute to society? Will the Minister work with the Department for Education to secure future funding for this vital service?
Darren Jones
I agree entirely that mental health services are in desperate need of investment and support across the country. The evidence is very clear that there are, for example, too many people out of work who would be like to be in work, but who are waiting at home unwell and unable to receive the support and services that they need and deserve. The Health Secretary is working hard on that at the moment. We are going into the spending review negotiations over the coming weeks and months, and we will set out further detail in due course. I look forward to being able to provide more information specifically as we go through that process.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Improving public sector productivity was the No.1 ask of Institute of Directors’ businesses trying to weather Storm Rachel, but under Labour, public sector productivity has fallen further behind pre-pandemic levels. The number of civil servants working from home has gone up and, shockingly, as The Daily Telegraph has found, thousands of civil servants are being signed off to work from abroad. Therefore, whether it is on civil servants working from their bedrooms or from Benidorm, or on other blockers of public sector productivity, what has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually done in his last eight months in office, or is he too comfortable with what the Prime Minister calls
“the tepid bath of managed decline”?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. My No. 1 ask is that he has another go at making better jokes in future. To answer the substance of his question, I agree with him that the state is not productive enough on a whole range of issues. He talks about civil service headcount, about Government offices and locations, and about working conditions. He could also talk about digital transformation. Frankly, we have an enormous amount of work to do, which will become evident through our spending review. It is something that is being taken very seriously not just by the Treasury, but from the Prime Minister downwards. I look forward to his reflecting on what we suggest is the answer to 14 years of failure from his party when it was in government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
In the autumn I took the decisions to put our public finances back on a firm footing. The most recent GDP data showed that the economy grew by 0.4% in the final month of last year. As I have said on many occasions, our fiscal rules are non-negotiable. The Conservative party sent mortgage rates and business borrowing costs spiralling; we have returned stability to the public finances to give families and businesses the stability that they need.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The servicing cost is now twice what we are spending on defence, which the Chancellor is right to be increasing. What is her ambition for finding savings in the welfare budget?
Rachel Reeves
I agree that we need to get a grip of the welfare budget, which got out of control under the previous Conservative Government. Frankly, I am not going to take lectures from the Conservative party, which crashed the economy. Let me remind the House what the right hon. Gentleman said about the disastrous mini-Budget:
“I share entirely the free-market ideology that underpins the Chancellor’s statement…The Chancellor was right to be radical.”
He added:
“I rejoice at the two fingers the Chancellor has raised to socialist dogma and envy.”
I think that the financial markets and the British public have united in their view on the previous Government.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Scotland will play an important role. At the autumn Budget we announced that the Scottish Government will be provided with £47.7 billion in its 2025-26 settlement—the largest in real terms in the history of devolution. We also confirmed £130 million of targeted funding, including for city and growth deals.
Elaine Stewart
In Scotland, we have seen almost two decades of wasteful spending while public services get worse. Does the Minister agree that good public services are essential to economic growth, and that Scottish taxpayers are not getting good value for money under the SNP Government?
Darren Jones
On my recent visit to Scotland I heard just that. The people of Scotland deserve the same approach that the people of England are getting from this Government, who have stability and economic growth as their mission and who are getting a grip of public finances after years of failure. Quite frankly, we have given the Scottish Government the money, and they now need to get on with the job. If they cannot, they need to move out of the way.
Tracy Gilbert
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree on the importance of the Scotch whisky industry. Support for the industry starts at home by attracting investment, including at the Port of Leith distillery in my constituency, which is producing single malt Scotch whisky, attracting tourists and showcasing the best of Scottish hospitality. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the industry’s concerns about the watering down of the definition of single malt, which will have an impact on investment and growth. Will he therefore work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that no change is made to the definition of single malt that would undermine the Scottish success story and investment in the Scottish whisky industry?
Darren Jones
Scotch whisky is a proud British brand and export, and this Government will always support the industry. I have checked with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I can confirm that we will not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you will have seen the film “Skyfall”, in which James Bond and M travel up the A9. But the A9 is a killer road, and we have had a litany of broken promises from the SNP Government. That is hardly conducive to economic growth in Scotland.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his tour of the scenic A9 and for telling us the importance of that road to Scotland. I am sure that I support what would have been his question. The Scottish National party Government in Scotland ought to take infrastructure seriously, as we are doing here in the UK Government.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We can listen to the braying of Labour MPs from Scotland or we can look at the fact that the Scottish economy grew 12% more than the UK economy in 2024. That is because of the SNP Scottish Government’s forensic focus on making Scotland the most attractive place in the UK for foreign direct investment year after year, having a progressive taxation system, rewarding our public sector workers properly and investing in our communities. What difference does the Minister think agricultural property relief and business property relief will have on the Scottish economy—positive or negative?
Darren Jones
Of course, when we make changes to taxes, even when that it is difficult, that results in additional funding for the hon. Member and his colleagues to spend. I am sure he is grateful that we have given a record-breaking increase in investment to the Scottish Government.
Darren Jones
He may be grateful for nothing, and he may be agitating in his place. I suggest that he goes back to the people of Scotland and explains his party’s record in government.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible, which is why we are not increasing the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. The Government have published tax information and impact notes for tax policy changes made at the Budget, which give a clear explanation of the policy objective together with details of the tax impact on individuals. The OBR publishes an economic and fiscal outlook alongside the Budget, which sets out its assessment of the effects of Government decisions taken on tax.
Julia Lopez
Borrowing costs are soaring, the economy is weakening and we need to spend much more on defence. In those circumstances, can people be absolutely confident that to meet her fiscal rules, the Chancellor will not be raising income tax in the course of this Parliament?
James Murray
The OBR’s spring forecast will take place on 26 March and be accompanied by a statement to Parliament from the Chancellor. Ahead of the statement, the Government will not give a running commentary responding to forecasts and economic developments, but I reassure the hon. Member that the Chancellor’s commitment —indeed, the whole Government’s commitment—to our fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It should not be working people who pay more tax, because wealth inequality is growing in the UK and improving living standards is ultimately what the Government will be judged on. Does the Minister see the merit in introducing an annual wealth tax of 2% on people with over £10 million-worth of assets, which would go an awful long way to raising £26 billion per annum to equalise society?
James Murray
I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the £200 million investment in the Grangemouth facility, which has already been spoken about today. I hope he will also support the Government’s decision to restore fiscal responsibility to public finances within the tough fiscal rules that the Chancellor set out at the Budget.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Economic stability and growth are vital to help businesses across the UK to grow. The Lloyds business barometer published last week showed business confidence up 12 points, building on recent surveys by EY and PwC that show that business and investor confidence is rising. The Government are partnering with business to unlock investment and to drive growth.
John Cooper
The Chancellor, with her unimpeachable record in the sector, will know that economics is known as the dismal science. As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, rather than using second-hand statistics, I have spoken directly with businesses one to one and found that the mood is indeed dismal. After her dud Budget, can she think again and go back on this desperate jobs tax? She is in danger of becoming tough on growth and tough on the causes of growth.
Rachel Reeves
Conservative Members welcome the additional money for the NHS, but they never welcome the means to pay for it, which is why we are in the mess that we are with the £22 billion black hole we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Member says that these are backward-looking surveys. The EY survey of UK CEOs found that 82% felt optimistic. PwC’s latest global CEO survey ranked the UK as the second-most attractive global destination for international investment, and last week the Lloyds survey showed a boost in business confidence. Those are the facts. People are choosing Britain as a place to invest and to locate their businesses. On the Government side of the House, we welcome that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
It is clear that the world is changing, which is why we must bring about a new era of security and renewal to keep our country safe. Last week, I convened European Finance Ministers at the G20 to discuss our shared challenges. I set out that national security will always be the first responsibility of this Government as well as national security being the bedrock for economic prosperity.
I was also proud to welcome President Zelensky to Downing Street alongside the Prime Minister at the weekend, where we signed a loan agreement that will deliver £2.26 billion in funding to Ukraine above our other commitments to bolster its military capacity, repaid by the profits from frozen Russian sovereign assets. We will use the additional investment in defence to create more good jobs paying decent wages in all parts of the UK. That is why we are giving the National Wealth Fund a new strategic steer to invest in technologies that better support our security and defence. Britain is a strong country with strong defences, and I know that we can weather this changing world.
Josh Newbury
As the father of five-year-old, I know at first hand how important indoor play facilities are. Providers in Cannock Chase, such as the Beach Hut in Norton Canes and the Kids Rule Play Cafe in Cannock, have written to me asking for consideration for a sector-specific VAT reduction and the opportunity to shape the reform of business rates. Is Treasury Minister willing to meet me, local providers and the Association of Indoor Play to discuss the sector’s priorities?
Rachel Reeves
The Government have no plans to consider zero rating indoor play facilities for VAT. All tax breaks must provide value for money and evidence suggests that such savings are only partially passed on. I would, however, welcome my hon. Friend engaging with us as we look to inform our “Transforming Business Rates” paper ahead of the Budget later this year.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
How many jobs will the right hon. Lady destroy as a result of her jobs tax?
Rachel Reeves
I know that the right hon. Gentleman will have looked at the OBR forecast from the Budget last year, which forecasted that employment will rise in this Parliament, unemployment will fall and real household disposable income will increase. That is a far cry from the last Parliament, which was the worst on record for living standards.
Mel Stride
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not reference the fact that the OBR also said that there would be 50,000 fewer jobs as a result of the NICs increase; indeed, Bloomberg put that figure at 130,000 jobs. It does not need to be that way. On 26 March, the right hon. Lady should come to this House with a spring statement containing a clear plan around welfare savings, which we had when we were in Government. Will she now confirm that she is prepared to do that with our support and put an end to the pernicious tax increase?
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman and his party had 14 years to reform the welfare system. They failed to do so, but this Government will. We are turning the British economy round after the disaster left to us by the previous Government: three cuts in interest rates since the general election, real wages rising at their fastest rate for three years, fuel duty frozen, the payslips of working people protected, and millions getting a pay rise through an increase in the national living wage. That is the change that this Government are delivering; that is the change that the Opposition are blocking.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for the breweries in his constituency. We want the drinks sector to go from strength to strength. We are reviewing the responses to the consultation on the threshold that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
This Government, as the hon. Member will know, has already given £26 billion of additional funding to the national health service and additional funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for social care. We know that we have more to do. The Government are working hard on that and will set out further details in due course.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that investing alongside private industry is good for jobs and good for economic growth. I visited the National Wealth Fund’s offices last month where I heard at first hand about its equity investment in Cornish Metals. This will help to finance the reopening of Cornwall’s South Crofty tin mine, creating more than 300 local jobs, and—
Mr Speaker
Order. Look, enough is enough. I have to get Members in from both sides. I am sorry that the Front Bench does not want to get these Members in, but I am determined to. These are called topical questions, which means I want quick questions and certainly short answers. I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is why I met my fellow European Finance Ministers in Cape Town at the G20 last week. All of Europe needs to step up. The British Government are doing so and we need to see that from other countries, too.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Darren Jones
Impacts on ODA budgets are currently under review by the Government. Our commitment is to prioritise legal obligations and minimise disruption. We will confirm details in due course, but I will happily meet my hon. Friend and colleagues to discuss this further.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Darren Jones
We have to decide whether we are for growth or against growth. This Government are for growth and we will set out further details of this particular project when the developers come forward with their plans for the Government to consider.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Darren Jones
To ensure that we protect the country from the devastating impacts of flooding, we have committed £2.65 billion over 2024-25 to 2025-26 to improve flood defences, and we have established a flood resilience taskforce to feed into our decisions on future spending, which will report in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
We have frozen the small business multiplier this year and we will be introducing permanently lower multipliers for retail hospitality and leisure premises from April 2026, which will benefit pubs. Meanwhile, they also benefit from our decision to increase the duty relief for draft products.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What are this Government doing to ensure innovation in UK tech companies, such as Kao Park in my constituency, so that they can drive economic growth as part of world-class AI computer ecosystems?
Emma Reynolds
Harlow is home to one of the UK’s largest supercomputers. We are taking forward the AI action plan and we also have the tech adoption review, which will look at how we can unlock the potential of AI in our high-growth sectors.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
James Murray
As part of the reforms announced at the autumn Budget, we are modernising the system for people from overseas spending time in the UK with a new residence-based test. We are always looking at ways to encourage people from overseas to spend time in and invest in the UK and to help grow our economy.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Government on announcing the greatest level of financial sanctions last week. Does the Chancellor agree that keeping dirty money out of the City of London and homes and communities across our country is vital for our national security, as well as our economic stability?
Rachel Reeves
It is absolutely right that we increased and stepped up the sanctions last week. Also, under the loan agreement we made with Ukraine last week, the loan will be repaid with the profits on foreign sovereign Russian assets. Russia should pay for the damage it has done.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
My constituent is one of hundreds of people who suffered from the collapse of Collateral. While the Financial Conduct Authority has apologised to investors for failing to act faster to stop Collateral’s fraudulent activities, I am concerned that, without internal changes, the FCA will make similar mistakes again. Should there not be an investigation into the FCA’s handling of the case?
Emma Reynolds
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and look at the case she mentions, because I need to get more detail.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Transport Committee has looked at the economic growth case for the Heathrow expansion and has heard conflicting evidence on the project’s growth impact on regions away from London and the south-east, and also on other carbon-using sectors. Will the Chancellor ask Heathrow Airport to release the full text of the Frontier Economics report on which she made her decision to expand Heathrow?
Darren Jones
Heathrow, as an important hub airport, will have benefits for regions across the country, as chambers of commerce have said to us. Of course, I understand that the Transport Committee is looking at the issue, and we will consider its report when it publishes it in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
St Raph’s hospice in my constituency faces a £140,000 increase in staff costs due to the Government’s national insurance hike. That means the hospice will have to further cut staff services that take pressure off the NHS. Will the Chancellor think again and provide an exemption for healthcare providers from the national insurance rise?
James Murray
The Chancellor set out our Budget, and I set out during debates on the Finance Bill and related legislation exactly how we will implement the changes announced at the Budget. In the case of employer national insurance contributions, there are defined ways in which public sector organisations are reimbursed. The changes do not apply to hospices, as they are largely charities or are not directly part of the public sector. I also point him to the £100 million of extra investment that we have announced in improving hospices.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that investment in the fifty500 midlands growth corridor will provide an excellent opportunity to deliver this Labour Government’s mission for growth and opportunity for all?
Darren Jones
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time?
James Murray
Just two weeks ago, I spent a fair amount of time meeting representatives from the National Farmers Union and other representative organisations from different nations within the UK. I listened to their concerns and what they had to say. We have to be honest that we disagree. They do not agree with the Government’s policy, and I need to be direct about that because we had to take a number of difficult decisions at the Budget. But I do not apologise for the importance of balancing the public finances and sticking to our fiscal rules.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Next month will see a rise and an extension to the minimum wage. In Portsmouth North, there are 9,600 minimum wage workers—higher than the national average—leaving many in in-work poverty and in desperate need of a boost to living standards. What steps are the Government taking to help improve living standards for those low-paid workers?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a higher minimum wage is an important way that we make low-earning workers’ lives better—as is the extension that we announced to sick pay yesterday, which I hope will be welcomed on all sides of this House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The art of taxation is extracting the largest amount of money with the lowest amount of squeaking from the goose. Yet the Chancellor will have heard the honking of the tractors on Whitehall today in response to her raising an amount of money that will pay for less than one day of NHS spending. Will she commit to reversing the family farm tax?
James Murray
As we have debated several times in this Chamber and Westminster Hall, the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief retain a generous relief for people accessing those benefits within the taxation system. That means that people will get £1 million before inheritance tax is due, in addition to the existing nil rate band for spousal transfers. Over that, it is up to an effective rate of 20%, and any money due can be paid over 10 years, interest free.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Government’s recent £100 million investment in hospices, including St Michael’s hospice in Basingstoke, will help to modernise facilities, enhance digital services and provide more comfortable spaces for patients and their families. Given the vital role that hospices play in all our communities, will the Treasury continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure the sector’s long-term financial stability?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend rightly points out, £100 million is being made available for hospices—£25 million in 2024-25 and £75 million from April 2025. That capital funding is intended to help charitable hospices in his constituency and elsewhere across the country to improve and modernise their facilities and physical estate.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Britain is only 55% food secure. In these deeply uncertain times internationally, is it not time to change policy when it comes to agriculture? Is this not the day to get rid of the family farm tax, undo the 76% cut in basic payments and invest in the people who keep us food secure?
James Murray
As I have made clear to other hon. Members, the changes to agricultural property relief are a fair way to raise the money necessary to balance the public finances. Britain has excellent food security, and that is a priority for the Government.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that the Government have put more money into defence. However, in answer to a previous question, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there is an impact assessment of the overseas development budget. Does that mean that it is still in scope of the spending review and that there could be changes to that budget in June?
Darren Jones
Just to clarify, I did not say there was an impact assessment; I said that the impact of the changes is being considered by the Government, but we will set out the detail on that in due course.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I commend the Government for their international leadership at this challenging time. Events overnight make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine. The Chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe that now is the moment to go further by actually seizing those assets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality, providing a basis in international law for such a policy, and by acting in concert with our allies, we can ensure that there are no risks to financial stability. May I urge the Chancellor to push for co-ordinated action to seize those frozen Russian state assets and give that money to the Ukrainians so that they can defend and rebuild their country?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about this Government stepping up the funding for defence. Last week, we expanded sanctions on Russia, including by looking at financial services. This week, we have signed off a UK Export Finance package to provide more military support, above and beyond our defence spending and as well as the loan repaid using the profit on those assets. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we would look at going further but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is incredibly complicated to do that in line with international law. However, we keep all options on the table, because, as he is absolutely right to say, Russia should pay for the damage that Russia has caused.
Gaza
(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
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
We urge all parties to fully implement the ceasefire to help deliver a permanent end to hostilities. We are very concerned at reports that Israel is preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. Israel must not block aid coming into Gaza. Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. We urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire. The halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. The UK is doing all we can to provide support. Alongside our existing support, on 28 January, the then Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories and neighbouring countries.
We must all work together with the United Nations and all partners to continue to facilitate aid and ensure it is sustained. Fully reinstating commercial deliveries will be key, as will allowing more types of goods in, so that civilians who lost their homes can be protected and civilian infrastructure repaired.
We welcome the announcement of an agreement to end the fighting in Gaza, and we welcome the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far, including British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who both have both close links to the UK. Emily, of course, has met the Prime Minister and discussed her dreadful treatment at the hands of Hamas. The hostages and their families have endured unimaginable suffering from the cruelty of Hamas, and the situation in Gaza has continued to worsen. The current ceasefire is the only way for the region to move forward.
As we have made clear, we want to see a negotiated two-state solution, with a sovereign Palestinian state, including the west bank and Gaza, alongside a safe and secure Israel. We have also made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. Forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. We need Palestinian civilians to be able to return to their homes and lives, and to rebuild. International law guarantees them this right. A two-state solution is the only way to secure long-term peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.
As the Foreign Secretary said:
“You can hold in your heart the pain of the Israeli people and the plight of those hostages and their families, and at the same time, you can hold in your heart the awful damage, pain and suffering that this has wrought on Gaza, with well over 45,000 Palestinian people having lost their lives.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 535.]
We must continue to focus on the future and on turning the current ceasefire deal into a political process that leads to a two-state solution, including the west bank and Gaza.
Ellie Chowns
Over the weekend, the Israeli Government took the decision to block the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Minister talked about that aid, but it can no longer be delivered. Israel is once again using starvation as a weapon of war, and today we hear that it has also announced a so-called “hell plan” that would see electricity and remaining water supplies cut off.
These decisions coincide with the end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, with negotiations on phase 2 barely begun, jeopardising the release of the remaining live hostages, plans for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and a longer-term peace agreement. The UN has said:
“International humanitarian law is clear: We must be allowed access to deliver vital lifesaving aid.”
Oxfam described the move, made as Ramadan began, as a
“reckless act of collective punishment, explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law”,
and the International Court of Justice has previously issued explicit instructions to Israel to facilitate aid deliveries to Gaza.
Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government are again in clear violation of the ceasefire agreement and of international humanitarian law? Has she, or have her colleagues, spoken to their Israeli counterparts to condemn Israel’s “hell plan”, and to make it clear that there must be no resumption of the war and that it is unacceptable for the people of Gaza to be denied critical food, water, and medical or any other supplies? What action will the UK take against the Israeli Government if they continue, illegally, to use humanitarian aid and access to water and power as a bargaining chip? I know that the Minister wants the ceasefire to hold. Can she share her assessment of the impact of these latest developments on the prospects for a lasting, just and fair peace?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for the urgent question. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by the Government of Israel, does risk breaching obligations under international humanitarian law. To answer her question directly, the UK Government have been in touch with interlocutors to make that point. In fact, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is in the region pushing for a peace deal, hence my covering this brief today, although I am the Indo-Pacific Minister.
Humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool. On 28 January, the then Minister for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK has announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) asked about the long-term ceasefire prospects. The UK plays its part in pushing both sides towards a hopeful future for the region. We are working with not just Arab states, but partners such as the US to try to push for a solution that is in line with international humanitarian law.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have just come back from the middle east, where I went with the Foreign Affairs Committee. While the world watches with increasing alarm the disintegration of the peace process in Gaza, we were warned in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the west bank and Israel that the far-right Government in Israel may have no long-term plan on Gaza, but that there is a long-term plan for the west bank, and that is annexation. The international community is well aware of that. It sees the evictions, the demolitions, the increasing number of Israeli settlements, and that 40,000 people have recently been displaced. In these days of hard power, what is plan B? What will the international community do to stop the annexation of the west bank? It will not be enough to simply condemn it once it has happened.
Catherine West
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her ongoing interest in this important matter of foreign policy, and for the work that she and her Committee have done, including through personal interviews and visits to the region. That is all part of the supportive role that the UK must play. It must take an international role in pushing for peace.
The UK Government have taken a very tough position on militant factions or groups attacking Palestinians in the occupied territories and the west bank. We continue to look at the measures available to get our message across in not just words, but actions. With my right hon. Friend’s permission, I will write to her as Chair of the Select Committee with an updated assessment of the situation.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
As recent days have shown, the ceasefire continues to be incredibly fragile. Of course, we all want this agreement to hold, and none of us should be in any doubt that that hinges on the release of each and every hostage held by the Iranian-backed terrorists Hamas, who caused the conflict by their sickening acts on 7 October. As the Minister has pointed out, those hostages and their families have now suffered unimaginably for more than 500 days, and that cannot go on. The hostages have been held in barbaric conditions, and the world has been shocked by the distressing scenes involving those who have been released.
The Minister rightly referred to Emily Damari and others. Emily has shared details of her really awful ordeal in captivity by Hamas. We all wish her well in her medical appointments and in the treatment that she is receiving. Last week, we also tragically saw the distressing return of the bodies of those killed in Hamas captivity. Our hearts break for their loved ones, and we mourn with them and with the people of Israel.
I have a series of questions for the Minister. First, what role is the UK playing in helping to get an agreement on phase 2 of this ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with America, Israel, and other regional players in recent days? What engagement have the Government had with the plans for the future of Gaza that are being discussed in Cairo, and on how to prevent Hamas from continuing to control the Gaza strip?
Secondly, what is the Government’s practical response on aid access? How are they working to unblock this situation, and what is happening to the British aid that is already in the region or en route? Finally, what recent conversations have Foreign Office Ministers had with the International Committee of the Red Cross, both on its efforts on hostage release and on humanitarian assistance more broadly?
Catherine West
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for emphasising the effect on families on both sides of this terrible conflict, but particularly on the British families whom the Prime Minister has met, and on Emily Damari, and their dignity and grace. She also mentioned all those who want a home, want security in the region, and have been affected by this most horrendous of wars. She evoked the terrible images of hostages being released while the most macabre of pantomimes went on behind them. That cruelty is utterly unacceptable, and the UK has made that very clear to interlocutors, both at ministerial and Foreign Secretary level.
The shadow Foreign Secretary has talked about phase 2. There have been stops and starts in this peace process, as there often are in these very difficult situations. Our role is to continue to speak very closely with the US and with Steve Witkoff to push for practical, day-to-day solutions. She asked about British aid and what negotiations we are undertaking. We are in daily contact with the region, and are pushing for discussions, conversations and dialogue, so that aid can get back in. Following this urgent question, we undertake to contact the Red Cross, one of our partner organisations, with the message that this House wants that aid to re-enter the area, and to save lives.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The powerful scenes of Palestinians celebrating the start of Ramadan, even as their homes and lives have been reduced to rubble by Israeli forces, send a defiant message to the world that despite the displacement and destruction, Palestinians remain rooted in their land. Will the Minister confirm that the decision to block all aid to Gaza, collectively punishing the entire population, is a war crime and a breach of international law, contravening provisions of the Geneva convention and the Rome statute?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the devastating impact of no aid getting through, and to say that a halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that recently announced by the Government of Israel, risks breaching Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law. It is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to make legal decisions or judgments, but I assure my hon. Friend that the former Minister for development pledged £17 million to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter can reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. My hon. Friend must reassure her constituents that the Foreign Office is doing all it can to get infrastructure across the OPTs and into Gaza, in order to relieve the suffering.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Israeli Government are wrong to prevent humanitarian aid entering Gaza. That threatens the lives of Gazans who are dependent on aid after the destruction of the past 15 months, and is a clear breach of international humanitarian law. What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Israeli Government back down and let that aid in? I understand the depth of distress in Israel about the despicable way that Hamas terrorists have played psychological games with the hostages and their families, but withholding essential supplies of food, medicine and shelter only worsens the devastation faced by the Palestinian people.
In the west bank, we also see illegal settlers violently attacking Palestinians and apparently receiving the support of members of the Israeli Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that we in the UK must do all we can to undermine the extremists in this conflict, so that a second phase of the ceasefire can be negotiated, all hostages can be released, and Gazans can receive the aid that they desperately need?
Catherine West
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his words. He is quite right to emphasise the psychological impact of this terrible conflict, and the traumatised state of people in the region. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we welcome the release of the 38 hostages in Gaza, including of course Emily Damari, whom we have already mentioned. We think so much of those members of the Lifshitz family—they of course had strong ties to the UK—who were held hostage by terrorists in Gaza and who died. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for providing support to ensure that the horrific ordeal of individuals and families can come to an end, but unfortunately, this is not the end. That is why it is so important that we take this moment to push.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing practically. We are in daily contact with the region, including our mission there. Obviously, in the context of the international debate, interventions such as this urgent question push for a just solution for those on both sides of this terrible conflict.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Last week, I was in the west bank, alongside other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on our wider trip to the middle east. While the world’s attention is rightly on the devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza, we met Palestinians in the Jordan valley whose schools were being attacked, whose mosques were being burned, and whose livestock were being stolen by extremist Israeli settlers. This is happening with the apparent connivance of the Israeli security forces, and it appears to be part of a wider plan for annexation. What steps are we taking to prevent further erosion of Palestinian land in the west bank that would put the two-state solution even further away?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his expertise on aid and foreign affairs. He is quite right to emphasise the actions of some settlers. There are many settler communities that just get on with it, and that want a peaceful solution, but he is right to say that there is violence in the settlements, which are of course unlawful under international humanitarian law and harm the prospects of a two-state solution. I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record the impact on the faith community, particularly during the holy month of Ramadan, and the fact that mosques have been attacked. We will ensure that that point gets through in our next discussion with our interlocutors, both on the Israeli side and on the Palestinian side.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
No one is surprised that as soon as the world’s attention shifted from Gaza, Israel reimposed its siege, preventing the entry of all humanitarian aid. The Minister knows the impact that this will have on the beleaguered civilian population, who are already suffering from disease, starvation and an absence of healthcare. After 17 months in which Israel has been given carte blanche, none of us—least of all Netanyahu—expects there to be any meaningful consequences from Israel’s actions, but does the Minister consider what is happening in Gaza to be collective punishment? If she does not, what would she call it?
Catherine West
Sometimes, the words we use are really important. There has been an enormous amount of suffering. We know that so many in Israel feel that we do not understand their need for security, and so many in Gaza feel that we do not understand the depth of their suffering. We must redouble our efforts to communicate what we want, which is a two-state solution and a peaceful future for both communities, which must live side by side.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
The leaders of the Arab world have made welcome proposals about the future of Gaza and its people. What update can the Minister give on the UK’s support for those proposals, and will she join me in welcoming the fact that the proposals recognise that the terrorist death cult Hamas can have no part in the future governance of Gaza?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that, as a proscribed terror organisation, Hamas have certainly displayed some very frightening characteristics that we would expect of a terrorist organisation. There was also the macabre pantomime that we saw in the past couple of weeks during the release of hostages—that was truly shocking. I thank him for his question. The exact detail on the next stage of the negotiation is to be defined by the two parties, but we play a real role both with the ally, which is Israel, but also working with Egypt, Qatar and the wider region. That is why our Minister right now is in the region, making the point that we want to be involved, pushing for a peaceful solution and to see that day when terrorism is not extant and the two communities can live side by side in peace.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I was going to ask what we would do if the Israelis refused to let in aid, or to turn on the water and power, but I think we all know that basically the answer is nothing. Instead, let me ask this. The Minister rightly mentioned the macabre display around the return of the hostages and the condition of those hostages, and she is right. I think she said that she has taken that up with interlocutors. Why has not she mentioned the return of the Palestinian non-combatants? Why has not she mentioned their condition when they are returned, often emaciated and showing signs of torture? Why has she not mentioned the number of senior medics who have been detained without charge and then died in mysterious circumstances in Israeli detention? Apparently there is some kind of investigation, but it never comes to a conclusion. Is she surprised that people have become cynical about British conduct in this conflict, when it seems that we are only concerned about the welfare of one side?
Catherine West
With all due respect, I think that across this House we have had a very balanced approach to the suffering of all the communities in the region. The right hon. Member is right to mention the terrible suffering of those who have experienced arbitrary detention or alleged torture by various law enforcement agencies. He is also right to include that in what needs to be the next step of the negotiation—the hostages on the one side, but those being released from prison on the other. I remind him that there are concerns that some people who might have been released should not have been. All of that has to be taken in the round and balanced. I encourage balance and understanding about the suffering of both sides of the community and the desire for security in the words that we use in the House.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The issue of collaboration and infiltration between Hamas and some UNRWA officials is well documented. Clearly, people in Gaza need aid, so can the Minister update us on how we are monitoring the work being done to restore neutrality and confidence in UNRWA?
Catherine West
The UK Government have been a supporter of the work of UNRWA throughout this conflict and before it. We have been supporting UNRWA financially, as have all international organisations and countries. There have been problems with certain challenges to individuals who have been employed by UNRWA, but we have consistently joined with allies in expressing our concerns about the role of UNRWA being curtailed. At the UN Security Council sessions on 6 November, 11 December, 3 January, 28 January and 25 February, and in a joint statement with partners on 27 October, we urged that the important work of UNRWA can continue.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The blockade of aid is just the last line in a long list of activities that Israelis have committed against the Palestinian people. Now that we have cut our overseas aid to a mere 0.3% of GDP—the lowest in real terms in 20 years—does the Minister still agree with the Labour party manifesto that international aid makes the world
“a safer, more prosperous place”?
Does she agree that, with this move, the UK’s historic role in the middle east is dead and over?
Catherine West
The hon. Member is right to talk about the ongoing need for aid in the region, and the Prime Minister was very careful in his speech at the end of last week—I think he has mentioned it since then in the press—to say that humanitarian aid must continue. Gaza was specifically mentioned, because it is one of our top priorities. The hon. Member is aware that the decision to divert some of our aid spending into the defence of Europe is only a week old, but he must also be aware that we will come forward with the detail of that. I reassure him and his constituents that Gaza was specifically mentioned in this House by the Prime Minister, because it remains one of our top priorities in the Foreign Office.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is clear that Israel has been emboldened by Trumpian tactics in imposing a total siege and blocking all supplies, including humanitarian aid into Gaza, to force new ceasefire terms. We in this House should be clear and call that what it is: collective punishment of the Palestinian people, starvation as a method of war, and a blatant war crime. Will the Minister finally sanction Israel for these gross violations of international law?
Catherine West
Specifically on the question of sanctions, I think my hon. Friend knows what I am going to say, which is that we do not talk about them until we make a decision. We review any tools that we have available to us to protest. We also need to understand that we are in the midst of a peace process. We know that peace processes throughout history have had stop-start elements. What we are doing is making clear our views—the views of this House and of the Government—that humanitarian aid must not be prevented from entering Gaza. While this important peace process is going on, people still need to eat. They still need lifesaving medical treatment. Children still need to be educated. That is the point we have continued to make all the way along.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In her letter resigning as Development Minister last week, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) wrote that
“it will be impossible…given the depth of the cut”
to maintain the Government’s support for all their development commitments. She explicitly cited aid to Gaza. At this point, I commend the Totnes Friends of Palestine for raising £10,000 to help those in Gaza. With hospitals destroyed, a lack of clean water, desperate food shortages and now more threats to power and water supplies, how will the Minister ensure that last week’s cuts to development spending will not worsen the humanitarian catastrophe happening in Gaza?
Catherine West
I congratulate the hon. Member on all the work she does in her community to show international support and solidarity for communities in Gaza. We know that the humanitarian situation remains extremely challenging, with more than 48,000 having been killed and 90% of the population having been displaced, many repeatedly. I think the UK has a really good story to tell. We have been in there for many decades now. She mentions the outgoing Minister for Development, and a further £17 million was announced on 28 January so that healthcare, food and shelter could reach tens of thousands of civilians, and to support vital infrastructure. The hon. Member asks about ongoing funding, and she is right to ask that question and hold our feet to the fire. Once we have had time to look at the coming financial years and the comprehensive spending review, she will have her answer.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Israel’s decision to block aid to more than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza is collective punishment? With 80% of Gaza’s health infrastructure destroyed, 1,000 medical workers killed and the World Health Organisation estimating that 14,000 Palestinians, including 4,500 children, require urgent medical evacuation, what concrete steps have we taken to ensure that aid gets in and that those who need medical treatment have that treatment made available to them?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for her ongoing campaigning on humanitarian aid for Gaza. It is very positive that the Rafah crossing remains open: that has led to a significant increase in the number of medical evacuations in recent weeks. It is vital for Israel to ensure that there is a sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza, and officials from all relevant Whitehall Departments are exploring avenues to ensure that our support best meets the needs of the those who are critically ill there. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about the medical staff who are under threat. We have supported them with technical advice and training, and we have also announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, to be delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians who have been medically evacuated from Gaza.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Yesterday the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel heard from the families of five of the remaining hostages. It is estimated that of the 59 who are still in captivity, only 24 are alive and 35 have been murdered. The recently released hostage Eli Sharabi described the conditions in which he was detained: he was held in chains, brutally beaten and starved. Alon Ohel, who was held alongside him, remains in captivity. The families believe that the remaining hostages are in a very vulnerable position. Clearly the demand must be for all of them to be released immediately, and that should be the aim of the British Government. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that happens?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his ongoing support for peace in the region. He specifically mentioned the family of Eli Sharabi, and we know that those families have a UK connection. The UK has played an active role in co-ordinating with international partners since the beginning of the conflict. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on three occasions since taking office, and has worked closely with European partners in pushing for a resolution to secure the ceasefire. I think the situation has improved on that front in the last couple of weeks, but the hon. Member is right to emphasise the importance of the return of hostages as part of the negotiated next part of the peace process.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating the House on this troubling matter. The Israeli Government’s decision is contrary to international humanitarian law and clearly undermines such a fragile ceasefire. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been absolutely clear about the right of Palestinians to return home to Gaza to rebuild their lives. Does the Minister agree that their right to return is jeopardised by the blocking of critical humanitarian aid, and what actions will the Government take if that right continues to be restricted?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is right that humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and we urge the Government of Israel to lift restrictions immediately and unconditionally. He asked what else this Government will do. We will continue to support the peace process, which should involve both sides getting around the table, freeing the hostages, allowing the aid in, and having a vision for the future of this region that is so affected by conflict and death.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I pay tribute to the former Development Minister, my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for her work in this area, and also for the wise words in her resignation letter.
The Minister has rightly said that forced displacement is unacceptable. Indeed, I think she said that the actions of the illegal extremist settlers were unlawful. You may have seen the Oscars ceremony this week, Mr Speaker, which featured an incredible film called “No Other Land”, which highlights the forced displacements in Masafer Yatta, and was made by Israelis and Palestinians together. It won the Oscar. I bet they would trade every gong going for that film to have its desired effect, and for the violence to stop. We can do something, and if ever there was a time for us to ban the illegal settlement goods that fund those extremist settlers, is now not that time?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for all her work in the community and also in the House, educating Members not just on the two sides that we always think about but on the Christian community in Gaza and in Palestine—the Palestinian Christians who are so much affected by the current conflict. She mentioned the UK’s position on settlements. I want to be clear that our position is that they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Many Members have spoken about the importance of humanitarian aid, which is vital to saving so many lives, but the role of the aid workers who are working on the ground in horrific conditions is also vital. According to estimates, more than 320 have been killed, the highest number on record, but we see many aid organisations being attacked on social media, with claims that they have links to terrorist organisations. What more can the Minister do to make clear the Government’s support for these vital international aid workers and organisations? They include Islamic Relief, based in my constituency, which is one of the UK’s five non-governmental organisations certified by the core humanitarian standard in respect of aid and transparency. What more can we do to support these vital aid workers?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this regard, and I thank those aid organisations that are based just across the river. Not only must aid reach those who need it in all areas, but the important work of aid workers must be respected and they must be protected. It is horrifying to hear reports that, for example, six babies have died from hypothermia and cold-related injuries in Gaza in just two weeks. Islamic Aid, the Red Cross and all the other organisations that make up the partnerships across the region must be able to get into Gaza to do their important work, and must also allowed to bring in goods such as tents, medical equipment and machinery that are needed to support the resumption of basic services in Gaza.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her responses to the urgent question. Over the weekend and in the Chamber yesterday, the Prime Minister made very clear his support for Ukraine until peace is achieved, for which I am eternally grateful; but will the Minister confirm that our support remains with Israel as we attempt to secure peace for now and a lasting solution to maintain it, and that we hope that a future can be achieved for the children on both sides of the Gaza boundary?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for mentioning the children involved in this conflict. He is well aware of the trauma that can be passed down from generation to generation, and of the many orphans in the region. I thank him for his commitment to the state of Israel and a secure future for its people so that the suffering of people in Palestine can also come to an end.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As well as expressing my sadness and alarm about the Netanyahu Government’s again blocking aid from entering Gaza, may I point out that over the years I have repeatedly expressed my concern in Parliament about the forced evictions and illegal settlements in the west bank? Now, shockingly, for the first time in two decades, there are tanks in Jenin and further displacement of Palestinians. What representations are the Government making to the Israeli Government that aid must not be blocked from entering Gaza, and that this illegal occupation and these further evictions must be stopped immediately?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend’s question gives me a further opportunity to emphasise that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and harm the prospects for a two-state solution. The Foreign Secretary has made it clear to Israeli Ministers on a number of occasions that their Government must clamp down on settler violence and end settler expansion.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Minister for mentioning orphans, who, unfortunately, do not have much of a voice in this place, although sadly there are too many in the world as we see more and more conflict.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) that civilian lives are just as precious whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, and that we should do all we can, across the House, to save lives. I fear, however—this may be a surprise—that the biggest foreign policy headache for the Government over coming months may be not Ukraine but Israel, with the divergence of the new American Administration over Israel being of great concern. Does the Minister accept what has been agreed today at the Arab summit in Cairo—a $53 billion five-year reconstruction plan for Gaza which will allow displaced Palestinians to return, no Trump Gaza riviera, and countries in the region putting Palestinians back into Gaza and at the heart of its future?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his question, which has many aspects. He is aware that the majority of homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed and the delivery of basic services, including energy and water, has been badly affected. Over 60% of the electricity distribution network has been damaged or destroyed. Over 90% of main roads are damaged, profoundly limiting the mobility of people, aid and goods. That is why the underlining of the $53.2 billion is so welcome. We are supportive of regional efforts cohering around a single workable reconstruction plan for Gaza, and we support the regional expertise in construction to get going on that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about orphans, he is perhaps aware that one of the Foreign Secretary’s main areas of concern is the welfare of children, particularly children who are orphans or in need of adoption or fostering. I will take back the concern that he expressed about that workstream, on which we do quite a lot in the Foreign Office, and emphasise its importance.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The suffering of Palestinian children who have been attacked by Israeli drones is devastating, and the fact that those children are denied medical support and assistance is even more so. The Minister has said that we are looking at medical evacuations, but does she agree that actions speak louder than words? When will enough be enough, and when will these children get the attention that they so desperately need? Other countries are providing support right now.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about children. Whether it is in Sudan, Ukraine or anywhere else, we know that children suffer deep trauma as a result of conflict, and we are deeply alarmed by the disproportionate impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. Half of Gaza’s population are children, and the consequences of tens of thousands being killed, injured or separated from their parents threaten not only their individual futures, but the very fabric of Palestinian society for generations to come. Most, if not all, students in Gaza have not had access to education since 7 October, and at least 88% of school buildings will need full or major reconstruction.
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask what we are doing. The UK is supporting the restoration of education services in Gaza, including through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East. She will be aware of the important work to maintain the ceasefire so that we have a hope of realising the reconstruction dream.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am very pleased to hear the Minister emphasise that the withholding of humanitarian aid is a direct contravention of international humanitarian law. What steps are her Government taking to work with partners in the region and in Europe to apply pressure on the Israeli Government, to ensure that the flow of critical aid is no longer impeded?
Catherine West
That is precisely why we have ministerial visits to the region: to emphasise the importance, not only to the Government but to this House, of the message that we must keep pushing for a peaceful future. In the meantime, we must provide enough food to eat and enough water to wash and to cook, to educate children and keep people healthy and safe.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Have the Government carried out an assessment of the impact of the withdrawal of USAID from the region? In light of any assessment that may have been carried out, are the Government confident that the decision to cut the international aid budget will not be an increasingly detrimental problem in Gaza? I understand that the Prime Minister has said that funding for Gaza is ringfenced and that our humanitarian aid will continue, but I am concerned that the withdrawal of American aid may leave a vacuum that we cannot fill.
Catherine West
It is true that, over the decades, the people of the USA have been generous in providing aid across the world, including in the region. It will be almost impossible to replace the important work that USAID has done over the decades in the middle east. I will not, however, give up hope, because we have to keep making the case for working together internationally. A lot of the work in the region is done by partners working multilaterally. Much of that work has been done by USAID, but it is also about trying to encourage other countries, including those in the region that have more vibrant economies, to step up to the plate and fill the gaps.
On my hon. Friend’s specific question about the assessment, it is not complete, because the decision is still relatively recent, as is our own decision on UNRWA a week ago. I trust that we will come back to the House when we know the shape of the comprehensive spending review and how we will address this difficult problem.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On Monday, the London School of Economics’ middle east centre will host the launch of a book called “Understanding Hamas”. One contributor to the book, Azzam Tamimi, has previously called for the destruction of the state of Israel. Speakers at the event deny that Hamas is a terrorist organisation and wrongly dismiss Israel as a “white, settler colonialist nation”. Will the Minister join me in saying very clearly that this is not an accurate description of Israel? There is no genocide, as I heard an hon. Member claim earlier, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seeks to murder Jews and has brought nothing but destruction and disaster to the people of Gaza.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing his research before coming to the House, and I can confirm that Hamas is a terror organisation that is proscribed by our Government for those reasons. It is really important that we are robust in our defence of the right of the state of Israel, our ally, to exist.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The people of both Israel and Palestine have been failed by their leadership, with horrific consequences. One person who knew that more than most was my constituent’s father, Oded Lifschitz, whose coffin we saw paraded horrifically through the streets of Khan Yunis. We should say his name in this place, because he dedicated his life to securing peace between Israel and Palestine. He drove ambulances over the border to help Palestinian people. We can be clear in this Chamber that withholding aid and using starvation as a weapon of war is wrong, but if we want to challenge that leadership, we must step up ourselves. The Minister previously spoke about what we are doing to try to support medical needs in Gaza. For the avoidance of doubt—may Oded’s memory be a blessing, and in his cause we will follow up—can the Minister be clear that we will evacuate people who need medical assistance from Gaza to the UK?
Catherine West
The Lifschitz family have a great champion in my hon. Friend, who has come to the House and laid out in clear terms her expectation of the Government. There are certain schemes to assist families in medical emergencies. With her permission, I will write to her with the detail and the exact guidelines that are used by the Government to determine who is eligible for those schemes.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
There have now been 60,000 known deaths in Gaza. Israel is already accused by the ICJ and the ICC of war crimes, including genocidal acts, and it is now committing a new war crime by denying food and water to the people of Gaza. What will it take for the British Government to cease all arms supplies to Israel and to end the use of the RAF base in Akrotiri as a staging point for delivery to Israel? When will we end the security co-operation with Israel to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to support a regime that is breaking international humanitarian law in so many respects?
Catherine West
As the right hon. Member is aware, as soon as the Foreign Secretary took office he ordered a review of the compliance with international humanitarian law of various export items. Following the review, the Government suspended export licences to Israel in a number of categories, assessing where there was a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.
As the right hon. Member will also be aware, the question of genocide is not for a Minister to determine at the Dispatch Box. Legal experts continue to look at the definitions and descriptions of acts of war, and they will come forward with their determinations over time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am planning to run this urgent question for only about another 10 minutes, so it would be very helpful if questions were short, please.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Over recent days, we have seen the power of co-ordinated action when addressing a most challenging diplomatic, military and humanitarian crisis, yet in 17 months we have not seen a parallel in addressing the challenges over Gaza. What action is the Department taking to ensure that there is such a co-ordinated effort, and will the Foreign Secretary call such a summit?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The UK will certainly continue to work, as it has done, ceaselessly with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. Her request has been heard in the Chamber.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
What message does the Minister think the Government send about their commitment to international aid in Gaza—and, indeed, anywhere else—by not only cutting it to 0.3%, which is its lowest level this century, but removing the ability of this House to scrutinise that cut or any remaining spend by moving ministerial responsibility for aid and development from this Chamber to the other place?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for her question; there will be an opportunity in the estimates debates later this week for her to ask further questions. However, as I am sure she is aware given her expertise in aid and development and in soft power, it will take some time for the comprehensive spending review to come forward with a picture of the resource implications. I know that she and her party fundamentally support the decision to look at the security of Europe and to try to make that part of the balance in our foreign policy work.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I understand that the Minister does not want to give a legal opinion, but is it not clear that banning all supplies to Gaza is a breach of the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute? Failure to call that out emboldens Israel in its collective punishment of all Gazans. Will she confirm, as it was missing from her earlier response, that when the Government finally recognise the Palestinian state, it will include not only the west bank and Gaza, but East Jerusalem as its capital?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for all his work as the vice-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, and for his ongoing campaigning in this area. To be clear, humanitarian aid should never be contingent on a ceasefire or used as a political tool, and Jerusalem should of course be the shared capital.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
My constituents are horrified at reports that the UK Government are not only complicit in Israeli atrocities, but have actively and directly participated in the war crimes and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Israel. Will the Minister explain to this House what the UK’s participation and role have been in the Israeli genocide and the ongoing atrocities that continue in Gaza and the west bank?
Catherine West
As I have mentioned, it is not for the Minister here, but for legal experts to determine the definition of genocide. On the role of the UK, the reason I, as the Indo-Pacific Minister, am before the House is that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east is currently engaging in conversations and pushing for a peaceful solution. There can be nothing better than a face-to-face meeting with a Minister of His Majesty’s Government in the region having those important discussions and pushing for peace.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
With almost 20,000 Palestinian children having been killed, Gaza and its people are in a state of devastation. The use of starvation as a weapon of war is a war crime. The denial of humanitarian aid is a war crime, and it leads to babies freezing to death—an example the Minster gave earlier. What specific action are the Government taking with allies to pressure the Israeli Government to comply with international law and let aid into Gaza?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she did before she entered Parliament on aid and supporting international solutions for war-affected areas. Our work continues with our partners—Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners—to build consensus, because we all want to live in a world where aid is no longer necessary and there is a vibrant economy and people have jobs, schools and hospitals. That is what the UK is doing: redoubling our efforts for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It has been very frustrating to hear about this Government’s practical inaction in the face of flagrant breaches of international law in the siege of Gaza, and I sincerely hope that the Government do not continue down this path of inertia. With that in mind, what steps is the Minister taking to recognise Palestine as a state immediately as part of the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders? This is surely essential to reinvigorate the peace process and deter extremists seeking perpetual conflict in Gaza, the west bank and across the middle east.
Catherine West
The hon. Member is quite right to describe what feels like a hopeless situation, but I would remind him that over the last few weeks we have seen some rays of sunlight and a few bits of hope as—hopefully—less violence is being perpetrated and more people are going back to their homes. However, he is right to push the Government and to ask what more can be done, and that includes visits to the region to speak to the interlocutors I have mentioned and to keep pushing for peace.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Of course, many of us in this House want to see progress towards a permanent two-state solution following the current ceasefire and hostage deal. In December, the Prime Minister announced that the Foreign Secretary would be convening a meeting of partners to support civil society in both Israel and Palestine. What update can the Minister provide to the House on how the UK plans to support the international forum for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Catherine West
In the short term, Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza will be phased—all parties have agreed to that—but in time we must see the occupation end, as confidence is rebuilt in Gaza and Israel. The Palestinian Authority should play a key role in the future governance and security of Gaza. For the deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate, including on future security arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians and allow the safe distribution of aid, in the vision of the two-state solution.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Despite the appalling abuse of the hostages who were released and the propaganda value made of them, in 42 days the Israeli Government have allowed 25,200 truckloads of aid into Gaza, which is enough to sustain the entire population for four months.
Sammy Wilson
It is a fact. The concern is that Hamas are now using aid as their major source of income and are seeking to control the billion-dollar aid industry there now is in Gaza. What assurances can the Minister give that UK aid will not be used to sustain that terrorist organisation or to control the local population?
Catherine West
If the right hon. Member is reading things online, he needs to be careful that they are correct, because while there have been recent arrivals of aid, we all know that there is a continuing need for aid. We all want to eat fresh food, we all need fresh medications, and we all need water and all those other things, and the essential aid going in needs to be refreshed every day. What we can say in this House is that providing access to essential civilian services with that aid is also crucial. I encourage him to widen his sources of reading on the access of aid into Gaza and the west bank.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Instituting an aid blockade, while getting on for 50,000 Gazans have been killed and there is a polio epidemic, surely looks as if civilian deprivation is being used as a weapon of war. What are the Government doing about that, and to ensure that the entire fragile ceasefire does not fall apart and the hostages can come home?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for specifically mentioning polio. We are very pleased to hear that the latest polio vaccination roll-out reached 99% of the children who were targeted, but we remain gravely concerned by the lack of adequate medical care in a wider sense in Gaza. All prisoners detained in Gaza, including medical staff, must be allowed full International Committee of the Red Cross access.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Other than the Minister’s response to the excellent question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I strongly welcome both the tone and content of the Minister’s answers. It is clear that there is no justification for the vindictive and counterproductive actions of the Israeli Government, but they are clearly emboldened by the US President. In seeking to build international alliances to put pressure on the Israeli Government to change their actions and stop that vindictive behaviour, what conversations are the Government having to ensure that their view is conveyed to the United States so they can adopt the same line as we are?
Catherine West
To provide clarification on some of the ideas that have been proposed, for example on the future of Gaza, we have made it clear that we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states, and the forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip are simply not an option. I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping to keep us on track with what people in the region actually want, and for supporting around the table all partners who are pushing for a peaceful deal between the two parties.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, especially at a time of such intense suffering for so many civilians in Gaza, this use of both humanitarian assistance and aid is totally unacceptable and not conducive to a lasting ceasefire and long-term peace?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to emphasise the need for the steady inflow of aid. Anything else could potentially be a breach of international humanitarian law. What we see in peace processes are hiccups: one step forward and two steps back. We would be pushing for all parties to see this as a hiccup. I hope to wake up tomorrow morning to the happy news that all is back on track, aid is getting in, conversations are happening and that the peaceful future we all want for the two parties is becoming a reality.
Hong Kong Democracy Activists
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists in the United Kingdom by the Chinese Communist party and other authorities in Hong Kong and China.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question on what I agree is a very serious matter.
Security is the first duty of Government. As such, we are deeply concerned by the recent bounties placed on Hong Kong democracy activists resident here in the UK. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement condemning those bounties. As he said at the time, the individuals were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. As the Foreign Secretary has also said, we call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach. We also call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Ministers have raised those concerns with the authorities during recent visits to both Hong Kong and Beijing. The continued safety of Hong Kongers remains a priority for this Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but I want to be clear that we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK
We have received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures are in place for the individuals in question, and we regularly assess potential threats to the UK and use all available levers to counter them. Where we identify individuals at heightened risk, we are front footed in deploying protective security guidance and other measures as appropriate. Anyone—anyone—acting to coerce individuals in the UK is liable to prosecution under the National Security Act 2023. To date, there have been six individuals charged under the new Act.
The Government’s position is clear: we will protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals in the UK. We will use every available power and tool to uphold the principles we hold dear.
Chris Philp
This is an incredibly serious issue. The Chinese Communist party is an authoritarian regime which has been persecuting people in Hong Kong, mainland China and elsewhere for some time. Nearly 100 people—that we know about—have been arrested for political reasons in Hong Kong since July last year. It is completely unacceptable that harassment and intimidation takes place now on British soil. It is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individuals concerned and it is an affront to British sovereignty.
Bounties, amounting to approximately £100,000 each, have apparently been placed on three people who are in the United Kingdom: Tony Chung, aged 23; Carmen Lau, aged 30; and Chloe Cheung, aged only 17. All fled Hong Kong owing to persecution. Chloe Cheung was apparently advised by the police to dial 999 if she felt under threat, which strikes me as an inadequate response. I understand that posters appeared near the home addresses of two of those people, and that letters were posted to their neighbours, offering a reward if they were “delivered to the Chinese embassy”. That is completely unacceptable. That cannot be tolerated and robust action must be taken.
I have a couple of questions to put, respectfully, to the Security Minister. First, has the Chinese ambassador been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Office to have it explained to him that this is unacceptable and to ask what is being done to stop it? My understanding is that no such summons has been issued, which is unacceptable. Does that not make clear that giving the Chinese permission to build a mega-embassy in London is completely inappropriate? It will simply be used as a pan-European base for Chinese spying. Are investigations into the perpetrators under way? Why is China not being placed into the enhanced tier under the foreign influence registration scheme? Surely China should be placed into that tier as a matter of urgency. What is the update on the Chinese police stations operating covertly in the United Kingdom? I was briefed on that as Policing Minister a year or so ago. Where are we with those? Finally, the Security Minister says that we will not tolerate this happening. I am sure the whole House will agree with that, but what concrete and tangible action is being taken to prevent these outrages?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his points and questions. Let me again, for the avoidance of doubt, be absolutely clear about the Government’s position. The safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK is of the upmost importance and the UK will always stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong. Wherever we identify such threats, we will use any and all measures, including through the use of our world-class intelligence services, to mitigate the risk to individuals.
The shadow Home Secretary asked a number of questions, so I shall attempt to respond to them. First, he asked about raising concerns with the Chinese authorities. I can tell him that concerns have been raised at every opportunity, including by the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who has met with the families of the individuals involved.
Secondly, he raised a point about the Chinese embassy. A final decision on China’s planning application for a new embassy has yet to be made. As I am sure he will be aware, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in her independent, quasi-judicial role, will make the final decision in due course. However, the House should be aware that a joint letter sent by the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January outlines that the Home Office, working with the Foreign Office, has considered the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application. In the joint letter, the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary also made it clear that they would want to see the implementation of suitable mitigations for any public order and national security risks before China was permitted to build a new embassy at the Royal Mint Court site.
Thirdly, the shadow Home Secretary asked about overseas police stations. As I am sure he will understand, the police have carefully examined these allegations. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities that the existence of undeclared sites in the UK is completely unacceptable and that their operations must cease, and the Chinese authorities have confirmed that they have been closed.
Fourthly, he asked about FIRS. As he will be aware, I am due to make a statement shortly that will include an update on the implementation of FIRS, so I will not get ahead of myself. However, I will say that FIRS strengthens the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence and provides greater assurances on the activities of certain foreign powers or entities that are a national security risk. As a result, the UK will be better informed about the nature, scale and extent of foreign influence in this country.
As I am sure he will be aware, since coming to power in July, we have ensured that more people than ever are now working on FIRS implementation. The case management team have been recruited and are in place in dedicated accommodation, and an IT system has been identified and a contract signed for its delivery. We plan to lay before the House the regulations underpinning the scheme shortly ahead of the scheme going live in the summer.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I also spoke to Chloe Cheung this morning, and I want to reiterate what the shadow Home Secretary has said. I want to ask the Minister whether guidance can be given to police forces, not only to give reassurance to Hongkongers who have a bounty on them or threats made against them, but to carry out target hardening and security work to ensure that Hongkongers are safe in their own homes in the UK and not under threat of abduction. It is a real, serious and live threat, and we need to do more than just tell people to call 999.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. I can reiterate what I have said specifically in this case, which is that we sought and received assurances from counter-terror policing that the appropriate measures were in place for the individuals in question.
On his broader, important point on transnational repression, I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the defending democracy taskforce is reviewing the UK’s approach to transnational repression to ensure we have a robust and joined-up response across Government and law enforcement. The Government will update on the conclusions of that work in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for raising these appalling incidents. I also thank him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), whose constituents have been affected and have received some of these letters.
For me, these incidents are a reminder of the pernicious threat we all face as the Chinese Government try to infiltrate every level of British society. I have been filmed by a drone while filming at a pro-Hong Kong democracy rally in Edinburgh; Members have been sanctioned by the CCP; secret police stations have operated across the UK, including in Glasgow; there is the issue of the embassy in London; and the attempts of Chinese companies to be involved in our energy provision in a way that, if not mitigated, will threaten our energy security and national security. The list grows longer almost daily. We must strengthen and make clear our response to China and stop more of our citizens and brave activists being threatened on British soil.
How will the Government bring these bounty hunters to justice? Will they enforce Magnitsky sanctions to crack down on those in Hong Kong and Beijing who are responsible for this and every other insidious attack on our freedoms and democracy?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. I can reiterate the points I have made previously about how these concerns have been raised at every opportunity and about how seriously the UK Government take these matters. We will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that everybody who lives in this United Kingdom can go about their lawful business uninhibited by the activities of those in other countries. We take this matter incredibly seriously, and we are working at pace to ensure that every protection is in place.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Since the launch of the British nationals overseas visa route for Hongkongers, more than 209,000 people have been granted a visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK, including in my community in Erewash. I welcome the Government’s continuing support for Hongkongers. What steps is the Immigration Minister taking to support the integration of those coming into the UK via the BNO route?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will understand that the BNO route reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up this status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. I am sure he will be aware that to be eligible for this route, applicants must have BNO status or be the eligible family member of someone with this status.
Since the route opened in January 2021, close to 220,000 visas have been granted to Hongkongers, who are making much-valued contributions to communities across the UK, including in his constituency. We will work closely with those constituencies and local authority areas to ensure that all those people feel properly valued and supported. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns, I am happy to meet him to discuss them further.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
First, I want to say that one of the proudest things I was able to achieve over the past few years was the BNO visa route, which was a correct correction of a mistake made by this House nearly 40 years ago. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was in her place as shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, was able to introduce it when she was Home Secretary. The support I received from the Minister at the time was also gratefully received.
Turning to the threat to activists, as someone who is sanctioned and who occasionally gets letters to my home and text messages from random Hong Kong and Beijing numbers, I can only imagine how much more threatening that activity would be if I had connections or relatives in Hong Kong and mainland China. Will the Minister assure me that he is advertising as widely as possible the role of the counter-terrorism police in fighting not just terrorism, but the state threats that are appearing before us? The reality is, we do not expect war today to take its old nature of massed armies or invasions. We are instead seeing a pernicious undermining of the confidence in the British state and the credibility of our ability to protect our citizens and friends, which, in turn, undermines not just our position, but our economy and the freedom of our citizens.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government. He raises some important and valid points. Let me say, first of all, that the matter of sanctioned Members of this House is something that we take incredibly seriously. The Foreign Secretary has personally raised his concerns about it at the highest levels. We will continue to keep it under very close review.
The right hon. Member made some other important points. I hope he will join me in welcoming the additional resource that the Prime Minister announced the other day for our operational partners and the intelligence services. He will know from his previous service what a hugely important role they fulfil in keeping our country safe. He knows, too, the seriousness that we attach to these matters, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on a cross-party basis to ensure that we maintain our national security.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
The director general of MI5 has highlighted the increasing risk of state actors operating in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to support MI5 in protecting the UK from these intrusions?
Dan Jarvis
This provides us with a very good opportunity to pay tribute as a House—I hope collectively—to the extraordinary work of our operational partners and the security services. By the very nature of their work, they serve in the shadows. It has been an extraordinary pleasure and privilege to work very closely alongside them in recent months. They do difficult work, but they do it incredibly well, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for doing it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I hear what the Minister says. As somebody who is sanctioned by the Chinese Government, who has been pursued by low-level intelligence operatives around the world, and who, like others in Governments elsewhere, has had falsehoods about me placed in newspapers, I can say that this goes on and on. Most of all, for those who have fled here from Hong Kong, what we are seeing is extraterritorial attacks in plain view, yet it seems that, ultimately, nothing ever happens. I have here a copy of a redacted letter about an individual who has been threatened. His neighbours have been offered a bounty if they hand him in to the Chinese embassy. I ask how much longer will we keep on saying all these wonderful words in this House about what we stand for, because when it comes to those who need our protection, nothing ever seems to happen. What will the Minister do about the embassy? Wherever China has a super-embassy in the world, we see extraterritorial activity grow massively. Will he now reject that and start arresting the people responsible and kicking them out of the country?
Dan Jarvis
I know the right hon. Gentleman speaks with long experience on these matters. The Government are crystal clear that the activity that he has just described is not acceptable. We will do everything that we can to prevent it from taking place. He referred to the embassy. As I think he knows—I know that he has raised specific concerns about this previously—a decision on the embassy will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I refer him to the letter that has been written jointly by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which takes into account the full breadth—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary tuts from a sedentary position. I do not know whether he has read the letter, which is available online. He should read it, because it takes into consideration the full breadth of national security concerns. This Government will stand against all those who seek to repress others or behave in the way that he has described, and use all the tools at our disposal to stop it from happening.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Across the UK, including in Exeter, where we have a very large and welcome Hongkonger community, we have seen rising threats from state actors who seek to influence and intimidate peaceful dissidents. Will the Minister update the House on how the foreign influence registration scheme will help to tackle these threats?
Dan Jarvis
I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, as I will be making a statement shortly. I can say that we are working at pace to implement the FIR scheme. This is an important tool in the Government’s armoury. It will strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert foreign influence, and it will provide greater assurance around the activities of certain foreign powers and entities that we know to be a national security risk. We are getting on with the work, and we plan to lay the regulations that underpin the scheme in the near future, ahead of it going live in the summer.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a privilege to represent a substantial community of Hongkongers in Richmond Park. I notice from Hansard that I was last here two months ago to ask the Government about renewed reports of repression against Hongkongers in this country, yet here we are again and nothing has been done to reassure my constituents about their continued safety and security in this country. I was interested in the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who talked about reviewing transnational repression. I urge him to give us some more detail about when we in this House, and my constituents in Richmond Park, can expect to hear more about what the Government plan to do about this.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Let me give her an absolute assurance that we take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why, through the defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, we have continued a process that was initiated by the previous Government to review the issue of transnational repression. For the sake of clarity, I can say to her that any attempt by any foreign Government to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm critics overseas, which undermines our democracy and the rule of law, is completely unacceptable. We have at our disposal now the National Security Act 2023, which enables law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats, including actions that amount to transnational repression. As I say, the defending democracy taskforce is looking very carefully at the issue of transnational repression. There has been a lot of work taking place across Government, and we will have more to say about it shortly.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Birmingham has a large and growing community of people from Hong Kong. Although most are now well settled in the wider community, some of my constituents are fearful about continued monitoring and surveillance, especially if they speak out on human rights. Will the Minister give me and my constituents an assurance that if they are subject to those utterly unacceptable practices, they will receive protection and support?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his representation of his constituents. Yes, I can give him that assurance. Hopefully, my comments today convey the seriousness that we attach to this particular issue. We work incredibly closely with counter-terrorism policing, policing right around the country, operational partners and the intelligence services, and I can absolutely give him the assurances that he seeks on behalf of his constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to our questions. The activity of Chinese operatives on our shores has to stop. No steps taken thus far have deterred the Chinese from overstepping the mark on our shores. If those who legally and peacefully oppose China are not safe here, just where are they safe? Putting bounties on people’s heads sounds like something from a film, but this is real life for those living lawfully in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland right now. What will the Minister do to tell China that the line has been crossed and that there will be consequences?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful, as I always am, to the hon. Member. He has a long-standing track record of standing up for repressed minorities wherever they might be. Clearly, that is particularly relevant in the context of today’s urgent question. He will have heard my opening remarks, in which I referred to the statement that had been issued by the Foreign Secretary specifically condemning the bounties, and in which he called on Beijing to repeal its national security law, including its territorial reach. We take these matters incredibly seriously. We are working with the police and local communities and will do everything we can to make sure that people get the support that they deserve.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I want to come back to the embassy. I have been contacted by several constituents on this matter. At 700,000 square feet, it would be China’s largest embassy in Europe. As we know from the incident at the Manchester consulate in 2022, such an embassy would be contributing to the transnational repression that Hongkongers, Tibetans and the wider Chinese diaspora in the UK experience. Have the Government made an assessment of whether this new super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression and, if so, on what basis has that assessment been made?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend’s question has been asked by others. I assure him that national security is the overriding priority for this and, I hope, any Government. We look incredibly carefully at these matters. We will consider every aspect of this application, which ultimately is to be decided on by the Deputy Prime Minister. But as I have said, both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written a very clear letter—I invite those Members who appear not necessarily to have read it to do so—and I can tell him and the House that the letter covers the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister is talking about the national security position in relation to the super-embassy. In January the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary wrote a letter about the application to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has to make the decision. In the light of the new information that has become available, will the Minister review that letter and take advice on whether the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary should be writing to the Deputy Prime Minister to recommend that the planning application is refused, rather than taking all these things into account?
Dan Jarvis
I understand the concerns that the hon. Member has raised. He will understand that I have already referred to the letter that was written back in January. If new evidence comes to light that is material to the planning application, no doubt that will be looked at very closely both by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, but I can assure him and the House that we take these matters incredibly seriously and look very closely at them. The letter that was written on 14 January does consider the full breadth of national security implications.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong.
I welcome the Minister’s recognition that the bounties on the heads of these British Hongkongers are for exercising rights guaranteed to them under the joint declaration. I do not wish to repeat what other right hon. and hon. Members have said, but at some point, when Ministers come to the House again and again to talk about the infiltration of the royal family by Chinese agents, the putting of bounties on people’s heads or secret police stations, there have to be consequences for the relationship with China.
I have a practical question. The fear felt by those who have bounties on their heads here is nothing compared with those who remain in Hong Kong who fear that they may not be able to leave. What practical assistance can we give to Hongkongers who have had either their BNO passport seized or other travel documents frozen, so that they are able to come to the safety of the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work through the APPG and his long-standing interest in this particular matter, and for his practical question. BNO status holders and their families are making significant contributions to our economy and local communities. He asked an important question about passports. I can assure him that there is no requirement for a person’s passport to be valid in order for them to apply to extend leave or for indefinite leave to remain under the BNO route. I know that colleagues in the Foreign Office will have heard his point about those who remain in Hong Kong, but I would be happy to discuss it further with him should that be helpful.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Intimidating pro-democracy Hongkongers living in the UK, placing them on a wanted list and circulating reward notices to their neighbours is simply unforgiveable. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no trade deal is worth subverting our values and allowing the rights of our people to be abused in such an appalling fashion. What discussions has his Department had directly with the Chinese ambassador? What has the ambassador been told the consequences will be for those found to be responsible? What is the status of the current investigation, or does everybody just accept that this matter is now closed?
Dan Jarvis
I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises these concerns in the way that he does. I hope that he will be reassured that the UK Government, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, take these matters seriously and take every opportunity to raise these concerns at the appropriate level. We will continue to do everything that we can to protect the public in our country.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
At the recent lunar new year celebrations, I met democracy activists who have had bounties placed on them. The fear in the room was palpable. People chose not to attend the event so that they would not be photographed with people who have a bounty on their head. I fear that that chilling effect is already very real. I thank the Minister for confirming that transnational repression is being looked at by the defending democracy taskforce, but could he give us a bit more detail on the practical measures that can be put in place now to better protect those in the UK with a bounty on their head, and their family members still in Hong Kong, for whom they are deeply concerned, given the possible knock-on effects for them?
Dan Jarvis
I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about the fear felt, and the chilling effect that I am certain there will be in a number of communities. He has asked me for practical measures; I gently ask him to be a little patient, because I will have more to say about these matters very soon.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Government and Opposition Members have asked the Minister several times whether the Chinese ambassador has been summoned to be held to account for these actions. This House deserves an answer from the Minister. A lot of these people face kidnap plots. What investigations are being undertaken into those?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman will know from his time in government that, in the first instance, these matters will relate to the ambassador in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I can give him the same assurances that I previously gave: the UK Government take these matters incredibly seriously and raise them at every opportunity. He asked about investigations; the police are working incredibly hard alongside operational partners, and will investigate all these matters, using the appropriate resource, in order to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that victims are provided with the support that they need and deserve.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Today I spoke with Chloe Cheung, the youngest person to be sanctioned under the national security law. I know that she will be pleased to have been at least referenced by Members on both sides of the House. Chloe conveyed to me the anxieties and concerns of the Leeds Hong Kong community, which were not new to me, given the conversations that I have been having with that community, who form a substantial part of my constituency.
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on specific cases, so I have two general questions. First, can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee that any future trade deals with China will not compromise the protections that we have offered Hongkongers living in the UK? My second question is about MI5. Will the Government consider facilitating a meeting between MI5 and those Hongkongers who have had a bounty put on their head as a result of the national security law, to ensure that robust protections are in place for those who have been sanctioned?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency MP. He has raised the plight of his constituent previously in this House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. On his first point, national security is the first priority of this Government. His second point is probably more a matter for counter-terrorism police and West Yorkshire police, but I have heard what he said, and I will take it away and come back to him with a fuller response.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for securing the urgent question. I am lucky enough to represent, in my constituency, one of the largest Hong Kong communities, and they tell me that the proposed Chinese super-embassy is a chilling prospect for Hongkongers who have moved to our country to escape repression in Hong Kong. As we all understand, the decision is with the Deputy Prime Minister at the moment, but surely the Minister agrees that it is unconscionable that a foreign state should be allowed to massively enhance its operations in this country while it flagrantly conducts extrajudicial acts on the streets of the UK. Does he agree that if permission is given, it would undermine any assurances given that foreign states will be held to account for hostile actions targeting British residents on British soil?
Dan Jarvis
Given the hon. Member’s strong constituency interest, I completely understand why he raises those concerns. I hope that he and other hon. Members will understand that, from a national security perspective, we take these matters incredibly seriously.
There is a limit to what I can say about the specifics of this case, but let me put this in a slightly more diplomatic way than I might normally seek to. There seems to be something of a misunderstanding about the circumstances of this case. I give the hon. Member an absolute assurance that we look incredibly carefully at these matters, and some of the suggestions that have been made are not correct. A process is under way, and I am legally bound not to interfere with it. No hon. Member would expect me to do so, but I point him again to the very carefully considered letter written by the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, which includes reference to the full breadth of national security issues to do with this application.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is conducting an inquiry on the important issue of transnational repression. Will he commit to looking very carefully at any recommendations that come from that inquiry, so we can ensure that we have the correct measures in place to uphold the fundamental British values of democracy here in the UK and, of course, safeguard our national security?
Dan Jarvis
I know about the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry; in fact, I believe that I am due to give evidence to it. I can absolutely give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will look carefully at the findings of that important piece of work. I have written to the Committee Chair about it, and I look forward to meeting the Committee and giving evidence. I look forward to progressing the work through the defending democracy taskforce, so that we can say more about the work against transnational repression that the Government intend to do.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I recently met Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien and his legal team, and I was horrified to hear that his UK legal team from Doughty Street Chambers recently faced a concerted and co-ordinated campaign against them, including intimidation, surveillance, hacking of bank accounts and rape threats aimed at their children. It appears that the Chinese state is now undermining our legal system.
The Minister has repeated at the Dispatch Box that the Government will take all steps to prevent persecution of Hong Kong nationals in the UK. Will he support the call from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for high-profile visits by UK and Chinese officials in our respective countries to be paused until the security situation is resolved?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the case of Jimmy Lai. I too have met Sebastien Lai. Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government, and we have made that clear in our engagements with China. We call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister raised his case with President Xi at the G20 summit in November; the Foreign Secretary raised it with China’s Foreign Minister in October; and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), raised it with Hong Kong officials during her visit to Hong Kong in November.
Iranian State Threats
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the growing threat to the UK from Iran, and the steps that the Government are taking to combat this threat. [Hon. Members: “Welcome back!”] It is a pleasure to be back.
The threat from Iran sits in the wider context of the growing, diversifying and evolving threat that the UK faces from malign activity by a number of states. The threat from states has become increasingly interconnected in nature; the lines are blurring between domestic and international, online and offline, and states and their proxies. In the last year, the number of state-threat investigations run by MI5 jumped by 48%. That statistic is a stark indication of the increased threat.
I turn to Iran. The regime has become increasingly emboldened, and is asserting itself more aggressively to advance its objectives and undermine ours. That is evidenced by the fact that direct action against UK targets has substantially increased over recent years. The director general of MI5 recently stated that since the start of 2022, the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally. It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear. These threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn.
It is testament to our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence services that, through their tireless commitment, so many plots have been thwarted. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the brave men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who work day in, day out, to keep us safe.
To tackle this threat, we must understand it. The Iranian intelligence services, which include the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, direct this damaging activity, but often, rather than working directly on UK shores, they use criminal proxies to do their bidding. That helps to obfuscate their involvement, while they are safely ensconced in Tehran. We see that in intelligence, but we also saw it publicly in the 2023 conviction of the Chechen-born Austrian national who was imprisoned for conducting surveillance on Iran International’s UK headquarters.
These threats are not only physical in nature. The National Cyber Security Centre has seen malicious cyber-activity, conducted by actors who are affiliated with the Iranian state, that targets a range of state sectors, including in the UK. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the tools that they need to disrupt and degrade the threats that we face from Iran, so I can announce today that we will place the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme. The FIRS is a critical disruptive tool for the UK.
This action will mean that those who are directed by Iran to conduct activities in the UK, such as criminal proxies, must register that activity, whatever it is, or face five years in prison. They will face a choice: expose their actions to the Government or face jail. The Home Office will lay regulations before Parliament as soon as possible, with a view to having the scheme up and running by the summer.
On proscription, as hon. Members will know, we do not routinely comment on groups that are being considered for proscription, but I assure the House that we do and will continue to keep the list of groups considered under constant review. However, it has become increasingly clear that there are challenges inherent in applying our existing counter-terror legislation to state and state-linked threats to our national security. That challenge was first raised by the Home Secretary in opposition. She warned of a lack of a comprehensive strategic approach for state threats to mirror that adopted on terrorism, and the specific difficulties of using on state bodies a proscription mechanism that was designed for groups such as al-Qaeda.
We are progressing work at pace to address that challenge, so I can announce today that Jonathan Hall KC has been asked to review the parts of our counter-terrorism framework that could be applied to modern-day state threats, such as those from Iran. That includes giving specific consideration to the design of a proscription mechanism for state and state-linked bodies, providing more flexibility than is offered under the existing powers. As the independent reviewer of both state threats legislation and terrorism legislation, Mr Hall is perfectly placed to undertake the review and we are grateful to him for agreeing to provide that advice.
Let there be no doubt: we are utterly determined to stay ahead of those who threaten our country, and any step that could aid us in that critical endeavour will be considered. The UK is not alone in facing such threats. States across the western world are threatened by Iran, so we will work with our allies to better understand, expose and condemn Iranian actions and bring Iranian-linked criminals to justice wherever in the world they may be.
We regularly collaborate with our Five Eyes and European partners to protect our democracies from hostile Iranian attack. Here at home we are going further too. The National Security Act 2023, which was supported on both sides of the House, has given the police new powers to target evolving activity. For example, the Act criminalises assisting a foreign intelligence service, such as the IRGC or MOIS. The maximum penalty for those offences is 14 years in prison, which is the same as the maximum for a proscription offence.
I can also announce that training and guidance on state threats activity is now being offered by counter-terrorism policing to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK. That will mean that when any frontline officer encounters a suspected state threats incident, they will know what to do and what to look for to ensure that our communities are kept safe. Furthermore, we have recently issued guidance on the National Security Act and how it applies to the UK security profession, including private investigators. That ensures that they are aware of the law and understand where they might be criminally liable if they were working for any foreign power such as Iran.
We will also continue to go after the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work. The leader of the Zindashti organised crime group—a group frequently used by the Iranian regime—has already been sanctioned. We will explore further sanctions against other Iranian-linked criminals, and the National Crime Agency will target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money.
Alongside the recently launched Border Security Command, which strengthens Britain’s border security and disrupts criminal smuggling gangs, I have asked officials to consider new ways to enforce our robust immigration rules to specifically address threats from Iran. That work will focus on further protecting the UK from Iranian infiltration, including those who promote Iranian interference in the UK.
I am clear that our response must be a UK-wide effort, so I welcome the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust. I have also asked officials to review where any Iranian interference is being conducted in the UK, and FIRS will shine more light on any undisclosed relationships between the Iranian state and UK-based institutions and individuals.
Finally, the National Protective Security Authority and counter-terrorism policing will continue to provide protective security advice and support to individuals and organisations threatened by the Iranian regime and its criminal proxies, including Persian-language media organisations and their employees. We will also continue to maintain funding for protective security measures to synagogues, Jewish community centres and schools, ensuring that we do all we can to keep our Jewish communities safe.
In a dangerous, volatile world, Britain must lead the way. That means proudly promoting our values and straining every sinew to keep our people safe. The measures I have set out today should reassure the House and the public about our unflinching commitment to those objectives. Under this Government, security will be the foundation on which everything else is built. We will resist attacks on our way of life as vigorously as we counter threats to life, whatever their source. We will work relentlessly to root out those intent on causing harm on our streets, and we will do whatever it takes to protect our country and our democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister, once again, for his courtesy in giving me advance sight of his statement. The House should be in no doubt about how serious the threat posed by Iran is. Iran sponsors terror organisations across the middle east. It is an enthusiastic and significant supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and it backs Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria. Those organisations kidnap, murder, rape and commit terrorist atrocities. Without Iran’s support, those terror organisations would not be able to operate in the way that they do. Iran therefore bears a heavy burden of responsibility for enabling those terrorist actors to perpetrate atrocities.
Let us not forget that Iran is also an enthusiastic supporter of Putin’s murderous regime and its invasion of Ukraine. Iran supplies drone technology to Russia and more recently, according to the Foreign Secretary, has supplied ballistic missiles to Russia, which are being used in furtherance of their illegal and barbaric invasion. There is no question that Iran is a hostile state; it promotes terrorism, undermines freedom and undermines democracy. We have recently seen actions by Iran on British soil and journalists being harassed to the point that one media organisation had to relocate its activities—thankfully, only temporarily—from London to New York. That is completely unacceptable.
We of course support the Government in the listing of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS, and we will support the relevant statutory instrument when it comes before Parliament. I am glad that the National Security Act 2023 is being used, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) —I see he is in his place—for his work in putting that Act on the statute book.
Having welcomed this move, I have some questions, however, which are essentially in this vein: is merely requiring registration a strong enough sanction? I put it to the House that it is not, because under FIRS all that is required is registration, and that alone is not enough. We saw our allies, the United States, in 2019 designate the IRGC as a terror organisation; we saw our Canadian allies do the same just last year. Yet I have heard nothing on proscription.
The Minister said they do not comment on proscription, but the Home Secretary did comment on it in January 2023, when in opposition, and in unequivocal terms:
“The IRGC is behaving like a terror organisation and must be prescribed as such.”
She then said in April 2024 that she would like to make changes to the legal architecture. Yet it is only today that the Security Minister has announced the review by Jonathan Hall. Why has it taken seven months to initiate a review, which the now Home Secretary talked about nearly a year ago?
Then we come to the views of Jonathan Hall himself, because he said— coincidentally, also in April 2024—that the National Security Act 2023 is good enough for the purposes of dealing with Iran. My question to the Security Minister is this: who is right? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2023 called for outright proscription? Is it the Home Secretary, who in 2024 called for a change in the law about which nothing appears to have been done until today? Or is it Jonathan Hall, who said also in April 2024 that the National Security Act is sufficient? There is some confusion about the Government’s position, which seems to have moved over time, so clarification on that would be welcome. Why is the Home Secretary not introducing outright proscription, as she said she would do in 2023?
More needs to be done to counter the threat posed by Iran on our shores. The Security Minister hinted at this towards the end of his statement. For example, are there more diplomats that we could expel who might be undertaking espionage activities or directing some of the activity on British soil? I see that the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention—my successor as Policing Minister—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is in her place. Is there more that the police could do to investigate this activity?
Are we doing enough to provide protective security to potential victims of this activity? It was, in my view, completely unacceptable that the independent Iranian dissident media group had to move temporarily to New York. We should make sure that no one has to move again as a result of these threats. And are we using sanctions enough? The Security Minister mentioned this in his statement, but should we be using more sanctions against individuals in the Iranian regime and organisations that are part of the Iranian security apparatus? I think we should, and we should certainly be using the levers at the Home Office’s disposal, such as visa sanctions—that is to say, not issuing entry visas to people we suspect of being complicit in these activities, or denying visas to high-ranking or other well-connected Iranian officials to act as a deterrent.
The Security Minister talked about the wider context of hostile state threats. He said in the previous urgent question that he would address in this statement the question of whether China should be placed in the enhanced FIRS tier—
Chris Philp
Well, he said he would address it, and eagle-eyed Members will notice that he did not address it, so I will ask him the question directly now and there will be no avoidance because there is no further statement. Will he place China in the enhanced tier of FIRS? Will he please confirm that to the House, because I think all of us would support him if he did?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for the points he has raised, which I will endeavour to work through. First, let me agree with his characterisation of the Iranian regime. I hope there is no disagreement among us about that, which is precisely why it is right that we proceed with the measures I have described today. He was right to mention the National Security Act 2023, a landmark piece of legislation—I pay tribute to all those who were involved in it, including my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). It is an incredibly useful tool that is already delivering and making a significant contribution to our national security. It is a mechanism that we will continue to use and also to build on.
Perhaps the shadow Home Secretary will forgive me if I suggest that he was seeking to make a bit of mischief over the issue of proscription—heaven forbid. He will understand, because this was the case when he was a Minister in the Department, that Governments do not comment on organisations or entities that are being considered for proscription. He knows that is a long-standing protocol and will understand very well the reasons for it. He would not expect me to break from that long-standing precedent today, and I am not going to.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to comments made previously by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, when in opposition, absolutely rightly identified the challenge that we are now seeking to address in government. I know that there is huge respect for Mr Hall. Clearly, he is independent of the Government and supremely well qualified. He is a credible and authoritative figure who is perfectly placed to look at the legislative framework and give advice independently to the Home Secretary about how best to proceed, given our concern that the architecture that is in place is better geared towards a terrorist entity—an organisation such as al-Qaeda, for example—than to a state-backed entity. I think that is entirely the right way to proceed. We will obviously look very closely at Mr Hall’s findings. I am very happy to discuss them further with the shadow Home Secretary and others, and of course we will give a further update to the House as soon as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman entirely reasonably asked what more could be done. Again, as a former Home Office Minister he will completely understand that there are lots of things that we are doing that we are not going to talk about, and he will understand the reason for that, but I can give him the assurance that we are doing everything we possibly can to combat the threat that we all know we face.
The right hon. Gentleman also made an important point about protective security. Again, we take that matter very seriously; it has been tested on numerous occasions in recent years. He will understand that the Home Office works closely with other Government Departments, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement, to ensure that we are providing the proper protection for those individuals who have been identified as at risk, and that the police and the security services work tirelessly to investigate those threats and to take other steps to ensure the safety of those concerned. Tailored, protective advice is offered to those individuals considered to face specific threats and, where necessary, more extensive security options can be put into effect.
Finally, the shadow Home Secretary—again, slightly mischievously—sought to infer that I had made a commitment in my previous response, but that was not quite the case. He will understand that announcements about FIRS will be made in this House. Today’s announcement specifically relates to the decision that we have taken on Iran; it is specifically about that country, and other announcements that are made with regard to FIRS will be made in due course.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his statement and also for his unwavering commitment to addressing the threat posed by the Iranian regime here in the UK, particularly to our Jewish communities. I have heard evidence of the IRGC operating on British campuses, seeking to radicalise our students; operating charities to pursue its malign aims; and plotting to murder people on Britain’s streets. Can the Minister reassure the House that the review of proscription and state threats will be expedited, and that he will do whatever is necessary to protect Britain from this growing threat?
Dan Jarvis
I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in these matters, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I completely agree that the kind of disruption and interference that he has described—whether that is in universities, on students, or through charities—is completely and utterly unacceptable. He specifically asked me about the review of state threats that the Home Secretary has commissioned Mr Hall to undertake. He will understand, as will other Members, that Mr Hall is extremely efficient and well organised. He understands the importance of this work, and he is getting on with it at pace. We are keen to work with him and make sure that he has all the support that he requires, and I anticipate that he will be able to complete that work quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats of course welcome the steps he has outlined and recognise the existential threat that Iran now poses not only to Israel but to western democracies, including here in the UK. Last year, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, laid bare this very serious threat—Iran and other nations such as Russia intensifying their efforts to interfere in all aspects of British life, including the 20 plots backed by the “emboldened” Iranian Government, as he described them, that MI5 has identified in the past three years.
Of course we welcome the placing of the whole Iranian state on the FIRS enhanced tier, and that will include Iran’s revolutionary guard, which is a vital part of the infrastructure that makes Iran’s Government such a threat, acting as it does with impunity, supplying terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and contributing so much to the tension and violence across the middle east. If we are to achieve lasting peace, it is also essential to curtail the influence and threat of Iran to the west.
We welcome the review by Mr Hall that has been outlined. I am glad to hear that the Government continue to keep the list of proscribed groups under review, but I hope that a decision on the IRGC will come sooner rather than later. I would like to hear how we will strengthen sanction regimes to start tackling the influence of Iran. The measures announced today are a welcome start, but we stand ready to support sanctions, and I hope the Government will go further and faster.
I am pleased to see the Government working closely with territorial police forces across the United Kingdom to give officers at all levels the skills and confidence to identify these threats on our own shores, particularly those to communities that remain vulnerable, so I also welcome the reference to the threat faced by our Jewish communities across the country and the rising tensions on our streets. I hope the Minister can outline how his Department will work with the Community Security Trust and other groups to keep all Jewish communities safe at a time when those abroad seek to undermine our whole country. We must not let them succeed.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we must not let them succeed, and we will not. She is also completely right about the existential nature of the threat. The 20 plots that she referenced—in the threat lecture by the director general of MI5 towards the end of last year—illustrate the scale of the challenge.
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the specific announcement today on FIRS and for her acknowledgment of the work that we seek to do with Mr Hall in looking carefully at the legislative framework. We keep matters relating to proscription under constant review. She is right to mention sanctions. I can assure her that we work incredibly closely with partners in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
I am grateful, as I know other Members will be, for the hon. Lady’s reference to the importance of ensuring that we work cross-party to protect Jewish communities around the country. She mentioned the Community Security Trust. It is an organisation that will be well known to Members across this House. It is incredibly professional and delivers massive value to communities right around the country, and we will continue to work closely with it.
I just want to make one further reference. I spoke earlier about the landmark nature of the National Security Act—it is a measure for which we are truly grateful. I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) in introducing that landmark piece of legislation—it is not forgotten.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the action that this Government are taking to counter the malign influence of Iran on Britain’s streets. Given the wide range of threats from hostile state actors, including Iran, it is vital that we take effective action to protect critical national infrastructure from cyber-attacks. Will the Minister update us on plans announced in the King’s Speech last year for a new Bill on cyber-resilience and on the other action being taken to improve our protections in this area?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important threat vector that is not often commented on. I can tell him that the National Cyber Security Centre assessed that Iran is an aggressive and capable cyber-actor, with a number of powerful disruptive and destructive tools at its disposal. As he will understand, the NCSC continues to work closely with Government, industry and international partners to mitigate the cyber-threat from Iran. It is something that we take seriously and that we are working across Government to counter.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this is at least one area where our co-operation with the United States can continue on the basis of a common mutual interest, given President Trump’s extremely strong attitude to the abuses carried out by the Iranian regime? Is the Minister aware—I think he probably is—that during the previous Parliament the Intelligence and Security Committee completed the classified version of a major report on Iran and all its activities? Does he look forward, like me, to the redaction process being completed soon, so that we can all benefit from the findings of that report?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Gentleman because he always adds a significant amount of wisdom to proceedings, and I appreciate it. I agree about the importance of our relationship with the United States and that we absolutely have a mutual interest with colleagues in the new Administration. The Prime Minister discussed the matter with President Trump on his recent visit to Washington. I am aware of the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee in the previous Parliament that the right hon. Gentleman referenced. I wrote to the Committee this morning outlining the measures that I have announced today. I look forward to working closely with the Committee to ensure that we can collectively derive the benefits of the report. I am grateful to him and previous Members for the work they have done.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reference to money laundering. He will know full well the extent to which Iran uses illicit financial networks to evade sanctions and to fund hostile activities. Will the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to follow the money and disrupt those money laundering networks, particularly those used by proxies and enablers in the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the important work that he does through the all-party parliamentary group. He is absolutely right that illicit finance funds hostile activities, and this Government take it incredibly seriously. That is why we have appointed Baroness Hodge as the anti-corruption champion and we are in the process of producing an anti-corruption strategy, which the Government intend to publish before the summer recess. That is also why I recently visited the United Arab Emirates, because the nature of this particular challenge requires an international response. It is why the UK seeks to work with our international partners to do everything we can to tighten the screws on those who would seek to use illicit finance to fund terrorist activity. It is a priority for the Government. We are grateful for the support and work that he does and for the work that Baroness Hodge does, and we will continue it at pace.
Tom Tugendhat
I pay tribute to the Minister for the work he is doing on leading this fight against a hostile state that is doing so much against us. I join him in paying tribute not just to Jonathan Hall—he did amazingly good work for us in government and I am sure will be serving the Minister with the same dedication and diligence—but to MI5, whose leadership under Sir Ken McCallum has begun to put real focus on some areas that had previously slipped by.
Does the Minister agree that this is not just a domestic challenge? I recognise all that he has set out, but we need to be working on this matter with friends and allies. The pressures that we see in Iran today—the failure of the state, the emergence of a civil society and perhaps even, let us hope, the destruction of that dreadful regime that has occupied the country and tortured those people for so many years—require a whole-of-Government response. We are feeling the effects here in the United Kingdom because the poison is seeping out of Tehran.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done previously and for the support he has provided. I completely agree with what he said about Jonathan Hall. Jonathan Hall is a figure of great integrity and authority. We are lucky to have him, and we benefit hugely from the advice and support that he provides in his own, and very independent, way.
I completely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the leadership of MI5. We do not say a lot about them in this House for understandable reasons, but they do extraordinary work and we should be grateful for their service.
The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that this is not just a domestic challenge; it is a challenge that requires an international coalition of the willing, and we need to work incredibly closely with our partners—with the US, with our partners in Europe and partners in the region. We are progressing that work with colleagues in the Foreign Office and as the right hon. Gentleman knows—he reflected on the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—the Prime Minister personally takes it very seriously. These are the most profoundly important matters. We take them incredibly seriously, and we are working across Government and with our partners to address them.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Minister is taking to combat Iranian state threats on our streets. He said in his statement that there was a long-standing pattern of targeting Jewish and Israeli people by the Iranian intelligence services. Although that is certainly no secret, it is still very concerning for the community involved. I absolutely welcome what he said about maintaining funding for protective security measures around synagogues, community centres and schools, but given the seriousness of the situation, will he set out in more detail how the Government will protect the Jewish community in the UK from those and other threats?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point—that concern will be shared right across the House. I spoke in my opening remarks about the importance that we attach to ensuring that all communities in our country are not just safe but feel as if they are safe. He is absolutely right to reference the importance of ensuring that our Jewish communities feel that they are both properly valued and properly protected. He will have heard me refer to the important work of the Community Security Trust, to which we have made a significant financial commitment to support that work. I have written to the trust today, and will meet it, I hope, in the very near future. It does extraordinary work, and we are grateful for that. I am very happy to take this opportunity to reassure him and all Members of our continued commitment to work with the trust in the future.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome what the Security Minister said about the inclusion of Iran in the enhanced tier of FIRS. Can he confirm—I hope that the ISC will look at this—that as that system operationalises, it will also cover more complex situations in which it is not as straightforward as somebody taking instruction from an organ of that state or from some other organisation, including under FIRS, or indeed situations in which there is no actual instruction or relationship at all but somebody chooses to act on that organ’s behalf?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his previous work. He makes an important point, and I can absolutely give him the assurances that he seeks. We will have much more to say about that in future, but I hope he recognises that today marks a significant step forward. This measure was introduced by the previous Government, and we think that it is the right way to proceed and are seeking to progress it at pace.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I am confident that he will agree that this House, the Government and the country bear no animosity towards the Iranian people, and that it is the actions of the Iranian state that we are deeply concerned about and taking action on. In that regard, will he give me more detail on the training available for police officers, who must often counter the actions of the Iranian state on our streets in constituencies around the country?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes two important points. I completely agree with his point about the Iranian people. This is not about them; it is about the targeted activity of the Iranian state. We are absolutely clear that the measures we have announced today are specifically for those state entities, not for the people of Iran.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about police training. I confirmed in my introductory remarks that work by counter-terrorism police, with all our territorial police forces right around the country, is already under way. It is absolutely essential that police officers on the beat, wherever they may be, have the training that they need to spot and more effectively understand the risks and threats that some of our citizens are subjected to. That is relatively new work; it is being progressed at pace. I am grateful to counter-terrorism police and to police forces right around the country for their commitment to it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It has been a privilege and an honour to engage with my many Iranian constituents over the years, but I am always filled with horror when they tell me stories not only of what is happening to their family and friends back home in Iran—particularly the oppression still suffered by many women—but of their experiences in this country. I very much welcome the measures that the Minister has outlined, particularly in relation to police training, which I know will make a big difference to my constituents.
One issue that those constituents often raise with me, and which is one of the biggest for British-Iranians living in this country, is banking. I very much welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on money laundering, but British-Iranian residents who have been living here for many years often find that their bank accounts are frozen, which leaves them in considerable financial hardship—some of those banking restrictions are just imposed without discrimination. Will reassurances can the Minister give my constituents about their ability to continue banking without restrictions?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those points, and for referring to our work to ensure that, wherever they are in the country, police officers have the requisite knowledge and experience to handle such matters when they encounter them. She makes a good, practical point about frozen accounts and banking arrangements for British-Iranians. Let me take that away and come back to her. She will recall that I mentioned earlier the work being done, through the defending democracy taskforce, to review the issue of transnational oppression. We are looking carefully at what more we can do in that area. I will take away her point about banking, for which I am grateful.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
It is welcome that the Minister is taking such strong action to counter the threat posed by Iran on Britain’s streets, but will he explain how the process to consider a proscription-style framework to tackle the IRGC will work?
Dan Jarvis
In opposition, the now Home Secretary rightly did not think that the existing legislative architecture was necessarily appropriate. That is the challenge of terrorist entities such as al-Qaeda, and ensuring that a mechanism that might be used to proscribe a state entity will work in the same effective way. In order to seek advice, the Home Secretary has commissioned Jonathan Hall to look carefully at that. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say, Mr Hall is superbly qualified to do that work and is working at pace on it. We will have more to say about it in the near future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement. The Minister is absolutely right to underscore the interconnected nature of the threats that we face from malign state actors—which George W. Bush called the “axis of evil.” Given recent events in the US—the apparent distancing of Washington from some of its allies, and an alignment, perhaps, with President Putin—and noting the strong connection between Tehran and Moscow, does the Minister share my concern that America may not have fully understood the connection between the two, and what conversations will he and his colleagues have with the US about the need for it to distance itself entirely and cauterise its relationships, as far as that nexus between Tehran and Moscow is concerned?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always am. He always asks challenging questions. I completely agree with his point about the interconnected nature of the threat—he is absolutely right in his assessment. He will understand, as a very experienced Member of this House and a former Minister, that I need to choose my words incredibly carefully, so I will say that we place huge emphasis on the importance of the relationship with the United States. That is why the Prime Minister was in Washington recently to meet President Trump.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand from his ministerial service the huge importance and value of the operational partnerships that we have with the US in the wider context of the Five Eyes arrangements. Those are valuable linkages from which we benefit hugely. As a relatively new Government, we are still investing in those relationships to ensure that we get the most out of them. We will work very closely with our new US allies to target what he rightly describes as the interconnected nature of the threats from countries about which he knows all about.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Israelis have done a huge amount to dismantle Iran’s influence in the middle east, so will the Minister ensure that we carry on giving Isreal the support to ensure Iran is not able to re-establish that influence in some areas through Hezbollah and Hamas? Will he also ensure that British companies are not supplying components to Iran through a series of countries with which they can trade, and that we are able to achieve our stated objectives on that supply chain?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes important points. He is right to attach importance to our relationships with partners in the middle east. We invest heavily in those relationships, and it is in our national interest to do so. He made a very good point about supply chains. I can give him an assurance on that, but it is a good point and I will think further on it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I welcome the content and nature of the Minister’s statement. He says that he is considering new ways to enforce robust immigration rules specifically to address threats from Iran. Can he flesh out what that means, specifically on the Government’s stance about proscription of the IRGC? I know he is reluctant to talk about that, but he may sense the frustration among right hon. and hon. Members that zero context has been given and the Government are standing behind a veil of obscurity about how that might happen.
The Minister spoke appropriately about the protections that will, quite rightly, be afforded to members of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, and previously, in response to the urgent question, he spoke about the protections that will be afforded by the UK state to Hongkongers against foreign state actors acting against their best interests. Will he tell the House what the UK state will do to protect Iranians and Persians living in the UK who are the subject of malign foreign state action against their interests?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; there was quite a lot in his question. With regard to proscription, I hope I have given him a sense of the importance we attach to the work that the Home Secretary has commissioned. It is entirely reasonable for the Government to say that we have looked at the existing legislative framework and decided that we need an independent reviewer and some independent advice to guide us about whether proscription is most appropriate for the state threats that we undoubtedly face. I think that is the right way to proceed. I hope he understands that no Government would ever get into a running commentary about proscription, because that is not helpful and undermines the deterrent effect of that tool.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about ensuring that, as a Government, we do everything we possibly can to protect Iranians who are currently residing in the UK. I can give him those assurances. Hopefully he heard my words earlier about the work the defending democracy taskforce is progressing and about the transnational repression review, which is an important piece of work. The process has taken some time, but it should provide the mechanisms by which Government can most effectively ensure that people in this country are protected from the kind of threats that we have been discussing today.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I know I bore the Minister incessantly with my repetitive calls for the proscription of the IRGC, so I welcome what he has to say today, particularly about the independent adviser’s review, which I hope will be rapidly available for him to take action. May I pick up the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the need for a whole of Government response? That does not mean just the Foreign Office as well as the Home Office; it is wider than that. I could give the Minister a single example or a number of examples. Successive British Governments have stood aside while British universities have done military research in conjunction with Iranian researchers on battlefield armour, range-finding lasers, drones and fighter jets. Will he ensure that the whole of Whitehall brings the focus to this that is required?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman has never bored me—[Interruption.] I sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not everybody in the Chamber would be able to say precisely those same words, but I can say them and look the right hon. Gentleman in the eye. He is right to mention Jonathan Hall’s work. He will know that Jonathan Hall is not an individual who sits on his hands; he will work at pace. We need to get a move on with this, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will and that work will progress at rapid pace.
The right hon. Gentleman’s point about wider Government is exactly right. There is an important role for the Department for Education. The defending democracy taskforce that was set up by the previous Government, which I now chair, brings together virtually all the Departments, as well as a number of other operational partners, so that fulcrum point across Government that looks at these matters very much has that wider approach, which he is right to raise.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. It is reassuring that the Government are not losing sight of all the other threats that face the United Kingdom and our allies. I praise and endorse his comments about how our relationship with the United States is far deeper and more integrated in defence and security, goes well beyond any disagreements we have with the present White House and will endure. However, I warn him that while he has been speaking, President Putin has made overtures to the Iranian regime to offer to broker talks between Iran and President Trump. Is it now time to draw to the United States’ attention the true nature of their new friend in Moscow?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great wisdom on these matters. I simply say that I completely agree with his analysis of the depth of the relationship with the United States. The truth of the matter is that all our constituents are kept much safer because of the partnership arrangement we have with the United States and other Five Eyes allies. That is the most important security relationship we have, and we need to invest in it for the long term. I can give him an assurance that that is what we will do.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. He will probably be aware that at the start of this year our close ally the United Arab Emirates proscribed 19 organisations for their links to the IRGC and Iran, and that eight of those organisations are headquartered in the UK. Will he give a commitment to the House not to take action today, but to review what has been decided by our allies and take action to prevent those organisations from carrying out terrorist activities in the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. I was in the United Arab Emirates on Friday, so I am well versed on the points he made. I have responded to that issue in the House previously, but I give him an assurance that we will look closely at it, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his very diligent turn at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
Plan for Neighbourhoods
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods.
The defining mission of this Government is delivering economic growth and driving up living standards. In that pursuit we are determined that nowhere is left behind, because, as every Member of this House will know, when our economy has prospered in the past, not everywhere has benefited. Over the past 14 years, decisions taken by the Conservatives have seen too many neighbourhoods fall into decline, with the most deprived areas suffering more than others.
As we deliver our mandate for change, the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods means that in 75 places across the UK, which for too long have been underestimated and undervalued, this Government will support the delivery of growth and access to opportunity and raise living standards, because when our local neighbourhoods thrive the rest of the country thrives too.
Our new plan for neighbourhoods marks the turning of the page on levelling up. This Government will not repeat the mistakes of the past: no more micromanaged pots of money or pitting communities against one another to bid for them. The truth is, for all the promises about levelling up, the Tories’ instinct was to hoard power and hold our economy back. Some 75 towns were promised funding that did not exist, with inflexible restrictions on how that money could be spent. Our plan for neighbourhoods stands in contrast with the Conservatives’ unfunded and failed approach. Unlike the Tories’ list of restrictive options for how towns could spend funding, we have doubled the policy activity that can be considered by neighbourhood boards and put communities at the heart of making these changes.
The money will be spent on a broadened set of interventions and has completely different objectives, aligned with the missions that the Prime Minister set out in our plan for change. For example, communities can now spend funding on the things that really matter to them, such as the modernisation of social housing, community-led housing, skills support, cohesion, childcare and much more. We are making good on commitments to deprived communities, giving each of the 75 places the certainty that they will receive up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade.
In many communities, work has already been undertaken, and we want to build on that rather than undo it. That is why in each area, we will support new neighbourhood boards, bringing together residents, local businesses and grassroots campaigners to draw up and implement a new vision for their area. For the first time, that will include representatives from social housing and workplace representatives and, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the representative in the devolved legislature. In consultation with its community, each board will be given the freedom to decide how to spend the £2 million a year to deliver the priorities of local people, ranging from repairs to pavements and high streets to setting up community grocers, co-operatives or even neighbourhood watches.
These new, broadened objectives will give communities the tools to make informed decisions, with a list of interventions aligned with this Government’s central missions. Those interventions have already been assessed as demonstrating good value for money, so they can be pursued without delay. We have also published a toolkit outlining the wide-ranging powers available to communities and local authorities in England, with similar powers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to come following consultation with the devolved Governments. This is about giving communities autonomy and about people designing and delivering the change that they want to see.
Our new approach puts communities at the heart of delivery, which is why we have introduced three new objectives to guide the plan. First, there is the importance of building thriving places. People take immense pride in their local area, but too many of our high streets and estates have been neglected and left behind. This funding can be used to ensure that town centres and neighbourhoods better reflect the needs of their community, giving residents a say in how they are designed. It will deliver change that people can see and identify with, so that at the end of this Parliament, people can look out from their doorsteps and see a better neighbourhood. We also want the UK to be a country with world-class public services that work for everyone, which is why this objective will support services that are accessible, responsive and tailored to local need, because investing in young people’s futures and in preventive measures now will ease pressure on services over the long term.
The second aim is to build stronger communities. We want to empower neighbourhood boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division and to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood to restore a collective sense of belonging to their community. That is about understanding how division is not only an impediment to growth, but a barrier to driving up living standards.
Our third aim is to empower people to take back control. Everybody should be in the driving seat of their own life and should feel in control of their future, but that can feel like a distant prospect when people are living from payslip to payslip, stuck on a waiting list or just not listened to. It is quite right that people want to have a say over the future of their community, with enough to get by and the opportunity to make the most of their lives. We want to make sure that children have the best start in life and that adults can live the life that they want.
I will finish by talking about the inspiration for this programme, which can be traced back through six decades of community politics. We have drawn enormously from John Prescott and the noble Baroness Armstrong’s new deal for communities, which provided the stability of long-term funding backed by the support of central Government. Like them, our aspiration is to empower local people to drive the renewal of their neighbourhood and to deliver the transformational change that they want to see. This announcement also has its origins in the community development policies of Wilson and Callaghan, who drew the link between social deprivation and social division, and now we are looking to the future.
The Prime Minister has been clear that the task before us requires a decade of national renewal, and our country has all the necessary raw ingredients, untapped talent and potential across every town, city, village and estate, but we also have people without enough to get by and places and public services that have been hollowed out. Addressing that is the central driver of our plan for neighbourhoods, and that is just the start. We have already begun to deliver a real shift of power, aligned with the Deputy Prime Minister’s broader work on devolution, making work pay, fixing the foundations of local government and building decent homes, but this is also a down payment on what we know that communities can achieve. We will give people and places the resources and powers that they need to succeed.
Today’s announcement is a response to anyone in these 75 places who wants to see change. It sends a message that the full force of Government will be there to help them to deliver it, and that is why I commend this statement to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Much in this statement builds on the work of the previous Government, and we share the new Government’s ambitions for the growth and renewal of our neighbourhoods and high streets, which are so fundamental to our constituents’ quality of life. As the Minister knows, there is a history behind this statement that links back to the desire of all our constituents to have a proper say in the development of their home area. In a country that is as grossly centralised, by democratic standards, as the UK, that local voice is vital.
EU cohesion funds, which were the predecessor of the UK shared prosperity fund, were directly accountable to both the UK Government and local representatives. In the short timeframe in which the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was in effect, it sought to bring to bear a wide variety of national resources on exactly the challenges that the Minister referred to in his statement. There was a £2.6 billion fund allocated for regeneration and communities; the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, which was specifically designed to support treasured assets such as pubs and theatres, where there was strong community support; and the £1.5 billion long-term plan for tax. We know that local leaders welcomed that investment, and many Members across the House spoke very warmly of the benefits to their constituents, so the challenge to the Government today is to set out how this very small and limited project sits against that much broader levelling-up ambition and, in particular, where it sits against the £3.6 billion towns fund set out under the previous Government.
The House will acknowledge that this statement comes at a time when this Government’s financial decisions are bearing down very heavily on our communities. The massive rise in national insurance contributions, the increases in business rates on pubs, retail businesses and hospitality, the changes to business property relief and the multibillion-pound funding gap that opened up in council budgets as a result of the Government’s Budget last October all weigh very heavily in the balance against this modest announcement. That leaves aside the impact of the loss of things such as the rural services grant and the community ownership fund, which were specifically targeted at delivering support to communities that needed it.
While we welcome this rebadging and rehashing of a scheme that we progressed when we were in office and its allocation to largely the same list of recipients, we have some questions to put to the Minister. The first is about the accountability of the proposed neighbourhood boards. It is a significant concern that the Minister finds time to say that the boards will include trade union representatives, but not to mention the democratically elected representatives of those local communities—a trend that sits alongside the changes in the proposed planning White Paper. Local democracy is vital if these boards are to work effectively.
The second question is about the lack of a clear purpose for these resources. While it sounds like a positive thing to broaden the range of areas in which they can be spent, it is a serious concern that the Government again choose refurbishment and modernisation of social housing, which is already allocated for in other areas of local government funding. It begs the question of whether these funds will, in fact, go towards making up shortfalls that the Budget created in other areas of Government spending.
Finally, there is real concern that broadening the criteria, and choosing to use generalised national statistics rather than local understanding of need to decide how to allocate funding, will mean that the resource is allocated in a way that simply does not reflect needs and local circumstances. A bidding process allows local authorities—which lead and represent their areas, and can identify particular needs—to come forward to Government and present a plan. The process of allocation that is being suggested creates a serious risk that those who can do the most to regenerate and benefit our high streets and communities will lose out in favour of those who are simply able to meet the criteria of Whitehall box-ticking.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for those questions. He is right to say that this plan builds on the previous long-term plan for towns commitment, which is why we thought it prudent to retain the same recipient areas. That promise has been made, and it should be kept. However, when I entered the Department on my first day in government, and talked to civil servants, it was astonishing to find out that the programme—a £1.5 billion commitment made by the previous Government—was unfunded. It was funded through a reserve that had been spent three times over. That is simply no way to run a country. I am very pleased that we have been able to keep that commitment to those communities, because goodness knows there would have been disappointment had we not.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the plan’s place in the wider environment. Of course, we committed to the transition year of shared prosperity funding in the Budget. We are now in a spending review period, and as I said in my statement, we are committed to getting communities the tools and resources that they need in order to shape place.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions on accountability, of course local councillors are still involved. We are talking about changes to broaden neighbourhood boards. We want local councillors to be involved; we would like local Members of Parliament to be involved; and in the areas where they exist, we would like devolved representatives to be involved. However, we think that the voices of people who work in the communities are also valuable, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a lack of clear purpose. I think this is where we are in different spaces, because I believe in freedom to make decisions locally. I believe that expertise is held locally; the wisdom about communities across this country is held by the local community, rather than the Minister. That might perhaps be revelatory for a Minister to say. I believe that changing a community—whether through what we call local growth, levelling up, or any of the other things that it has been called over the past 60 years—is an inside job, best done by local communities, and that my role as Minister and our role as Government is to get communities the tools and resources that they need. We differ on that point.
Even the previous Government moved away from their affection for the bidding process by the end of the last Parliament. They understood that it did not work—that a debilitating beauty parade that pits communities against each other was not a very good way of getting money to those communities. However, another point of difference is that I believe in a longer-term allocative settlement that is more flexible and guided by people locally, whereas the Opposition believe in shorter-term bidding and central prescription.
Alex Norris
I believe that the best value for money is when communities have the tools and resources to shape place themselves, according to their criteria, rather than mine. That is how we drive change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the statement. A number of Members have been on councils, and some of us still serve on them. If we are all honest, the unfortunate reality is that the competitive tendering process did pit some councils against each other, including deprived councils. It is right that we move away from that, and away from the sticking-plaster politics that we have seen over the past few years.
I want to press the Minister to give us a bit more of an understanding of how the neighbourhood boards will be set up and how they will function. Will there be a clear recruitment process to get the local buy-in that is critical? As the Minister said, it is important that we bring communities along with us. If there is conflict between local authorities and the boards—for example, over a regeneration plan—will one have the power to veto the other, and will the Department have oversight, so that it can intervene, should there be serious concerns about interventions and operation?
The Minister said that it was important for communities to have a say in their future, so is the Department looking at the community right to buy? I declare my interest as a Labour and Co-operative MP. Through the community right to buy, we have seen local pubs, libraries, leisure centres and so much more saved. When can we expect to see that new light, and when will that legislation come forward?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for those questions. I agree with what she said about competitive tendering; the quid pro quo is that the Government of the day have to be very clear about how allocations are made. My commitment is that we will always be very transparent about how the decisions are made, and I know that the Select Committee will take a strong interest in that.
Turning to the establishment of boards, I suspect that one of the themes of discussion over the next few minutes will be our not wanting to hold back areas that are making great progress. Areas with established boards may take advantage of the opportunity to add more people to those boards, and may move on at pace, while other areas may want to treat this moment as a chance to reboot their board. Either way, the basic principle is that the local authority will be the ring-holder, supported by the local Member of Parliament, but once that board has got going, we expect it to be in leadership. We do not want boards to have significant tensions with their councils, and we would expect any tensions to be resolved in the usual way, but those boards will have the power to get on with the job.
The community right to buy was a component of the White Paper. We are looking forward to delivering the community right to buy, because we know that it would be greatly valued, whether we are talking about buying pubs or other buildings in communities. We are very keen on that, and as a fellow Labour and Co-op MP, I am particularly keen on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome this plan to work with communities to improve local amenities and engagement in the process. We also welcome the move away from local council areas bidding against each other, and towards a more objective approach, based, for example, on indices of multiple deprivation. In our opinion and my opinion, the previous system divisively pitted one area against another in a way that did damage to more areas than it helped.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to allowing communities to take action to improve their area. Given sufficient powers and resources, local authorities can play a major role in responding to climate and nature emergencies, whether through the insulation of homes, enhancing green spaces or improving air quality. However, the Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis. As a result, councils have gone bankrupt around the country, and many are feeling the strain of cuts to public services and a lack of investment in community assets.
No community can flourish without proper powers and resources, so we welcome the plan’s commitment to ensuring that new neighbourhood boards work with local authorities to implement new funding. However, we urge the Government to confirm that local authorities will be funded and resourced substantially to take on this additional workload.
The financial burden on councils has forced many to make impossible choices on funding. In my council of Somerset, for example, nearly 70% of council tax receipts go on care for vulnerable adults and children, which many believe should be a national responsibility. Until we have a national solution to the care crisis, councils will continue to be held back from reaching their full potential. We welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in community-led improvement.
We also welcome the new neighbourhood boards, which should provide community engagement throughout the process. We urge the Government to reconsider their decision to remove district council-level scrutiny from the planning process. Where Whitehall takes power and decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it also takes decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic and will ultimately slow up the process of getting the homes that we need. We also call on the Government to confirm that nature and climate specialists will be included on the neighbourhood boards. Finally, can I ask the Minister—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the hon. Member that there is a time limit. I will give him one more sentence.
Gideon Amos
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State review the list of 75 towns, so that others can be included in future? Finally, will the Government consider rolling the plans into neighbourhood plans, so that they are given more statutory effect when planning decisions are made?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those questions. On the point about climate and nature, gaining consent from the community often starts with buy-in, and localised climate interventions through these programmes may well be a good way to do that. On the local authorities point, the Budget was the first step in rebuilding local authority finances, which will take time. As the hon. Member says, resolutions on social care will take some of the pressure off, too. On planning, local plans are so important, and not enough of the country is covered by them. Local people rightly want a say, and the best way to ensure that is through the local plan process. On the 75 towns point, the ones that were previously announced are the ones for which we have honoured commitments, but as he says, there may be scope to go further in the future. I cannot run ahead of the spending review, but if we can prove that things have worked in these 75 towns, there will be a strong case to do them elsewhere.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The previous Government admitted that they thought that Labour’s formulas, which provided money to deprived urban areas, “needed to be undone”, so I welcome this Government’s commitment to tackling deprivation, which is much-needed. As a local authority area, Middlesbrough has the lowest wages in the region and some of the worst statistics for deprivation in the qualifying metrics, so it is regrettable that no community in my constituency of Middlesbrough and Thornaby East has qualified for the long-term plan for towns, which is a legacy of the predecessor Government’s failed levelling-up agenda. I fully understand the rationale, in terms of the parameters and populations, and the need to follow through on promises previously made, but will the Minister confirm the steps that he is taking to move on from the Conservatives’ pork barrel politics, and provide assurance that the Government’s determination is to invest in the deprived urban areas not served in today’s announcement?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the chance to reiterate that we wanted to honour the commitment made to those 75 communities, because we felt that it was the decent thing to do. Our commitment, which I have given at the Dispatch Box previously, is that in the future we will have allocative formulas based on deprivation and need, and we will go where the data says we should. Too often in the past Ministers sought to go where the politics were, but that did not serve those communities or the country, and we will do much better in the future.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Minister will understand that in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, we were delighted to receive the towns fund money from the last Government, and we are grateful to him for—in his words—honouring that commitment from the Dispatch Box. May I also thank him for the courtesy he has shown in the discussions that he and I have had about this? As I have said to him before, I hope that he will pay a state visit to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we can show him not only the delights of the town, but how well we will ensure that this taxpayers’ money is spent.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that, and for the conversations that I have had with the right hon. Gentleman. The difference between his area and the other 74 is that in his case, the connection is with a town council, rather than a local authority. As he knows, I am a great proponent of town and parish councils. He bears a heavy weight as a result, but we want to demonstrate that this is a model that works and could be used again in the future. I look forward to working with him, and I will of course pay that visit.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The two towns in my constituency are delighted to be included on the list of towns that will receive this long-term funding—such certainty has been absent from previous financial commitments—but I am particularly interested in the Government’s arrangements for the future. Under the previous arrangements for town board deals, decisions have been made about putting money into parts of projects that have been left to suffer delay and incur extra costs; in my case, money that had been intended for the library was reallocated. Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there will be an opportunity to review the Government’s arrangements for the new neighbourhood boards?
Alex Norris
Yes: now is the time to review those boards, and we will be asking for that to be done by the end of next month. There will then be time for the boards to formulate plans over the next few months, and to put in writing how the money will be used to make that commitment to, and contract with, the local community. I hope that communities become involved in those conversations—indeed, I am sure that they will—so that the plans reflect what local people want.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Minister referred to his support for parish and town councils. Can he explain a little more about the neighbourhood boards? Will their geographical footprint be similar to that of parish and town councils in the 75 areas concerned? If so, would it not have been better to give this role to elected bodies, such as parish and town councils, rather than to unelected new boards?
Alex Norris
The elected body that will be the fundholder will be a local authority. As I have said, in only one case do the arrangements differ from those for the other councils, apart from parish and town councils. As for the boundaries, they reflect the human rather than the political geographies; there may or may not be points of alignment. The best models will have a local political as well as a local community say—I think that that balance can be found—but if there are concerns about boundaries, now is a very short moment in which that could be revisited. There is not much flexibility to change the scope completely, but if sensible tweaks can be made, we will of course have the necessary conversations.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is welcome that today’s plan finally delivers on the unmet promises made to communities through the last Government’s long-term plan for towns, but since the selection methodology in that plan was delivered, Pendleton in Salford has sadly lost its only leisure centre and pool to fire, which has left a community who were already starved of leisure facilities with nothing at all. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what help the Government can give Salford to ensure that this vital facility is rebuilt as a matter of urgency?
Alex Norris
I am very sad to hear about the fire, and I will of course be happy to have that meeting.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the plan’s commitment to social housing and to ensuring that development is community-led. However, it is disappointing that Somerset will not feel the benefit, given that demand for social housing in Glastonbury and Somerton, and across the county, vastly outweighs supply. Can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to extend the plan to allocate further funding, in addition to the 75 local authorities confirmed today?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady knows that I cannot run ahead of the spending review. Other funds are available, including through the enhanced local government settlement and the shared prosperity fund, but if we can prove that this is an effective model, there may be scope in the future to extend it.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
For all the talk of levelling up from the Conservatives, I gently remind them of my Hasting and Rye constituents’ experience of levelling up: £150,000 of taxpayers’ money was given to a Conservative donor to improve Hastings town centre, and all we have left as a result is a boarded-up shop. I really welcome the Minister’s commitment of £20 million for Hastings, which will be spent in a responsible way, based on the priorities of my constituents, whether that is broken pavements, broken bus shelters or buying back important community assets, from pubs to closed concert venues—I know there is a lot of concern in Hastings about St Mary in the Castle. Can he explain how residents of Hastings can feed into the process for how the money is spent?
Alex Norris
I am aware of the history that my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that this will be a reboot moment for Hastings and a chance to get some of the benefit that the community undoubtedly wants to see. The plan will be to get a board in place quickly, and then to develop a neighbourhood plan. I exhort the board to engage with its community as best as possible, and there are some brilliant examples. Chesterfield and Arbroath spring to mind, and I am sure those communities will be generous in sharing their experience of how to do it well.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister and I had a very consensual exchange yesterday at questions, and he knows that Arbroath has been exceptional in this endeavour. Can he assure me that where communities have good structures, those structures will be kept? The funding is welcome, but it is fair to say that there has been some disappointment in areas such as Perth and Dunfermline. There has also been some disappointment about the promises that were not kept by those who backed our leaving the EU on the lifeline funding that came from the European Union. Can he give us some of his thoughts on how we match some of that up? Finally, will he assure us that devolution will absolutely be respected in any plans going forward?
Alex Norris
As I said yesterday, it was impossible in the church hall not to be struck by the extent of the consultation in Arbroath, which is a model for elsewhere. As the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have said, we see devolution through the prism of wanting to reset our relationships with the devolved Governments. I have had those conversations, as the hon. Gentleman may know, and I will continue to do so. Having representatives of the devolved legislature involved in the board is a positive step. We do not want to hold back progress where areas have made significant progress, so they should move at pace. I believe that we will be able to make the relatively minor tweaks that are needed in their cases and move forward at great pace. With regard to previous structural funds, we were able to deliver what we could in the Budget, and what is coming forward will be looked at as part of the spending review.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the overall thrust of this important area of policy, which puts communities at the heart of regeneration and investment. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I appreciate that Reading has unfortunately missed out this time around, and I hope we are successful in the future. Could he explain how successful initiatives, such as high street action zones, will be incorporated into this sort of work? Similarly, how will the Government incorporate assets of community value and other local matters that have helped communities to rebuild and re-energise their areas?
Alex Norris
That is a really important point. The support provided previously was well meant but not very efficient. What we have seen over recent years is an accumulation of various different strands of levelling-up funding, which was less than the sum of its parts. One of the challenges is that we lose great insight, so we will absolutely draw on the best initiatives—whether that is high street accelerators, community ownership or funding assets of community value—and share that insight with not just those winning 75 recipients, but the rest of the country.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Torbay is the premier resort in the United Kingdom, but behind our palm trees and Victorian villas is the most deprived council in the west of England, so it is a truly welcome that Torbay is one of these 75 neighbourhoods. Sadly, we have had a pregnant pause while the new Government walked through the wreckage of the finances left by the previous Conservative Government, but it is very welcome that this money is coming to bear. It is also really heartening that it will be over a number of years, so we can have confidence about how to support our communities. However, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) are particularly concerned about the resulting pregnant pause, because we have oven-ready opportunities for our communities. I have already written to the Minister on this issue, but is it possible that, after conversations with him, we could pre-spend rather than have even more months of delays in implementing the changes we all desperately want for our local communities?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forbearance and for his consistent lobbying. I want to be very clear that the programme starts from 2026, and that cannot be brought forward. Local authorities do have the flexibility to spend earlier, understanding that the money is coming, but that would of course be a decision for them to take locally.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and his Department for today’s announcement and for the commitment to Leigh in the plan for neighbourhoods. As he knows, Leigh is home to some amazing community organisations and businesses that are working hard to improve our area, but they have been doing it alone for too long. Today’s cash boost for Leigh changes that. Does he agree that this plan marks the first step towards a new partnership in which communities are supported and empowered to shape the places they call home?
Alex Norris
I know of Leigh’s great creativity, not least at the Spinners Mill, which my hon. Friend used to run. From our perspective, we want this to be a reset of the way in which central Government work with local communities to unleash that creativity. As I have said, I think this was seen by the Opposition as revelatory, but I believe the people of Leigh, rather than me, should make decisions about the future of Leigh.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is indeed very welcome in Northern Ireland, where it affects Coleraine and Londonderry in my patch. The 10-year period is particularly welcome as it allows for planning and for proposals to be put in place. Can he assure us that, towards the end of this Parliament, we will review the plan to see if it is possible to develop it and to become very focused on trying to get benefit for our constituents?
Alex Norris
Yes, this is a really important point. Plans do take time to gear up, and there may not be a uniform spend of exactly £2 million every year. There may be some flexibilities, which is why I think such a length of time is valuable. However, after the fourth year we will do a stocktake, because we do not want places spinning their wheels and building up a huge backlog of funding. Plans have to be realistic, so by the end of this Parliament, exactly as the hon. Member says, we will have a full stocktake.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for this very positive statement. I am naturally delighted that my home town of Thetford in South West Norfolk will receive a share of this money. It is really going to help unlock Thetford’s potential, but after 14 years of so much decline, what measures will be taken to ensure that this money is spent as quickly as possible and makes as much of a difference as possible in the short term?
Alex Norris
We will work closely with Thetford and all the other recipients so that they have the best possible insight about what is effective and about some of the good practices elsewhere. We have developed, as part of the prospectus, a series of pre-approved interventions, so Thetford could pick from among those knowing that they have already been assessed as representing value for money. Such information and insight should be there to build a really effective plan really quite quickly.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The plan for neighbour-hoods prospectus published on the website earlier today talks about ending the “Whitehall knows best” culture. With that in mind, would the Minister look at the current allocation of 75% capital and 25% revenue, and if that split needed to be changed in a local area, would he consider doing that? In his statement, he said that this
“is about giving communities autonomy and about people designing and delivering the change that they want to see.”
I am sure that all communities in the UK would wish to have that autonomy, so how could the principle of neighbourhood boards be rolled out, even if the funding is not there to begin with?
Alex Norris
Absolutely, we would want to see those boards meeting. I know from other areas where they have anticipated and set up their boards early that they have asked them to do other things as well, which I think is a really good sign of mature partnership. On the revenue-capital split, I am afraid there is no flexibility, although that point is heard. As part of the evaluation we will see what is effective, but I am afraid that what has been agreed in the Budget is what is agreed.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for today’s statement and wholly welcome the up to £20 million for the town of Coatbridge in my constituency. I am grateful to him for taking the time last year to speak to me about the former towns fund. Coatbridge was earmarked for levelling-up funding, but that was put at risk by the previous Government announcing the plans, but cynically —yet perhaps unsurprisingly—failing to identify how they would fund them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by delivering this funding, it is this Government who are supporting regeneration in Coatbridge, putting local people and local businesses at the heart of decision making to provide much-needed jobs and growth?
Alex Norris
Yes, absolutely. When my hon. Friend came to visit me in my office, I felt that he and his colleagues had come rather as wallet inspectors and that I was not going to get away with the shirt on my back. I have to be candid: as I said then, I really did not know whether we would be able to find the funding to deliver the programme, which is why I am overjoyed that we have. Those promises were made and needed to be kept, for the people of Coatbridge and beyond.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I rise to thank the Minister for his commitment and his assurances today, not least on behalf of the people of Peterhead, which is in my constituency. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked him about the geographical footprint of the new bodies. I want to press him on that, because it is important to be clear whether there would be scope within the reorganisation of the boards to extend their footprint. Is he able to comment on that please?
Alex Norris
Yes, that is not an unfamiliar ask that colleagues have made. As I have said, we could not support boundary changes that really change the nature of an area—if we went up to a population of 1 million people, it would cease to be the programme it was. However, if there are common-sense changes that could be made, we will look at them very closely. Now would be a very good moment for a local authority and a local MP to come forward with such an idea.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the Minister, I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative MP. Today’s announcement is a great win for our movement, putting power where it belongs: in our communities. In areas such as mine, community can be found in our proud grassroots sports teams. Will the Minister update us on what more can be done to empower fans to own and shape their local sports teams?
Alex Norris
We are very enthusiastic about fan ownership and we are, through the fan-led review, taking forward many things related to football. The community ownership fund had its final round just before Christmas, which in many cases had a sporting element to it. The shared prosperity fund, through the local authority, can support sports teams. We understand that sports teams, facilities and fields are a huge part of local communities. We are committed to ensuring that local communities have control and the security of knowing that they will be there at the heart of their community.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the vision that will truly transform communities and constituencies such as mine. I am made up that Kirkby will get a massive funding boost under the Government’s plan. Knowsley is the second-most deprived area in the country, yet communities across the constituency never stop working to improve their home. Centre 63, in the heart of Kirkby, is a vital youth and community hub that was opened by my illustrious predecessor, Harold Wilson, who was mentioned in the Minister’s statement. I invite the Minister to meet me to discuss how we could give Knowsley more power, and the funding and resources we need, to shape the place that we call home.
Alex Norris
I absolutely support the points my hon. Friend makes. I know the people of Knowsley are very proud of the communities that make up Knowsley. I was very pleased to visit recently and to talk to my hon. Friend and her local authority, which really has a strong sense of local purpose. I would be very happy to have similar conversations about the plan to support Kirkby and much more.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for today’s statement and announcement, which are incredibly welcome. I am most grateful, not least because my constituency of West Dunbartonshire and my home town of Clydebank are set to receive up to £20 million of funding. I met the Minister last year on this matter, too. Can he confirm that Clydebank will decide how best to use the funding to transform its town centre to ensure the investment has maximum transformational impact on my community, and that this demonstrates that this UK Labour Government are delivering for West Dunbartonshire and for Scotland?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. My hon. Friend has told me of the proud sense of identity in his community and the desire for the tools to enable them to shape their community, which is what we are doing through this programme. I know he will be a proud champion of getting residents’ voices into those local plans to ensure they are as effective as possible.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of the plan for neighbourhoods, which replaces the unfunded promises left by the previous Government. I welcome in particular the fact that it gives communities far more agency to decide how the money is spent. However, I am sure the Minister will appreciate that other communities across the country will have their noses pressed against the proverbial shop window, including Dartford, where projects such as the Swanscombe pavilion are in dire need of funding to bring them back to life. It has been great to discuss that particular project with the Minister. Could he give an indication of how we might build on this great programme throughout the Parliament to provide investment for critical projects outside the designated 75 places?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend succinctly expresses the strength of feeling from colleagues today. As I say, we are going into a spending review phase, which may be a good moment for those conversations. I enjoyed the conversation I had with him on the Swanscombe pavilion, and will look to support him in whatever way we can to try to find a solution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call John Slinger.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I know that the list of areas is the one the Minister inherited. He gave a truly brilliant statement, which spoke of a stronger community, of pride in place and of the need for thriving communities. I pay tribute to the Minister for visiting Rugby, where he did a walk-around and held a roundtable with me, and saw that our Labour borough councillors—my colleagues—are working hard to achieve all those things, as well as a vibrant community and business sector. I hope the Minister will work with them so that they can learn some of the lessons from this absolutely superb plan for neighbourhoods going forward.
Alex Norris
I greatly enjoyed my visit to Rugby. It took me more than an hour to realise that the great ovoid-shaped public art installations were rugby balls, hence the rugby pun. It was, perhaps, not my sharpest day. However, I really enjoyed the session we had with local business and community and the local authority. It was impossible not to come away with the sense that the community of Rugby really has a grip of where it wants to go in the future. As a Government and a Department, our job is to give that community the tools and resources to make that a reality.
Housing Estates
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to manage for freeholders on unadopted private or mixed-use housing estates; to set minimum standards for public amenities on new housing estates; to make provision about the enforcement of those standards; to make provision about the adoption by local authorities of public amenities on new housing estates; and for connected purposes.
In perhaps less parliamentarily precise language, but in words that might be a bit more relatable for those watching at home, the Bill will make sure we are finally tackling the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting far too many new homeowners on new estates right across the country.
I am incredibly proud to be here as a member of a party that recognises, in some of the best traditions of this country, the importance of a secure home in which people can build stable and prosperous lives. Indeed, as a Labour MP, I am probably contractually obligated to remind the House that one of the defining missions of this Labour Government is to get Britain building again. When it come to the state of the housing market that we inherited, it is clear that far too much simply is not working for far too many people. That may be due to the following: the broken state of the house supply system, which prices far too many people out of home ownership; the lack of affordable social rented homes or insecure private rented sector accommodation, creating precariousness for families who just should not have to face that in their lives; or the broken leasehold system, on which we announced some really important measures yesterday that I know many Members across the House will have welcomed.
Today, I wish to address a slightly less appreciated issue, but one that is no less important. Fleecehold housing estates are really growing right across the country. Fleecehold arises when homes are not adopted by local authorities, leaving new occupants exposed to fleecehold stealth taxes and paying money to a private management company for services that others receive as part of their council tax. They are on the hook to an estate management company, which is often unaccountable to them and often seeks to exploit them with every available power.
I know from lots of conversations that I have had with other Members across the House that I am far from alone in experiencing this issue. It is growing in my constituency, and also right across the country. Indeed, when I am away on holiday, I cannot escape it either. Over recess, I was up in Scotland visiting my family. A family friend took me to one side to raise the issues that they have had, which is quite typical. Their estate had gone unadopted for many years. There was no end in sight to this situation. In the meantime, they were paying hundreds of pounds each year for basic services that the rest of their neighbours were receiving through their council tax. But that was not the worst of it. When they missed one bill, which had gone up quite considerably at a week’s notice, rather than giving them any tolerance, their estate management company used the contractual powers that it had to go straight to their mortgage lender to have the amount added to that family’s mortgage and to drive a wrecking ball through their credit score in the process. This injustice cannot be allowed to persist, but for far too many people, this situation is becoming the norm.
There was once a time when local authorities would typically adopt housing estates when they came forward, but that simply is no longer the case. Indeed, a Competition and Markets Authority report into this issue last year found that up to 80% of new housing estates now go unadopted, with no end in sight. Indeed, many in my constituency have gone unadopted for well over a decade after completion. In the meantime, these householders are on the hook to a private management company that they never expected to be stuck with and for a length of time that they had never considered. The impact of that relationship has many facets. First, these householders are hit with what is in effect a new homes stealth tax. They are often forced to pay hundreds of pounds each year for services that every other homeowner would get as part of their council tax.
Typically, these bills are around £350, but that is a significant amount in a cost of living crisis. However, the bills are far from limited to that. I have had correspondence from constituents who have been hit by bills running to thousands of pounds. Again, very short notice is often given for steep increases. Across the whole country in 2022, the CMA found that more than £260 million was spent by households on exactly these charges. In that time, given the growth that we know has happened and that needs to continue to happen in our housing supply, that amount will only have grown. That cannot be fair and it cannot be justified.
Part of the issue is not just the injustice of paying twice for something, but the fact that this delivery mechanism is structurally designed to maximise the costs that these households bear. The management companies are not directly accountable to the homeowners—to the people to whom they are providing service. There is no incentive for these management companies to keep bills down. Indeed, I have had correspondence from people who have been charged upwards of £250 just for having one lightbulb changed on their estate. Moreover, the small size of some of these estates, or the extent to which they can be subdivided, means that the bulk of the high fees can often just covers management and professional services fees, and bear no relation to any actual service delivered on the estate.
Indeed, one estate had been subdivided to such a level that the vast majority of the bill that every household was paying was simply the fee for how they were audited each year. That cannot be right. Alongside that, it is not just the cost that is the problem, but the way that this is undercutting the very nature of the stability and prosperity that home ownership is meant to bring with it.
By being on the hook to these management companies, residents often have to fight for years to get bare-minimum works and services and responses to their queries. They also often find that when they look to move away from this exploitative relationship, they are unable to do so because of the risk created by that fleecehold system. I have spoken to homeowners whose sales have fallen through when crucial management pack information has not been provided by management companies in a timely way or who, when they have looked to move, have not been able to because their credit score has been decimated by exploitative charges when they have not been able to pay steep increases in their service charge in what the management company viewed to be a timely manner.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to trying to do something about this, but it is important that we address it at pace. Hopefully, we will be building 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament, but those homes will not deliver security or prosperity for the families who take them up if they trap them in fleecehold relationships and on fleecehold unadopted estates. My Bill looks to take several important steps forward to address this. First, it looks to build on some of the recommendations in last year’s CMA report to cut off unadopted estates at source, mandating minimum adoptable standards that all developers would have to reach as part of their works and laying out minimum adoption timelines that local authorities would be accountable for delivering on. All that would ensure that unadopted estate limbo can finally be a thing of the past.
Given the perilous state of local authority finances, I am aware that this could create some financial burden. However, giving certainty over the direction of travel in the adoption of estates and creating clarity about the minimum standards for estates to be adopted would create the conditions for local authorities to be able to assess, negotiate and condition through the planning process any value that they need to extract, to ensure that they can cover the maintenance costs of that estate. Hopefully, that will enable us to undercut that iniquitous persistence of two tiers of council tax payers at source.
Alongside that, it is important that we do not walk by those who are already in these estates, particularly because until we have a solution, they will only grow in number since they are now the default model for housing provision across this country. The Bill also looks to build on amendments tabled by the then shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), in the last Parliament to give freeholders on private estates the ability to enact right to manage. This would put them back in the driving seat, give them the power to fire unaccountable management companies, ensure that they have a choice, and drive up service levels, responsibility and, hopefully, the performance of those undertaking management work.
The Bill is far from a panacea. Many homeowners will want adoption to be the end state for their estate, but it is an important step forward to drive down the ability of management companies to be exploitative and extract unjustifiable fees from new homeowners. It puts them back in the driving seat and part of those adoption conversations, hopefully to get their estate to where it needs to be, so that the inequity can finally end.
I am so excited about this Government’s housing mission, and to see the number of people in my constituency and across the country whose lives will be transformed by our commitment to stable homes. However, for a long time now we have failed to appreciate the extent to which fleecehold becoming a default model for new home delivery in this country is undercutting the very sense of security and prosperity that new home ownership is meant to bring.
I hope that the Government will act with the pace that this issue deserves. I am very excited to introduce the Bill today to start to tackle at source the root causes of the fleecehold stealth tax that is affecting thousands of homeowners across the country, who are paying millions every year in unjustified service charges. I look forward to working with the Government to do right by those affected right across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alistair Strathern, Emma Foody, Abtisam Mohamed, Yuan Yang, Connor Naismith, Amanda Hack, Ben Coleman, Tom Rutland, Callum Anderson, Mr James Frith, Luke Murphy and Mrs Sarah Russell present the Bill.
Alistair Strathern accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 190).
Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill: Allocation of Time
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill:
Timetable
(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (15)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(8)(a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(9) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(10)(a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(14) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(15)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(16)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(17)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in respect of such a debate.
(18) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(19)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to open the debate on this Bill, which I hope will have the House’s support. It is a simple, straightforward and clear piece of legislation that seeks to do one simple thing: it will remove a legal barrier that prevents Catholics from holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies only to Catholics; it does not apply to people of other faiths or indeed of no religious faith.
For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the role of Lord High Commissioner—if there are any—perhaps it is beneficial for me to set out some context. The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. They are appointed as an observer to attend proceedings on behalf of His Majesty the King. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland that meets each May in Edinburgh to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church for the coming year. The ceremonial duties of the Lord High Commissioner include addressing the Assembly at its opening and closing sessions as well as attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. In addition, the Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.
Historical legislation currently prevents the appointment of Catholics to the role: specifically, the Claim of Right Act 1689 set out restrictions against Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, including the role of Lord High Commissioner. Most of that was changed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which removed many aspects of religious discrimination towards Catholics. However, it did not explicitly remove the restriction against Catholics holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. That means that a legislative restriction exists to this day against someone of the Catholic faith being appointed to this office. Until now, the issue did not arise because no Catholic was ever appointed to the role, but that position changed in December with the announcement of the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. The Bill will allow Lady Elish to take up the role.
There is similarity to the approach adopted in the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, which removed restrictions on Catholics taking up the role of Lord Chancellor. The Bill is short—as hon. Members can see—and narrowly focused. It will deliver a small but important modernisation to allow Catholics to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland and an elder of the Kirk. I very much support the Bill, but the Minister will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it would have preferred consultation before the Bill was introduced. Does he have any reflections on that? I think that its particular concern was about wider religious discrimination on the statute book that could have also been dealt with as part of this process.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I will come on to the timetable that, by necessity, we have had to adopt.
Legislation of this kind is not always preceded by a consultation. Some hon. Members may remember our late friend David Cairns, whose position in this House was facilitated by legislation removing barriers on ordained priests being elected to the House. As I understand it, that particular piece of legislation did not have a consultation before it either.
I turn to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose appointment as the Lord High Commissioner for this year will be facilitated by the passage of the Bill, if it proceeds. Lady Elish has a distinguished background in law, justice and academia. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to the administration of justice in 2011. In 2022, she was appointed by Her late Majesty the Queen to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and in that role she participated in the coronation in 2023. Lady Elish has also been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford since 2012 and was made a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017.
The announcement Lady Elish’s appointment as Lord High Commissioner has been widely welcomed in Scotland. The appointment would make her the first Catholic to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner and would be a significant symbol of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. It builds on the spirit of the St Margaret declaration, signed at Dunfermline abbey in 2022. That was a historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the legislation before the House builds on the spirit of that.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) referred to the circumstances and the timetable. I say to the House that the Bill is on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be finalised ahead of the General Assembly in May. We hope to have all the parliamentary stages completed by the end of next month when, subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment can begin. That process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant, and the speedy passage of the Bill is to allow the formalities necessary to enable Lady Elish to act as Lord High Commissioner and address the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions in May.
Were the appointment not able to proceed, that would be a setback to recent progress and an outcome that I do not believe anyone wants. I therefore hope that the Bill can proceed today with the support of all parties in the House. While the Bill relates to the reserved matter of the Crown, I have spoken to the First Minister of Scotland and to representatives of both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland about the Bill and the desire to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish. I thank them all for their constructive and collaborative approach. I have also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with Lady Elish directly, and I have no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.
Moving on to the Bill itself, there are two clauses. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and its commencement, including that the Bill will commence on Royal Assent. It is a small step to remove a religious barrier. Without it, neither Lady Elish nor any other Catholic could take up the appointment by the sovereign. The Bill changes that and ensures that the announced appointment can go ahead. It is short and simple, but still in its own way an important Bill. I hope it will receive a broad welcome, and I commend it to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. In fact, it is a genuine pleasure to be speaking, as a member of the Church of Scotland, on an historically significant piece of legislation. It could be argued that this is the latest piece of the work that was begun with the passing of the very legislation that it seeks in part to repeal—the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—to ensure full equality for Catholics in our public realm.
I grew up not quite a son of the manse—it was three doors down—but very much in and around the kirk, and in eight years as a Member of this place, this is the first debate on any issue regarding the governance or affairs of the Church of Scotland that I can remember. Given that it relates to one of the two established Churches of our United Kingdom, that is on the one hand surprising, especially when compared with the hours we spend debating governance and issues pertaining to the Anglican Church. But then, its privileged status as the established Church in Scotland—underpinned by the Acts of Union and the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707—means that since 1921, when the Articles Declaratory of the Constitution of the Church of Scotland formed part of the Church of Scotland Act 1921, it has not required any UK or Scottish parliamentary oversight regarding church worship, governance, constitution, membership or office bearers. This makes today an even more significant moment in the history of the Church and the nation, so infrequently are matters of the Kirk discussed on the Floor of either of Scotland’s two Parliaments.
Our relationship between Church and state in the United Kingdom is a brilliantly fashioned piece of British pragmatism—or possibly a fudge, as some might describe it. Only in Great Britain could we have a Head of state who, while being Supreme Governor of one established Church, the Anglican Church of England, is also an ordinary member of a completely separate Presbyterian Church, the Church of Scotland. But we do, and no questions are asked. It is a piece of ecclesiastical deftness that would be inconceivable in any other country. However, I think we would all agree that it was carried out with ease by the late Queen Elizabeth, who demonstrated her commitment to, interest in and knowledge of both Churches throughout her reign—an interest, passion and dedication now matched by our King.
Today, we see another brilliant piece of British pragmatism in what we are about to legislate for. To many in the outside world, the appointment of the brilliant Dame Elish Angiolini to one of the most significant roles in Scottish public life will rightly be seen as a well-deserved honour for one as successful as she has been in her field and in Scottish and British public life. When we think about it, however, it remains quite incredible that a practising Roman Catholic will represent our Protestant monarch, whose very first act as King, in accordance with the Act of Succession, was to take an oath to
“inviolably maintain and preserve the Settlement of the true Protestant Religion as established by the Laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the Claim of Right and particularly by an Act intituled ‘An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government’”.
Rightly, no questions will be asked about her appointment.
There may in fact be some who question the appointment, but I think it speaks well to us as a nation—our two nations—that we are so relaxed about such an appointment today. It speaks to just how much Scotland has changed. I wonder if the Scotland of my grandfathers’ time—both of whom were born in Glasgow in the 1920s and both of whom went on to be Kirk elders—would have been as relaxed about such an appointment. Bear in mind that the Church of Scotland was formed out of the blood and fire of the Scottish reformation, with John Knox in his revolutionary zeal creating the only truly national Calvinist church. It dominated public life for centuries: for better, especially in the realm of public education; and for worse, given that for too long it excluded all other forms of Christianity and adherence to anything but the Kirk’s form of Christianity from most positions of influence in public life in Scotland. The songs still sung at certain football grounds between fans of certain rival teams speak to a more difficult time in the history of Scotland and indeed the Churches in Scotland—one that, sadly, has not totally been consigned to the history books.
Scottish public life was until incredibly recently dominated by the Kirk. Its General Assembly was covered in the same way as the sitting of a Scottish Parliament—at that point not in existence—would have been. Its membership when I was born in the mid-1980s sat at around 1 million people, and its presence touched the lives of a great many more. It had daily five-minute slots on Scottish television, with “Late Call” being parodied so well by the late great Rikki Fulton, as well as the Boys’ Brigade and the Women’s Guild. So many people had so much interaction with the Church, but Scotland has changed, and in many ways for the better.
In many ways, however, the changes in Scotland have presented challenges for the Church. Church membership, which was just shy of 1 million when I was born, sits now at just over 200,000. The General Assembly, which for many years sat as the one national forum in Scotland at which issues of importance to people across Scotland could be aired in public and debated, was covered as a sitting of a Parliament would be. Since the creation of the Scottish Parliament, it has not engaged the same media interest as it did in the years preceding 1999. The decline in numbers entering the ministry and the reduction in footfall in church buildings across the country have led to difficult—at times, heartbreaking—decisions being taken to sell buildings and reduce the Church estate.
Yet there are huge positives as well. In recent decades, we have seen the Kirk move with the people of Scotland and modernise. It allowed women to be ordained back in 1968, some 24 years before the Church of England did likewise, and that led to huge growth in the number of women in leadership roles in the Church. The Church has had multiple female Moderators of the General Assembly, the first being Alison Elliot in 2004. In 2015, the Church allowed congregations to appoint ministers who were in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships. That was followed by it officially approving those marriages, and it allowed ministers to conduct them in 2022. Whether it is through traditional church services, outreach in communities across Scotland and Europe, the Guild, CrossReach, or missionary work across the world, the Church of Scotland continues to touch and guide our national life in many ways.
Religion in Britain is a funny thing. On the one hand, we famously “don’t do God.” On the other, we have prayers before every meeting of our national Parliament. On the one hand, unlike other countries, we treat our religion as private. On the other, bishops of one of our established Churches sit in one of our legislatures, and our Head of State is the supreme governor of one of our two established Churches. What we are doing today will baffle most of those watching our proceedings, not least those who do not know that there are two established Churches in the United Kingdom, but it is important, and it has the official Opposition’s full support. It is a significant gesture of good will and unity between two of Scotland’s largest Churches, and builds on the St Margaret declaration of friendship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland in 2022. It is yet another display of fantastic British pragmatism, and the sensibleness that has underpinned how Churches and the state have interacted over centuries.
It only remains for me, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, to wish the new Lord High Commissioner well in her role; to thank the outgoing Moderator of the Church, Dr Shaw Paterson, for his service over this year; to wish the Moderator Designate, Rev. Rosemary Frew, well as she takes up the role; and to wish all those attending the upcoming General Assembly wisdom and patience as they deliberate on matters that mean so much to the national life of Scotland.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Like so many in my constituency and across Scotland, I have a lifelong association with the Church of Scotland. For so many of us in Scotland, the stories of our families are intertwined with local Church of Scotland parishes, not just through attendance at church on a Sunday, but through our marking of important life events. That link is evidenced in so many ordinary aspects of community life—at local badminton club meetings in the church hall, and at summer fêtes, jumble sales and coffee mornings.
The Church belongs to all our communities. It assists the elderly and frail in the community, supports young mothers, runs youth clubs, and makes commitments to international aid. My great aunt was an organist in the church in Bishopton, and in Paisley in my constituency. My two children were baptised in the Church of Scotland in Paisley, and my husband and I were married in Drumclog memorial kirk in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid).
My sense of belonging to the Church of Scotland is no barrier to my appreciation of other faiths and other Christian communities. Indeed, the Church of Scotland has demonstrated a sincere commitment to ecumenical dialogue. The Catholic Church has been a willing and active participant in that effort. For more than 40 years, that has led to a shared commitment to people from all faiths and none working together, notably in food banks and many other community support services.
I know that my life is enriched by friendship with people of other faiths; the Church of Scotland has been similarly enriched. Today, for historical reasons that may seem odd to those following the debate, there is a legislative restriction on a person of the Roman Catholic faith being appointed Lord High Commissioner by the sovereign to act as an observer on the sovereign’s behalf. Such restrictions do not apply to people of others faiths, or indeed to those of no faith.
A change in the legislation is long overdue. I am pleased to support the Government in removing this unnecessary and unwelcome impediment to a Roman Catholic serving as the representative of His Majesty the King at the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor). In the almost eight years that I have been here, I do not think I have ever looked forward to a debate this much, or taken this much pleasure from one, not just because there is no real party divide to worry about, but because it feels as if the Church of Scotland—of which I was, but am no longer, a member—is finally standing up for the sort of Scotland that we all want to see and work towards.
I am no longer a member of the Church, but I was for many years, and my late husband was an elder in the Kirk, not so very far from the constituency of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Church is still a huge part of community life in Scotland. The fact that it has taken this long to overturn the injustice of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—a piece of discrimination against Roman Catholics—is something that we should bear in mind, and we should promise never to allow this to happen again. Although it is important that we get this legislation through quickly, so that we can appoint Lady Elish Angiolini, I hope that we address the wider discrimination left in Scottish society.
This is an important day. Lady Elish has been a role model for so many young women in Scotland. She was the first female Solicitor General, Lord Advocate and Lord Clerk Register, and, as the Minister mentioned, she has been the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, since 2012. The fact that she will be the first Roman Catholic to hold the post of Lord High Commissioner is significant, and further enhances her position as a role model. Everyone I have spoken to from the Church is delighted that she will be in position. We Liberal Democrats completely support the Bill, and hope that it goes through quickly.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The fact that in 2025 we can say that no Roman Catholic has ever held the post of Lord High Commissioner seems slightly absurd. There are, of course, other positions in this nation that a Catholic has never occupied and, as matters stand, can never occupy. It is good that we can break down one of those barriers today and reflect the extremely friendly relationship between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland—and indeed, through the interfaith council, the Church’s relationship with other faiths, too. The change is also a mark of the high regard in which people of good will hold Lady Elish Angiolini, and of the many qualities that make her a fitting representative of His Majesty.
As we have heard, by convention, the sovereign is not normally present at the General Assembly, as he or she is technically an ordinary member of the Church, not its supreme governor, as he or she is in England. Traditionally, the Lord High Commissioner represents the sovereign, and is an observer appointed under the royal prerogative, so, as we know, there is no need for parliamentary approval of the appointment, or for legislation. As the Lord High Commissioner is a representative to the General Assembly, rather than part of the assembly, it is not necessary for them to be a member of the Church of Scotland, or indeed of any other church. However, the legislation that we are considering is necessary because the holder of the office cannot currently be a Roman Catholic.
The Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689 set out restrictions on Catholics being appointed to public office. Paragraph 19 states:
“That by the law of this Kingdome no papist can be King or Queen of this realme nor bear any office whatsomever therin”.
Those are harsh words, if I may say so. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was the culmination of a long process, working towards giving Catholics relief from the many restrictions imposed on them in Great Britain and Ireland prior to the Union of 1801. However, although that Act retained some restrictions on Catholics, most of which have since been repealed, some significant ones remain. That is what we wish to amend today.
As the Law Society of Scotland has suggested, it is unfortunate that the Bill cannot also be amended to remove the reference to the Lord High Chancellor from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, so that the 1829 Act can be brought into conformity with the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974.
There is clearly a long history surrounding the appointment, with the first Lord High Commissioner having been appointed in 1580. In the intervening five centuries, significant people have held the post, including a number of former colleagues of mine, and of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), and including Lord James Douglas Hamilton, Lord Wallace, Lord Steel and George Reid. Colleagues might have spotted that they have something in common: they were all men. It was not until 1970 that the late Peggy Herbison, a former MP, was appointed the first female Lord High Commissioner. We then had to wait another 24 years, until the appointment of Lady Fraser, for the second. Since then, the Princess Royal has held the post twice, and it would be good to think that, following Lady Elish’s appointment, we might see woman appointed more regularly.
The appointment is expected to be made, we are told, on the basis of the merit and contribution to society of the appointee, and Lady Elish certainly qualifies on both counts. I should declare an interest: I have known Lady Elish since we were both teenagers and members of our respective schools’ debating societies. She was very much better than I was, and even then, it was clear that she was destined for a very significant future. I also served in Government with her when she was appointed by First Minister Jack McConnell as the first female Solicitor General. Elish went on to become the first female Lord Advocate. She held both positions with distinction and was highly regarded during her time in office. Since then, she has served in a number of legal posts, and is currently the principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. She is also the first woman to hold the position of Lord Clerk of Scotland, another first for a woman. Significantly, she chaired the public inquiry into the abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. We can safely say that Lady Elish is an outstanding candidate for the post of Lord High Commissioner.
As I mentioned in opening, it is regrettable that in 2025 we still have such laws on the statute book, but ironically the relationship between the two Churches is in very good heart. The signing of the St Margaret’s declaration in 2022 by the Moderator and Archbishop Cushley, the representative of the Catholic bishops conference, seeks to build on the common heritage of the two denominations in the Christian tradition. It recognises that divisions are still present, but seeks to mend those divisions and to focus on what the Churches have in common. With the passing of the Bill today and the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner, we take another welcome step on the journey to ecumenicalism.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson). Of course we welcome the Bill, and the Government can be assured that we will do whatever we can to assist its progress through the House, but as we have heard from many hon. Members, the fact that in 2025 the United Kingdom is still having to introduce legislation to remove anti-Catholic legislation from the statute book is pretty embarrassing. That people of the Roman Catholic faith are still explicitly legally barred from holding the position of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland—a post that can be held by people of all other faiths and those with no religious belief—is nonsense.
I do not blame the Government or the Minister one iota. I am quite sure that they were as surprised as anybody when, after having appointed Lady Elish Angiolini to the office of Lord High Commissioner, one of their lawyers appeared, blowing the cobwebs off the 1829 Act, to reveal the flaw in their plan. That does not take away from the fact that it is ridiculous that two centuries after the Act was passed, the Government are still having to introduce these narrowly focused Bills to correct historical wrongs as and when they appear.
While I can understand that the Government were caught on the hop with regard to this particular appointment, I share the frustrations of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who wondered whether it would not be better to bundle all this legislation together and remove all existing anti-Catholic discrimination, rather than just doing it piecemeal as and when circumstances arise. That may well not have been possible on this occasion, given the time constraints of Lady Elish’s appointment, and so the Government are having to get around the problem in this fashion, but I hope that we never again find ourselves in this situation and that the Government will find time to bring forward legislation that, once and for all, removes all traces of anti-Catholic discrimination from UK law.
Were the Minister to approach his boss with such a proposal, I suspect that he would receive a fair hearing. As far back as 2002, an aspiring young barrister—now the Prime Minister—writing in The Guardian, described the UK’s remaining anti-Catholic laws as “deeply offensive” and an offence to multicultural Britain. Should such a Bill be introduced, I would like to think that it would pass through this House quickly and without too much opposition.
It is important to point out that this situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church of Scotland, which, to its enormous credit, has viewed the appointment of Lady Elish to the post of Lord High Commissioner as completely uncontroversial. The Rev. Fiona Smith, principal clerk of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, has said:
“We are honoured that His Majesty has appointed Lady Elish Angiolini as Lord High Commissioner…We very much look forward to welcoming her to the General Assembly.”
As others have mentioned, that is a remarkable transformation, because not so long ago the idea of a Catholic female, particularly one of Irish descent, being the sovereign’s official representative in the Church of Scotland would have been unthinkable to many in this Kirk.
Although I do not think that the Minister was there personally, I am sure he will remember that it was only in 1923 that the infamous report entitled “The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality” was presented to the General Assembly, so the appointment of a Catholic woman as Lord High Commissioner being welcomed by the Church of Scotland is a wonderful example of how far Scotland as a nation has travelled in recent decades.
As the Minister has said, and as others have repeated, it should come as no surprise to any of us that if there was a trail to blaze, Elish Angiolini was the person who was going to blaze it. Born Elish Frances McPhilomy in Glasgow and educated at Notre Dame high school and the University of Strathclyde, she became one of Scotland’s most prominent lawyers, serving as Solicitor General, as we have heard, before becoming Lord Advocate. She served under both Labour and SNP Governments at Holyrood between 2006 and 2011, before being appointed to St Hugh’s College the following year.
Lady Elish remained prominent in public life; as we have heard, she chaired several Government inquiries into deaths in police custody and the investigation and prosecution of rape. In 2020 she published a report on her review of the handling of complaints against Police Scotland, before becoming chair of the board of trustees at Reprieve, a charity made up of lawyers, investigators and campaigners fighting for justice for people facing human rights abuses, often at the hands of powerful Governments.
As if to cement her trailblazing reputation, in October 2023 Lady Elish became the first woman to be sworn in as the new Lord Clerk Register of Scotland—one of the oldest remaining great offices of state, with origins going back to the 13th century. Given the circumstances, I do not think that there could be a more appropriate appointment to the role of Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland than that of Elish Angiolini, but, as I have said, it is deeply regrettable that because of her religious beliefs, we have had to pass a Bill in this House to allow it to happen.
Finally, given that this Bill is welcome but long overdue, I am delighted to inform the Government that should Lady Elish decide not to take up the role for any reason whatsoever, from this day on I, too, am available for selection.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) has provided a most eloquent job application.
I was very pleased to read of the upcoming appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. Not only would Lady Elish be the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner, but she is incredibly well qualified—speaking as a recovering Scots lawyer, someone who has held the posts of Lord Advocate and Solicitor General with such accomplishment is clearly incredibly well qualified for the role. She is an example, as are some Members of this House, of the excellent education you can get from state schools in Glasgow.
The current law means that, at present, a Roman Catholic cannot be Lord High Commissioner. The Bill removes the legal impediments to that, and therefore I fully support it. Lady Elish Angiolini is a practising Roman Catholic, and much work has been done to build closer links between the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Church of Scotland, including the St Margaret declaration signed in 2022. However, as importantly—if not more importantly—much work has taken place between local Catholic and Church of Scotland congregations. I have seen much of that work in Glasgow at first hand, pretty much every Sunday, and it is an absolute joy to behold.
More widely, Lady Elish’s appointment is another very good example of the progress made between the two Churches. She has said the following of her appointment, which is something quite profound that we in this House should pause and reflect on:
“It is really important that people of all religions and faiths come together. The world is a scary place these days and it is important that people of all faiths meet, share, and promote peace and harmony. This is a good example of that.”
I could not agree more.
I say that this Bill is important, because it is a demonstration of people of different religions and faiths coming together in Scotland and putting aside their differences. In Glasgow, in Scotland and across our family of nations, people of different faiths, and of no faith, work very well together for the good of our communities. In Glasgow, we see many examples of that. We have one of the oldest Muslim populations in Scotland, which gives greatly to people in Glasgow; we have a vibrant Sikh population, which dedicates itself to the service of the poorest in Glasgow; and the annual Holocaust memorial lecture at the University of Glasgow brings large and diverse audiences, including many of our Jewish brothers and sisters, to reflect on the terror of the Holocaust. People in Glasgow and in Scotland work hard to understand each other, and religious diversity is a source of joy, energy, strength and beauty in Glasgow’s 850th year. The appointment of Lady Elish is a profound moment in this year.
All this speaks to the words of the St Margaret declaration:
“what we hold in common is often greater than what divides us.”
In these times, as Lady Elish suggests, it is important that we redouble our efforts for dialogue and understanding between people of faiths, as well as people of no faith. At this moment, we should also celebrate the real progress we have made in that regard across our family of nations. This Bill is one very good example, and I for one am proud to live in a family of nations that has had a Muslim First Minister and a Hindu Prime Minister. I am proud to see this Bill make progress through this House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander)
It is a genuine pleasure to close this important debate. I should begin, as others have done, by declaring an interest, in that I myself am a member of the Church of Scotland. I give my thanks to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful, measured and constructive contributions, in addition to their substantive support for this worthwhile piece of legislation.
As we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, this important Bill will facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini as the first Roman Catholic to hold the historic office of Lord High Commissioner. The Bill will put an end to the statutory constraint that prevents someone from being appointed to that position solely on the basis of their religion. In this debate, we have heard a number of views and contributions from hon. Members, to which I will now turn.
First, I thank the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for both his substantive support and the spirit of his speech to the House today. When it comes to the ecclesiastical deftness of which he spoke, the appropriate acknowledgment of the Kirk’s place in our national life is surely more tablet than fudge—by which I mean tablet, rather than The Tablet, the esteemed Catholic newspaper. In all seriousness, the powerful case he made for ecumenical understanding in modern Scotland was well judged and surely commands support across the House. As he stated, thankfully Scotland has changed. As a fellow communicant member, he spoke with knowledge, understanding and empathy of the Kirk’s continuing work and witness, guiding our national life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) spoke movingly of the huge contribution made by the Church of Scotland, not just in the now renamed Clyde presbytery, but in local parishes right across our nation. I can personally attest to that. My grandfather, the Rev. Douglas Alexander, was a parish minister in Eaglesham in East Renfrewshire, and my father—also the Rev. Douglas Alexander—was, as my hon. Friend knows, a parish minister in Bishopton. She spoke of her family ties there, and I am proud to say that Bishopton is now in her constituency. My father served in that parish for almost 30 years. It is right to recognise the huge contribution of the Kirk to the life and work of communities right across our nation, and I am happy to do so from this Dispatch Box today.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) brought a zest and enthusiasm to this debate that I had not fully anticipated, but it seems merited in the light of the contributions we have heard. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman for Scotland, she described this Bill accurately as an action standing up for the Scotland that we all want to see. That is a sentiment with which we would all surely agree. She also spoke generously and accurately about Lady Elish Angiolini’s genuinely pioneering role in our national life. That is a sentiment with which we would concur on this side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) brings to this House her experience of serving in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Cabinet. That experience was reflected in her remarks in this Chamber this afternoon, where she spoke with warmth and insight—in part born from a similar schooling at Notre Dame—about the suitability of Lady Elish Angiolini for the high office of Lord High Commissioner. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing those insights, and I concur with her view that Lady Elish is indeed very well qualified for the role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West made an observation about why this Bill does not remove the reference to the Lord High Commissioner from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. I can offer her the assurance that that was made obsolete by the 1974 Act. While I can understand the desire for legislative tidying-up, the scope of this Bill is necessarily limited to the role of the Lord High Commissioner, and the position is clear: following this Bill, there will be no restriction on a Catholic holding either role.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) offered his support and that of this party for the Bill, and we are grateful for that. Cross-party support in this House is a powerful symbol of our shared commitment to cross-denomination and cross-faith understanding in modern Scotland. He rightly recognised the time constraints under which we are necessarily operating today to ensure that Lady Elish Angiolini can take up this office in time for the gathering of the Kirk’s General Assembly in the spring. Despite smuggling into his speech a late and, I have to say, rather unexpected job application, he rightly recognised Lady Elish’s cross-party credentials as a genuine trailblazer in Scottish national life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) described with characteristic eloquence how, to quote him, people in Glasgow
“work hard to understand each other, and religious diversity is a source of joy, energy, strength and beauty in Glasgow’s 850th year.”
In that, he is correct. I should perhaps declare another interest, in that Glasgow is the city of my birth, but it is right to recognise that after an at times troubled history of sectarian and religious intolerance, today people make Glasgow, and those people are comprised of all faiths and none. I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful advocacy for dialogue and understanding, which brought to mind Jo Cox, lately of this House. I thank him for his understanding and contribution to the debate today. His speech was very much in keeping with the spirit of the St Margaret declaration.
The debate has indicated that there is support for this legislation across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members in the remaining stages of the Bill, due to follow shortly. With the support of the House, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Madam Deputy Speaker”. I ask them please to use our names; alternatively, “Madam Chair” or “Madam Chairman” is acceptable.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.
I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses. The purpose of clause 1 is to make provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 removed restrictions on individuals taking up the office of Lord Chancellor, and, similarly, the Bill removes the restriction on the Lord High Commissioner from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill: it extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the upcoming appointment of Lady Angiolini as the Lord High Commissioner goes ahead in the run-up to the General Assembly in May.
It is clear that the Bill commands a broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward to the rest of the debate today, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I, too, will not detain the Committee for long, having already expressed the full support of His Majesty’s official Opposition for the Bill, and it will come as no surprise that we are not proposing any amendments in Committee. I do, however, have two questions for the Minister. When does he expect the Bill to go to the House of Lords, and can he assure the Committee and, indeed, the Church of Scotland that everything possible will be done to secure its swift passage to Royal Assent so that it is passed in time for the upcoming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland?
Mr Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we want progress to be expeditious. I shall be happy to write to him once we know the exact date on which it will be introduced in the House of Lords, contingent on support in this Chamber today, but I can assure him that, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made clear, we have been engaging in regular dialogue with the Church of Scotland and the other relevant offices, and we have every confidence, on the basis of the support we have seen today and will hopefully see in the other place, that we will be able to provide a timetable ensuring that Lady Angiolini is able to take up her position by the time of the General Assembly in May.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
King’s consent signified.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Given the mood in the House, I do not intend to detain people for long. By now we know the purpose of the Bill: to allow Catholics to be appointed to the role of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is the Bill in a nutshell. Today’s debates have demonstrated that there is wide support for the Bill across the House.
I thank the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government for their engagement and collaboration in the development of the legislation. I also thank all those who spoke in our debates, including the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to all of them.
As we have said, at the signing of the St Margaret’s declaration at Dunfermline abbey in 2022, both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland declared that what they hold in common is far greater than what divides them, and that they would commit to continue working towards greater unity. I hope that this Bill, in its small way, will continue in that spirit.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber referred to 1923 and asked if I was there. I was not there, but in the same year W. B. Yeats wrote that “peace comes dropping slow”. Maybe equality sometimes comes dropping slow too, but today we have taken a small and important step, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Andrew Bowie
I would like to record the thanks of the Opposition to those who have made possible this Bill, which will hopefully soon become an Act, and to Members from across the House for their contributions. I am grateful for the engagement with the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and Lady Elish herself.
I think we can all agree that the Bill is a positive step and speaks well to the type of country that Scotland is today, which was certainly not the case 100 years ago. I express yet again my best wishes to the new Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly, and to all those attending its deliberations in its upcoming meeting in May.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Rating and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Electoral Commission
House of Commons Members’ Fund
Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The issue of diversion of trade is becoming an increasing problem of manifold proportions for Northern Ireland. Before the protocol, goods could be moved from Birmingham to Belfast as easily as they could be moved from Gloucester to Glasgow, but no more. The resulting Irish sea border, and all that comes with it, has caused a huge and increasing diversion of trade.
We can get an insight into how things naturally should be and how business wishes them to be by looking at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency figures of recent years. If we look at the pre-protocol days, we see that in 2018, for example, the volume of goods purchased from the Irish Republic was £2.8 billion, but the amount purchased from GB was five times that—£13.4 billion. There we have a snapshot of the natural inclination of trade in Northern Ireland, particularly for our raw materials.
Before Brexit, there was a similar situation. Indeed, we could say—and some may say—that that is a better reflection of whether there has been trade diversion. Before Brexit, we could as readily buy our goods from the Republic as we could from GB, because we were all in the EU single market. Even then, the predominant trading of choice was from GB. That is no surprise because for decades Northern Ireland has been a particularly integrated part of the UK economy.
However, along came the protocol, which requires Northern Ireland to be subject to a foreign customs code—that of the EU—which of course treats GB as if it is a foreign country. Therefore, when goods come from outside the EU into the EU, and we in Northern Ireland are regarded as being in the EU for these purposes, those goods have to be checked, with customs declarations, documentary checks and physical checks on, for example, all our raw materials. So it is no surprise that that is inevitably bound to cause diversion of trade.
We were told, as part of the spin of selling the protocol, “Oh, there are protections against the diversion of trade, and it wouldn’t be allowed to happen”. Article 16 of the protocol, we were told, was our safety net:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to…diversion of trade…the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
It has led to the diversion of trade, but the United Kingdom Government have not taken unilateral action in that regard.
The fact of the diversion of trade is a challenge to the protocol’s proponents. It is a challenge to those who put this upon us, and it is one that they have to meet, but which I fear they will not meet. Where is the proof, some may ask, of the diversion of trade? Again, it is in the NISRA statistics. Dr Esmond Birnie, a renowned economist in Northern Ireland, has done a succession of studies of the NISRA statistics. He wrote back on 11 December 2024 that the data
“provides further evidence that the NI economy is becoming more trade integrated with the Republic”,
and of
“North-South trade growing at very rapid rates at the expense of what previously was an inflow of goods from GB.”
Jim Allister
Perhaps in a moment.
We also see that in the purchase of goods figures that NISRA reports. It has given us figures from 2020, contrasting them in a table with those for 2023. The year 2023 was only the beginning of things getting difficult, as the Irish sea border did not in effect come into place until October 2023 because of the grace periods. However, those NISRA figures show that Northern Ireland’s purchases of goods increased from 2020 to 2023—of course, it was a period of inflation—by 24% from GB, but by 50% from the Republic of Ireland, meaning twice the growth rate in the buying of goods into Northern Ireland that would previously have come from our integrated United Kingdom economy.
The Office for National Statistics business insights and conditions survey states that 13.1% of currently trading manufacturers based in GB had sent goods to Northern Ireland in the past 12 months. That was at the end of 2024. But in January 2021, 20% of manufacturers in GB were sending goods to Northern Ireland. So, in just those four years there has been a dramatic fall in the number of manufacturers supplying goods to Northern Ireland. It has nearly halved in four years. The ONS data for 2024 tells us more: 11.7% of companies tell us they have stopped trading with Northern Ireland. Why? Because of the bureaucracy, because they have to make customs declarations, because they have to have them checked, and because they have to employ extra staff to do all that. Many companies, particularly in smaller sectors, have simply said that they are not going to do it.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Jim Allister
In a moment, perhaps. I need to make sure I get through what I need to say.
It is beyond doubt, I would respectfully say, that there has been trade diversion. Back in September, the Road Haulage Association gave evidence to a parliamentary Committee of this House. It told the Committee that 30% of haulage lorries that take goods to GB are returning empty. Why? Because GB companies have stopped supplying. Now, that is an incredible thing to contemplate. Trade works on the basis that you take goods out, and then you fill your lorry and bring goods back. That is how you make it viable and how the economy works. That 30% of lorries now returning to Northern Ireland are returning empty is an incredible indictment of the operation of the protocol.
And things are getting worse. The EU regulation on general product safety now puts more burdens on companies selling into Northern Ireland, because they have to meet enhanced EU product safety regulations. I have mentioned the craft sector in this House before. Recently, 11 suppliers in that niche market stopped supplying Northern Ireland. It will get worse, because the partial border is coming and they will have to do more paperwork and make more declarations about sending simple parcels from GB to Northern Ireland. Tesco has slides that it shows to its own suppliers stating that they should now buy from the Republic of Ireland because it is easier to supply from there than from GB. The same is happening in veterinary medicines and in every sector.
Why does that matter? It matters for a very pertinent political reason. The whole idea of trade diversion and the whole purpose of the protocol was and is to build an all-Ireland economy: to dismantle the economic links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and enhance links with the Irish Republic, thereby creating stepping stones out of the United Kingdom into an all-Ireland for Northern Ireland. That was the determination that lay behind the protocol.
We do not need a protocol to govern trade. It is demonstrable that if we can organise trade through Northern Ireland to GB without border checks in the Irish sea, and if, as the Government now say is possible, we can do it with checks away from the border, then equally we could do it in the other direction, through mutual enforcement. That would mean recognising that if we are going to export from one territory to another, our manufacturers must produce goods to the standards of the other, and we would enforce that by making it a criminal offence to do otherwise. That is the essence of mutual enforcement. It would work, but it is not allowed to work, because the political agenda of the protocol is to ensure this reorientation and realignment.
We are told that we now have Intertrade UK, but it has no staff and no budget, in comparison with InterTradeIreland, which has more than 50 staff and a budget of £6.5 million a year and is active across the whole area. Intertrade UK has been set up as a shadow, but it is not able to compete in any sense.
This Government have allowed the economy of Northern Ireland to drift out of the United Kingdom. I believe those who are protocol enthusiasts want that to happen. Now it is happening, the onus is back on the Government to do something about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. and learned Gentleman takes the intervention, I know that he was anxious about getting through his speech, but, because the Adjournment debate started early, he does have until 7.30 pm. [Laughter.] I believe he was about to take an intervention—does he want to continue with that?
Sammy Wilson
You shouldn’t encourage him, Madam Deputy Speaker—he will take to 7.30 pm and beyond, because this is such an important subject.
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the diversion of trade has not only political but economic implications for Northern Ireland? There are increased transport costs, because lorries do not come both ways with goods in them; there is the fact that many people chose suppliers in England because they are cheaper, better-quality and so on, and now manufacturers in Northern Ireland are having to go to the second-best suppliers; and there is also the additional paperwork that is involved. That all adds to costs and makes the Northern Ireland economy less competitive, which therefore makes it more difficult for it to be viable.
Jim Allister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Business is like water: it follows the easiest course. When we were an integrated part of the UK economy, the easiest and cheapest course was to do the greater bulk of our trade with GB. That, historically, has been our basic supply market for our raw materials and everything else. However, when a fettering of trade is imposed, naturally, business will follow the easiest route. The easiest route now, sadly, is to cease trading from GB and accentuate trading with the EU, and most particularly the Republic of Ireland.
The United Kingdom was built on two pillars, according to the Acts of Union. The first was a political union, with article 3 establishing this House as one sovereign Parliament for the whole United Kingdom; the second was an economic union, through article 6, which established unfettered trade between and within all parts of the United Kingdom. That was what article 6 said—that there should be unfettered trade. But along came the protocol, which fettered trade, leaving the Supreme Court with no choice but to accept that the protocol had therefore subjugated article 6. The very foundation of our economic union, article 6, which says that there shall be unfettered trade, is in suspension. It is no wonder that the consequence of that fettering of trade is a diversion of trade.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. and learned Member for giving way. It is on that diversion of trade that I wish to speak. He and most Northern Ireland MPs will know of the fantastic Colemans Garden Centre in my constituency of South Antrim. It supplies quite a number of people across Northern Ireland who have had difficulty in getting plants and fruit brought across from their main supplier, McIntyre Fruit, in Scotland. Just before this debate, the manager of Colemans Garden Centre told me that he had been in contact with Stuart McIntyre who said that he had just picked up a contract to supply a firm in Japan. He said that, bureaucracy-wise and administration-wise, it is easier for a supplier in Scotland to supply into Japan than it is to supply across the 14-mile stretch of water into Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
That is the absurdity of where we have got to, and it has been accentuated by our subjection to the EU’s general product safety regulations. Those regulations provide that if a company is supplying into Northern Ireland from outside the EU—in other words, from GB—it must have an agent resident within the EU. The company must complete the paperwork on the origin of its goods and on the customs declarations, and it cannot do so without employing an agent within the EU. Anyone who knows anything about business will know that that is added cost that will cause many businesses to say, “Northern Ireland is not a huge market to start with, so I shall just not bother with it.” That is what all our businesses in Northern Ireland are suffering from.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on securing this debate. Small businesses in my constituency have told me that they are now having to pay His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs a duty for buying goods from English suppliers and then selling the same goods in Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland consumer, remaining within the internal market. Last Friday, one trader told me that he is now having to pay more in duties to HMRC than the invoice was for the goods. That is because HMRC does not trust that the goods will remain, but assumes that they will be sold into the EU. Does the hon. and learned Member not agree that the same HMRC displays greater trust and acceptance of VAT declarations, on the premise that they will be checked at random, than it does for internal trade within the United Kingdom? What a backward step that is.
Jim Allister
I agree. Let us just think about the Irish sea border. Given the infinitesimal amount of goods and trade that cross that border—infinitesimal when compared with the proportion of EU trade—it is incredible that it has 20% of all the checks across the whole of the EU. That infinitesimal amount when set against the totality of EU trade warrants 20% of all the checks in the EU. It would be easier to bring in goods from Belarus into the EU than it is to bring goods from GB into Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. and learned Member talks about that trade being infinitesimal—0.4% of EU trade crosses that border, yet it accounts for 20% of checks. Does he agree that that will not be the story of the future? In my constituency, we are already building a £140 million EU control post on a 10-acre site. Once that is open, there will be much more scope to check goods to an even greater degree. If that is not the point of having such a large EU border post in the middle of the United Kingdom, what is?
Jim Allister
That is the point, because it is an EU border. EU trade laws govern the Irish sea border. EU officials, under the protocol, have the right to supervise checking. When we have the full panoply of facilities that are being built at Larne and at other ports, I fear that we will see the muscle of EU inspections. The protocol gives the EU, which boasted that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland, the upper hand in that regard.
I return to the point that the protocol is imbued with a political motivation, and that motivation is not to get Northern Ireland the best of both worlds. My goodness, what a con that idea is. The protocol was supposed to make Northern Ireland a Mecca, a Singapore of the west, but we now know that there has been no uplift whatsoever in foreign direct investment. Why? Because a manufacturer coming to Northern Ireland is interested not just in selling goods out of Northern Ireland, but in where it is getting its raw materials. When a manufacturer is told that its basic supply line has to pass through an international customs border controlled by the EU, the shine soon goes off the prospect of investing in Northern Ireland.
We are in a pretty dire situation, which is getting worse, and which has massive constitutional and economic implications, but I fear that the Government are deaf and blind to the issues, because they do not want to face the consequences. They are hand in glove with the EU, dismantling Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, and setting us on a course for the economics marrying with the politics, and Northern Ireland ceasing to be.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
We were told by the previous Administration that with the new green lane and the Windsor framework, all would be glorious—it could be the best of both worlds. Did the previous Administration mislead the House?
Jim Allister
Not just the previous Administration; I think there has been gross, calculated and deliberate misleading about the protocol from day one. We were told that the green lane was gone. It has not. We still have to do customs declarations. We still have document checks, but all our raw materials must, by dint of the protocol, come through the red lane, so they must be subject to all the rigour of the EU’s international border. That is what will cripple our economy. We have seen it in small craft sectors. Niche sectors that depend on small suppliers are giving up. When that bites, as it will, we will see that right across our economy.
The Government need to find some dignity and stand up for this United Kingdom, which is not just Great Britain but includes Northern Ireland. It is time to put some mettle into defending that position, and to row back from the disastrous destructive elements that the protocol has brought us.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. The House, once again, has been left in no doubt but that he speaks about Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements with fervour and sincerity, as he did in the Westminster Hall debate in November, to which I responded, and in the debate on his private Member’s Bill in December, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on the Government’s behalf. On the Windsor framework, his position is quite clear: he is opposed to it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined that on a number of occasions, both he and the Under-Secretary have responded to issues that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised. He will be aware that I wrote to him about a month ago about the problems with horticultural industry trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have yet to get a response.
Hilary Benn
I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I try hard to be punctilious about responding to correspondence. Those watching will have noted what he said, and he can, I hope, anticipate receiving a reply from me very soon.
For the Government’s part, I want to be equally clear. We needed to have a system in place for managing a unique set of circumstances. The system we have is the inevitable result of leaving the European Union. That is where this all began; if that had not happened, we would not be having this discussion. What did that result in? Two trading entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different rules, but an open border between them. That is to be found nowhere else in the world. In other words, all of us together—everyone has to take responsibility for what they argued for, and for the consequence of that—faced the question: how do we deal with the unique situation of two trading entities with different rules having an open border between them?
Jim Allister
The way not to deal with it is to say, “We, the United Kingdom, will hand over part of our territory to EU jurisdiction. We will put it under the EU’s customs code, which will decree the rest of the United Kingdom a foreign territory. We will subject that part of our territory to having 300 areas of its law not made in the United Kingdom; law in those areas cannot even be amended in the United Kingdom. It will be foreign law imposed.” This could have been dealt with by mutual enforcement. We could have said, “We want to trade with each other, and we want to be neighbourly, so we will guarantee, on pain of criminal conviction, that anything we send into your territory meets your standards and vice versa.” Why did things have to be made complicated, at the expense of jettisoning Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom economically and constitutionally?
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman argues in favour of what he calls mutual enforcement, but that is not a credible basis for resolving the dilemma created by our leaving the European Union.
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree. I am expressing the Government’s view, which is that it is not a credible basis. One thing is absolutely clear: the answer was never to try to wish the dilemma away and pretend that it did not exist. I am afraid that, at times, it has appeared as though that argument has been advanced.
The first go at trying to find an answer was the Chequers plan, which did not get support. The Northern Ireland protocol was the second go, but that was never going to work—I made that argument as an Opposition Back Bencher—so the Windsor framework was negotiated. There is no denying that the Windsor framework represents a huge improvement on the prospect created by the Northern Ireland protocol.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State says that the situation is unprecedented, and that unique arrangements have therefore been put in place. The Government recently recognised that the flow of trade from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB could cause a situation where goods had to be checked to safeguard the GB market, yet they have been able to put in place arrangements, without all this elaboration, that do not require laws to apply to traders in the Irish Republic; they are simply checks away from the border. If the unique situation of trade from GB into Northern Ireland, which has a non-check border with the Republic, has to be dealt with through a labyrinth of regulations, why is it possible to avoid that in the other direction? If such arrangements can work from Northern Ireland to GB, why can they not work from GB to Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The answer is this: as a sovereign country, it falls to us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory. For quite a period after our leaving the European Union, the last Government were not checking stuff coming across the channel, first, because there was nowhere to do the checks, and secondly, because they were concerned about delays, shortages and added costs for the consumer. They repeatedly put off implementing checks. At the same time, British exporters were experiencing the full impact of checks on the goods that they sent the other way, across the channel to Calais and the rest of the European Union. It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union; it has a single market.
We are a responsible country. Some may argue that we should be irresponsible and say, “Well, this is not our problem; let us leave it to the EU to sort it out.” In the end, we had to have a negotiated answer to the question created by our departure from the European Union on the goods that cross that non-existent border. The one thing that almost everybody agreed on during the Brexit debates was that the border needed to remain as it was. That open border is important for a whole host of reasons, not least the extraordinary progress that Northern Ireland has made in the 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The question, therefore, was: how does the EU ensure that goods that cross that border and come into the Republic, and go on to France, Germany or Greece, meet the rules? In exactly the same way, we would ask: how do we know that goods coming into the United Kingdom meet our laws? The only way to do that was with a negotiation.
Richard Tice
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is up to a sovereign nation to look after its own borders and determine its own checks. Does he accept that there has been trade diversion within the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that it is within the Government’s remit to use article 16 or drop the checks to protect trade within our sovereign borders?
Hilary Benn
I have only just begun my remarks, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall shortly come to the point that he raises.
The Windsor framework protects the UK internal market, while, as I argued a moment ago, enabling the EU to be confident that its rules will be respected. The Government’s view and my view is that that was the responsible thing to do in the circumstances, because this Government support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that respect its particular circumstances —indeed, they are unique—and its place in the Union, and that uphold the Good Friday agreement. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s central argument this evening is that we should trigger article 16, the unilateral safeguard in the Windsor framework. To do that would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, now and in future. It would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers for businesses—indeed, the benefits that are actively relied upon by businesses, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the UK and EU markets—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim shakes his head, but I have met businesses that have told me how they are taking advantage of that dual market access. I meet businesses in my constituency that can see what Northern Ireland has got out of these unique arrangements.
Those benefits will be enhanced by the UK internal market “facilitations”—that is the phrase—that will come into force in the near future, and that will, on a durable and legally binding basis, support the smooth flow of goods across the whole of the UK when the next phase of the UK internal market system is implemented this year, without, for example, unnecessary international customs paperwork.
We have seen the benefits of negotiating a way forward. There is unilateralism, as the hon. and learned Gentleman argues, and there are the benefits of negotiation. In respect of agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, we have been able to lift the old ban on the movement of seed potatoes. Not all those problems have been solved—I am the first to acknowledge that—but it is an improvement compared with the situation before. We are now able to apply UK public health and safety standards to agrifoods on the basis of primacy for goods staying in the United Kingdom moving under the Windsor framework schemes. We have reached agreements with the EU on tariff rate quotas, enabling businesses from Northern Ireland to import steel and agrifood products under UK tariff rates.
We also have an active Assembly that is scrutinising the regulations and raising its views—[Laughter.] Well, I will come back to that point later on. Medicines for the whole of the UK are now authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and we have ensured that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT, alcohol duty and other taxes as the rest of the UK.
All of those are undoubted benefits for Northern Ireland. They are benefits of the framework that supports Northern Ireland’s access to the two markets, and from which this integral part of the United Kingdom, which Northern Ireland is, uniquely benefits. This is possible because we have a lawful and sustainable agreement, in stark contrast to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed as a way forward.
I would be the first to acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Windsor framework is not perfect. We all know that. Where problems arise with the practical operation of the framework, this Government and the EU have tried to show that we can work through them in a constructive and pragmatic way, because that is what we have to do. For example, having listened to businesses, we took a pragmatic decision to extend on the timetable for implementing the new arrangements on parcels. One of the consequences of doing that was that the introduction of the new, less onerous customs arrangement was put off, because the EU’s view was that we needed to do the parcels at the same time in order for the new customs arrangements to come in.
Another example is the horticultural sector, where, in the last month the restrictions on the movement of two species of plant were removed. If we are talking about trees, I think that takes it up to 23, including our beloved silver birch and, I am advised, a number of varieties of cherry tree that were sorted out at the end of last year.
On the question of the Stormont brake, we acted on the concerns that the Northern Ireland Assembly raised about the potential implications of the new rules on chemical labels, font sizes and so on by committing to consult on taking forward measures across the UK that will protect the UK internal market. I would just point out—because the hon. Gentleman looks slightly sceptical —that there is a high bar to be met for the Stormont brake. When I received the application as Secretary of State, I was under a legal obligation to consider the application under the rules of the Stormont brake, and I made the decision that I did. In the end, what the Government announced was moving towards the same outcome that those who had raised the concerns in the first place wanted, just by different means than they had sought. In the end, the Stormont brake process actually worked to achieve the outcome that the Assembly wanted.
Jim Allister
I think the Secretary of State should listen to himself. What he is saying to the House is that we should be grateful for some sort of dud mechanism to deal with the situation whereby the right to make laws in 300 areas has been gifted to a foreign power, and that people elected in Northern Ireland can have no say in those laws and cannot amend, move or bring them into effect. He says that we should be grateful that, in those 300 areas of law, we might be able to go to the EU and say, “Please, Sir, would you ever mind just making that a little better?” Really? Where is the sense of dignity from this United Kingdom, that we should so prostrate ourselves to a foreign unelected jurisdiction—elected by no one in the United Kingdom—allow them to make our laws, and then claim as a victory the fact that we have a right to go and ask them to make some changes? But the Secretary of State has failed to answer the question. There is trade diversion—what is he going to do about it?
Hilary Benn
I am not asking anyone to be grateful for anything; I am simply pointing out to the House the problem that was created in the first place when we left the European Union.
Hilary Benn
If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, from a sedentary position he said, “punishment”. I could not disagree more. I would encourage him to reflect on what he has said, because I do not think that he acknowledges that there was an issue there that had to be addressed, and wishing it away was never going to work.
Jim Shannon
I am reminded of the wee song we used to sing in Sunday school many years ago:
“So high, you can’t get over it,
So low, you can’t get under it”.
The Stormont brake does not work because it is too high and too low; it is just not functional. In my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I referred to the HMRC cost. To give the Secretary of State an example, last week a business said that the HMRC charges have got to the stage where they are even more expensive than the goods the business is bringing in. There has to be something wrong when it gets to the stage where it is not the issue of getting the product across but the cost factor. Could the Secretary of State look at that, because there is something wrong with a system that ends up costing us more, when it did not cost that amount before the Brexit system came in?
Hilary Benn
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further information about the particular example he has raised, I will of course look at it.
On trade, I have a slightly different set of figures from those that the hon. and learned Gentleman used. From 2020 to 2023, purchases in Northern Ireland from GB went from £13.4 billion to £16.2 billion—an increase of 20.7%. Sales to the year ending December 2023 from Northern Ireland to GB rose by 12.4%, to £17.1 billion. He used a phrase at the beginning of his speech—I hope I wrote it down correctly—the “natural inclination of trade”. I would simply observe that the inclination of trade is a consequence of decisions that individuals and firms make, and those patterns change over time depending on what they want to buy or sell and what the market itself looks like.
The point I was making, without seeking gratitude, is that in every one of the examples I have just given, the Government worked to resolve the challenges we faced, working with stakeholders in Northern Ireland and with the EU, in what I think is a constructive and mutually beneficial way. That is what a responsible Government do, including abiding by commitments in international law on the world stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates triggering article 16. That measure refers both to trade and to instances where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties are liable to persist. Given that most goods are flowing relatively smoothly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can it be argued that we are facing those difficulties?
I would just make the point that if one goes to the port, the lorries come off and most of them go on their way—the goods are moving. That is in contrast to the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman put towards the end of his speech, when he used the phrase “cripple” in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. I have seen no evidence that the Northern Ireland economy, which, by the way, has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, is being crippled by the matters that we are discussing.
Mr Campbell
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He just said most goods are flowing freely. Does he not agree that he should amend that to say, “In certain sectors, most goods are flowing freely, but in certain other sectors, they most certainly are not”?
Hilary Benn
It depends on the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “freely.” There are requirements that certain goods must meet. There is the retail movement scheme and the horticultural scheme, and certain paperwork and documents are required, looking forward to the customs requirements being reduced later this year—hopefully when the new arrangements come in—but the goods move, and I do not think that anyone in the debate can stand up and say that the goods are not moving in those circumstances.
As I have indicated, the Windsor framework represents a step forward. Although I respect the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim makes his argument, I do not believe that current circumstances meet the article 16 test. Pulling that lever in the current circumstances would actually throw away the progress secured by the framework and damage the good faith that has been built up in taking the framework forward. We all need to remember that, not long ago, we had a Government who signed an international agreement and then set about showing that they had no intention of honouring it. That did extraordinary damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation.
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman has had quite a lot to say and I have given way to him three times, so I hope he will bear with me while I continue my remarks.
In the past, the idea that the UK would be a country that signed an international agreement and then reneged upon it would have been extraordinary to us all in this House, but that is what happened in very recent living memory, and it is why I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The last Government negotiated the Windsor framework. I stood up in the House and supported it. The Opposition supported it at that time, and I voted for it because I genuinely believed that it represented a significant step forward. But if we do not honour the most recent agreement that we have signed with the European Union, why would it wish to reach agreement on what this Government are currently seeking, in particular on an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement? This Government have come in saying that we want to do that, while the last Government appeared to say, “Well, the trade and co-operation agreement is all we want—we don’t want anything else.” This Government have a very different view: we want to negotiate an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement, and that would help considerably with some of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The Government will continue to listen to the concerns of businesses and respond pragmatically.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I have listened intently to the Secretary of State’s contribution and I am somewhat bemused by some of what he said. He speaks of businesses in his constituency that are jealous of what Northern Ireland businesses have. What we have in Northern Ireland is increased costs, increased paperwork and impediments to trade. It is increasingly difficult for engineering, agrifood and horticultural businesses in my constituency. I have invited the Secretary of State to visit those businesses, but I am still waiting. I encourage him to come to Northern Ireland and listen to the businesses that are impacted by the protocol and the Windsor framework on a daily basis. I also heard today about two plants that have been added to the ever-lengthening list of plants that are not available to Northern Ireland, well whoop-de-do-da-day—how brilliant and great for Northern Ireland. When are we going to get real and address the real problems that exist with the protocol and the Windsor framework?
Hilary Benn
Kind though it is of the hon. Member to encourage me to come to Northern Ireland, as she knows I am in Northern Ireland on a very regular basis and a little while ago I had a meeting with her and two organisations, at her request. I meet businesses on a very regular basis. I met the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Brexit working group and I always do my level best to respond to requests for visits from colleagues in the House of Commons, including the hon. Lady, but there are only so many hours in the day.
I wanted to point out that the independent monitoring panel, which I met for the first time yesterday, has started its work. Establishing the panel was a commitment made in the safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Its job will be on the basis of the evidence and it will be provided with data on the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to say whether the UK internal market guarantee is being met. The first six-month reporting period commenced on 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025, following which the IMP will publish its assessment and any recommendations. I commit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and all those who contributed to the debate, that I shall consider the report with the same attention to detail that he has shown in forwarding his argument today.
To conclude, this Government are committed to Northern Ireland. They are committed to the United Kingdom and to implementing the Windsor framework in a manner that is consistent with protecting Northern Ireland’s place within our internal market.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 29 January, uses powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to propose two reforms to existing regulations for the market authorisation process for regulated food and feed products in Great Britain. First, it removes the requirements for the periodic renewal of authorisations for three regulated product regimes. Secondly, it allows authorisations to come into effect following a ministerial decision based on evidence-based safety assessment advice. Those authorisations will then be published in an official register or list, rather than being prescribed by statutory instrument. These reforms form part of the Government’s mission to kick-start economic growth by increasing investment, driving up productivity and tackling regulatory barriers.
The UK food industry is worth £245 billion in consumer spending, and exports over £20 billion annually. The industry is driving innovation, and nowhere is that truer than for regulated products. Regulated products are food and feed products that need to be assessed for safety before they can be lawfully sold. They include novel foods at the cutting edge of research—for example, in the UK’s growing engineering biology sector, where emerging technology is being used to produce new and innovative foods.
That innovation and growth across the food sector will drive increasing demand for regulated product authorisations, and we therefore need to modernise the market authorisation service. As the regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland assess applications for regulated products and provide recommendations to Ministers across Great Britain on whether those products should be authorised.
We need proportionate and effective regulation to support innovation and investment in the UK food industry, while continuing to maintain safety and consumer trust. This SI will help to modernise the food and feed regulatory process by removing requirements that are unnecessary for food safety. Currently, certain products that have already been authorised for sale must be reauthorised every 10 years. The SI will remove that requirement; instead, the regulators will carry out safety reviews when new evidence emerges, and most of these products have many years of safe use. The reforms will result in a more efficient regulatory service, where the FSA and FSS are able to focus on detailed reviews of products that potentially pose the most risk, instead of continually reassessing products that have consistently demonstrated safe use.
The reforms build on the regulators’ existing powers to request information from businesses for review. The regulatory framework will remain comprehensive and adaptive, enabling the regulators to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging risks. Where necessary, approvals can be modified, suspended or revoked.
The FSA and FSS have earned the trust of the public through their rigorous approach to risk analysis, and food safety will continue to be a priority. The reforms will improve efficiency, while maintaining robust safety standards. There are 481 applications currently in the service. Around 100 are renewals, and almost 500 additional renewals are expected in the next three years. It is essential that we modernise the system. Removing set renewal periods will allow a more targeted approach to regulation.
The second part of the reforms will allow authorisations to come into force following ministerial decision and to be published in an official public register or list, rather than being prescribed by statutory instrument. That will enable new products to be brought to market more quickly, without compromising consumer safety. That approach aligns with other UK regulators’ authorisation processes for similarly regulated products, such as veterinary medicines and pesticides.
The FSA and FSS provide technical and scientific scrutiny through skilled and experienced staff and expert independent scientific advisory committees. They assess individual applications and provide safety assessments, which they use to develop risk management advice and recommendations for subsequent ministerial decisions. That process squarely aligns with internationally recognised principles. The FSA and FSS will continue to publish authorisation decisions and risk assessments in line with their commitments to transparency.
The FSA has a statutory obligation to consult, and the reforms do not change the consultation mechanisms that are used as part of the authorisation process for regulated products. Authorisations will continue to be subject to public scrutiny. When developing these proposals, the FSA and FSS engaged extensively with industry and consumer stakeholder groups. That included a public consultation, and the reforms have received substantial support.
This is an opportunity to deliver reforms that prioritise both efficiency and safety in the market authorisation service. The FSA and FSS will be able to focus resources on new and innovative products, which may require more input when seeking access to the market. I therefore ask hon. Members to support the reforms in this instrument, which will create a more efficient service that manages the level of risk in a proportionate way, without compromising the UK’s high food and feed safety standards. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister said, the regulations use a Brexit freedom to deregulate, and I welcome the fact that the Government are choosing to use that opportunity to reduce the amount of regulation that may be unnecessary.
I was also pleased to hear the shadow Minister talking about the economic benefits—[Laughter.] I am sorry; it is early in the morning. The Minister talked about the benefits, including financial benefits, that our great food industry provides to this country. As a farmer’s wife, I am very familiar with those, and I would encourage hon. Members—particularly Government Members—to go to the farmers’ protest and rally in Downing Street and Whitehall after the Committee this morning. They will be able to get a pancake and some of our other great British food, and also to learn about what the Government are doing to the farming industry and why that is important.
The first of the two changes in the regulations removes the requirement for 10-yearly renewals of authorisations for feed additives, genetically modified organisms and smoke flavourings, aligning the regimes with those for regulated food and feed products that do not require renewal. The second change eliminates the need for secondary legislation to bring the initial authorisations into effect, allowing them to be enacted following a ministerial decision and to be published in an official register.
That will certainly make the process more efficient and more effective, but I am interested to understand the Minister’s views on the level of oversight that can be provided. If I heard her correctly, she talked about approving 500 renewals over the next three years. Given the many other significant demands on her time, can she guarantee that those renewals will be given the scrutiny and oversight required?
The FSA and FSS will continue to assess products at the initial application stage and will maintain their powers to review authorised products if new evidence of risks emerges. The Minister talked about reviews, but what mechanism will trigger them? How will those organisations know that the risks are there if they are not doing regular reviews?
The Minister talked about how applications will work in Great Britain, but can she tell us more about what regulatory framework will be available in Northern Ireland. How does she see trade between GB and NI working, given the difference on either side of the Irish sea?
In summary, we do not plan to divide the Committee on the regulations, because we recognise their benefits, but we are keen to understand how the Minister feels that Parliament—and she herself—will be able to keep track of the various changes she will be making.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I welcome the Minister to her place. The Liberal Democrats welcome this simplified process. There are strong advantages to it, and it will help to make sure that we deliver the food we need. However, that cannot come at the cost of safety, so I would like to put a couple of questions to the Minister.
Effort needs to be made across Government to improve the reporting of any concerning new data or revelations. That is why we have long called for a duty of candour and for an office of the whistleblower. What assurances can the Government provide that ongoing monitoring will be as effective as possible so that, if a long-term negative effect is present years after a product’s introduction, it can be identified and addressed? And do the Government believe that any measures need to be taken to strengthen the ongoing work of the FSA and the FSS?
Ashley Dalton
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. Removing renewals and statutory instrument requirements will not lower food and feed safety or standards.
On scrutiny, removing SI requirements for authorisations will not change the FSA’s or the FSS’s robust risk analysis and public consultation process. Public consultations will remain open to all for scrutiny, and recommendations to Ministers for all authorisations of products will take those responses into account.
The shadow Minister asked how Ministers will be able to keep track of decisions. Of course, whether decisions come under this new proposal or the existing process, they will need to be assessed. Under this new process, Ministers can take advice from the FSA and the FSS, and we will then lay those decisions in the public register. If we did not bring this proposal forward, everybody would be involved in multiple SIs, which I am sure the shadow Minister will agree is a far more onerous process.
In response to concerns about divergence with Northern Ireland, our priority is to ensure that Northern Irish consumers benefit from the same robust public health protections as the rest of the UK, while also facilitating the smooth movement of goods to consumers. The robust system of controls that applies across the UK enables all consumers to trust that the food they buy and eat is safe and is what it says it is. Any differences in approach are managed through the relevant common frameworks.
As has been stated, the current requirement for renewals applies only to three regulated product regimes: feed additives, food or feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified organisms, and smoke flavourings. No other regulated products, including novel foods and food additives, have this requirement at the moment. These reforms introduce a consistent, proportionate and evidence-based approach.
The FSA and FSS will focus on horizon scanning and risk assessment so that they can respond to new safety evidence as it emerges. We are not going to ask businesses to bring their products routinely for review. However, if there are any changes in a product’s make-up, or it comes to light that the product has any new impacts, that will trigger the FSA and the FSS to look into those.
Dr Johnson
I did not quite understand the Minister’s point regarding Northern Ireland. At the moment, under the new regulations, it is clear what will be done in Great Britain to approve new products. However, if a new product has been produced in another part of the United Kingdom—that is, Northern Ireland—how will it be assessed? How will products that have been assessed under the system in GB be able to be sold in Northern Ireland? Will they require further investigation?
Ashley Dalton
Businesses in Northern Ireland that develop new regulated products and wish to place them on the market in the EU must apply to the EU for authorisation—that is all within the Windsor framework, and the reforms in this SI do not affect the operation of the Windsor framework in any way. Regulated products that are approved in Great Britain can be placed on the Northern Ireland market if moved via the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. I think that that answers the question.
To return to the safety concerns, by carrying out horizon scanning and risk assessment, the FSA and the FSS will consistently provide insights into whether already authorised products are safe to remain on the market, instead of working arbitrarily to renew authorisations on fixed timetables. The burden on industry and the public sector of having a comprehensive review for all products, even if there is no evidence to suggest that a review is needed, will be removed. We are looking for an evidence-based review system to help focus resources on new and innovative products and on where there may be problems.
The reforms build on existing powers under which the FSA and the FSS can request information for review, and it is in the interests of businesses to proactively provide it. The reforms ensure that the regulatory framework remains comprehensive and adaptive, and enables regulators to respond swiftly and effectively to the emerging risks we have discussed. Where necessary, approvals can be modified, suspended or revoked if a safety concern is identified.
The FSA and FSS, along with the independent scientific advisory committees, have the expertise to assess all applications for authorisation. Ministers must provide reasoning if they disagree with the advice from the FSA and FSS when making authorisation decisions. So there are appropriate tools and resources to allow hon. Members and the public to scrutinise regulated product applications and authorisations. The reforms will speed up the process, use resources more productively, efficiently and effectively, and align with other UK regulatory systems.
In summary, the reforms will remove requirements for the periodic renewal of authorisations for the three regulated product regimes I mentioned, and will allow authorisations to come into effect following ministerial decisions. The changes will streamline the process, allow regulators to keep pace with innovation, and support economic growth without compromising consumer safety. I am grateful for all the contributions today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Belarus) (Revocation) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief (Russian Federation) (Revocation) Order 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Belarus) (Revocation) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief (Russian Federation) (Revocation) Order 2025.
James Murray
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Dr Huq. The orders before us give effect to the suspension of the 2018 UK-Belarus and 1994 UK-Russia double taxation conventions in UK law. The orders revoke earlier legislation that previously gave effect to the treaties in UK law. The effect of the orders is that UK tax law will apply as if no treaty were in place with those countries from the new tax year, which begins on 1 April for corporation tax and on 6 April for income tax and capital gains tax, and for the equivalent taxes of Russia and Belarus.
The UK will tax UK-sourced income and gains without reference to the limits agreed in the treaty. Unilateral relief is available in UK domestic law to UK resident taxpayers, meaning that when a UK resident taxpayer has paid foreign tax, credit is available for the foreign tax already paid. That provides protection to UK resident taxpayers against the harmful effects of double taxation, and the rules apply wherever income or gains are not covered by a double taxation convention. However, benefits will no longer be available to residents of Russia or Belarus. The UK has decided to suspend the treaties in response to the actions of those countries, which have not been honouring their obligations under these conventions for some time.
In August 2023, Russia partially suspended its tax treaties with 38 countries, including the UK and other G7 countries that it termed “unfriendly.” Russia left in place only definitional and some administrative provisions, suspending all the articles concerning taxation of income, including those that contain limits on what can be taxed at source.
In March 2024, Belarus took action similar to Russia’s in relation to 27 countries, including the UK. It partially suspended the treaties, including the UK-Belarus treaty. Belarus suspended articles dealing with dividends, interest and capital gains, and then introduced higher rates of tax targeting foreigners in its domestic law.
Both Russia and Belarus have claimed that their action is in response to sanctions. Sanctions imposed on Russia and Belarus are a legitimate response to the illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. The sanctions are a reasonable and lawful response to Russian aggression, and to Belarus’s support and enabling of Russia’s actions. Their action to suspend material provisions of our tax agreement is therefore totally unjustified in international law.
The actions of Belarus and Russia are a material breach of the tax treaties and justify reciprocal action from the UK. In line with international law, the UK wrote to Russia and Belarus in December notifying them of our intention to suspend the treaties unless they remedied their material breach of the tax treaties within three months. Neither Russia nor Belarus has remedied their breach or returned to compliance. As a consequence, and in common with partner countries, the UK intends to suspend the tax treaties with Russia and Belarus unless they remedy their breach before the three-month deadline expires: on 24 March for Russia and 23 March for Belarus. They have been given ample time and opportunity to rectify their breach.
International law permits the UK to suspend the treaties in full. The UK has chosen this action as a proportionate response to the violation by Russia and Belarus of their obligations under the terms of their treaties with the UK. If either country comes back into compliance with its treaty obligations and remedies the material breaches, the UK can take steps internationally and domestically to give effect to a treaty again. But until such a time, the UK will apply domestic tax law without granting any of the limits agreed in the tax treaties in relation to payments of dividends, interest and royalties, and other types of income or capital gains arising in the UK.
The UK has been acting in lockstep with partners, including other G7 countries, ever since Russia and then Belarus unlawfully suspended provisions of the tax treaties. Countries including the United States, Canada, France and Germany have also suspended their tax treaties with Russia. Other partner countries have suspended their tax treaties with Belarus.
In summary, the orders give effect to the Government’s decision to suspend the UK’s double taxation conventions with Russia and Belarus in response to their material breach of treaty obligations. That means that Russian and Belarusian taxpayers will no longer be entitled to receive treaty benefits in UK law in circumstances where those countries have withdrawn benefits from UK resident taxpayers. UK tax law will apply from April, as though no tax treaty were in place with either Russia or Belarus.
I commend these orders to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister. It has been so long since we last saw each other—it must be at least two hours.
I am grateful to the Minister for laying these statutory instruments, which will revoke the double taxation conventions with Belarus and Russia. Russia fell out of compliance with all material provisions of its convention with the UK in August 2023, with Belarus following in March 2024. The UK did not immediately accept the suspensions and urged both countries to reverse their decisions and return to compliance with the conventions. However, given Russia and Belarus’s persistent refusal to comply with their international obligations, the UK has now rightly taken the decision to revoke both the 2018 and 1994 orders.
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s Opposition support these statutory instruments, which are a proportionate and sensible step given Russia and Belarus’s continuing breach of their international obligations. Of course, the measures build on steps taken by the previous Government in response to the invasion of Ukraine and the non-compliance with international obligations. For example, back in March 2022, we suspended co-operation with Russia and Belarus on exchanging and sharing tax information.
We support today’s measures, but I end by asking for one small point of clarification. The conventions state that signatories must give six months’ notice to terminate the agreement. Has the UK provided that notice, or did Russia’s unilateral suspension of the convention mean that such notice was no longer required?
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his remarks. I will briefly set out the Liberal Democrat view on this statutory instrument.
Revoking double taxation relief for Belarus and Russia is the right thing to do. They reneged on their treaty obligations to the UK, so it is only correct that we cancel the treaty. However, it is a bit surprising and concerning that it has taken so long for the Government to reach this decision.
Russia suspended its implementation of the treaty in August 2023, so the previous Conservative Government should have acted with urgency to revoke the treaty in response, particularly in the wider context of Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine, which is supported by Belarus. It was a mistake not to act sooner, so can the Minister assure us that equivalent SIs will not take so long to be implemented by this Government?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Members for Grantham and Bourne and for Wokingham for their contributions to this short but important debate.
In response to the shadow Minister’s question, I clarify that these orders do not terminate the treaties. Rather, they are a suspension under the Vienna convention. Had we chosen to terminate, it would not have taken effect until at least 2026. Suspension is therefore a quicker and more effective way to ensure balance in our obligations.
As I made clear in my earlier remarks, the UK has acted in line with the majority of our allies, including the G7, by suspending these treaties. The hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the timetable for suspending these provisions, and we believe that the Government have acted reasonably and responsibly by giving time for the other countries to come back into compliance with their legal obligations and to act consistently with other like-minded countries. None the less, I welcome his support for what we seek to achieve today.
The orders before the Committee will give effect to the Government’s decision to suspend the double taxation conventions with Russia and Belarus. This will prevent Russian and Belarusian residents from continuing to be entitled to benefits in circumstances where those countries do not grant benefits to UK taxpayers.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for the united front across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (RUSSIAN FEDERATION) (REVOCATION) ORDER 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief (Russian Federation) (Revocation) Order 2025.—(James Murray.)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that they have switched off any electronic devices or turned them to silent mode?
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection grouping for today’s sitting is available in the room or on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The purpose of the grouping is to limit, in so far as possible, the repetition of the same points in debate. The amendments appear on the amendment paper in the order in which they relate to the Bill.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. In the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, new clauses or schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped clauses and new schedules, they need to let me know.
I hope that that brief explanation is helpful. I remind Members about the rules on declaring interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 1
The Border Security Commander
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out
“designate a civil servant as the”
and insert “appoint a”.
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.
Matt Vickers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The subject of this Bill is incredibly important to this country and its future. I hope that, during the next two weeks, the Committee will give us a constructive opportunity for the consideration and strengthening of the Bill.
Let me briefly outline our first amendment. Clause 1 creates the Border Security Commander as a statutory office holder, and requires that the Secretary of State must designate a civil servant as the Border Security Commander. As Tony Smith, former director general of the UK Border Force, said in evidence to the Committee:
“I am not sure he will actually be able to command anything. He is probably going to be more of a co-ordinator.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 40, Q43.]
That is why we tabled amendment 10, which would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to be a civil servant.
The status of the Border Security Commander—as well as the commander’s functions and priorities, which I will come to in discussions on later amendments—is crucial if the role is to be in any way meaningful. As the Minister is aware, there are organisations that do not require civil servants to run them. Such a structure ensures their independence and reduces the internal day-to-day political struggles that can easily be imposed on them. Allowing recruitment from outside the civil service may also provide a wider talent pool and prevent the role from being relegated to that of yet another senior civil servant in the Department. We heard evidence about the wide array of roles in the Home Office already. The amendment would highlight the clear distinction between existing positions and the importance of securing our borders.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s answers to the following questions. Why have the Government decided that the Border Security Commander must be a civil servant? What is the operational benefit of that decision? Why would the Border Security Commander not benefit from greater independence? What level of seniority will the Border Security Commander have? In evidence to the Committee, Tony Smith assumed that the post would likely be a director general. Is he correct? If so, why have the Government made that decision? Fundamentally, if Mr Smith is correct and the Border Security Commander cannot actually command anything—we will discuss that in detail when we come to later amendments—what is the point of the position?
Clause 2 sets out that the Border Security Commander must
“hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Commander’s designation,”
and that the
“terms and conditions of a designation as Commander are to be determined by the Secretary of State.”
That is all the information we get. Will the Minister explain what the terms and conditions of a designation as commander will be? Let us compare the situation of the Border Security Commander, who is allegedly responsible for the security of our border, with that of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out that the commissioner has to be suitably qualified; will the Minister explain why no such requirement appears to exist in the legislation for the Border Security Commander? What would count as suitable qualifications for someone to take up the post of commander?
If the Secretary of State determines that a person’s designation as commander should be terminated, the Secretary of State must give the commander a written explanation of the reasons, give them an opportunity to make written representations and consider those before making a final decision. That seems sensible and in line with other positions, such as the Met Commissioner, that ought to be vaguely comparable in terms of responsibility.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing our proceedings, Dr Murrison, and I look forward to many hours of that—as I am sure you do.
I will set out what clauses 1 and 2 do and hopefully persuade the Committee that amendment 10 is not required. The clauses set out the role of the Border Security Commander and detail the terms and conditions under which they hold the office. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment 10 is to remove the requirement that the Border Security Commander be a civil servant. The hon. Member for Stockton West—I will learn all Members’ constituencies by the time we get to the end—seemed to say that he thought there was operational benefit in complete independence. I suppose that is one way of looking at it, but there is also benefit in co-ordination and in being attached to a central strategic point. The Government believe that that attachment, rather than total independence for the sake of it, is more likely to be effective.
Amendment 10 implies that the Border Security Commander should not be a civil servant. The role of the commander is a civil service role and the Border Security Command is a directorate within the Home Office. In a future recruitment exercise, existing civil servants could be appointed or the role could be advertised externally. Under the arrangements in clause 1 there is no limit one way or the other on where the Border Security Commander might come from—they could be internal or external. I hope that is some reassurance.
The mechanism of appointment is a civil service recruitment campaign to ensure that the best candidate is selected on merit. Given that the role sits within the Home Office and leads the functions of a directorate in the Department, it is logical that the role would be a civil service role. The idea is to cohere, not to fragment the work that is done. I see it very much as ensuring that all the cogs across Government connect with one another, so that when we turn the wheel we get something out at the end, rather than having a load of cogs that do not connect, which would not lead to a more effective outcome.
Clause 1 sets out that the Secretary of State must designate a civil servant as the commander and will make the necessary arrangements to ensure that resources are available to support them in exercising their functions. The Bill will place the Border Security Commander on a statutory footing, which will future-proof and solidify the role and ensure a clear direction and leadership for the UK’s border security system. Placing the Border Security Commander under this new legal framework is a clear signal of our determination to tackle organised immigration crime by going after the criminals who put lives at risk and undermine our border security.
Clause 2 details the commander’s terms and conditions and how they will hold, maintain and vacate the office. This clarity is necessary to ensure continuity in the role, and it underlines the Government’s commitment to making the Border Security Commander an enduring office.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
We on the Opposition Benches struggle to understand why the law must set out that the Border Security Commander must be a civil servant. The Minister said that amendment 10 implies the commander should not be a civil servant, but all it seeks to do is remove the requirement that they should be. If the Home Secretary and, presumably, the Home Office permanent secretary believe that the role is best filled by a civil servant, perhaps for the reasons of co-ordination that the Minister set out, so be it—they can still be appointed as a civil servant—but the legislation will mandate that they have to be, and we struggle to understand why that requirement is necessary.
Dame Angela Eagle
I made it clear in my response to the hon. Member for Stockton West that the recruitment could be done externally. Were somebody to be appointed who was not a civil servant when they applied, they would then come into the Home Office on civil service terms, bringing with them whatever experience they had and that the recruitment process had determined would be suitable for the role. I am not sure there is much between us, unless the hon. Lady is implying that, by the act of becoming a civil servant, the commander would somehow be less effective. I do not believe that is the case, especially as the idea is to ensure that the Border Security Commander can convene the entire system across Government Departments. Having a base in the Home Office, albeit designated as a civil servant, will make that more effective rather than less effective. To be clear, if the legislation gets on the statute book, any future office holder would not have to come from the civil service. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady.
Katie Lam
I thank the Minister for that response, which is reassuring, but it does not quite address the concern. These issues are very difficult, and I presume the Minister accepts that it is possible that it might be better, either in due course or in relatively short order, for the commander to be operationally independent. If that is the Home Secretary’s judgment as time goes on, the Government will have to come back to Parliament to change the law. Would it not be better for them to give themselves the flexibility?
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Lady implies that total independence from the machinery of government would somehow assist in the job that we wish the Border Security Commander to do. I do not agree with her in that analysis. The job of the Border Security Commander is to convene and cohere and to strategically focus, across Government Departments, with a focus on checking that our border security is as effective as it can be. I do not think that total independence is going to add to effectiveness in that context. In fact, we believe that having the commander operating out of the Home Office at a director general level, but appointed by the Prime Minister with a special place in primary legislation, is a more effective way to ensure that the commander’s basic role has the biggest-percentage likelihood of being effective.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Minister has been clear that we can of course recruit from outside the civil service, and that being within the civil service equips the person with the powers, the tools and, of course, the access to be effective in the role.
I am slightly concerned that the hon. Member for Stockton West tabled the amendment off the back of oral evidence from Tony Smith, who—with full respect—retired from his role 13 years ago. The director general of the National Crime Agency gave evidence on the same day as Tony Smith, and he said:
“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…organised crime”.
Jim Pearce, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on organised immigration crime, then said:
“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.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 38, Q42.]
Dame Angela Eagle
I was just checking that I had my hon. Friend’s entire constituency name. They have all changed, Dr Murrison, which can be a bit disorientating because I am used to the old names.
My hon. Friend is exactly right. He demonstrates, through the evidence we heard—particularly from the NCA, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police chiefs last Thursday—that there is and was a strategic gap. Everybody is doing fantastic work in the NCA, the police, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the security services, but nobody had taken a focused look at how border security could be delivered most effectively. From the meetings I have had since Martin Hewitt took up his post, it seems there is almost relief that somebody is convening a board that can look at analytics on where the threats are, how they are developing and how we can best deal with them, and do the legwork to come up with a strategy focused on border security. That is the whole point of creating the command.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendment.
As the Minister set out, clause 1 does not mean that someone who is not a civil servant cannot apply for the role. We have to be careful not to have an old-fashioned view of how the civil service operates. External candidates are increasingly common nowadays as outside specialisms are required by the Government, even for roles that are not particularly senior.
Even if an external candidate applies, they will get the support of the civil service. The role compares to Home Office roles such as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and the commissioner on modern slavery, who are separate from the Home Office apparatus and often report—especially at the Home Affairs Committee—that they do not get the support and structural backing they need. Clause 1 would obviate that. The commander will also be subject to the civil service code, which is important given the high levels of public expectation for the role.
The one difference between this and other directors general, and other senior figures in the Home Office, is that the role is set out in primary legislation. We will thereby create a distinction for the role by passing the Bill. The shadow Minister suggested that we should discuss the suitable qualifications for the role, but the role is very operational so we should be wary of setting out in legislation or in this debate the exact specifications of every task.
Finally, we must be careful of the pendulum swinging in one direction with one Government and then, with a change of Government, straight back in the other direction, meaning we repeat the mistakes of the past. When the coalition Government came into office in 2010, Home Secretary Theresa May—now Baroness May—restructured the UK Border Agency, as it was under the Labour Administration. She commented at the time that the UKBA had been structured in such a way as to be so independent that it would
“keep its work at an arm’s length from Ministers—that was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture. So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to Ministers.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1500.]
Although we are trying to correct what has clearly gone wrong over the previous 14 years of Conservative government of Border Force, it is important that we do not overcorrect and go back to the situation we were in before, which Baroness May pointed out did not work then.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend makes some very good points, particularly about over-correction between Governments but also about the fact that independence is an obvious thing to have for particular posts—in inspection, for example, but not necessarily operational ones—and the need to cohere a system, to ensure that all the good work being done across different Departments can be focused strategically on one aim. That is what the clauses seek to do.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. I want to take on a principled point that I have heard levelled by the hon. Member for Stockton West and other Conservative Members today and on Second Reading, which is that the Border Security Commander cannot command. It is really important to address that point.
From 2018 to 2023, we saw the number of small boat arrivals increase from 299 to 29,500. That is a hundredfold increase. As I understand it, some of the explanation given by the Conservatives is that the matter became very complicated, and we were seeing an increase in organised crime activity. To their credit, that was reinforced by the director general of the National Crime Agency, Rob Jones, who said
“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”.––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 29, Q28.]
Those were just some of the things he highlighted.
If we acknowledge that the present Government face a more complicated situation, we should agree that it will involve a suite of tools. As Rob Jones said,
“There is not one thing that you can do to tackle these problems”. ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 29, Q28.]
Sarah Dineley, the deputy chief Crown prosecutor, concurred with her colleagues and said:
“I do not believe that there is one single measure that would impact so significantly that it would reduce migrant crossings to zero.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 30, Q28.]
Jim Pearce, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for organised immigration crime, highlighted the same point.
If the situation is so complex and there is a need for the suite of tools that are being strengthened by this Bill, surely there is a need for greater co-ordination. Greater co-ordination will surely help to fix some of the strategic challenges that our immigration system and asylum system have faced in recent years. To co-ordinate is to command, and it is crucial we accept that point. If we do not, we will not be able to tackle the backlog we face, we will not be able to implement the measures in the Bill and we will not be able to secure our borders.
Amendments have been tabled in relation to aspects of the Border Security Commander role, but I am not entirely certain whether the Conservative party supports the role of Border Security Commander at all. On Second Reading, we heard colleagues asking what Martin Hewitt is doing with his time. I would welcome the hon. Member for Stockton West explaining whether the Conservative party does in fact support the role of Border Security Commander and Border Security Command. We heard clearly from those who gave oral testimony, who are operationally focused, experienced and expert in their field, about the necessity of such a command. Indeed, Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, summed it up well when he said that
“the Border Security Command is an understandable response.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 5, Q1.]
Matt Vickers
We will discuss when we come to the next group of amendments the aims and objectives of this role, and the fact that if we are going to have a Border Security Commander, they should have a very meaningful role that can make a real difference. I would like to press on clause 2 of the Bill, which talks about
“The terms and conditions of a designation as Commander are to be determined by the Secretary of State.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what those terms and conditions of designation might be? As I mentioned, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out how the Met commissioner must be suitably qualified. What sort of qualifications could we expect to see in a commander and what will those terms and conditions be?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not want to read out the job description, which was put out there ahead of Martin Hewitt being appointed last year. It is there for all to see, it is a public document. The role is very much about being able to operationally cohere the system and to make certain by the operation of the Border Security Commander’s board, upon which sit many of the other parts of Government that need to have regard to the strategy, that we decide how to take forward and deal with threats to our border security. It is not really rocket science, and I do not think that there would be much to be gained from putting the details of all of that into primary legislation.
It is important that as the threats to our border security evolve, which they certainly will do over time, that we do not find ourselves with a very rigid set of requirements in primary legislation, which is hard to change. The idea is to have convening powers to give flexibility to the commander to ensure that he can bring together all of the forces across Government that are charged with security in this area and ensure that the focus on organised immigration, crime and border security is always at the forefront of the work that they do.
Katie Lam
I am a little confused by some of the contributions from Labour Members. They seem to be advocating for the commander to be a civil servant, and that is fine, but that is not actually what we are discussing. The question here is whether there could be any benefit in having some flexibility for the Home Secretary to do something different, and we do not feel that that point has been answered.
Dame Angela Eagle
Could the hon. Lady go into more detail about what she means with respect to that? I have given her an assurance that the Border Security Commander could come from outside of the civil service and be appointed from outside of the civil service, but would then take up a civil service role of convening within Government and with the support of Government. That means that we do not have to set up an entirely new independent structure and fund it separately, which would be more likely to disintegrate rather than integrate the strategic approach to this multifaceted problem. I am beginning to wonder what the hon Lady has got against civil servants?
Katie Lam
Nothing whatever. There are lots of parts of the Home Office where the principle is accepted, that sometimes, particularly for difficult things and things that the Department has struggled to achieve, independence can be valuable. It sounds like the Minister is saying that she does not feel that that is the case. We must accept that, but we do not have to agree with it.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is true that independence has a very valuable part to play, particularly in holding Government structures to account. For example, the independent inspectors of our detention or prison estates who are allowed to go in and publish without fear or favour regarding what they find there. That is obviously a very important role where independence matters. But in this context, the Border Security Commander is cohering the effect and the work across Government that is trying to keep our borders properly protected. That is operational. It ties into the diplomatic and political as well, although obviously Ministers have an important part to play in that too.
The hon. Lady has nothing to worry about when it comes to the Border Security Commander sitting in a civil service context given that nothing in this Bill means that anyone who was not a civil servant when they applied to the post of Border Security Commander would be excluded from consideration. Being in the civil service to begin with is not a requirement.
Matt Vickers
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Functions of the Commander
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(1A) In exercising the Commander’s functions, the Commander must have full regard to the provisions of—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(b) the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.”
This amendment would confirm that the Commander must have full regard to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Action against Trafficking.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The strategic priority document issued under subsection (2) must support the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy.”
This amendment would require that the Border Security Commander’s strategic priority document supports the UK Border Strategy.
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The Home Secretary may give direction to Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and the National Crime Agency to support the Border Security Commander in the delivery of the Border Security Commander’s objectives and strategic priorities.
(2B) The Home Secretary’s powers under subsection (2A) must not be used to interfere with the democratic mandate of the PCC within a force area, nor seek to interfere with the office of constable or operational independence of the chief constable or the operational independence of the National Crime Agency, unless the Home Secretary is satisfied on the advice of HMICFRS that not to do so would result in a police force of the National Crime Agency failing or national security being compromised.”
This amendment would enable the Home Secretary to direct other agencies to support the Border Security Commander’s objectives and strategic priorities.
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, leave out subsection (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing the strategic priority document.
New clause 7—Duty to meet the director of Europol—
“The Border Commander must meet the director of Europol, or their delegate, no less than once every three months.”
This new clause would require the Border Commander to meet with the Executive Director of Europol every three months.
New clause 21—Functions of the Commander in relation to sea crossings to United Kingdom—
“(1) In exercising the Commander’s functions in relation to sea crossings to the United Kingdom, the Commander must have regard to the objectives of—
(a) preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom—
(i) without leave to enter, or
(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person;
(b) ensuring that a decision is taken on a claim by a person under subsection (1)(a) within six months of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and
(c) making arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of a person who enters the United Kingdom without leave, or with leave that was obtained by deception.
(2) The Commander must include, in the strategic priority document issued under section 3(2), an assessment of—
(a) the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom;
(b) the most effective methods for reducing the number of sea crossings made by individuals without leave to enter the United Kingdom; and
(c) the most effective methods for arranging the removal, to the person’s own country or a safe third country, of a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘sea crossings’ are journeys from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom; and
(b) illegal entry to the United Kingdom is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”
This new clause sets out objectives and strategic priorities for the Border Security Commander in relation to sea crossings and arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally.
Pete Wishart
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. It is a good 10 years since I have had the pleasure and privilege of being on a Public Bill Committee—or Standing Committee, as we used to call them back in the day—and I hope that it will be as much fun as I remember. Ten years ago, I was the home affairs spokesperson, and I saw a number of Bills quite like this one: good old-fashioned “stop them coming and boot them out” Bills. There has been a succession of them over the years from various Governments. The Minister knows that I hold her in great respect and affection, and I wish her particularly well with the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I hold the hon. Gentleman in similar affection. We are pretty long in the tooth—we are the two people who are the most long in the tooth on this Bill Committee—and I look forward to listening to his arguments.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the Minister for that. I would hate to think of our combined number of years in this House, but certainly we have almost spanned half a century.
The first 12 clauses are totally dedicated to putting the Border Security Commander into statute, and the first three list his functions, and outline and define some of his responsibilities. The Bill states that the Border Security Commander must be appointed by the Home Secretary and will be obliged to prepare annual reports. A board will be appointed
“to assist the Commander in the exercise of the Commander’s functions.”
I do not know about other hon. Members, but the last time I looked there already was a Border Security Commander, who is doing the job as outlined in the Bill effectively, pretty much as the Home Secretary has been directing him, without needing to have been put into statute. If my mind does not deceive me, I remember Martin Hewitt being appointed as the commander and doing all these things, but here he is, 12 clauses of a Bill better off, and secure in the knowledge that he is now in statute.
All that makes me think of the BBC Scotland series “The Chief”, which as Scottish members of the Committee will know is the fantastic new spin-off of “Scot Squad”. It features the mythical and fantastic character Chief Commissioner Miekelson. He is a complex character. A bit self-aggrandising, he is always getting himself on the wrong side of various issues around the culture wars, which he is pretty uncomfortable with; he always manages to upset or offend somebody. I am sure that he is the exact opposite of Commander Hewitt, who I believe is modest, nice and easy to get on with—I have not had the pleasure of meeting him so far. However, they have a couple of things in common, which I want to explore as we look at the functions of the commander.
It strikes me that Commander Miekelson would love to be in statute; 12 clauses of a Bill—he would look at this as some great calling card. They face similar threats: for Commander Miekelson, it is the bams who make his life a misery and whom he needs a whole load of new powers to deter; for Commander Hewitt, it is the illegals. As we go through the Bill, let us wish Commander Hewitt and Chief Commissioner Miekelson all the best as they tackle these threats.
Chris Murray
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although Commissioner Miekelson is a fictional character, the role was created by statute—by the SNP Scottish Government when they created Police Scotland?
Pete Wishart
Police Scotland has a chief constable who is in charge, but in “Scot Squad”, Commissioner Miekelson is a chief commissioner. It is only right that we point out these distinctions; there is a significant difference between that mythical, fictional character and the reality of the role of chief constable, which is very efficiently and effectively looked after by the current inhabitant of that post.
I know you want me to get on to the particular amendment, Dr Murrison, so thank you for your forbearance and patience. My amendment confirms that the,
“Commander must have full regard to…the Human Rights Act 1998; and…the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking”.
The Minister is likely to tell me that none of that is necessary as human rights compliance is already implicit with Government operations. However, without these explicit legal mandates and safeguards, all of that can be overlooked. If the Minister is asking us to agree to 12 clauses at the outset of a Committee for an important Bill, relating to a job that is already being done, surely we can agree that one of these functions should be about the observance of our very important international obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
I do not think anybody is opposed to the border commander; I know there are a few jokes about his comparison to Chief Miekelson, but all of us agree that the Minister is establishing a necessary and useful role. I do not think, even though she was trying to chide her Conservative colleagues, that there was much disagreement from anybody on whether this is a useful role that could help bring together quite a lot of the structure and infrastructure that is responsible for operating our border security. There is a discussion about a lot of his tasks being administrative. There is nothing wrong with that, but for something as important as this, everybody would like to think that where there is administration, it will be effective and put in place in a way that we could look at it.
However, we need further clarity on the roles, functions and responsibilities of the border commander. Clause 3 is supposed to be the place where we find all of those things, but the one thing that the clause does not do is outline fully, perfectly, roundly and coherently what the actual functions of the border commander will be. Even if we look very carefully in all the different subsections, it does not say much about what he is expected to do. It lists a number of administrative responsibilities he will have, which is fair and fine, but all of us discussing the role of the border commander in the Committee would like to understand what he will be doing—what are his jobs, what are his functions, what responsibilities will he have, how will these things be discharged, and how will he be open to the type of scrutiny that we, as Members of this House, require?
There are provisions that seem to speak about the functions without actually identifying any of them. The only place where we can find objectives in clause 3 is subsection (1), but they are only objectives to which the commander must have regard. That is important. It just says he must “have regard” to the particular responsibilities that are outlined in the subsections. Subsections (7) to (9) are particularly interesting because they seem to suggest that people smuggling and human trafficking to the UK are to be regard as threats to border security. That seems fair enough; most of the Bill is about the perceived threat—disrupting networks and tackling the gangs that operate their vile trade across the channel.
Here is the thing: the people who board these boats are subject to the constraints imposed by these gangs and are at their mercy. They are controlled and reliant. Those people are totally and utterly ignored in the subsections in clause 3. Their realities—their need and right to seek safety, reunite with family and escape situations of extreme deprivation—are ignored, even though they have everything to do with the responsibilities and functions of the commander. As a matter of principle, then, it is vital that the Bill should be amended so that the Border Security Commander has regard to objectives concerned with respecting human life and dignity, and that must include specific shared obligations to provide asylum to people fleeing persecution and to enable victims of human trafficking to have security and safety from their enslavement.
There are concerns that, if border enforcement strategies do not include these protections for vulnerable individuals and victims of modern slavery, trafficking victims will enter further cycles of exploitation. In prioritising enforcement over protection, as the Bill does almost exclusively, we risk wrongfully criminalising victims of trafficking and failing to identify those in need of urgent intervention—or, worst of all, sending them back to their exploiters. If we stand by our commitments under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the Bill should ensure that the commander respects those obligations too.
As we have discussed, the commander is a civil servant. I have taken no great view on that, and I listened carefully to the exchanges about the civil service role, but I have a couple of concerns in relation to my amendment 1 that I would like the Minister to address. The civil service code does not give a clear, enforceable duty to respect the UK’s obligations under international law. I am pretty certain that the Minister will tell me that there is a general obligation to comply with the law and our international obligations, as that is expected and anticipated in everything that the Government do through all their responsibilities and actions.
However, I refer the Minister to the recent case in the High Court. That was, of course, R (on the application of FDA) v. Minister for the Cabinet Office and others. I think the Government actually won that court case, which meant that any of the civil servants who were involved in compiling regulations had to abide by the legislative context but did not have to oblige and comply with the international obligations. At best, it is unclear, so I ask the Minister to clarify: will the Border Security Commander, who will be a civil servant, always be obliged—totally and utterly—to fully respect all our international obligations, particularly those around the HRA and the ECAT?
Without those specific obligations in the Bill, the Border Security Commander will be presumed always to prioritise enforcement over vital legal protection, potentially leading to human rights violations. Although the commander is required to comply with instructions set by the Home Secretary, which again I think everybody would accept is right and appropriate, they are not explicitly required to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations. For me, that is totally wrong, and it completely skews the whole modus operandi of our Border Security Commander and features of the Bill. I will come back to that as the Bill progresses.
We need to see this change to the Bill. We have 12 clauses and various subsections dedicated to the role and the functions of the commander. Let us have one—just one—that says that he must be prepared and obliged always to act in line with all of our obligations on international responsibility, being a good international actor, being a place that is recognised for exemplary human rights requirements and being signed up to the HRA and to ECAT. Let us put that in the Bill.
Matt Vickers
I have not come across Chief Commissioner Miekelson before, but I will endeavour to catch up on Netflix or iPlayer.
Matt Vickers
Clause 3 sets out the functions of the Border Security Commander. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), correctly pointed out on Second Reading that the new Border Security Commander
“cannot actually command anything. There are no powers at all in the Bill, merely functions. They include, in clause 3, publishing a strategic priority document and, in clause 4, a duty to prepare an annual report…the Border Security Commander has no clear powers, merely an ability to publish documents and reports.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 69.]
According to the legislation, the functions of the commander
“must have regard to the objectives of…maximising the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities relating to threats to border security, for the purpose of minimising such threats, and…maximising the coordination of those activities for that purpose.”
That sounds suspiciously like a co-ordinator, rather than a commander. That is exactly what the legislation states: the commander does not appear to be empowered by the Bill to command anyone.
Subsection (5) defines a partner authority as a
“public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”,
but—in subsection (6)—
“not…the Security Service…the Secret Intelligence Service”
or “GCHQ”.
Will the Minister confirm what is meant by partner authorities? Does she have a list of likely organisations that the Border Security Commander should be able to direct co-operation with? How far does she think that the Border Security Commander will be able to have an impact on public authorities abroad? For example, what role might French law enforcement be expected to play in having regard to the commander’s strategic priority document?
The Opposition have tabled amendment 13, which would enable the Home Secretary to direct other agencies to support the Border Security Commander’s objectives and strategic priorities, specifically Border Force, Immigration Enforcement, police and crime commissioners and the National Crime Agency. Ideally, we would like the Border Security Commander to have a meaningful role and the ability to direct other agencies. As the Government seem unwilling to do that, however, we thought it might be possible for the Home Secretary to give the Border Security Commander a little support.
If the Minister does not want to accept amendment 13, I would like to understand why not. Why do the Government seem willing to allow the commander only to co-ordinate, rather than to command? Why could the Home Secretary not add some additional impetus?
The clause requires the Border Security Commander to issue a strategic priority document that sets out the principal threats to border security when the document is issued, and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions in relation to any of the threats to the border identified by the commander. We have tabled amendment 12 to ensure that the strategic priority document supports the Home Office’s UK border strategy. We are attempting to ensure that the Border Security Commander is aligned with the rest of the Home Office’s work to secure the border. I am interested to understand why the Minister is not willing to accept that amendment.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Given the representations made by the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Weald of Kent, something seems strange and I would appreciate an explanation. The hon. Member for Stockton West is speaking to amendment 12 and the necessity of supporting the Home Office’s UK border strategy. Given the hon. Member’s comments about the Border Security Commander having a role within the civil service, why does he want the commander to adhere to the Home Office’s UK border strategy, which is headed up by a director general who is a civil servant?
Matt Vickers
If we are to have such a position, we want it to be effective and have the relevant powers, but we also want it to be aligned with the other priorities of the Home Office and the work going on there. I think that is clear.
Amendment 11 would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing the strategic priority document. We would like to understand the operational benefits of the Secretary of State having to sign off the strategic priority document, which again highlights the lack of a meaningful role for the Border Security Commander. Although the strategic policy document should set out what are, in the commander’s view, the principal threats to border security and the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard, in reality the document is a diktat from the Secretary of State about the Secretary of State’s views, and that arguably exposes a lack of influence and gravitas in the Border Security Commander’s role.
Allowing the commander to issue a strategic priority document without seeking prior permission from the Secretary of State would provide a welcome level of independence for the role. The oversight and consultation of the board would ensure confidence in the Border Security Commander’s ability to take all necessary steps to stop the crossings. There may be occasions when the commander believes it is necessary to act swiftly and to implement changes without delay. Removing the requirement to have ministerial consent would allow them to act decisively. That approach, I am sure, could subsequently be supported by the Secretary of State.
Chris Murray
What, then, is the hon. Gentleman’s view of how UKBA functioned? In her testimony, Theresa May said that, where it had that kind of independence, it became “closed, secretive and defensive”, and she had to completely restructure UK border defence because the independence that the hon. Gentleman is talking about actually made it difficult for Ministers to have proper oversight.
Matt Vickers
When we talk about the Border Security Commander role, if we think it is going to “smash the gangs”, sort out all these problems and play a huge part in creating a secure border for this country, it is important that we allow it some element of independence and gravitas. We have talked about the commander being tied into the strategic priorities of the Home Office, but this amendment is about empowering them to make the difference that we want them to make. We want them to succeed.
As I was saying, removing that requirement would allow the Border Security Commander to act decisively. We must avoid unnecessary bureaucratic wrangling and ensure that, in this critical matter, they have the freedom they need to deliver results.
Tom Hayes
I have two quick points. First, the hon. Member talked about whether the Border Security Commander could somehow command or direct the activities of our international partners. I would highlight that this Government have strengthened and created the new international arrangements that have made it possible for us to start to secure and securitise our borders. It is important not to pretend that the history of what has happened did not happen; we should realise that we need to have close international ties.
Secondly, I am listening closely to the hon. Member’s suggestions for how the role could be improved. Is he proposing these amendments because the current office holder, Martin Hewitt, is not discharging the office in the way that he would like? Could he comment on whether he thinks that Martin Hewitt is doing a good job or a less-than-good job, and whether he thinks that the Border Security Commander role, as it is currently being discharged, is satisfactory?
Matt Vickers
At some point, Martin Hewitt will be superseded. We want to make sure that whoever is in this role is in the best possible position to do the best possible job. I do not think that these measures are necessarily about Martin Hewitt’s effectiveness or otherwise; they are about this post and its fundamental role—well, its apparent fundamental role—in delivering border security for this country.
Tom Hayes
It is not about Martin Hewitt’s professional competence or his ability as a person to do the role; it is about the role itself. Based on how the role has been configured, does the hon. Member believe that the present office holder is discharging the role well, with the responsibilities given, or is he proposing these measures because he believes that somehow the role is lacking?
Matt Vickers
I think there is an opportunity to strengthen this role so that it can provide that real fundamental change that we are apparently looking for in this Bill. I would not necessarily want to comment on the individual.
We have tabled new clause 21 to set out some clear and measurable objectives for the Border Security Commander, to attempt to give this co-ordinator some clear direction. New clause 21 would set out that, in exercising their functions, the commander
“must have regard to the objectives of…preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom…without leave to enter, or…with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception”.
In effect, we want it in black and white in the Bill that the commander will be given the objective of reducing illegal entry to the country, and that is what new clause 21 would achieve.
Since 2018, when the figures were first recorded, more than 150,000 people have arrived in small boats. As of 29 January, 1,098 people had crossed the channel since the start of 2025. In 2024 as a whole, 36,816 people were detected making the crossing. I would like to understand why the Government do not think it is worthwhile to give the Border Security Commander the direct objective of reducing or even ending those arrivals.
We also wish to ensure that those who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay. We know that effective returns agreements work as a deterrent. When in government, we cut the number of Albanian illegal migrants coming to the UK by small boat crossings by more than 90%, thanks to our returns agreement. In 2022, 12,658 Albanian illegal migrants arrived in the UK by small boat, but that fell to just 924 in 2023, following our landmark returns agreement with Albania.
We have therefore included in new clause 21 the objective for the Border Security Commander to ensure that a decision on a claim by a person who has arrived in the UK illegally is taken within six months of the person’s arrival, and for the commander to make arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally. It is up to the Government to put in place an effective deterrent to people crossing the channel in small boats.
Mike Tapp
I find it quite astounding that there are any claims of success from the Opposition, given that we saw 299 people cross in 2018 and then an exponential rise of over 130,000 on the Conservatives’ watch. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a deterrent, but four people went to Rwanda and over 80,000 people crossed when that scheme had been introduced.
Importantly, the whole system in the Home Office had completely ground to a halt. There is another deterrent that was overlooked by the Conservatives during their tenure, and that is having a process that actually functions. We now have record high deportations, and as that message cuts through to people who are looking to cross, it will start to serve as a deterrent.
Matt Vickers
I thought that we would get a bit further through the Bill before we got into records. In real terms, there has been a marked increase in the number of people coming here since this Government took office—small boat crossings are up by 28%. We now have 8,500 more people staying in hotels across the country—up by nearly 29%. We were closing hotels. The hon. Member talks about the number of people being deported, but they are voluntarily going back. In real terms, the number of people who have arrived on small boats being returned went down, and in the most recent figures, it has gone down again. We have not been sending back those people who have arrived in small boats since this Government took office—that is just not the case.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for giving way again; I will not make a habit of it. It is important to realise that the processing of those who come into Western Jet Foil and then Manston takes time, but of course they will be deported, if they are not genuine refugees, once the system gets there.
It is also important to note something else. Being the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, I often look out across the sea, and I can tell when it is a good day to cross and when it is not. On those days when it is viable to cross, crossings have reduced. The Conservatives were relying only on the weather to bring down boat crossings.
Matt Vickers
I think, in the last week, we have found that the only thing that this Government are relying on is the weather, but I will carry on. I am sure we will come back to all these things in due course; it is good to be discussing them here instead of on a news channel somewhere.
As the Government are repealing the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 with this Bill, we want to make sure that the Border Security Commander is empowered to ensure that all relevant agencies are working towards taking timely decisions on any claims by illegal immigrants, and removing those who enter the UK illegally.
Becky Gittins
I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a timely turnaround in the processing of asylum claims—something that really concerns Government Members with regard to the IMA and the Rwanda Act. Could he tell me what proportion of asylum claims under the previous Government were processed within the six-month period stipulated in this new clause?
Matt Vickers
I could not, but I could tell the hon. Lady that the backlog is even bigger now than it was when this Government took office.
If the Government were serious about tackling illegal crossings and creating an effective deterrent, they would support new clause 21. We also want to make sure that the Border Security Commander is transparent with the public about how best to stop illegal and dangerous channel crossings, which is why this new clause includes a requirement for the commander to make an assessment of the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry into the UK, the most effective methods for reducing the number of sea crossings made by individuals without leave to enter the UK, and the most effective methods for arranging the removal, to the person’s own country or a safe third country, of a person who enters the UK illegally. Again, if the Government were serious about protecting borders, they would support the new clause.
Clause 9 specifies that the Border Security Commander must
“comply with directions given by the Secretary of State about the exercise of the Commander’s functions under this Chapter.”
Can the Minister explain what sort of guidance the Secretary of State is likely to want to give the commander? Can she explain how the Secretary of State wishes to exercise the powers in the clause?
The SNP’s amendment 1 would confirm that the commander must have full regard to the Human Rights Act and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Given that the commander’s role, as drafted by the Government, includes no real power or responsibility, I am not sure what that amendment would actually achieve.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Liberal Democrats would like to introduce new clause 7, because we want to strengthen cross-border co-operation and Britain’s role in that process. We also believe that we need to reverse some of the last Government’s roll-back of provisions to tackle gangs involved in modern slavery. The new clause would require the border commander to meet the executive director of Europol every three months, which would help to achieve those goals.
Chris Murray
Before I was elected and before Brexit, I was the justice and home affairs attaché at the British embassy in Paris. I helped to co-ordinate engagement between the Home Office, the French Government and Europol. I do not know how much the hon. Lady knows about how Europol functions, but it has a lot of operations and is a very busy organisation. It would frequently take us more than three months to arrange a meeting. Would the new clause not put civil servants at risk of breaching the law just because they could not set up a meeting fast enough?
Susan Murray
That is a really important point. If the new clause were accepted, civil servants would perhaps have to look at ways to schedule meetings in advance so that they were not done on an ad hoc basis.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. If the role of the Border Security Commander is ultimately to be successful, there needs to be confidence in its efficacy. The title of clause 3 is “Functions of the Commander”, but headings in law are often not necessarily reflected in the interpretation, and the clause does not fully do what it sets out to achieve. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire highlighted, it does not actually set out exactly what the functions are. It sets out that the commander has functions, and that they
“must have regard to the objectives of…maximising the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities”—
which I assume would include Border Force—and
“maximising the coordination of those activities”.
As Migrant Voice and Amnesty International said during evidence, it seems that the role of the border commander involves little more than administration, and I am concerned about what they will actually do. Even with the objective of issuing a “strategic priority document”, all they have to do is set out the principle threats to border security and the strategic priorities.
I have a genuine question about the efficacy of the border commander. First, border security goes beyond just migration; it also relates to our biosecurity, as mentioned in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the other day. Border Force highlighted that it deals with numerous issues, including breaches of rules on personal imports. That means that illegal meats are coming into the country, which is a real concern for our border security.
I am concerned about what the border commander will be able to do. Border Force actually needs help with monitoring imports and safely disposing of illegal meats, but it seems that the border commander will be able only to pull together Border Force groups and get them to talk about the problem or list potential threats. We know what the threats are; we just need action, as Border Force itself has called for. It needs more powers.
My concern is that the establishment of the border commander, although an interesting approach, will not actually solve the problems that need solving right now. Perhaps the Minister could address what the border commander will be able to do in that regard.
Dame Angela Eagle
I think Chief Miekelson will be on all our lists now. I spend the small amount of time I have in life to twiddle my thumbs looking for new detective dramas, and it seems I have overlooked one. I have been too into Scandi noir, when I should have been into Scottish noir. I will talk to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire after the sitting to see whether he can give me a little more detail, so that I can follow up for my own enjoyment.
This group contains various provisions relating to the Border Security Commander, including amendments 11 to 13 and new clause 21 from the official Opposition, and new clause 7, which the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire spoke to. It also contains amendment 1, with which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire opened our proceedings on this group. In our earlier exchange, he and I reflected on how long in the tooth we both are. So experienced is he that he anticipated what my answer to his amendment would be, and his comments show that he has a coherent and experienced view of the way in which human rights law works. If we had to list in every single bit of primary legislation the treaties we had solemnly entered into, and the international agreements that we had, in many cases, helped to formulate and that we had then put into effect in our own law, we would have an even messier statute book than we have at the moment.
Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the commander has full regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings while carrying out all his functions. Both pieces of international agreement and law were freely entered into by predecessor Governments, and we take them extremely seriously as a law-abiding Government who believe in the rule of law. The Border Security Commander will be a public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act, and must act compatibly with the Act. That is absolutely the case. It is not explicitly written into the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would require, but that does not mean that all the requirements in the two agreements that amendment 1 mentions will not be adhered to.
Pete Wishart
Before I put my question to the Minister, I will just say to the Committee that “The Chief” is available on iPlayer, if they want to enjoy the eight episodes that will come their way.
Pete Wishart
Perhaps not—I am sure you would have a few words to say about that, Dr Murrison.
I did anticipate the Minister’s response, but I do not think there is anything wrong with ensuring that our commitments to international operations and to the whole force of human rights across the world—things we agree on—are in the Bill. We saw with the previous Government how easily international obligations and the international rule of law can be set aside and torn up. We are asking for these things to be in the Bill to give us security and a guarantee that the border commander will pay attention to them. If the commander is not compelled to do that by statute, there will be no obligation whatsoever.
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that everything the commander does must be compatible with our obligations under the Human Rights Act and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Those things are implicit with every public office holder in the UK, in all the contexts in which they work. The fact that those things are implicit, and not explicitly in the Bill, does not undermine the commitment of any Government who want to act within the rule of law. One of the first things our current Prime Minister said when he walked through the door at Downing Street was that we would be a Government who respected the rule of law and the Human Rights Act.
Chris Murray
The most comparable piece of legislation on this topic in a devolved context is the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015. That Act does not require a clause that specifies the obligation to respect international law. Those things are implicit in legislation passed by the Scottish Government, even on this topic.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, all office holders implicitly have to follow the rules of the European convention on human rights. One issue, if we decide to move away from the current approach and start to include an explicit provision in particular Bills—as the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire would—is that it might look like the implicit duty to adhere to these agreements does not apply if it is not stated explicitly. That would actually lead to a lessening of protections, if judges looking at what Parliament was legislating for decided that we must take account of section 6 of the Human Rights Act only if we put that in a Bill. We would end up in a worse situation.
I ask the hon. Member to accept that the structure in the Bill is the one we have used so far. I understand why he is sceptical, after the behaviour of the last Government, but I hope he accepts, given the Prime Minister’s pronouncements right from the beginning of this Government taking office, that we are not planning on undermining the Human Rights Act or its provisions.
Pete Wishart
I do not like having to correct the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, who is usually very diligent on these matters, but the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 is fully compliant with human rights legislation. That fact is included in the Act, as it is in practically every Act passed by the Scottish Parliament.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am not massively familiar with the Scottish statute book.
Chris Murray
On that point, the 2015 Act does refer to the Council of Europe protections and its definitions are taken from there. But there is not a clause that says that due regard has to be given—
Chris Murray
But in an implicit way, just as this Bill is. There is nothing on the face of the Act, in the way the hon. Member is proposing for this Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
I feel I ought to intervene and separate the combatants. I reassure the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire—especially given the pronouncements from some in the previous Government—that this Government are absolutely committed to the provisions of the Human Rights Act and the convention on action against trafficking in human beings. I hope he accepts that and will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 12 seeks to ensure that the strategic priority document produced by the Border Security Commander is supportive of the Home Office’s UK border strategy. Border security is a fundamental part of the strategic approach to the wider border, and the strategic priorities for border security will help to drive the wider UK approach. They are part of the approach—they are not a threat or a counter to it. The strategic priority document will be consulted on at the board—which the Committee will discuss when we reach clause 6—which has representatives from across the border security system, to ensure alignment with wider strategic approaches to the border. The whole point of the Bill is to cohere and convene and to ensure that there is co-operation across complex systems; it is not to disintegrate systems. Therefore, it would be fairly astonishing if the border security strategy was somehow completely at odds with what the Border Security Commander and the wider system were planning.
Amendment 13 seeks to give the Border Security Commander the power to direct the specified law enforcement bodies and personnel in the delivery of his objectives and strategic priorities. The power to direct—what the hon. Member for Stockton West called “empowerment”—is not required. During last week’s oral evidence, we heard from representatives of the National Crime Agency and the National Police Chiefs’ Council that they welcome and value the collaboration to date with the Border Security Commander. The arrangements as provided for in the Bill will reflect and respect the operational requirements of the various board members. They are a balancing act between convening, collaborating and co-operating, and a way of ensuring that those who have some independence written into what they have to do in other areas feel not that they are being made “subject to” but that they are “collaborating with”. The most effective commanding is exactly that: it is done with co-operation; it is not done with dictatorial powers or attempts to undermine the independence of other organisations.
Under clause 5, partner authorities already have a duty to co-operate with the commander, in so far as it is reasonably practicable for them to do so. Under clause 3, partner authorities must have regard to the strategic priorities on which the board will be consulted and which will be endorsed by the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 4(b). Amendment 11 would remove the requirement for the Border Security Commander to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to issue a strategic priority document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh has already pointed out that an obsession with complete independence can actually fragment a system and make it harder for us to achieve outcomes by working together. He rightly mentioned that, where there is operational independence and we are trying to make a system work in co-operation, that can sometimes lead to cultures of secrecy and non-co-operation, rather than co-operation that focuses on objectives.
In the Bill, we wish to foster co-operation that focuses on very defined objectives and strategies. The Government believe that that is the best balance. Allowing the Border Security Commander to publish documents behind the back of the Home Secretary, for whatever reason he or she may think fit, is not exactly fostering a co-operative working environment or an environment that is likely to be successful. We believe that the way in which these things are expressed in the existing clauses is more likely to foster agreement.
As already discussed, the strategic priority document provided for in clause 3(2) will set out the principal threats to border security when the document is issued, as well as the strategic priorities to which partner authorities should have regard in exercising their functions in relation to any of the identified threats. The role of the Border Security Commander is to support the Government of the day, and it is therefore only right that Ministers and the Secretary of State endorse the strategic direction and collective response of this public authority in relation to border security.
The hon. Member for Stockton West seemed to want to give the Border Security Commander powers to do things and to remove the requirement for ministerial consent for whatever they wanted to do. That seems to set up the Border Security Commander in a more powerful position than Ministers, which seems an odd thing for a Member of Parliament and a shadow Minister to wish to do. We think that the right way of ensuring accountability for the way these things are done is to have ministerial involvement, rather than set up operational structures that are so independent of Ministers that people want to do things behind Ministers’ backs.
Susan Murray
The Minister makes good points about the practicalities. It is good to hear that she recognises that the Liberal Democrats are simply trying to ensure that we have international influence and cross-border activities.
Dame Angela Eagle
I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that I recognise the import of what she is trying to do with the new clause. Often, such proposals are hooks to hang a debate on, so that there can be a little more information about the Government’s intent. I can assure her that having close operational and diplomatic liaison across all the different structures we have to work with to deal with cross-border immigration crime is absolutely at the centre of what the Border Security Commander will want to do. When we come to it, I hope she will not press her new clause to a vote.
Matt Vickers
The contrast is interesting. The Opposition want to see a Border Security Commander independently empowered to make meaningful changes to secure the border, rather than another civil servant muted by political oversight. There is a big contrast in perspective in terms of whether a Home Secretary should be signing off on anything anyone in this huge role—which will make a difference to our borders—will be able to say. Secondly, I would like to understand why the Government do not think it worth the Border Security Commander having the objective of reducing or even ending small boat crossings.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is quite revealing that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that the natural order of things is for Ministers to be at loggerheads with civil servants and the people who are operationally charged with delivering on objectives. That may say more about Opposition Members than about the way we are seeking to achieve operational effectiveness and objectives in what we are doing.
Finally, new clause 21 focuses on the Border Security Commander’s functions in relation to tackling small boat crossings to the UK. This is an all-encompassing new clause, which goes far beyond the commander’s functions as set out in the Bill. The new clause seems to want the commander to be all things to all people.
The immediate priority is organised immigration crime-enabled small boat crossings. The Border Security Commander will, and necessarily must, evolve over time to provide the systems leadership across all threats as they emerge. Such crossings did not really emerge until 2018, but they have become embedded and more of a threat over time. Had we been discussing something like this in 2017, small boat crossings would not have featured at all. It is therefore important that our legislation allows the Border Security Commander to change approach or focus as new threats emerge. Threats evolve and change over time. Our approach accounts for that by stipulating in legislation that the Border Security Commander has particular objectives that might be important now but less important in the future. The new clause seems to me to present an overly difficult and inflexible way of moving forward.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes.
I was going to talk about what new clause 21 suggests we should do. For example, the subsection on asylum processing seems to say that the Border Security Commander should somehow take over the duty to ensure that those who arrive illegally are processed within six months—something that the Conservatives did not achieve at all during their time in Government. I am not certain why the Border Security Commander should be empowered to take over the entirety of the asylum system.
Next, the new clause states that the commander should also be in charge of immigration enforcement, and that they should do removals as well as asylum processing and defending the border. The authors of the new clause seem to think that the Border Security Commander should be not only independent, but virtually all-seeing, all-singing and all-dancing, and that they should do absolutely everything with which the entire immigration and asylum system is currently charged. That is overreach, to say the least.
The new clause also suggests that the commander should remove people to a safe third place within six months for processing. In all their years in office, the Conservatives never managed to achieve any of those things. To put them into a new clause for a Government that has been in office for seven months—a Government who were left with the most appalling mess, with an asylum system that had crashed and had massive backlogs, and with a structure in the Illegal Migration Act that made it illegal for us to process any new arrivals who claimed asylum after March 2023—and to complain that we have not sent small boat arrivals home fast enough takes the biscuit.
Sarah Bool
I think the intention behind the new clauses, as has been identified, is to give the Border Security Commander more teeth to help him to do what he is supposed to do. Although I appreciate that behind the drafting of the Bill is a recognition that the commander might need to be reactive in future, the new clauses aim to reduce the number of illegal migrants; that is what we are all trying to tackle. When the Border Security Commander can only do things such as
“ maximising the effectiveness of the activities of partner authorities”,
“maximising the coordination” and issuing reports, it does not give us confidence that the commander has the necessary power or that we will see the results that the Government are trying to achieve.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is fairly astonishing to have a new clause that puts the Border Security Commander in charge of the entire asylum and deportation systems and asks him, in legislation, to achieve processing times that the Conservative party never achieved when they were in Government. It falls into the trap of empowering the Border Security Commander to such an extent that he seems to have to take over most of the Home Office. That is not really what we intend to do with this Bill. New clause 21 would result in a fairly astonishing increase in not only the power, but the reach of the Border Security Commander. That would be massively disruptive and would probably lead to an outcome similar to the collapse of the asylum system, of which we have had to clean up the mess.
Mike Tapp
I think the new clause is more of a political point than a constructive addition to the Bill. I am new to Parliament, but I think Bill Committees can be really useful. This new clause is far from useful, however, and there is nothing constructive in it. It is unrealistic and feels like political point-scoring.
Dame Angela Eagle
Not for the first time today, I agree with my hon. Friend. When the time comes, we will be voting against this new clause.
Katie Lam
The Minister perhaps slightly mischaracterises new clause 21. It states that the Border Security Commander should “have regard to”, not manage, the wider aims of the Home Office in securing the border. Why would the Minister not want the Border Security Commander to have regard to that?
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 21(1)(c) talks about:
“making arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of a person who enters the United Kingdom without leave, or with leave that was obtained by deception”
and new clause 21(1)(b) mentions:
“ensuring that a decision is taken on a claim by a person under subsection (1)(a) within six months of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom”.
If that is not asking the Border Security Commander to take over the workings of the asylum system, I am not sure I understand what the new clause is trying to do.
Katie Lam
The new clause clearly does not do that. The two points that the Minister just mentioned are part of a broader sentence that states that the Border Security Commander
“must have regard to the objectives”
in subsection (1). The new clause does not state that the Border Security Commander should do those things themselves.
Dame Angela Eagle
But how on earth could asking the Border Security Commander to have regard to those things lead him or her to deal with border security? The new clause would take away the focus in the current Home Office arrangements on immigration enforcement and the asylum system. The new clause says that the Border Security Commander must have regard to all the processes in areas of the Department they have nothing to do with. It would upend working relationships. It would make it impossible and incoherent to deliver any kind of—
Tom Hayes
This is my third Bill Committee, and so far I am really enjoying it. In all three Bill Committees, I have sensed something interesting; my understanding of what the Conservative party has been does not quite coincide with what it is today. It feels peculiar to hear Conservative Members asking for this role to have so many teeth and being so prescriptive about writing that into primary legislation. As I understand it, Conservatives typically used to try to minimise the amount of detail in primary legislation, in order to give the arms of the state the freedom to do their duties and enact their responsibilities properly.
That is particularly important when we are living through a time of significant volatility. The complications surrounding our immigration and asylum system are manifold, so we need to give this role significant flexibility in order that the Border Security Commander can co-ordinate command. I am struck by what seems to be almost an existential challenge at the heart of modern Conservative thinking.
Dame Angela Eagle
I think, Dr Murrison, you would probably not be very pleased with me if I started to talk about existential challenges at the heart of Conservative thinking, much as I would like to do so. I hope that I have given some reasons why new clause 21 should not stand part of the Bill.
Pete Wishart
I thank the Minister for her full response to some of my concerns about compliance with international obligations. Something that she did not respond to, and that I am really keen to secure her views on, is the FDA v. the Cabinet Office High Court case during the Rwanda litigation, which the Government obviously won. It seemed to suggest that any civil servant would not be bound by international obligations. Where does that leave the Border Security Commander?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Prime Minister made it clear right at the beginning of his time in office that the Government will be bound by the international obligations that we have signed up to. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, he is a sceptical man, as I would expect, but I have said what I have said about that. Is he suggesting that we should change the law as a result of the High Court?
Pete Wishart
My concern is that the judgment in that court case significantly changed our approach to international obligations and the rule of law. All I am interested in knowing is whether the Minister has any concerns, given such a significant and dramatic shift in the way successive Governments have approached these issues. Will that have any bearing on the operation of the Border Security Command?
Dame Angela Eagle
As I said earlier, the Border Security Commander and the Border Security Command will work within the confines of international obligations and human rights law.
Mike Tapp
I apologise for my lack of timely bobbing earlier, Dr Murrison. I draw attention to the Home Secretary’s statement at the very top of the Bill:
“In my view the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
That adds to what the Minister has said: that those in public office have an obligation to abide by the law. If they were not to do so, there would of course be legal challenge.
Pete Wishart
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Matt Vickers
If we are to have a Border Security Commander, we want an effective one who can publish a strategy without being subject to a political veto, who has priorities aligned to the UK border strategy, and whom Home Secretaries can direct agencies to follow. We wish to press the amendments to a Division.
Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) The strategic priority document issued under subsection (2) must support the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This amendment would require that the Border Security Commander’s strategic priority document supports the UK Border Strategy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clauses 3 and 9, taken together, outline the functions of the Border Security Commander and the directions given to the commander by the Secretary of State. Clause 3 ensures that the commander has the ability to bring partners together to provide an authoritative source of information on priority and emerging threats to border security. Through the strategic priority-setting process, the commander, working collaboratively with partners and with consent from the Secretary of State, will have the authority to issue strategic priorities on border security, to which partners must have regard. That creates a new mechanism to ensure that there is a whole of Government understanding and a collective response to border security threats.
The provisions of clause 3 recognise the varied responsibilities of partners, and deliberately ensure that the duty does not prevent partner authorities from exercising their existing constituted mandates or from setting their own wider priorities. The UK intelligence community are exempted from definition as partner authorities, in order to ensure that they can carry out their functions without constitutional conflict. However, UKIC will continue to work closely with the Border Security Command on border security matters, and arrangements are being developed, and will be agreed by the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, to ensure that that takes place. Such arrangements are required by clause 5.
Clause 9 builds on that by ensuring that the Secretary of State can hold the Border Security Commander to account for the delivery of improved border security outcomes. As an elected official, the Secretary of State is accountable to the Cabinet and to Parliament, and can assure that the actions of the commander are being carried out in the interests of the British public.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Duty to prepare annual reports
Pete Wishart
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) set out how the Commander has fulfilled the Commander’s duties under section 3(1A) of this Act to have full regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.”
This amendment is linked to and consequential upon Amendment 1, and would require the Commander to include in the annual report information about how they have paid due regard to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Action against Trafficking.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) state the number of persons who have, since the later of the passing of this Act or the last annual report, been—
(i) charged with offences under sections 13, 14, 18, and 43 of this Act; or
(ii) convicted of offences under sections 13, 14, 18, and 43 of this Act;
(iii) identified as entering the United Kingdom via sea crossing without leave to remain;
(iv) detained pending deportation or a decision on deportation;
(v) deported to a country of which the person is a national or citizen; or
(vi) deported to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that the person will be admitted.”
This amendment would place a duty on the Border Security Commander to include, in their annual report, figures on immigration crime, sea crossings, detentions and deportations.
Clause stand part.
Pete Wishart
I will not detain the Committee for long. Amendment 2 covers the same sort of terrain as my amendment 1, which sought to ensure that the Border Security Commander takes cognisance of international obligations, most notably in relation to human rights and the provisions of the European convention on action against trafficking. Amendment 2 would require the commander, when making the annual report, to make reference to his compliance, in the work that he has done, with the Human Rights Act and with ECAT. That is all I am asking. There is no good reason why that cannot be included as part of the commander’s annual accounting to the House of Commons. That would give us an opportunity to understand how part of his work has been in ensuring that those obligations have been met, and I think it would be a worthy inclusion in his annual report. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 4 would give the Border Security Commander a duty to prepare annual reports, which must state how the commander has carried out their functions in that financial year and set out the commander’s view on the performance of the border security system that year, with particular reference to the commander’s strategic priorities. That all seems very vague, and a case of the Border Security Commander being allowed to mark their own homework.
Can the Minister explain what success would look like for the Border Security Commander? What are the measurable key performance indicators that the Home Secretary will consider? That is important because the Secretary of State, as set out in clause 2, can dismiss the commander. What would constitute poor enough performance for that to happen, and what would be a success?
To try to inject some objectivity and accountability into the process of annual reports, we have tabled amendment 14. We would like the Border Security Commander to report on the number of persons who have, since the later of the passing of the Bill or the last annual report, been charged or convicted of offences under clause 13, “Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”; clause 14, “Handling articles for use in immigration crime”; clause 18, “Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom”; or clause 43, “Articles for use in serious crime”. We want to know how effective the new offences will be in practice for achieving the Government’s aim of stopping illegal immigration.
The Government’s own impact assessment admits that very few people will go to prison as a result of the measures in the Bill. On the proposals to strengthen and improve the function of serious crime prevention orders, it says:
“It is estimated that between zero and three prison places, with a central estimate of one prison place will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”
On introducing an interim serious crime prevention order, it says:
“It is estimated that between 0 and 1.54 prison places, with a central estimate of 0.2 prison place will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”
On serious and organised crime articles, it says:
“It is estimated that between four and six prison places, with a central estimate of five prison places will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”
On new offences to criminalise the making, adapting, importing, supplying, offering to supply and possession of articles for use in serious crime, it says:
“It is estimated that between four and six prison places, with a central estimate of five prison places will be required per year once the steady state is reached.”
It is important to report on the new offences relating to immigration crime, which the Government think will not send a meaningful number of people to prison, and also on the new offence of endangering lives at sea, for which the impact assessment includes no estimate. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Government expect each year to be arrested, convicted and imprisoned under the new offence of endangering lives at sea?
Matt Vickers
We want to see how effective the offences will be. The Government have set that out in part, but not for the new offence of endangering lives at sea, which has great consequence.
Amendment 14 would also require the Border Security Commander to report on the number of people identified as entering the United Kingdom via sea crossing without leave to remain; how many of them are detained pending deportation or a decision on deportation; and how many are deported to a country of which the person is a national or citizen, or to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that the person will be admitted. We believe it is important to have transparency about the role of the Border Security Commander in facilitating removals. If they are charged with minimising threats to the border, removing those who enter this country illegally with no reason to remain is a big part of successfully achieving that objective.
Mike Tapp
It is important to note that measures of success can change. Legislating for that might mean that, in a decade, we are wasting the time of the Border Security Command and its commander. My understanding of statistics and their collection is that that is for the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics. Of course, as those who are prosecuted go through the courts, we will all be able to see that.
There may also be a slight misunderstanding about what a prevention order is and what it aims to do. It is a disruptive measure that can be used before charge to stop the vile smuggling criminals from operating. If and when they go to prison, that means that they have breached that order. The fact that the estimate is low means that there is confidence in the prevention orders succeeding.
Sarah Bool
To follow up on the points of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the duty to prepare annual reports feels like a self-appraisal. Essentially, all the commander has to do in those annual reports is state how they have carried out their role and set out their view on the performance. We need some more evidence. In appraisals in any work context, it is always necessary to have the opposite feedback, but I feel that is missing here. It is not clear that there will be an opportunity to challenge the information that comes in front of the House. We really need the detail.
I worry that the fact that the Government are not prepared to require the Border Security Commander to include these details of their work in their annual report is a sign that they do not have confidence in what the commander can do, so our amendment is very important. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal said that he is worried that it will be burdensome, but I think that the information it would require is the minimum that should be provided to us. That information should be happily supplied to the House in the interest of transparency, and I am sure the Minister is keen to do that. That needs to be considered, and perhaps she will address that.
Dame Angela Eagle
Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, would require the Border Security Commander to clearly outline how they have paid due regard to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on action against trafficking by including that information in the annual report that is laid before Parliament. As discussed when we debated amendment 1, the Border Security Commander will be a public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act, and must act in compatibility with the human rights legislation. The commander will be aware of the risks in relation to trafficking and modern slavery through their work, and will continue to comply with the obligations, as part of the Government, under the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Therefore, it is unnecessary to detail explicitly that that should be in the report. That does not mean that it will not be, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire recognised when he withdrew amendment 1. He has made his point powerfully.
Amendment 14 would create a requirement for the Border Security Commander to include in the annual report a range of statistics relating to the new offences created by the Bill, and wider relevant statistics in relation to irregular entrants who have arrived via a sea crossing, and to deportations. The amendment proposes that the annual report must state how the commander has carried out the functions of their office in the financial year, and set out the commander’s views on the performance of the border security system, with particular reference to the strategic priorities that have been set.
The clause envisages that the report will be laid before Parliament and published. That will provide public and parliamentary accountability for the work of the Border Security Commander across all threats, although the strategic priorities may change over time as the threats against which the commander will need to report evolve.
Amendment 14 in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton West is quite prescriptive about what should be in the report, and includes a range of statistics. In the UK, we have quarterly publication of immigration statistics, which are organised by the Home Office and under the code of practice of the independent UK Statistics Authority. Statistics are regularly made available about what is going on in this area. The hon. Gentleman wants such statistics to be published, under statute, in the annual report that the commander puts before Parliament but, with all due respect, I think it is important that the commander is able to write his report himself without primary legislation directing him what to put in it, especially given that those statistics are regularly made available and are well looked at and reported upon. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is cumbersome and would not assist in ensuring that we have parliamentary and public accountability for the commander’s performance.
The hon. Gentleman also quoted from the assessments of the number of prison places that would be created by the new crimes that we will talk about when we debate subsequent clauses. I am not sure what he does not understand about serious crime prevention orders or interim serious crime prevention orders. The idea of some of the new powers—the counter terror-style powers, which we will talk about in due course—is that they will prevent crossings and crimes from happening in the first place. They will allow the police and the National Crime Agency to intervene much earlier and to stop crime happening. In those circumstances, there may be a lesser sentence rather than a prison sentence, but lives would be saved and exploitation would be prevented. That is the nature of counter terror-style powers.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the annual report will allow public and parliamentary accountability for the work of Border Security Command and that he will not press his amendment, as it would create too inflexible an annual report for the commander, with too much outside interference through primary legislation.
Pete Wishart
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 14, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) state the number of persons who have, since the later of the passing of this Act or the last annual report, been—
(i) charged with offences under sections 13, 14, 18, and 43 of this Act; or
(ii) convicted of offences under sections 13, 14, 18, and 43 of this Act;
(iii) identified as entering the United Kingdom via sea crossing without leave to remain;
(iv) detained pending deportation or a decision on deportation;
(v) deported to a country of which the person is a national or citizen; or
(vi) deported to a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that the person will be admitted.”.—(Matt Vickers.)
This amendment would place a duty on the Border Security Commander to include, in their annual report, figures on immigration crime, sea crossings, detentions and deportations.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 5 places a duty on partner authorities to co-operate with the commander in the carrying out of their functions. The commander is tasked with maximising the effectiveness of our collective response to border security threats, which requires a whole of Government response and will be enabled by the clause. It is recognised that partner authorities have wide-ranging functions that extend well beyond tackling border security threats. The duty set out in the clause extends only so far as is appropriate and compatible with partner authorities’ other functions. That ensures that partners across the system are working in lockstep to enhance border security, while continuing to enable the vital work undertaken by partners beyond border security matters.
Matt Vickers
Clause 5 provides that a partner authority has duties, so far as is “appropriate and reasonably practicable,” to co-operate with the commander in carrying out the commander’s functions. It would be helpful if the Minister explained what the Government mean by
“so far as appropriate and reasonably practicable”
and under what circumstances it might be justified for a partner authority not to co-operate. Does it mean, as per subsection (2), that the partner authority would co-operate only so far as the co-operation was compatible with the exercise of its other functions, or are there other circumstances where partner authorities might not have to co-operate?
Again, the clause exposes how powerless the Border Security Commander is. The commander cannot actually command any of these partner authorities to do anything at all. Subsection (3) requires those who are co-operating with the commander in the exercise of their functions to put in place arrangements governing co-operation between the commander and that person. Does the Minister have—
Data (Use and Access) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water that is provided. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if after having spoken Members could email their notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or pass on their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the Committee Room.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 March;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 56; Schedule 1; Clauses 57 and 58; Schedule 2; Clauses 59 to 65; Schedule 3; Clauses 66 to 70; Schedule 4; Clause 71; Schedule 5; Clauses 72 to 80; Schedule 6; Clauses 81 to 85; Schedules 7 to 9; Clauses 86 to 103; Schedule 10; Clauses 104 to 108; Schedule 11; Clauses 109 to 112; Schedule 12; Clauses 113 to 115; Schedule 13; Clauses 116 and 117; Schedule 14; Clauses 118 to 121; Schedule 15; Clause 122; Schedule 16; Clauses 123 to 147; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March.
It is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner; I cannot wait to hear you tell me off repeatedly during the course of the Committee’s proceedings. In the words of Julie Andrews—this is material—
“Let’s start at the very beginning,
A very good place to start.
When you read you begin with A-B-C.
When you sing you begin with do-re-mi”,
but when you start a Bill Committee, you start with clause 1. Basically, the programme motion says, “Let’s start with clause 1 and keep on going till we come to the end.” With that said, I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Bryant.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate and decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses.
Clause 1
Customer data and business data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Consumer Data Right: multi-sector extension—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish a roadmap for implementing a cross-sector ‘Consumer Data Right’ to enable individuals and small businesses to control and share their data securely and effectively in the following sectors—
(a) energy,
(b) telecommunications,
(c) financial services, and
(d) such other sectors as regulations may specify.
(2) The roadmap under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) technical standards and data portability protocols,
(b) timelines for phased implementation in each sector,
(c) consumer protection measures, and
(d) oversight responsibilities for any designated cross-sector data regulator.
(3) In preparing the roadmap, the Secretary of State must consult relevant regulators, consumer groups, industry representatives, and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to implement the Consumer Data Right in additional sectors or extend obligations in existing ones.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a roadmap for extending “smart data” portability rights beyond finance to other sectors, such as energy and telecommunications.
Chris Bryant
Strictly speaking, it is a misnomer to say that we do the Bill line by line; we do it clause by clause, or grouping by grouping. The first grouping contains clause 1 and new clause 15, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted.
Clauses 1 to 26 establish regulation-making powers to implement smart data schemes. I think this part of the Bill is universally accepted, or it was in a previous version of the Bill—this is at least the third version of the Bill that a House of Commons Committee has considered line by line, clause by clause or grouping by grouping. These clauses were part 3 of the old Bill, but it is none the less important that we go through each of the clauses segment by segment, because this is a newly constituted House of Commons, with different Members and political parties, and therefore we have to consider them fully.
As many hon. Members will know, smart data involves traders securely sharing data with the customer or authorised third parties at the customer’s request. Those third parties may use the data to provide the customer with innovative services, including account management services or price comparisons. This has already been spectacularly successful in open banking.
Clause 1 defines the key terms and scope of part 1, which covers clauses 1 to 26. Subsection (2) defines the kinds of data to which part 1 applies: “customer data”, which is information specific to a customer of a trader, and “business data”, which is generic data relating to the goods, services or digital content provided by that trader. It also defines “data holder” and “trader” to clarify who may be required to provide data. That covers persons providing the goods, services or digital content, whether they are doing so themselves or through others, or processing related data.
Subsections (3) to (5) set out who is a customer of a trader. Customers can include both consumers and businesses such as companies. Subsection (6) recognises that regulations may provide for data access rather than transfer.
I commend clause 1 to the Committee and urge hon. Members to resist the temptations offered by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, who tabled new clause 15. I thank her for her interest in smart data. We had a very good conversation a week ago. I am glad to be able to confirm that, following some pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the other place, the Government announced that the Department for Business and Trade intends to publish a strategy document later this year on future uses of those powers. Since the hon. Member’s new clause asks for a road map and we are saying that there will be a strategy, the difference between us may just be semantic.
The strategy document will lay out the Government’s plans to consult or conduct calls for evidence in a number of sectors. It is important that we implement those powers only after having properly spoken with relevant parties such as consumer groups and industry bodies in the sector. Clause 22 also requires consultation before commencement in any sector. As such, we think the best approach is to use powers in part 1 of the Bill to implement smart data schemes that fit the identified needs of the relevant sector. The strategy document will set out the Government’s plans for doing so. For that reason, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I thank all hon. Members taking part in the Committee as well as the officials. As the Minister said, this is the third iteration of this Bill and it has been extensively covered in Committee before. We rely on and thank former Members and those in the other place who worked on the Bill to get it to where it is. I am pleased that the Government are taking the Bill forward and that it is one of the early Bills in the Session.
There is much to say about the Bill that is positive, and not just because it is a reformed version of our previous two Bills. Although, ironically, the Bill does not reference the term “smart data”, clause 1 brings forward smart data and smart data schemes. That will help to open up a digital revolution, which will build on the successes of open banking in other sectors. We very much support that.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. The Liberal Democrats very much support the Bill and the move towards smart data. Every single day, millions of people in the UK unknowingly generate vast amounts of data, whether they are switching energy providers, checking their bank balance or simply browsing the internet. That is why I want to speak to new clause 15.
For the past decade, we have seen the enormous benefits of open banking, which has given customers the power to securely share their financial data with new providers. That has unlocked better deals, personalised financial data and a wave of innovation. I welcome what the Minister said about a strategy, but new clause 15 explicitly seeks to extend the benefits across multiple sectors, from energy to telecoms and beyond, giving consumers and small businesses a real say in how their data is used and the chance to benefit from that.
If Linda, a business owner in Tring, wants to switch to a cheaper energy provider or broadband deal, she faces a mountain of admin and endless calls to suppliers. She has no simple way of exporting her usage data and instantly comparing deals. But what if she did? A multi-sector consumer data right, as proposed by the new clause, would give Linda the ability to export her energy usage securely to a new provider. She could use a digital tool to automatically compare plans, switch to a greener provider and save thousands in operational costs, freeing up her focus for growing a business.
However, it is not just Linda and family businesses. New clause 15 would put real power in the hands of households struggling with the cost of living crisis—an ability to break free from restrictive contracts, find better deals and ultimately reduce bills. This is not just a radical idea: Australia has already implemented the consumer data right across finance, energy and telecoms, leading to an explosion of new services, better competition and savings for consumers. The European Union is moving in that direction, yet in the UK we have not taken that step. However, I accept what the Minister said about our strategy moving forward, which I very much welcome.
New clause 15 does not demand an overnight change. It would require the road map to be published in 12 months and to ensure that technical standards are in place and data sharing is secure and efficient. It includes a phased implementation plan to bring in new sectors gradually as well as consumer protection measures so that is done safely and fairly, with public trust at its core. This is not just about giving consumers more control over their data. It is about driving economic growth and innovation. If we get this right, we can see new fintech and comparison tools so that consumers can slash bills and switch telecom providers faster and more easily. It is about more competition, more choice and more innovation. I urge colleagues to consider the new clause, but I absolutely welcome what the Minister has said. Let us take a step forward and ensure that consumers and businesses have the rights that they deserve over their own data.
Chris Bryant
We are already committed to a strategy; I am not sure whether we need a road map for the strategy, and I would prefer us not to have such a thing in the Bill. It would also be slightly limiting, as the new clause effectively gives a list of priority areas. We want to explore quite a lot of other sectors; for instance, we might make a radical difference to the gig economy if we were to look at that sector. The hon. Lady made a good point about telecoms, although it might be specifically about smart meters. If we could turn a smart meter into an actually smart meter, which would require some telecoms work, smart data might be able to deliver cheaper bills for people. Notwithstanding the fact that I like the sentiment behind the new clause, I would resist it, so I hope the hon. Lady will not push it to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power to make provision in connection with customer data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Now we are on a winning streak. Clause 2 provides the principal authority for the relevant Secretary of State or the Treasury to establish smart data schemes in relation to customer data. The Government envisage that most smart data schemes will involve providing access to customer data. Clause 3 provides a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that may be contained in regulations relating to customer data under clause 2. These include important matters such as requirements for data holders and/or third-party recipients to use specified facilities or services to ensure that smart data schemes can run effectively.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Power to make provision in connection with business data
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clause 4 provides regulation-making powers that allow the relevant Secretary of State and the Treasury to require the publication of business data or the provision of business data to customers or third parties. Business data is envisaged to be contextual information provided alongside customer data, such as the price of products and services, for comparison. The Government, however, do see some uses where schemes focused on business data could be appropriate.
I should briefly say that I know there are quite a few points in the Bill where we are providing regulation-making powers. Although in general, I am not a big fan of secondary legislation, because it limits the ability of Parliament to scrutinise, it is important in an area where there is rapid technological change to provide Government Ministers with the power to enact regulations. These have already been considered by the relevant House of Lords Committee as well. The purpose of clause 5 is provide a non-exhaustive list of supplementary provisions that regulations under clause 4 can contain relating to business data. The clause largely mirrors clause 3 and contains important provisions relevant to the exercise of powers relating to business data under a smart data scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Decision-makers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
This clause applies when regulations provide for a person, referred to as a decision maker, to decide whether third-party recipients satisfy conditions allowing them to be authorised by a customer to receive customer data or to act on the customer’s behalf under clause 2 or approved to receive business data under clause 4. that approach of regulating who can receive the data may not be suitable for all smart data schemes, but where it is, it will provide customers with confidence that the third parties they authorise meet approved standards. If regulations provide for a decision maker, they must also provide for the rights of those affected by decisions. These rights may include review of decisions and appeal rights to ensure transparency and accountability.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Interface bodies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
This clause allows regulations to require the creation of interface bodies. These bodies may provide facilities and services, set standards or make related arrangements for data sharing interfaces, including application programming interfaces. Regulations may require data holders or third-party recipients to set up and fund an interface body. The role that Open Banking Ltd plays is an example of what we consider an interface body might look like under these regulations.
It is worth pointing out that the vast majority of people in this country would have no idea that smart data is what is behind their ability to have two bank accounts on one mobile phone and for the two speak to each other. There may be significant advantages for us unleashing this in other sectors as well.
Subsection (4) sets out provisions that regulations may make about the interface bodies. Among other things, regulations may confer powers on an interface body for monitoring the use of its interface, interface standards or interface arrangements. That could include powers to require the provision of documents or information subject to restrictions in clause 9, which we will come to later. Regulations may also provide procedures for complaints and enable or require interface bodies to publish or provide persons with specified documents or information relating to their functions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Enforcement of regulations under this Part
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 12, line 18, leave out “imposed by a decision-maker” and insert
“(referred to in sections 3(2) and 5(3))”.
This amendment amends a reference to conditions for authorisation or approval to receive customer data or business data so as to reflect the fact that conditions will not necessarily be imposed by decision-makers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 5.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Chris Bryant
Government amendment 1 amends clause 8(5) to reflect that the conditions relating to authorisation or approval of third-party recipients will not necessarily be imposed by the decision makers who carry out the authorisation or approval. Government amendments 2, 3 and 5 amend clause 8(10) to require or allow enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, ensuring consistency with the powers of decision makers and interface bodies. Government amendment 4 removes unnecessary wording in subsection (10) to ensure consistency with equivalent clauses elsewhere. I commend these minor and technical amendments to the Committee.
Clause 8 enables regulations to confer powers on public bodies, known as enforcers, to monitor and enforce compliance with smart data schemes. Monitoring powers include requiring information and powers of inspection. Enforcement powers include issuing notices requiring compliance, naming and shaming non-compliance, and imposing financial penalties. Regulations may create criminal offences for falsification or similar conduct. To ensure accountability and transparency, regulations may provide for reviews of enforcers’ decisions, appeal rights, and complaint procedures.
Dr Spencer
We support technical amendments to the Bill to make sure it works properly, but I am intrigued why these amendments are necessary at such a late stage, bearing in mind the multiple layers of scrutiny that the Bill has gone through. Can he explain where he received the feedback about the necessity of the proposed changes?
Chris Bryant
As the hon. Gentleman says, these are technical changes, and sometimes we just have to go through it again and again to make sure that we have got things right. Amendment 4, for instance, was simply a matter of working out that the grammar did not really work. Sometimes, it is just a question of filleting, I am afraid, and that is what we have been doing.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 8, page 13, line 16, after second “specified” insert “documents or”.
This amendment provides that regulations may require enforcers to publish or provide documents as well as information, making the regulation-making powers in relation to enforcers consistent with the powers in relation to decision-makers and interface bodies (under clauses 6(9) and 7(4)(k)). See also Amendments 3 and 5.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out “information about” and insert—
“documents or information relating to”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 13, line 18, leave out—
“, either generally or in relation to a particular case”.
This amendment leaves out unnecessary words. Power for regulations to make provision generally or in relation to particular cases is conferred by clause 21(1)(a).
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 13, line 20, leave out “information about” and insert—
“documents or information relating to”.—(Chris Bryant.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Financial penalties
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 10, page 16, line 8, at end insert—
“(f) about what must or may be done with amounts paid as penalties.”
This amendment confers express power to make provision about the treatment of amounts paid to enforcers as penalties, for consistency with similar powers in clauses 11(1)(b) (fees) and 12(1)(b) (levies).
Chris Bryant
It might more sense, in explaining the amendment, if I speak about the clause first, even though we would normally take the amendment first. The clause provides safeguards on the use of financial penalties. Except where clause 16 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the amount of the penalty must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow an enforcer any discretion in that determination, the enforcer must publish, and have regard to, guidance. Other safeguards include an opportunity for representations before penalties are imposed, and rights of appeal to a court or tribunal. Regulations may provide for increase of the penalty in the case of late payment.
Government amendment 6, which is minor and technical for some of the same reasons I adverted to earlier, enables regulations to make provision about what is to be done with any amounts that are paid as part of clause 10. That is consistent with provisions on fee and levy receipts in clauses 11 and 12. This is another bit of tidying up of the previous version of the Bill.
Amendment 6 agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clause 11 enables decision makers, interface bodies, enforcers and others to charge fees to alleviate their costs, which is obviously an important part of the Bill. It may also enable data holders to charge fees. Except where clause 15 provides otherwise for the Financial Conduct Authority, the fee amounts must be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. If the regulations allow a person to make that determination, they must publish information about the fee and how it is determined. Fees can only be charged on those directly affected by the performance of the relevant functions. That would include data holders, customers and third-party recipients. Regulations may also provide for fees to increase periodically—for instance, to cater for inflation—and for charging interest on and recovering unpaid fees.
Clause 12 enables regulations to impose a levy on data holders or third-party recipients or allow a specified public body to do so. The purpose is to meet costs incurred by bodies performing functions under the regulations and avoid costs to the taxpayer. The levy may be imposed only on persons directly affected by the performance of those functions. If the regulations allow a public authority to impose the levy, the regulations must provide how the rate of the levy and the period in which it is payable are to be determined. The public authority must also publish information about what it determines. The regulations may also make provision for charging of interest and recovery of unpaid amounts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Financial assistance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
The purpose of the clause is to allow the Government to provide financial assistance where it is appropriate to do so. Although the Government expect schemes to be self-financing, as I have referred to, it is important to have statutory spending authority as a backstop where needed, and that is precisely what clause 13 provides.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
The FCA and financial services interfaces
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 14, page 19, line 3, at end insert—
“(ba) requiring section 2(4) actors described in the regulations to use a prescribed interface, comply with prescribed interface standards or participate in prescribed interface arrangements when taking, facilitating or doing other things in connection with relevant financial services action;”.
This amendment provides that the Treasury’s powers to confer rule-making powers on the Financial Conduct Authority in connection with the use of interfaces include powers relating to the use of interfaces when taking action described in clause 2(4) of the Bill (persons authorised to receive customer data taking action on behalf of customers). See also Amendment 9.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 8 and 9.
Clauses 14 to 17 stand part.
Chris Bryant
Again, it might be more convenient if I speak to the clauses first and come back to the amendments, because then it is more self-explanatory, but I may need to speak at greater length here.
Open banking has revolutionised the UK retail banking sector by enhancing competition and introducing innovative services. Establishing a long-term regulatory framework for open banking will pave the way for its future growth, and this framework will rely on the FCA having the powers necessary for effective regulation and oversight. Clause 14 therefore empowers the Treasury to enable or require the FCA to set rules for interface bodies and participants in smart data schemes, ensuring compliance with essential standards. Clause 15 sets out further detail about the regulation-making powers conferred on the Treasury by clause 14.
These provisions create a clear framework for delegating rule-making powers, ensuring effective regulation, proper funding and mechanisms to address misconduct by scheme participants, with clear objectives for the FCA’s oversight of smart data schemes. Regulations may enable or require the FCA to impose interface requirements relating to an interface body, as set out for the smart data powers more broadly in clause 7, and to require fees to be paid by financial services providers to cover interface body costs.
Clause 15 further provides that such regulations must impose certain requirements upon the FCA, including a requirement, so far as is reasonably possible, to exercise functions conferred by the regulations in line with specified purposes, and a requirement that the FCA must have regard to specified matters when exercising such functions. Additionally, regulations under clause 15 may empower or require the FCA to impose requirements on individuals or organisations to review their conduct, to take corrective action and to make redress for loss or damage suffered by others as a result of their conduct.
Clause 16 covers the Treasury’s ability to make regulations enabling the FCA to impose financial penalties and levies. The regulations may require or enable the FCA to set the amount or method for calculating penalties for breaches of FCA interface rules. The regulations must require the FCA to set out its penalties policy, and may specify matters that such a policy must include. Additionally, the Treasury may impose itself, or provide for the FCA to impose, a levy on data holders or third-party recipients of financial services data under the scheme to cover its regulatory costs, with the funds being used as specified in the regulations. Only those capable of being directly impacted should be subject to the levy.
Penalties and levies are a necessary part of smart data schemes, including in financial services, to allow the FCA to penalise non-compliance and recover the costs of its regulatory activities. The clause ensures that any penalties or levies are subject to proportionate controls.
Clause 17 gives the Treasury the power to amend section 98 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 through regulations. This will allow the Treasury to update the definitions of the FCA’s responsibilities and objectives in that section, so they can include new functions or objectives given to the FCA by regulations made under part 1 of this Bill. That will ensure that the FCA’s new duties fit into the existing system for co-ordinating payment system regulators, helping maintain a consistent approach across the financial sector. Regulations made under the clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We have tabled Government amendments 7 to 9 to ensure that the Treasury may delegate to the FCA powers to set rules for action initiation, as well as data sharing. We think this is vital to ensure that open banking continues to work properly and is in line with the policy as set out elsewhere.
Dr Spencer
I apologise, Mr Turner: I misspoke earlier with regard to our position on the Government amendments. Rather than offering positive support, I meant to say that we will not oppose the technical amendments.
What does the FCA think about these amendments? Has the Department consulted the FCA?
Chris Bryant
I am not sure whether we have specifically—I am looking to my left for inspiration. I am getting vague inspiration, although it is remarkably non-productive. If the hon. Member would like to intervene for a little longer, perhaps I will be able to be more inspired.
Dr Spencer
I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that it is a technical question and I hope he is able to give a response. Equally, I appreciate that he may have to write to me in due course. I see that there are papers coming his way.
Chris Bryant
To quote Richard II, methinks I am a prophet new inspired. Yes, this is all based on a consultation with the FCA. The FCA is content with us proceeding in this direction. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister—I am trying to differentiate between his not opposing and supporting, but I think on the whole in Parliament, if you are not against us, you are for us. I think in this measure he is for us.
Chris Bryant
The clause will ensure that public authorities given powers under part 1 are not liable in damages for their acts or omissions in exercising their functions. That mirrors the exemption from liability for the Financial Conduct Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and allows public authorities to carry out their functions effectively. However, regulations cannot remove liability for things done in bad faith or which are unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Duty to review regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I know all Members of the Committee were wondering, “When are we going to review all of these provisions?” Fortunately, we have reached a clause that requires review of the regulations at least at five-yearly intervals. The Government recognise the importance of ongoing scrutiny of regulations. As part of a review, the regulation maker must consider whether the regulations remain appropriate—which seems rather basic, but anyway. The findings of the review will be published in a report laid before Parliament. This will uphold our commitment to transparency in the creation and maintenance of future regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Restrictions on processing and data protection
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clause 20 allows regulations to provide that the processing of information they require does not breach obligations of confidence or other restrictions on processing information. However, regulations cannot compel businesses to breach data protection legislation. This mirrors the approach taken towards pensions dashboards in the Pensions Act 2004.
Clause 21 outlines further provisions that regulations may contain. Those include references to published standards and technical requirements, and the conferral of functions. The clause allows the part 1 powers to be used flexibly and tailored for their purpose. It also prevents regulations from enabling a person to set the maximum amounts of fines, financial penalties or fees, which adds to the safeguards in clauses 10 and 11. Finally, the clause stipulates when regulations can amend primary legislation to support consumer redress.
Clause 22 ensures that the regulations are properly scrutinised and requires that certain regulations be subject to affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. Those include regulations that introduce smart data schemes or make them more onerous, contain enforcement provisions and impose fees or a levy, as well as regulations under the financial services sector clauses. The clause also requires appropriate consultation before the regulations are made.
Clause 23 clarifies that part 1 powers may be used to amend existing subordinate legislation dealing with equivalent subject matter, rather than creating stand-alone regulations. This provision could be used to amend existing data-sharing requirements such as open banking provisions in the Payment Services Regulations 2017.
Clause 24 repeals sections 89 to 91 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which part 1 of the Bill replaces. The powers in the 2013 Act are no longer adequate to enable the introduction of effective smart data schemes. That was recognised in the previous iterations of this Bill under a previous Government, and we agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 21 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Other defined terms
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I thought that this discussion might take a little longer. Much as I am tempted to dally on clauses 25 and 26, clause 25 basically defines various terms used in part 1 of the Bill, and clause 26 provides an index of terms used in part 1, including those defined in clause 25, so I do not think my heart is in the business of doing so. Without further ado, I urge that clauses 25 and 26 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Introductory
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Right to use non-digital verification services—
“(1) This section applies when an organisation—
(a) requires an individual to use a verification service; and
(b) uses a digital verification service for that purpose.
(2) Where it is reasonably practicable for an organisation to offer a non-digital method of verification, the organisation must—
(a) make a non-digital alternative method of verification available to any individual required to use a verification service; and
(b) provide information about digital and non-digital methods of verification to those individuals before verification is required.”
This new clause would create a duty upon organisations to support digital inclusion by offering non-digital verification services where practicable.
Chris Bryant
Part 2 of the Bill is about digital verification services. Those are obviously a very important part of the Bill; they lay out how we want to move into a new era and they are essential to many businesses being able to deliver their services effectively. They are also important to the Government being able to deliver some of the things we hope for—in terms of greater productivity in the delivery of services—and, frankly, to turning Government-provided services into services that feel as intuitively available and accessible as those provided by the private sector.
Clause 27 defines digital verification services and sets out the scope of provision in part 2, which runs from clauses 27 to 55, to help secure their reliability. New clause 9, which we will hear about in a few moments, has been tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk. It would require organisations to offer non-digital verification services where practicable. The provision would change the voluntary nature of part 2 by imposing new obligations on businesses.
I fully support the idea of digital inclusion, which is why as the digital inclusion Minister I introduced our first action plan last week; we are the first Government to bring one forward in 10 years. However, we believe that the new clause is unnecessary because we are already prioritising digital inclusion. The office for digital identities and attributes will monitor the inclusivity of certified services, and include findings in the annual report that must be published under clause 53, which we will come to later.
In addition, there are already legislative protections in the Equality Act 2010 for protected groups. If in future the Government find evidence suggesting that regulatory intervention is appropriate to ensure that individuals have equal access to services across the economy, then we will consider appropriate intervention. I reassure the House that digital inclusion is a high priority for the Government, which is why we have set up the digital inclusion and skills unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and why just last week we published the digital inclusion action plan, setting out the first five immediate steps we are taking towards our ambition of delivering digital inclusion for everyone across the UK, regardless of their circumstances.
We want to be able to deliver as many services digitally as possible, in a way that is fully accessible to people. However, we also accept that many people are not engaged in the digital world, and that there must also be provision for them. For those reasons, I hope the hon. Member for North Norfolk feels comfortable not pressing his new clause to a vote.
Dr Spencer
Digital verification services are important, and will make a big change when rolled out as part of this legislation. The provision is entirely right, particularly on the proportionality of data disclosure. Reading through some of the various reports and briefings we have received, the example used is of someone going into a nightclub: why should a scanned copy of their driving licence be consumed and contained by whoever the data holder is, when all they need to do is prove their age? These services will open the door to allow the proportionate disclosure of data. There is a both a data assurance component and a section on privacy, so we are glad that the Government are taking these measures forward.
I sympathise with the intention of new clause 9, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, which is to make sure that we do everything we can to support people who are digitally excluded. That ensures that people are not locked out and that there is a degree of reciprocity, so that as we digitalise more, the opportunity remains for people to access non-digital base services. I am not sure about the scope of the binding duty in the provision and about how the duties on small providers, as opposed to a duty on public service providers, play out politically. I think those are different things. Nevertheless, I support the sentiment of the new clause.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Don’t get me wrong: there are huge opportunities to improve the seamlessness of services for all users, regardless of whether they access those services digitally or not. Through new clause 9, I want to establish a right for those who do not wish to or cannot use digital identification within the verification framework that the Bill creates. The amendment was also tabled in Committee in the other place by the noble Lord Clement-Jones, and I am pleased to bring it before this House, too.
Chris Bryant
I note the comments from the shadow Minister, and I am grateful for them.
There is a fundamental flaw in the argument from the hon. Member for North Norfolk that this new clause was tabled in the House of Lords, because what he means is that it was lost in the House of Lords—the House of Lords did not bring it to us. There is a second flaw in the argument, which is that it seems to presume that people will be required to use a digital verification service. That is not true. People will be able to use non-digital systems if they want to in every circumstance. That is an essential part of being able to take forward digital verification services. It may be that a growing number of people begin to find them more useful, reliable and trustworthy than carrying around a set of papers. I am sure that many of us have gone through the tedious process of renting a car—having to turn up with copies of the previous three months of bills sent to your house, and all that. They have to be printed out, of course, and not provided in digital form, and so on. In the end, therefore, this measure will be transformational for the vast majority of people, but that does not mean that we should exclude people.
Where the hon. Member for North Norfolk is absolutely right is that there are many different patterns of digital exclusion. One, which I am very conscious of from my own constituency in south Wales, is physical digital exclusion. Many people in the south Wales valleys simply do not have the physical digital connections, a mobile phone or whatever it may be, to be able to transact their business. The second is the simple issue of poverty. Social tariffs do not even touch the edge for lots of families, because it is yet another bill. Even another £10 or £15 bill a month is one that has to compete with whether they have fresh food on the table for the kids. Another level where people might be excluded relates to age, at the top end and at the bottom end. The hon. Member mentioned nonagenarians, but he could go down to 60-year-olds and find people who simply do not want to use open banking or any kind of digital system, do not have a smartphone and have absolutely no intention of getting one, or, for that matter, do not have any kind of broadband connection to their home. I understand that fully, and that is why the Bill is written as it is, so that it is permissive and not mandatory.
That is an important reason why—although I have listened to the arguments that the hon. Member for North Norfolk has repeated from Big Brother Watch—I am determined to do everything we possibly can to tackle each and every one of the issues of digital exclusion. I have not even referred to skills—people might have some form of disability, might have simply never acquired or wanted to acquire digital skills, or might find using a screen particularly difficult for whatever set of reasons. We want to tackle every single form of digital exclusion, but I do not think that this is the place to do so. We will not be able to tackle digital exclusion by putting an additional measure in the Bill, and that is why, if the hon. Member wants to push this to a vote, I will still resist his new clause. I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.
Victoria Collins
The Minister says that the proposal for digital verification services is not mandatory, so a non-digital version will be available for people to use. May I check what the guarantees are? We have seen this with card payments and even the banks—in Harpenden, we lost all our banks, apart from Nationwide. A very big team campaigned to get a banking hub, because a lot of people said, “You can either go online or drive many miles to get to a bank.” I want to understand what guarantees are in place to secure that non-digital version.
Chris Bryant
It is simply that there is no requirement for people to use a digital verification service to be able to secure the service that they want. Obviously, that is a key part of how local government or Government have to deliver their services. They have to think not only about the people who can use digital services, but about those who cannot, for all the reasons that we have laid out.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is absolutely right about banks, and it is not just in Harpenden; I do not have a bank in my constituency. I have seen them go one after another after another. We have a banking hub, but even it has had to move. That provides all sorts of difficulties for people who do not want to do their banking in any way other than physically going into a bank. That is why both our Government many years ago, then the Conservative Government for years, were trying to encourage people to use the post office as an alternative means of doing their banking.
That is the pattern that we will have to adopt. Government will always have to be aware. While we may want all the productivity gains and the added security that digital verification services can provide, none the less we need to ensure that others are provided for. That is all provided for in the Bill, and I would say adequately, although the hon. Member may disagree with me. Yet again, I am still resisting any amendment and urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Collins
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I do understand. I will leave what happens with new clause 9 to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but it is important to state that we have seen a pattern, as my hon. Friend mentioned, of rights being taken away when we know that people cannot access services, and then the problem being solved after it was created. We need to think about a way to secure non-digital services, whether in respect of public services and council tax, our banks, or whatever it is. The Government need to think about how we can protect those services, whether through this Bill or something else, to ensure that those who are excluded can still access a non-digital version of services.
Chris Bryant
Even without inspiration, I agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I would add the fact that to park a car in lots of places in the country now we have to go online using a smartphone. When I was in Cardiff recently, the sign said “Go to the app”, but it did not say which app. What frustrates me is that every local authority in the land seems to have adopted a different app, so if we park in more than one local authority area, we have to download app after app, upload all our card details and all the rest of it.
I hope to God that one of the things smart data might be able to solve is the issue of different apps for parking, because the car does not change, we do not change and our banking details do not change; the only thing that changes is our location. To achieve that, though, we must also address the issue of digital exclusion. Lots of areas simply do not have a download speed of 5 megabits per second for mobile coverage, even though Ofcom probably suggests that there is 99% coverage in all areas from all four operators. My problem is that the new clause tries to correct many deficiencies in society, none of which has anything to do with digital verification services.
Steff Aquarone
I am well aware of the Minister’s frustration with mobile parking apps and I sympathise. Likewise, there is the frustration of having to take two separate bits of physical ID to a bank branch on two separate occasions to get a simple credit card approved. However, I cannot agree with the Minister’s accusation that new clause 9 tries to solve the entire universe. I remind him of what we have seen in practice when rights to alternatives are not enshrined. The reality is that if the rights to non-digital identification and verification are not enshrined in the Bill, the options and competitiveness of the options for those who do not or are unwilling to use digital verification will reduce.
Chris Bryant
The thing is, it is already enshrined in law under the Equality Act 2010. That is perfectly adequate for the purposes of the Bill—it protects all the characteristics that the hon. Gentleman referred to, including age—so I urge him not to pursue his new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
DVS trust framework
Chris Bryant
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment removes subsections which were inserted at Report stage in the Lords.
Chris Bryant
We will be talking about clauses 28 to 31, but now I will speak to Government amendment 10 to clause 28, along with Government amendment 11. Several Members may wish to speak to this issue.
Government amendment 10 removes subsections (3) and (4) of clause 28, which were added on Report in the House of Lords. The subsections require the Secretary of State, when preparing the digital verification service trust framework, to assess whether certain listed public authorities reliably verify personal data. This seems very dry, but it is a clear and specific issue. The trust framework provides rules for digital verification services, not rules for how public authorities process data. Data protection legislation already requires public authorities to ensure that any personal data they process is accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. As such, the Government cannot proceed with the change introduced in the Lords as it would duplicate existing legislation and bring in matters that are out of scope of the trust framework.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to clarify that amendment 11 is in this group, but a decision on it will be taken when we get to clause 45.
Dr Spencer
Amendments 10 and 11 seek to remove certain provisions that were introduced in Committee in the other place. I thank Sex Matters for its work, but also many people in this policy area who have tried to focus on the importance of data accuracy and validity when it is used.
I hope we all agree that it is important that data, when it is collected—in fact it is a principle of data collection and maintenance—is accurate and correct and that there is no point holding or using data if it is incorrect. Biased data is worse than no data at all. Therefore, I do not understand—especially given the extra use of the data that will come as part of digital verification services—why the Minister and the Government are not keen on the provision to stipulate that public bodies that hold sensitive data should be certain of its accuracy, particularly when the data is going to be passed on and used as part of digital verification services. I am confused by the resistance to ensuring that the data is correct, particularly when we anticipate that it will be used as part of a far bigger spectrum. It will be consumed by a digital verification service in which it is not routine to go back and look at the original paper records. The only dataset to be relied on will be some Oracle Excel spreadsheet or whatever database is used by public authorities.
This debate has become more acute with regard to the importance of sex data. It is critical that sex data is available to protect public spaces and to be used in scientific research to allocate someone’s sex as part of medicine and healthcare. I speak as a former doctor, and I guess I should declare an interest in that I am married to a doctor. The use of sex data is critical in medical screening programmes, such as cervical screening and prostate screening, to understand and interpret investigations. It is critical that the data is accurate; otherwise, there is a danger that research will not be appropriate or will produce bad results, and there is also a potential degree of medical harm. It is critical that we get sex data correct when it is being used.
I do not agree with the argument that requiring the disclosure of sex data is either disproportionate or somehow a breach of the European convention on human rights. The whole point of digital verification services is proportionate disclosure. In fact, we have heard speeches from both sides of the Committee about proportionate disclosure, and limiting the amount of personal data that is passed on as part of a digital verification service.
My challenge is, quite simply, that if somebody is collecting sex data as part of a verification system, why are they doing so? If they do not need to know what someone’s sex is, it should not be collected. Digital verification services allow people to choose their proportionate disclosure. There will be times when sex data is required for renting a property—that example has been used before—because people may want to rent properties in single-sex accommodation. I may argue that is a proportionate disclosure. If it is a standard rental property in another situation, it is probably a non-proportionate disclosure. Another argument has been made that it is needed to triangulate data to verify ID. Again, that does not seem to work, because the whole point of a digital verification service is to allow someone to have a digital ID framework and use different points to verify.
The perversity of this debate is that these schemes and their proportionate disclosure protect people’s identities. They protect people from non-disproportionate disclosure. We need to make sure that the data we are using is accurate and correct, and that it says what we want it to say when someone is inquiring about somebody’s sex. If somebody is asking for sex data but they do not need it, people should be able to say no, which the existing provisions allow for.
Dr Spencer
What is the point of politics if we do not have a debate? We strongly disagree with the interpretation that the provisions are somehow incompatible with ECHR rights. They totally support people’s privacy rights under article 8 regarding proportionate disclosures. If somebody needs to have someone’s sex data, they need sex data. They do not need gender data. The provisions allow for it, and if somebody does not need sex data, they should not be collecting it in the first place.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, does the Minister at least accept that the Bill poses a risk of entrenching inaccurate data relating to sex through public bodies using DVS systems? Notwithstanding his views on the Lords amendments, could he address that point? What steps will the Government take to ensure the reliability of sex data to ensure protection, such as of women using female-only spaces? What will the Minister do to ensure that inaccurate data entrenched by the Bill will not pose a risk to people in those situations and others? I am thinking, of course, of services available in healthcare, but that is by no means the only example.
Chris Bryant
I need to make it absolutely clear, for a start, that the element of clause 45 that we are removing—subsection (6)—makes no reference to sex or gender at all. The words do not appear on the face of the Bill at all. Subsection (6) refers to accuracy and inaccuracy, but it says
“the public authority is able to attest that it…has been corrected through a lawfully made correction,”
and that is obviously aiming at a particular form of lawfully made correction.
Public authorities are already bound in law by data protection legislation—this goes to the point that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East just made—to ensure that the personal data they process is accurate and, importantly, that it is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed, and that it is kept up to date where necessary. In essence, what the noble Lords’ amendments to the Bill did was say that we should also be keeping, in every instance, a history of what the data had been. That, I think, is problematic.
The hon. Member is absolutely right about wanting to preserve women-only spaces, which is why public authorities are required to process information that is accurate for the purpose for which it is being processed. In the delivery of healthcare, for instance, when it comes to health screening for transgender and non-binary individuals, the Department of Health and Social Care has comprehensive guidance that sets out the NHS default adult screening programmes that are available in England and lays out who is invited. In England, it is up to GPs to ensure that, as part of processing gender change, the individual is correctly registered for relevant screenings in relation to their sex.
I simply do not buy this argument that we need to make this provision in relation to all digital verification services. Although it is of course right that, in the delivery of prison services or in the health service, or in so many other areas, simple common sense should apply in relation to female-only spaces and wanting to make sure that women are safe, I do not think that this Bill on digital verification services benefits from the introduction of a measure that would effectively mean that in the provision of every digital verification service—whether in regard to the provision of some sensitive service or not—you should make this provision. That is why we tabled amendments 10 and 11, and I urge all hon. Members to support them.
Victoria Collins
The Liberal Democrats support the Government amendments. As the Minister highlighted, the amendments are about proportionality in digital verification services. For Liberal Democrats, it is about the balance between trust and helping to protect privacy, as well as getting the data needed to make our society better. We believe that the original proposal had the proportionality right, so we will support the Government’s amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Chris Bryant
Clause 28 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish the digital verification service framework, which will set out rules for the provision of digital verification services for providers that want to be certified and appear on a Government register. The rules will draw on existing technical requirements, standards and best practice, and guidance and legislation. They will help organisations to provide services in a trusted and consistent way, and enable inter-operability and increasing public confidence.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to revise and republish the trust framework as the market evolves. The requirement to consult the Information Commissioner and others whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate will ensure the trust framework’s development is informed by industry expertise and the wider regulatory environment.
Clause 29 allows the Secretary of State to prepare and publish supplementary codes. The codes will be relevant to sectors that require rules to cater for their specific requirements around identity checks, supplementary to those in the DVS trust framework. For example, additional rules are needed when proving someone’s right to work in the UK. By working with those operating in such sectors, the Secretary of State can identify market and user needs for these codes, and that will help to encourage digital identity adoption across the wider economy. The requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner and others as appropriate when preparing a supplementary code should also ensure that those needs are taken into account in its development.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to withdraw a published supplementary code if, for example, it is no longer required or is outdated. The Secretary of State will need to publish his determination to withdraw a supplementary code and allow at least 28 days before its withdrawal.
Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the digital verification service trust framework and any published supplementary code at least every 12 months. When doing so, the Secretary of State should consult the Information Commissioner and anyone he or she considers appropriate. This review will ensure that the body of rules governing digital verification services keeps up to date with the digital identity market, and is fit for purpose as that market evolves.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
DVS register
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
These clauses are all about the digital verification service register. Clause 32 requires the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a publicly available register of digital verification service providers, which is called the digital verification service register. This duty will ensure that people can look up which digital verification service providers have met the requirements to join the register, making it easier for people to know which providers can be trusted and to realise the benefits of this technology with confidence.
Subject to limited powers of refusal in clause 34, clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to register a digital verification service provider if it applies to appear on the register and if it holds a certificate from an accredited conformity assessment body confirming its digital verification service is compliant with the digital verification service trust framework. In practice, this means that in applying to join the register, a provider must have its service certified against the trust framework by a body that has been independently accredited by the UK Accreditation Service. The digital verification service provider must also have made an application in accordance with requirements made by determination under clause 39 and paid any relevant fee, as set out in clause 39. This provides confidence to users and businesses that only those digital verification services that meet these conditions will appear on the digital verification service register.
Clause 34 grants the Secretary of State the power to refuse applications to the digital verification service register in two circumstances: first, where he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of national security or, secondly, where he is satisfied that the provider is not compliant with the trust framework. Before a refusal, he must provide written notice of his intention, informing the provider of his reasons and of the opportunity to make representations. He need not share reasons on national security grounds where to do so would be contrary to those interests. Those powers will act as a backstop, allowing the Secretary of State to stop bad actors—I always worry about that term, thinking about actors who have appeared in movies that I have not liked—entering the system in circumstances where, for example, he has intelligence that conformity assessment bodies do not. That should increase confidence that registered DVS providers are trustworthy and secure.
Clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the digital verification services register. The provider must apply for the Secretary of State to amend its register entry to accommodate this. This is largely a technical provision to ensure that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when providers offer more than one service that is certified against the trust framework.
Clause 36 provides for a registered provider to apply to the Secretary of State to add a supplementary note to their entry in the register if its service is certified against the supplementary code, its application complies with any requirements set out in a determination under clause 38, and it has paid any required fee. Supplementary notes will make it easy for people and businesses to see which registered digital verification services are certified against the rules of the supplementary code, so that they can find a trusted service that meets their needs.
In the same way that clause 35 allows registered digital verification service providers to have multiple certified services listed in the register, clause 37 allows providers with multiple services certified against the supplementary code to have that information suitably noted in the register. The digital verification service provider must apply to the Secretary of State to have its supplementary note amended to accommodate this. This technical requirement ensures that the register can operate appropriately and seamlessly when DVS providers offer more than one service that is certified against both the trust framework and a supplementary code.
Finally, clause 38 makes provision for the Secretary of State to determine the form of applications to the register and supplementary notes, the information that needs to be contained in the application, the documents to be provided and the manner in which is to be submitted. He must publish this determination, which will ensure that the requirements are clear for digital verification service providers who wish to make an application. For the same reason, if he revises the determination at a later time, this must also be published.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Fees for applications for registration, supplementary notes, etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the payment of fees for applications to the register and applications for supplementary notes. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. The fees can be set at a level higher than the administrative costs of determining applications or those associated with the DVS providers’ ongoing registration in the DVS register. This is to help ensure that fees may cover the total operating costs relating to governance, which includes functions such as publishing an annual report and keeping the trust framework up to date.
The Government amended clause 39 from the original Bill that was introduced prior to the general election in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee so that these fees are set by regulations instead of determination. This ensures that any fees the Secretary of State may wish to charge for these applications are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Duty to remove person from the DVS register
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clause 40 requires the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register in the following circumstances: when that provider asks to be removed; if it stops providing all services for which it is registered; or if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of these services. This duty ensures that the Secretary of State acts to uphold the digital verification service register in these circumstances to uphold trust and confidence in it.
Clause 41 allows the Secretary of State to remove a digital verification service provider from the digital verification service register if it is not compliant with the trust framework or a supplementary code; if it fails to provide information in response to a clause 51 written notice; or if removal is necessary in the interests of national security. Before removal, the Secretary of State must provide written notice informing the provider of reasons for removal and the opportunity to make representations. Reasons need not be given where this would be contrary to national security interests. These powers will help ensure that the register lists only certified services and that the Secretary of State can act to remove services where necessary, providing confidence in its accuracy.
Clause 42 requires the Secretary of State to remove a service from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests removal; if it ceases to provide one or more of those services, but not all of them; or if it no longer holds a certificate for all those services. Similar to clause 41, these duties provide confidence to people and businesses that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information. Whereas clauses 40 and 41 cover removal of a digital verification service provider as a whole, the clause 42 duty enables the Secretary of State to remove one or more services, should a digital verification service provider have more than one service registered and one or more, but not all, those services no longer meet the digital verification service register’s conditions.
Clause 43 requires the Secretary of State to remove a supplementary note from the digital verification service register if the digital verification service provider requests its removal; if it ceases to provide all the services to which the note relates; if it no longer holds a certificate for at least one of those services; or if the supplementary code to which the note relates has been withdrawn. This is a technical requirement to ensure that changes in certification and provision of multiple services in accordance with supplementary codes are accurately reflected for digital verification service providers, upholding confidence that the digital verification service register can be trusted as an accurate source of information.
Chris Bryant
The clause creates a permissive information gateway. This will enable public authorities to share information relating to an individual with registered digital verification services, when requested by the individual. The gateway enables digital identity checks to be made against public authority data, thereby increasing the trustworthiness of identity and eligibility checks across the economy.
Clause 45 also makes it clear that the power does not authorise disclosure of information that would breach the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, disclosure of information under the clause would not breach any obligations of confidence owed by the public authority or any other restrictions on the disclosure of the information. The clause also enables public authorities to charge a fee for the disclosure of information under the clause.
Dr Spencer
I am not going to rehash the previous debates. Clearly, the Committee has made its decision, no matter how disappointing that is. I just wanted to pick up the Minister’s previous point about the use of common sense in arbitration decisions when it comes to access to protected same-sex spaces. I fully support using common sense, but how does that play out in a situation where somebody has gone through a digital verification service that has used data that is held by a local authority, but that has been changed at a later date—that is, in effect, gender data? How will that be resolved?
Chris Bryant
I think that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman. We have agreed the amendment, so that is slightly rehashing the debate. I am happy to write to him and he will have that before we come back for Thursday’s Committee sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Information disclosed by the Revenue and Customs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clauses 46, 47 and 48 relate to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Welsh Revenue Authority and Revenue Scotland respectively. The clauses provide additional safeguards to any information disclosed through the information gateway by these bodies. They place restrictions on onward sharing and create offences for the wrongful disclosure of such data, thereby creating appropriate protection for tax data shared through the gateway. A similar provision is not required for Northern Irish tax data, as HMRC is responsible for the collection of devolved taxes in Northern Ireland. The Government will not commence measures to enable the disclosure of information held by HMRC until the commissioners for HMRC are satisfied that the technology and processes for information sharing uphold the particular safeguards relating to taxpayer confidentiality, and therefore allow information sharing by HMRC to occur without adverse effect on the tax system or any other function of HMRC.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Code of practice about the disclosure of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I am sure Members were wondering when we were going to get to a code of practice, and this is the clause that introduces it. Clause 49 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a code of practice for the disclosure of information under the information gateway created in clause 45. The code of practice will provide guidance and best practice for such disclosure, including what information should be shared, who it should be shared with and how to share it securely.
In preparing and revising the code, the Secretary of State must consult with the Information Commissioner, devolved Governments and other appropriate persons. The code will be laid before Parliament before it is finalised. The first version of the code will be subject to the affirmative procedure and subsequent versions to the negative procedure, allowing proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Dr Spencer
Will the code of practice include information on the proportionate disclosure of data through the DVS scheme?
Chris Bryant
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Trust mark for use by registered persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
This clause enables the Secretary of State to designate a trust mark to be used only by registered providers of digital verification services. This will help users to identify those digital verification service providers that have been assessed as reliable and trustworthy. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to bring civil proceedings against unauthorised use of the trust mark. The trust mark has now been registered as a trademark in the UK, so the Secretary of State will also be able to take appropriate legal action against misuse under trademark law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Power of Secretary of State to require information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
Clause 51 enables the Secretary of State to issue written notices to accredited conformity assessment bodies and registered digital verification service providers, requesting information that he may reasonably require to exercise his functions under part 2 of the Bill. That could include information on inclusion, fraud or other statistical information to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out his duties under this part of the Bill.
The notice must state why the information is required and may specify or describe particular information, together with the form in which it must be provided, the time within which it must be provided and where it must be provided. The clause also sets out circumstances where disclosure would not be required—for example, where it would contravene the data protection legislation. Non-compliance with the clause by registered providers may result in removal from the digital verification services register.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Arrangements for third party to exercise functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
I am conscious that we are steaming towards the end of part 2 of the Bill. It is 11.10 am, and we could go on until 11.30 am, but it might be convenient for Members if we were to end a little earlier and then move on to parts 3 and 4 this afternoon. That would be a matter for the Whips, and I do not like to tell a Whip what to do.
Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for his functions to be exercised by a third party. Such delegation may be made for any function of the Secretary of State under part 2 of the Bill, except for his regulation-making powers. The delegation may also provide for payments to be made and received from the third party to whom functions are delegated.
This clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to adapt to the governance needs of the digital identity market as it grows. Governance functions will initially sit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and future plans to delegate any function in part 2 of the Bill will be carefully considered and subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.
Clause 53 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish reports on the operation of part 2 of the Bill at least every 12 months, with the first report due 12 months after the commencement of clause 28, which concerns the publication of the digital verification services trust framework. These reports will be published on gov.uk. This publication will strengthen transparency in the Government’s digital identity programme and boost trust in the market.
Clause 54 is an index of terms defined or explained in part 2 of the Bill. It sets out the subsection numbers where definitions and explanations can be found.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch all electronic devices to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Should any Member want to speak to any clause or amendment, please bob in the usual way as you would in the Chamber and try to catch my eye.
Clause 13
Penalties etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould (Queen’s Park and Maida Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck.
Clause 13 allows the Government to use the proposed recovery powers to recover late penalty payments and associated interest deriving from the civil penalty regime that is introduced in chapter 5 and any additional relevant costs, either awarded by a court or tribunal or incurred in exercising the recovery powers. In all of these cases, money will be owed to the public purse. Once it has been recovered, it can be used for public good. If these sums were to remain unrecovered, it would not have this positive impact.
We are building strong safeguards and appeal routes into all our measures, including on the application of penalties. Decisions to impose a penalty will be taken by authorised officers, and we have discussed the training that they will have. It is also intended that the debt recovery powers will be overseen by the independent oversight mechanisms, which we will turn to later in the session. Where we are justified in using the proposed recovery powers to seek payments directly from bank accounts and pay-as-you-earn earnings, we want to be able to use them. The penalties and costs will all derive from the fraud investigations that the Public Sector Fraud Authority will carry out.
Clause 14 restricts when chapter 4 recovery powers can be used to recover penalties. They can only be used when the timeframe for appealing a penalty has passed without any appeal being bought or any appeal against the penalty has been finally determined by a tribunal. Penalties are issued for important reasons to encourage compliance and to help make the whole Bill work effectively, and to help make the PSFA effective in its efforts to tackle fraud against the public sector.
Penalties are not something that can be put into the back of a drawer and forgotten about. Fraud is an expensive business for Government. It costs us money when people defraud us. It costs us money to investigate, to take proceedings through courts and to pursue recovery. It is not fair that these costs are shouldered by law-abiding citizens. It is right that those who do not follow correct procedures are penalised and have to pay.
Clauses 13 and 14 enable us to hold debtors to account, driving up recovery of what is owed by letting us use the recovery powers in a wider but proportionate manner and with the appropriate safeguards and appeal routes in place. However, this has to be done with respect of due and proper process, which is exactly what this clause mandates. These clauses are important safeguards that rightly prioritise the liable person’s right to appeal a penalty decision over the recovery of the penalty. It provides us with operational flexibility to recover a range of debts, driving up the value for money of our operations. I commend clauses 13 and 14 to the Committee.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Clause 13 sets out that the Minister can use powers to recover amounts from a penalty, such as late payment, but also relevant costs to be awarded by a court or tribunal. Relevant costs rightly also include costs that are reasonably incurred by the Minister in exercising the powers in chapter 4.
Can the Minister share details on what this measure might include? What is reasonable and what are the expected amounts that might be recovered in this way? Does this also cover legal costs—for example, court fees and legal representation? Will it include investigatory costs, such as the use of forensic accountants or data analysts? Does it extend to administrative costs, such as the work of civil servants processing cases? How is reasonableness to be determined within these clauses? What criteria or guidelines will be used to assess whether a cost is reasonable and will there be an independent review process to prevent excessive or disproportionate costs from being been claimed? Will the affected individuals or entities have the right to challenge, at an appropriately early stage, costs that they deem to be unreasonable?
On the expected scale of the costs, do the Government have an estimate of the average cost that could be incurred and recovered under these provisions, and will there be caps or limits on the amount that can be recovered from an individual or organisation? Does the Minister expect those to vary? How will cost recovery be monitored and reported to ensure transparency?
Given the potential financial impact on those subject to enforcement proceedings, it is crucial that clear safeguards, transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that costs remain proportionate and fair. I would appreciate further detail from the Minister about how these costs will be defined, managed and reviewed.
Clause 14 provides that the Minister can recover an amount due in respect of a penalty only when the time for appealing has passed without an appeal, or any appeal has been finally determined. We think that that is perfectly sensible and will support the clause.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In the oral evidence, Professor Levi highlighted some powers regarding asset freezing that the police have had since 2017. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on whether these powers could have a significant impact in this area of the law—in particular, whether they would apply to international organisations, and the impact on individuals. I think that would be helpful to the Committee.
Georgia Gould
I welcome the support for the clause. To clarify, the operational costs of running PSFA operations and investigations will not be included in reasonable costs. There is work being done through the test and learn period by the enforcement unit to inform those costs, and guidance will be published in due course. As I have set out previously, there will be independent oversight of the full use of these powers, by a team that will answer to an independent chair. They will report to Parliament and will look at all aspects of the use of these powers, including the cost. If it is not established by agreement, we will have to apply to a court or tribunal to determine what the debt is, so there will be that added aspect of independence.
For asset seizing, we can apply for orders through the courts. In evidence we heard from the financial industry, there were questions about how the powers will work together, and there is work going on to respond to some of those questions. Our teams are working very closely with those financial bodies.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Payable amounts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
Before I go into the detail of the clauses, I want to take a minute, as we are entering a new chapter, to make some opening remarks about the wider powers.
Chapter 4 of part 1 introduces debt recovery powers. In 2021-22, detected fraud and error outside of tax and welfare was £823 million, of which only £190 million—23%—was recovered. Alex Rothwell, from the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, told us in his evidence that the Department recovered only 12% of fraud and error. There is a long way to go in this space, which is why the powers are so important.
We know that recovery of fraud-related debt can be challenging. Debt recovery powers are limited to a small number of organisations and are therefore not available across the public sector. The Public Accounts Committee, Home Affairs Committee and National Audit Office have all strongly challenged the Government to do more across the public sector to take action on fraud loss. As part of the Bill, we are bringing debt recovery powers into the PSFA to enable the Government to better recover fraud debt outside of tax and welfare. We heard from Alex Rothwell that these powers will be incredibly helpful for us to recover more money.
The powers are not new to Government—HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service already have the power to recover debt from bank accounts, and DWP and the Child Maintenance Service can recover debt from earnings. We will utilise best practice from those organisations in operating the powers. Although we initially expect to use them in just a small number of cases, we hope that this will grow as and when the PSFA enforcement unit expands.
We have consulted widely with a range of fraud and debt stakeholders, including public bodies, academics and non-public sector groups. Banks, charities and civil liberty groups have been engaged so that we can incorporate lessons learnt from the experience of debt recovery processes in Government. We know that those in debt can be in challenging situations, which is why the use of the powers will follow best practice across Government, including the Government debt management function standards, and guidance such as the debt management vulnerability toolkit.
Importantly, the powers will only be used once efforts to engage and secure voluntary repayment have been unsuccessful. The only people and companies who will face the powers are those who have the means to repay, but who refuse to do so. Those affected by the powers will have the right to make representations, apply to vary orders, request an internal review, and finally, appeal to the tribunal. The powers will be used by trained authorised officers who will be subject to independent oversight. The debt recovery powers in the Bill balance the need to recover public money efficiently, while ensuring that recovery is fair and proportionate, with robust safeguards to protect those in vulnerable situations.
Clause 15 refers back to clauses 1 and 13 to define a payable amount as: a payment made as a result of fraud or error, as discovered by an investigation into suspected fraud; a penalty under the civil penalty regime established by chapter 5; and, finally, relevant costs. This creates a limitation as to the debts that the Government will be able to use the chapter 4 recovery powers on, specifically, those determined by and during an investigation into suspected fraud, including from associated penalties.
We seek these recovery powers purely to further the counter-fraud activity that we will carry out to tackle fraud against the public sector. We do not intend to become a general debt recovery agency for the Government, and clause 15 confirms that. It reflects the operational context and purpose of the PSFA and its focus on tackling fraud and error.
Further to that, clause 16 confirms that we will be able to seek alternative recovery action through the civil courts. Although the Bill will provide the powers to seek recovery directly through bank accounts and PAYE earnings, these might not always be the most appropriate or effective recovery route. For instance, the liable person might hold significant other property assets or keep assets or money abroad. In those cases, it would be unfair for us not to seek recovery.
We therefore wish to work through established legal procedures to ensure that we can seek to pursue recovery through the most appropriate and effective mechanisms—for example, liability orders. The importance of clause 16 is that it confirms that the Bill does not limit existing powers. I commend clauses 15 and 16 to the Committee.
Mike Wood
As the Minister said, clause 15 establishes that a payable amount is a recoverable amount as defined in previous provisions of the legislation, while clause 16 further grants the Minister the power to apply to the county court for a recovery order. That ensures that a recoverable amount is treated as an enforceable payment under section 85 of the County Courts Act 1984, or as if it was directly ordered by the court.
While the mechanism for recovery is now clear, there are important practical questions about its implementation. First, we would like further reassurance about the impact on the county court system. What projection have the Government made regarding the number of cases that they expect to be brought under these provisions? Given the existing backlog in county courts, what assessment has been made of the additional burden that these measures will place on the system? Has the Minister engaged with her colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that county courts have the capacity and resources to handle these cases efficiently and in a timely manner?
To develop further the issue of efficiency and speed of resolution, what is the expected timeframe for these cases to be resolved once an application is made? Do the Government anticipate delays due to a high caseload in county courts, and if so, what mitigations are they putting in place to help to deal with those delays? Will the Government publish guidance or at least a framework on the expected process and timeline for obtaining a recovery order?
It is essential that these powers do not result in undue delays, excessive court burdens, or legal uncertainty for those subject to a recovery order. Further clarification from the Minister would help to ensure that this system functions fairly and efficiently—balancing the need for enforcement and fairness to the taxpayer to recover sums that are owed, with the available judicial capacity.
Georgia Gould
We have published an impact assessment. That says that with the current size of the enforcement unit, we expect there to be about eight cases, so a small number, but of course if the powers work well and we expand the unit, that will increase. As the hon. Member would expect, we have engaged heavily across Government on all these questions. The critical thing is that there is significant deterrence to having to go through a court process—in terms of the interest that is going to grow on the debt, and the fees that would be accompanied by the legal costs and other costs associated with that process. Our hope is that the majority of people will go through a voluntary process—that will be both easier and less expensive for them—and that these powers will be used primarily as a deterrent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Direct deduction orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 18 stand part.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Georgia Gould
Clause 17 introduces direct deduction orders as a method to recover public funds lost to fraud and error from a liable person’s bank account. Direct deduction orders are a vital mechanism to recover funds from a liable person who can afford to repay their debt but refuses to do so. This debt recovery mechanism is not new to Government; the Bill seeks to bring powers that are used elsewhere into the PSFA, not to create brand-new powers for the PSFA. That provides assurance of their effective and proportionate use, and we are doing the same here. The introduction of direct deduction orders is essential to bolster the Government’s ability to recover public funds, ensuring that taxpayer money lost to fraud and error is reclaimed and redirected towards essential public services and the common good.
To safeguard the use of these powers, direct deduction orders will be used after an investigation by the Public Sector Fraud Authority into suspected fraud against a public authority. The decision to make a direct deduction order will be made by trained and authorised officers in the PSFA who will work to the standards of the Government counter-fraud profession. The investigation must determine, to the civil standard of proof, that money is owed to the public sector as a result of fraud or error. As I have said, we will seek voluntary engagement and repayment, and only after those efforts have been unsuccessful will direct deduction orders be used. As outlined in clauses 12 and 14, there are clear restrictions as to when these powers become available, ensuring that their use is not unfettered.
Mike Wood
Clause 17 establishes that when a payable amount is recoverable, the Minister can issue an order for direct deductions from a liable person’s bank account, either through regular deductions or a lump sum payment, as she said. Clause 18 further clarifies that those deductions can be taken from any account in which the liable person has a beneficial interest. That is extremely important, given the difficulty in establishing the different networks of bank accounts that may be held, particularly in cases of serious and organised fraud. We welcome the flexibility the clause introduces.
Although the provisions aim to improve efficiency in recovering public funds, there are still questions regarding fairness, proportionality and the safeguards that are in place, starting with the definition of beneficial interest in clause 18. Clause 18(1) allows the Minister to make an order on an account that is held by the liable person and contains an amount that the Minister considers the liable person has a beneficial interest in. What criteria or evidence does the Minister expect the PSFA to use in determining a person’s beneficial interest in an account, given the complex ownership and title structures that may be in place? On the flip side of that, how will the rights of third parties be protected, particularly if funds belong to someone other than the liable person that might be held in a shared account?
That brings us to the question of joint accounts. Clause 20 assumes that a joint account is split equally between account holders unless the Minister has reason to believe otherwise. What types of evidence would be accepted to demonstrate that the liable person’s beneficial interest is different from an equal split? The Minister referred to bank statements, but would those investigating also look at legal documents or perhaps third-party testimony? Would that be appropriate in some circumstances? Will additional checks be carried out to ensure that joint account holders are not unfairly penalised for debts that might not be theirs? It is not uncommon for people in marriages or long-term partnerships to have a domestic joint account. It might well be that one of the partners in the relationship is, in practical terms, paying more into an account, but also using the account more than the other partner, despite the two names being equally on the face of the account.
Clause 21, on the notice and the right to respond, sets out the process of notifying banks and liable persons before deductions are made, and includes provision allowing them to make representations within 28 days. The clause allows the Minister to notify the bank first before informing the liable person, to prevent account closure, asset withdrawal or other measures being taken to deprive the taxpayer of the recovery of sums that might rightfully be recoverable. Can the Minister point to a precedent for that approach in other areas of law? How does that align with best practices in financial enforcement?
Although clause 21 allows the liable person to make representations to the Minister, there is not an explicit provision for an independent appeal mechanism. Is there a reason why the Bill does not provide for such a process? Would the Government consider an independent review mechanism, beyond the systematic review that is in place for the Bill, to ensure that decisions are fair and transparent and do not disproportionately affect people in individual cases?
To go back to the potential risks of financial and domestic abuse that I touched on earlier, deducting money from joint accounts could create serious risks for individuals in financially abusive relationships. What safeguards will be put in place to prevent financial hardship, particularly for vulnerable individuals who might not actually be responsible for the debts that the PSFA seeks to recover? What specialist training will staff receive to identify and mitigate the risk of financial or domestic abuse? The effectiveness of the measures will depend on strong safeguards, clear guidance and robust oversight mechanisms to ensure fairness and proportionality. I would appreciate further clarification from the Minister on those points.
Steve Darling
I rise to speak about clause 20 in particular. Liberal Democrats are heartened by clause 18, which clearly says that if there is another account the money could be drawn from, that will be utilised. However, we are particularly concerned about coercive and controlling relationships.
In my 30 years serving the people of Torbay as a councillor, I found on a number of occasions that people who are happy to conduct fraud against other parties, whether the state or other organisations, are often very happy to financially abuse their partners as well. That leaves their partners in a very vulnerable situation. I found that often the individuals affected are very trusting people who have vulnerabilities elsewhere in their lives, which would be recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions if it were supporting them.
I really want to hear from the Minister how the DWP is going to support people and be alive to the risk. It is about making sure that there is a culture of knowledge of the issue among the investigators. Although it is essential that we get the money from fraud in, we do not want collateral damage on people who have been abused.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I have some queries about clause 17 and the provisions on recovery from bank accounts. My comments apply to clause 38 as well, but I will speak specifically to clause 17.
Earlier, the Minister mentioned that some of the powers for direct deductions and deductions from earnings are used more widely across the DWP, particularly in the CMS for recouping costs for parents. Have the Government thought more broadly than simply direct deductions and deductions from earnings? My understanding is that the CMS has quite strong powers beyond that and has used them in the past.
Given the nature of fraud against public authorities—these are ultimately quite serious offences—what more has been done to consider whether direct deductions and deductions from earnings are enough and will be all that is required? At some stage, do we need to think about putting in tougher and more stringent powers to claw back the money owed to the Government?
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As the Minister described, the powers in the Bill are already used by other parts of Government. Can she provide us with any evidence of their success? Are they doing the job they were made for? Have they led to a change in behaviour in the way potential fraudsters set up accounts or attempt to disguise beneficiary interests?
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate the focus on vulnerability and oversight, because with these powers comes a huge amount of responsibility. The questions that have been raised today are really important.
First, the joint account holder will be able to make their own representations for review. The starting point will be the equal split, as was set out, but they will be able to make representations and ask to have their rights reviewed as part of the investigative process.
On the wider point about vulnerability, which was well made, there is a huge amount of established practice in Government, and the PSFA will seek to learn from that. The Government debt management vulnerability toolkit will be utilised. All the authorised officers will have training in vulnerability and economic abuse. Vulnerability assessments will take place in every single instance of debt recovery and vulnerability will be kept under review. A range of training and safeguards is in place around our approach.
On clause 21, I reassure the shadow Minister that there is precedent in HMRC. There can be both an internal review and an appeal, which is set out in clauses 34 and 31.
A wider point was made about whether we have looked at different and wider powers. The thing to remember about the powers is that in the majority of cases, but not all cases, we expect them to be used to recover funds from organisations rather than individuals, which is why we have focused on the financial side of debt recovery and penalties. Other powers are used by other Departments. I said earlier that we want to continue to be able to use other legal procedures to pursue recovery, including liability orders, and the Bill will not stop us doing so. We have a range of options in front of us.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and for outlining that there are further abilities to recover funds. Particularly in recoveries from organisations, does that include the seizure of assets should that be necessary? A lot of organisations might be asset rich but cash poor. If we seek to retrieve money on behalf of the Government, is the ability to seize assets, if required, within the framework the Minister alluded to?
Georgia Gould
Among the powers in the Bill there is only the power to recover debt through the ways that I have set out.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Requirement for banks to provide information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
The clause outlines the information notices that can be given to a bank, how the bank must comply, the information it must provide and how the information can be used.
To determine whether to make a direct deduction order, an account information notice or a general information notice may be given. This is crucial in ensuring that sufficient financial information is gathered to facilitate informed debt recovery decisions, thereby enabling the effective recovery of public funds. The information provided by the banks is necessary and proportionate to ensure that the liable person’s financial situation is considered before a direct deduction order is made. This approach is already used by HMRC for its comparable direct recovery of debt, and it is also requested by the DWP in part 2 of the Bill.
The information gathered will protect vulnerable people, prevent hardship and safeguard non-liable joint account holders, while acknowledging the vital need to recover public funds lost to fraud and error. Banks must comply with a notice under the clause, and may be liable to a penalty for failure to comply without a reasonable excuse—this will ensure that the measures are adhered to. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from notifying account holders that they have received a notice under clause 19, to avoid tipping off debtors and thereby prevent money from being moved from the account. Overall, the clause is necessary in furthering the effective recovery of public funds. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 19, I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Wood
Clause 19 grants the Minister significant powers to obtain financial information from banks before making a direct deduction order, including the ability to request three months of bank statements, or perhaps statements covering a longer period where specified. The power to issue an account information notice requires banks to provide statements to determine what deduction should be made, and the power to issue a general information notice requires banks to disclose an individual’s account details, balances and correspondence addresses.
Clearly, in many investigations there will be good reason why some or all of that information is necessary, appropriate and justified. Of course, some of the information will be extremely sensitive, so we need necessary safeguards and appropriate oversight to ensure that sensitive information is requested and subsequently shared only where it is directly necessary to the investigation, and where the Minister or PSFA has justifiable grounds to think either that an error is costing the public sector significant amounts of money or that there has been a case of deliberate fraud. As I said about the previous grouping, a prohibition on banks informing the liable person that an information notice has been issued is a sensible measure to prevent that person from taking action to frustrate attempts to recover money that ought to be recovered—they could, for example, empty their account before deductions could take place. In principle, we support powers designed to ensure effective debt recovery under the right circumstances and when used in the right way, but there are several concerns regarding proportionality and oversight when it comes to protecting legitimate privacy rights.
First, on the unlimited timeframe for bank statements, clause 19 states that the Minister must obtain at least three months’ worth of statements, but can request a longer period if specified in the notice. What criteria will determine whether more than three months of statements is needed? Is there a reason why no upper limit is specified within the clause on how far back those requests can go? Clearly, the further back that requests are made for a bank statement, the greater the risk that they could lead to overly intrusive requests that may not be entirely necessary for the debt recovery.
On the broad information-gathering powers, the general information notice allows the Minister to demand a full list of all accounts held by the liable person, their details and their addresses. Presumably, that is for the specific financial institution that the notice refers to. Are there any safeguards to prevent excessive or disproportionate use of those notices? Must there be a reasonable suspicion or at least a threshold to be met before those powers can be exercised? The Bill states that the Minister can only request information to exercise their core functions, but that is obviously a very broad measure so could be interpreted very broadly.
Banks would be prohibited from informing the liable person that an information notice had been issued. Although that prevents individuals from evading deductions, it means that they may be unaware of a Government investigation into their finances even after the event. Are there any circumstances in which the liable person might be informed that their financial data has been accessed—perhaps after an investigation has been closed? Does the Minister envisage any independent oversight to ensure that those powers are used proportionately?
On the burden on banks and financial institutions, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon and I have tabled amendments to be debated later in the proceedings, these powers will require banks to process and respond to Government information notices, likely adding costs and administrative burdens to those institutions. Have the Government consulted with financial institutions to assess how proportionate the kinds of requests envisaged under the Bill are, the ease or the difficulty of compliance, and the estimated cost to banks and the financial sector? During evidence last week, some financial institutions did not seem to have any idea of what scale of burden that would be putting on their members. Again, a large part of this came back to the lack of visibility of draft codes of practice.
On privacy and data protection concerns, although the Bill states that the Minister can only request relevant information, that can be interpreted broadly. What legal protections exist to ensure that financial data is accessed and used appropriately for the very narrow purposes for which these clauses are intended? Will there be an independent review mechanism to assess whether those powers are used lawfully and proportionately?
Finally, given the wide-ranging implication of the powers, further clarity and safeguards are needed to balance effective debt recovery against individual privacy rights. I would welcome further details from the Minister on those critical issues, so that we can be comfortable going forward that the wide-ranging powers that we would be granting to the Minister and the PSFA cannot be misused and that individual privacy rights will be protected and respected.
Steve Darling
I ask the Minister to reflect on how speedily the Bill is going through Parliament. As we heard from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, financial institutions are not clear about the impact on or the cost to them. When we legislate in haste, challenges will often come out of the woodwork in the longer term. In this particular area, again, the issue is about the safeguards. We assume that we are dealing with reasonable people, but we do not have to look far in international news to see what can go wrong when unreasonable people gain power.
Where are the safeguards? When holding a Minister to account, it is often assumed that the Minister will be a reasonable person. Sadly, however, in the future the Minister may not be a reasonable person, so where are the safeguards for individuals? Also, as alluded to earlier in the debate, it would be helpful to have some assurance on the banks and the impact on them.
Georgia Gould
Let me go through those points in turn. The first question was about why someone might need information before three months. There are two critical reasons why: one is to ascertain potential vulnerability and affordability plans—we have talked about safeguarding joint account holders so as to have more information—and the other is to prevent people from evading paying: if more information were needed to ensure that the assets had not been moved. Throughout, we have tried to balance ensuring fairness for the taxpayer and protecting vulnerability. I hope it will give some reassurance that such powers are used effectively elsewhere in Government. We have learned from best practice.
I talked through the process of the first notice, and that will be where the individual is informed that that information has been requested. As we have discussed, a number of safeguards are built into the process, and the intention when recovering debt will be to work with the individual and to make it collaborative. If people refuse to pay, only at that point would we apply to the courts or a tribunal, where safeguards are of course in place.
To the wider question of what safeguards hold the system to account, as I have outlined and as we will discuss in more detail later, a team answerable to an independent chair will oversee every part of the process, including the ability to look at live cases and at the patterns, to ensure proportionate use of the powers. That individual will report to Parliament. Separately, a fully independent body will review the full use of the powers. We expect that to be His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. The Bill also includes a provision to make the PSFA a statutory body, and so fully independent of the Minister. While it remains in this smaller phase, where we are testing the powers, the independent safeguards are built in.
On the point about the consultation with the finance bodies, I hope the Committee heard in the evidence that UK Finance was clear that we have been having a constructive dialogue on all of the issues. The PSFA has published an impact assessment, which suggests that, in the first instance, banks will need to look at a very small number of cases. We have committed to testing and learning alongside the process as the PSFA grows. There will be established practice for working closely with the banks. We expect the burden on banks for the application of the PSFA powers to be limited. I hope that gives some reassurance on oversight.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part and clause 23 stand part.
Mike Wood
Clause 22 outlines how much can be directly deducted from a liable person’s bank account, while clause 23 specifies the information that must be included in direct deduction orders. These provisions are central to the enforcement mechanism and yet there are many questions that remain about their practical implementation and fairness.
As we have said many times in Committee, it is very difficult to assess how the system will work without seeing a draft code of practice. As Anna Hall from the Money and Pensions Service said when giving evidence last Tuesday,
“the code of conduct will be the critical thing. One of the things is that if frontline staff are not picking up vulnerabilities, or they are not trained in how to sort out affordability, in empathic listening or in all the protocols about how to have different types of conversations with people in different types of vulnerable situations—if those things are not in place—some of the processes in the Bill will not be as effective. It comes down to the training for frontline staff, and the capacity and processes to then follow up on what has actually been disclosed, that will enable those repayment plans to be put in place before those later processes. If those are not in place, that could cause some real issues. How successful this Bill is will come down to the code of conduct, as many have said.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 30, Q49.]
The Minister kindly promised during earlier sessions that:
“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.”––[Official Report, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 92.]
This is another occasion where it would be helpful, as the Minister suggested, to know a bit more about the code of practice, to enable us to scrutinise the provisions better. As witnesses have said, the code of practice is key to how effective the provisions will be. The effectiveness of the Bill will depend on matters such as the training for frontline staff on assessing affordability and vulnerabilities, the processes to evaluate hardship and to create fair payment plans, and the protocols to identify and support people in vulnerable situations.
Can the Minister provide further information about the code of practice, when it will be available for scrutiny and how it will relate to those elements of these clauses? How will the direct deduction system work in practice? As I say, this is a question about staff training and decision making; it will be an operational matter rather than something that can necessarily be directed from Westminster or Whitehall, so how will staff determine a suitable recovery amount and timeline? What principles will guide repayment plans, and how will assessments be made to ensure that affordability and prevent hardship?
Without knowing those matters, it is difficult to judge the appropriateness of some parts of these clauses, because there obviously will be some vulnerable individuals who might be subject to some of the measures in these clauses. What safeguards will be in place for those who require additional support? Will special provisions exist for individuals facing mental health issues, financial abuse or crisis situations?
I turn to the limits on deduction amounts. This is an area where we think the Government are possibly not going far enough: they are setting a maximum deduction limit even when sufficient funds exist and even when the Minister is satisfied that there has been deliberate fraud and an intention to deprive the taxpayer of money that should rightfully be being spent on public purposes.
Obviously, there are some safeguards in the clauses relating to hardship and essential living costs. The legislation states that deductions must not
“cause…hardship in meeting essential living expenses,”
but just how is that hardship to be assessed? Would someone who fraudulently obtained money be allowed to retain it if they successfully argued that they would suffer hardship from repaying it, even if they were never entitled to the money in the first place? And where does that line fall? Presumably, we would not expect them to be able to retain money to allow them to lead a certain quality of life that they may be used to, but that is obviously very different to being able to pay essential bills.
Under the Bill, in cases of fraud, only 40% of credited amounts can be deducted in the relevant period. We are not sure why that cap is in place when the individual was never entitled to the money. If a person has sufficient funds and there has been a conscious—perhaps even organised—attempt to defraud the public sector, why limit recovery rather than allowing full repayment?
That brings me to amendment 19, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. It proposes removing the 40% cap to ensure full recovery under this legislation where possible and subject, obviously, to the safeguards to which I have referred—the hardship test and the independent oversight that is contained within the clauses.
Mrs Lewell-Buck, if you had defrauded the taxpayer out of £100,000—I am not for a moment suggesting that you would—and £100,000 happened to be visible within your bank account, and the Minister was satisfied that that was the result of a conscious course of action on your part to defraud the taxpayer and that there was no reason to imagine that losing it was going to cause you obvious hardship, why should you be allowed to keep £60,000 of that £100,000 in your bank account, even though the money was simply not yours? In that hypothetical situation—I ought to repeat that—it would be stolen money. It does not seem right that the legislation appears to protect 60% of defrauded money and prevents recovery through these mechanisms, so I intend to push amendment 19 to a Division. Who is subject to the safeguards in the clause? If the Government are confident that those safeguards are robust enough to apply to the first 40%, it seems that they ought to be robust enough to apply to the remaining 60% as well.
Returning to clause 22, what happens if too much is deducted? The Bill states that the Minister must not deduct more than the payable amount, which is a sensible and logical bar to set. However, what mechanisms exist to correct over-deductions? What recourse does a liable person have if an error is made and they suffer loss as a result of an over-deduction?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Is the shadow Minister suggesting a level of deductions that is acceptable? The amount that the Department for Work and Pensions can claim back has fluctuated in recent years. Are the Opposition proposing a level at which that threshold should be set?
Neil Coyle
I am not talking about the amount for those who have committed fraud but for the second group that the shadow Minister mentioned, where there perhaps has been a mistake.
Mike Wood
In the case of non-fraudulent claims, where the Minister is not satisfied that there has been fraud on the part of the liable person, I would be inclined to go with the Government’s figure of 20%. That is reasonable in the case of errors, and it obviously allows for longer-term recovery where a genuine mistake has been made. Where there is deemed to have been fraudulent activity, it does not make sense to give those responsible the protection of protecting 60% of the money that they have stolen.
Neil Coyle
Is the shadow Minister’s other concern, with those who have committed fraud, that he thinks the payment should be faster? The Bill allows for 100% of this falsely claimed sum to be recouped, but he seems to be suggesting that he would like to see that done faster. Is that the nature of the amendment?
Mike Wood
Obviously, the Bill allows for sums to be recouped through regular earnings. Where money is in a bank account, we have established that the money is there from the information notices and other measures in the Bill. If the full amount that has been defrauded is available within the account, it seems to make little sense not to be able recover that sum from the account, rather than relying on a deduction of earnings order.
Clause 23(5) requires banks to comply with direct deduction orders. Have the financial institutions been consulted on those obligations and are they content with them? As was said earlier, the evidence that we heard last Tuesday suggested that many financial institutions did not seem to have a grasp of what those obligations and burdens might look like, as well as the costs that would arise.
To conclude, the effectiveness of these provisions will depend heavily on the codes of practice on staff training and on fair procedures. Further clarification is needed to ensure deductions are proportionate, transparent and do not cause undue hardship, particularly in cases of fraud and financial vulnerability. But where there has been demonstrable fraud, the Opposition see no reason to protect 60% of credit in a bank account where it may be linked to conscious efforts to defraud the taxpayer. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those concerns.
Steve Darling
The Liberal Democrats support this Conservative amendment. I will not go over the arguments again, as they have been well put. Some clauses talk about safeguards. It is about the culture of the organisation, making sure that individuals have professional curiosity and how to foster that within the organisation. Professional curiosity can bear significant fruit for a number of Government organisations when they conduct activities, but broadly we are supportive.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I do not support the Conservative amendment. A lot of the discussion in Committee has been about reducing the risk of harm to potentially vulnerable people and people caught up in these frauds, who might not deserve to be punished in any way. I would not support taking out a measure that is there presumably to reduce the consequences of making an error. Therefore, I will not support the amendment.
Georgia Gould
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the amendment and to clarify an error that I made in a previous discussion that might have contributed to some confusion. When I talked about the recovery of debt and a limit to the amount that will be recovered, I mentioned up to 40% of assets when I meant to say credited amounts. To be clear, in the instance that the shadow Minister mentioned—say the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire defrauded the Government, they had £200,000 in their account and it was a lump sum, the powers would enable the PSFA to recover that money, with the safeguards of not leaving that person in financial destitution. The 40% is related to ongoing repayments and the speed of repayment. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Member.
To the points that Opposition Members have made about vulnerability and training, the PSFA authorised officers will be highly trained. They are subject to professional training and a code of ethics within that. That includes the kind of professional curiosity that the hon. Member for Torbay talked about. On debt recovery, they will work to establish debt practice, including the debt management vulnerability toolkit, which is publicly available. I would be pleased to send him those documents so he can understand the vulnerability assessments that will be made and scrutinise them.
To go through the detail of the clauses, specifically for a regular direct deduction order, the total deductions in a 28-day period must not exceed either 40% or 20% of the amount credited to the account in the relevant period: for fraud, 40% is the maximum; for error, the maximum is 20%. Throughout the Bill, we have sought to bring powers that are used elsewhere into the PSFA, not to create brand new powers for the PSFA. This provides assurance of their effective and proportionate use, and we are doing the same here. The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation, such as the DWP’s existing direct earnings attachment powers and the Child Maintenance Service deduction from earnings order powers.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for giving us some clarification on that, but the direct deduction is different from an earning attachment where there is likely to be another similar amount coming in the following month. The Minister suggested I might have £200,000 in my account, which I think would raise a few eyebrows all around. But if all £200,000 had been the result of fraud from the public sector, and I chose to put that regular direct deduction order in place, my understanding of clause 22(3) is that in the first month the maximum that could be deducted would be 40% of £200,000—which is £80,000.
Georgia Gould
First, I want to make absolutely clear that I was not accusing the hon. Member of any fraud, but just using a hypothetical. In that instance, the PSFA would use the lump sum direct deduction orders, so they would be able to take the full amount. They would not need to use the direct earnings attachment. It would be a lump sum direct deduction order that would recover that money. As I said, there are no limits to that, except that it does not cause hardship in meeting essential living expenses. I hope that provides some reassurance.
The 40% maximum limit is in line with existing legislation. The amendment seeks to remove the 40% cap for fraud, allowing a higher percentage of regular deductions to be made. To be absolutely clear, for lump sum direct deduction orders, there is no maximum limit on the total amount of deductions. However, the lump sum deduction must still adhere to the core principles, in meeting essential living expenses and be otherwise fair. That ensures that where a higher proportion of the payable amount is present in the account, we can recover the debt more efficiently while maintaining those key safeguards.
We are also able to issue a lump sum direct deduction order and then establish a regular direct deduction order. That allows us to take an initial higher amount of deduction, with regular payments thereafter where appropriate. This is a better route than allowing for a higher level of deductions. It builds on established practice, is proportionate while still being impactful, and it limits the disincentive to earn that an unlimited regular deduction would create. A too-high regular deduction would disincentivise earnings so strongly that it would result in slower, not faster, recovery of funds for our public services.
I turn to clause 22, which sets out the amount of deductions that there may be under an order. We have ensured that the amount of debt we collect at any given time is fair. That is why we established maximum limits based on whether debt was accrued due to fraud or error. We have discussed the safeguards and precedent at length, and the powers here build on precedent across Government. A key consideration throughout the creation of the debt measures was to robustly prevent hardship, learning from best practice. The challenge was to balance that with the need to send a strong deterrent message to those who have the means to pay their fraud and error-related debt to Government, but refuse to do so.
Clause 22 caters for that by ensuring that the terms of the order will not cause the liable person, any other account holder, or a person living with or financially dependent on the liable person or any other account holder, hardship in meeting essential living expenses. To ensure we include other considerations outside of this list, the terms of the order are also required to be otherwise fair in all circumstances.
Clause 23 provides the contents and effect of direct deduction orders. Regular and lump sum direct deduction orders must specify the amount, or a method for calculating the amounts, to be deducted and when. A regular deduction may specify different amounts or different methods to be deducted at different times. For example, the first deducted amount may be higher than the following payments to recover the debt in the most efficient way possible. Deductions may not be made until 28 days after an order has been made. That provides a safeguard for the liable person, allowing them the requisite time and opportunity to request a review under clause 45. Banks must comply with the direct deduction order, whether regular or lump sum, to ensure adherence to these measures. A penalty may be imposed for failure to comply under clause 53.
Clauses 22 and 23 send a strong message to those with fraud and error-related debt to the Government, while preventing hardship and protecting those who are vulnerable. They play an essential role in the operation of a direct deduction order and align with the core principle of seeking the effective recovery of public funds.
I have set out the powers that are available under the Bill, but as I said earlier, they do not prevent the Government also being able to use powers that are already available, such as applying to the courts to seize assets. Having outlined the key provisions in clause 22 and 23, I commend both to the Committee.
Mike Wood
Given the Minister’s reassurances, I will not press amendment 19 to a Division now, but we may wish to come back to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Bank’s administrative costs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Report on cost implications for banks—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”
Amendment 23, in clause 103, page 63, line 35, at end insert—
“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.
(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”
Georgia Gould
Clause 24 enables a bank to deduct administrative costs that it has reasonably incurred when complying with a direct deduction order from the liable person’s account. This provision is essential to ensure that banks are adequately compensated for the administrative efforts required to comply with the orders, thereby facilitating the efficient operation of debt recovery processes while protecting account holders from undue financial strain. A direct deduction order will then specify how the bank can deduct its administrative costs while complying with the maximum amount of total deductions as specified in the clause 22.
Clause 37 contains a power to make further provision through regulations as to the administrative charges which can be imposed by the banks. That power will be used to introduce a cap on the charges which can be imposed under this clause and which can be adjusted in line with inflation and to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. The amount may be deducted by the bank immediately prior to the direct deduction order. To safeguard against that causing unintended hardship, the question of deducting the bank’s administrative costs for the liable person must be taken into account when complying with the hardship considerations outlined in clause 22. That will ensure that the direct deduction order and deduction of the bank’s administrative costs do not cause the liable person, other account holders, those living with the liable person or joint account holder or those financially dependent on the liable person or joint account holder hardship in meeting essential living expenses and that the deductions are otherwise fair in all circumstances.
Regarding the burdens on the financial services sector, the Government are extremely mindful of the burdens that the Bill places on industry, including financial institutions. We want to ensure that banks are not subjected to disproportionate burdens or costs in complying with these measures. As I have outlined, that is why we met with key representatives of the finance industry, including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies and the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that there is close and sustained engagement on this Bill. We heard directly from UK Finance in evidence last Tuesday. The finance sector has supported the Bill’s objectives and there are constructive conversations already taking place. The direct deduction order powers in this Bill align with those existing powers and we will continue working with the DWP to align direct deduction order processes across both Departments where possible to simplify implementation.
Mike Wood
As the Minister said, the clause allows for deductions from a liable person’s account to include reasonable costs incurred by the bank in processing the deduction order. While the clause will ensure that banks can recoup legitimate administrative expenses, several important questions arise about fairness, oversight and overall financial impact.
Steve Darling
I echo many of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister. There are serious issues with giving a blank cheque to banks to undertake certain activities. How are they planning to calculate what their cost is? Is it purely the direct cost of that activity, or are they able to ladle into that some of their central costs? Clearly, if they did not exist as a bank, they would not be able to undertake these activities. There is uncertainty, and we wish to see fairness and transparency. Some feedback from the Minister on this matter would be extremely welcome, because although it is fair that people pay for the activity to be undertaken by banks, so that the burden does not fall on either the banks or the taxpayer, it is important that it is equitable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Georgia Gould
I referred in my opening remarks to the positive and ongoing conversations that we are having with banks and the UK finance industry, and that was reflected in the evidence we heard. A UK Finance representative said that a number of conversations with industry have taken place since the measures were announced, and referred to “constructive conversations”.
Concerns were raised about safeguards for the charges that banks could put in place under the PSFA measures, and I have already outlined some of the safeguards in place. The deduction of a bank’s administrative costs should not cause the liable person, other account holders, those living with the liable person or joint account holder, or those financially dependent on the liable person or joint account holder hardship in meeting essential living expenses, and they should be fair.
There are further protections in the Bill. Clause 37 contains the powers to make further provisions through regulations on the administrative charges that can be imposed by the bank. The powers will be used to introduce a cap on the charges that can be imposed under the clause and adjusted in line with inflation. To give further reassurance to the Committee, this is in line with the powers that HMRC has through the Enforcement by Deduction from Accounts (Imposition of Charges by Deposit-takers) Regulations 2016. For HMRC, the regulations specify that the amount should be
“the lesser of…the amount of those administrative costs reasonably incurred by the”
bank “and £55.” So there is precedent, and the necessary regulations will be made in due course.
In my view, new clause 6 is not required. We have already published the Bill’s impact assessment, which sets out the minimal expected cost to businesses of its measures, where it has been possible to do so, including to banks. The impact assessment has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. DWP has also committed to providing estimates in a subsequent impact assessment of the business costs for DWP’s eligibility verification measure, within three months of Royal Assent. So DWP has already come forward to commit to bringing forward that information as part of the package. I am confident that that will provide the necessary transparency that the shadow Minister seeks, and I hope that our commitment again today to provide those costs reassures hon. Members.
Equally, we believe that the purpose of amendment 23 is already provided for through the regulation-making powers under clause 37. As I stated, we have consulted and will continue to consult the banks to implement the measures in part 1 of the Bill, as set out in the published impact assessment. In part 1, the costs to banks are expected to be minimal and offset by the ability of banks to recover administrative costs from the liable person.
Clause 24 enables the banks to recover administrative costs from the liable person, and clause 37 provides for regulations to be made in relation to the costs that a bank may recover by virtue of clause 24. We intend the regulations to be reasonable for those paying and for the banks. Before introducing such regulations, a consultation must occur with those representing the interests of banks. We are committed to continuing engagement and consultation with the financial services sector through the passage of the Bill and its implementation —indeed, that has been ongoing since evidence was given last week.
It is important to put the cost to banks in the context of the amount that will be recovered under the Bill, which we estimate to be £940 million—money that is vital to delivering public services. It is right that every part of the system plays its part in recovering money that was lost to fraud. Having outlined the key provisions in the clause, I urge the Committee to agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
I have just received a message: I thought I said that DWP would produce an impact assessment in 12 months, but I said three months. I assure everyone that it is 12 months.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Insufficient funds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
The clause sets out the action to be taken if the amount in the account is lower than the amount specified in the direct deduction order. Should that situation arise in relation to a lump sum direct deduction order, no deduction is to be made by the bank, and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. If it occurs in relation to a regular deduction order, the order is to be read as requiring the deduction to be made on the same day the following week. If the amount in the account still remains lower, no deduction is to be made and the bank must notify us as soon as possible. That approach ensures that individuals are not unduly penalised or driven into financial hardship because of insufficient funds, while maintaining the integrity of the debt recovery process through prompt communication and reassessment. Having outlined the key provisions of the clause, I commend it to the Committee.
Mike Wood
The clause outlines the procedure when a bank account does not contain sufficient funds to fulfil a direct deduction order. The key provisions are as follows. For lump sum deduction, if the full amount is not available, no deduction is made and the Minister is notified. For regular deductions, if the necessary funds are not available, an attempt is to be made again on the same day the following week. If funds remain insufficient, no deduction is made and the Minister is notified.
I have some key questions and concerns as to what happens next. Once the Minister is notified, what are the next steps? Does the notification trigger further action to recover the money through other means? Is there a set timeframe in which the Minister must decide on further steps? Does the Minister have discretion to determine the best course of action, or are there prescribed steps that must follow? If funds are unavailable in the specified account, is there a process to check whether the liable person has other accounts in their name with other financial institutions that may have sufficient funds? Would the Minister have the power to issue a further general information notice to a bank in order to identify other accounts that could be used for recovery?
Georgia Gould
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. This clause and his questions really highlight the balance between safeguarding vulnerability—ensuring that people are not left without money to be able to support themselves and dependants—and recovering all the money owed to the Government.
Hopefully, the shadow Minister will be reassured that alternative recovery methods will be available, including using other powers in the Bill to gather information on, or recover money from, other accounts held by that liable person. If an individual continues to try to frustrate the process, as the shadow Minister has described, there are civil penalties through deduction orders of £300. If all the powers in the Bill are frustrated, the authorised officers will be able to apply to the courts to seize assets and to use other powers available. There are a number of options to ensure the full recovery of defrauded money to the state.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Restrictions on accounts: banks
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
Direct deduction orders will be an effective tool in recovering money owed to the public sector. However, it is important that we include measures in the Bill to make clear the obligations of banks and account holders with regard to the orders.
Clause 26 introduces restrictions on accounts from the perspective of banks. The bank must ensure that the account is not closed at the request of the account holder. If the notices relates to a lump sum direct deduction order, the bank must also secure that no transactions occur that would reduce the balance below the amount specified on the order, or the bank may transfer the specified amount, or the amount in the account if it is lower, into a hold account created by the bank to protect it. The bank must ensure that no transaction occurs that would result in the hold account’s balance falling below the amount transferred into it. When a bank transfers an amount into a hold account, it must ensure that in doing so, it does not cause any disadvantage to the liable person or any account holder. These provisions are essential and are a key safeguard to ensure that funds required for recovery are preserved while also protecting account holders from any disadvantage, thereby maintaining trust and fairness in the enforcement process.
Clause 27 imposes restrictions on account holders to prevent them from taking any action that may frustrate the effect of the first notice or direct deduction order, which the shadow Minister raised concerns about. To clarify, frustrating the effect of the first order in this context means frustrating the effect of the proposed direct deduction order, the terms of which are set out in the first notice. Frustrating the effect of the first notice or the final direct deduction order might include a liable person creating a new bank account in order to redirect the payment of their salary, or the liable person falsifying the extent of their protected essential living expenses.
These restrictions are vital to ensure that funds necessary for debt recovery are not deliberately concealed or moved, thereby upholding the fairness and integrity of the public fund recovery system. They are also balanced within the wider direct deduction order measure, which includes review and appeal rights that are also intended to be subject to independent oversight, to be discussed later. Should a person frustrate the effect of the first order or direct deduction notice, a trained authorised officer may decide to impose a penalty under clause 53.
Mike Wood
Clause 26 places significant responsibilities on banks once a direct deduction order has been issued. The bank must ensure that the account is not closed while a deduction order is active, prevent transactions that would reduce the balance below the required deduction amount—for example, the transfer of funds—and ensure that these actions do not cause disadvantage to the liable person.
I have a few questions about those responsibilities. How are banks expected to assess disadvantage or hardship, based on what is likely to be very limited information available to them about their account holders? What guidance or criteria will be provided to banks to determine what constitutes a disadvantage to the liable person? How can banks assess the potential immediate impact of blocking transactions, including preventing spending on essentials—for example, food or utility bills—and any consequences that might arise from that? How will they consider longer-term financial obligations, such as rent or mortgage payments, disruption to which could cause significant hardship?
The lack of a code of practice makes it difficult to properly scrutinise these measures. The code of practice is expected to provide crucial details on how banks should balance enforcement with protecting individuals from undue harm, but we will have to wait until after we have made decisions in Committee and in the Bill’s remaining stages to see it. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how these concerns will be addressed in the code of practice and provide as much specificity as possible.
Clause 27 states that account holders must not take actions that frustrate the direct deduction process, such as closing the account, moving funds elsewhere to evade the deduction or engaging in other actions that undermine the effectiveness of the recovery process. The matter of penalties for non-compliance needs to be looked at carefully. What penalties will be imposed if an account holder deliberately frustrates the deduction order? Would non-compliance be treated as a civil offence, or could it lead to criminal penalties in cases of deliberate obstruction? If the financial institution failed to prevent it, would that be a civil offence, or would it be seen as a regulatory issue?
Is there an appeal mechanism if an account holder can prove that a transaction was necessary and not an attempt to evade the deduction? For example, what would happen if someone urgently needed to pay rent or buy medicine and did not realise it would interfere with the deduction order? Would there be any flexibility in cases of financial difficulty, and how would that be assessed?
Given the significant responsibilities placed on banks and the potential impact on individuals, further clarity is needed on how banks will be guided in assessing disadvantage and hardship, how the code of practice will address these concerns and ensure practical implementation, what penalties will apply if an account holder frustrates the deduction process or if a financial institution fails to prevent such frustration, and what appeals or exceptions exist for necessary transactions that unintentionally interfere with the deduction order. Those clarifications are essential for ensuring that the system is both effective and fair.
Georgia Gould
It is important to set out again that these powers will be used in the last instance and, in many cases we hope they will be a deterrent. In the majority of cases, we expect people to engage with the authorised officers and come to a voluntary agreement. If people do not agree, the powers will be used only after an application to a court to determine the ability to recover that debt. In the first instance, we expect these powers to be used in a very limited fashion; the impact assessment talks about fewer than 10 cases a year. There is ample time to work through with banks how these powers are used and ensure that it is proportionate.
The shadow Minister raised concerns that the powers are too harsh in some cases and that they will leave people vulnerable in others, which shows the balance involved. The measures have been carefully thought through, and they include safeguards for vulnerability but also the ability to step in if people are deliberately frustrating the process.
We will issue guidance to banks on how the three months of bank statements will be determined, and authorised officers will work with banks to ensure that this works effectively. The shadow Minister asked about the penalty. It will be a £300 fixed penalty notice for failing to comply. As with every part of this, people will be able to request a review and, ultimately, to appeal.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, as well as on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on your first outing, Mr Stuart. Clause 5(3) requires those who are co-operating with the commander in the exercise of their functions to put in place arrangements governing co-operation between the commander and that person. Does the Minister have a view about what those agreements will look like and what sort of obligations will fall on both parties?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It will be the first occasion of many, I am sure. I hope you enjoy chairing Bill Committees as much as I enjoyed doing so in the previous Parliament.
Clause 5 places a duty on partner authorities to co-operate with the commander in the carrying out of their functions. The commander is tasked with maximising the effectiveness of our collective response to border security threats. That requires a whole-of-Government response, which will be enabled by this clause. It is recognised that partner authorities have wide-ranging functions that extend well beyond tackling border security threats. The duty set out in the clause extends only so far as it is appropriate and compatible with partner authorities’ other functions. That ensures that partner authorities across the system work in lockstep to enhance border security while continuing to enable the vital work undertaken by partners in other contexts, beyond border security matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
The Board
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 6 places a duty on the Border Security Commander to establish and maintain a board to assist with the exercise of their functions. That unique forum enables senior representatives from across the border security system to convene to shape our collective response to organised immigration crime and other border security threats. The commander will consult the board when developing strategic priorities for border security, which makes the board a crucial forum in shaping the whole-of-Government response to these threats.
Matt Vickers
Clause 6 states:
“The Commander must establish and maintain a board to assist the Commander in the exercise of the Commander’s functions.”
It is all quite open-ended: the chair will be the commander, and the board will be made up of one or more representatives from each relevant partner authority. Will the Minister explain on what basis the commander might decide to have representatives from partner authorities? Why do all partner authorities not need to be represented?
Subsection (6) states:
“The Commander must hold meetings of the Board at such intervals as the Commander thinks appropriate.”
Does the Minister have any views about how regular the meetings should be? What sort of matters does she envisage the board will deal with?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Bill is a framework within which the Border Security Commander operates, but it is not prescriptive because the people who drafted the Bill could not see what the priorities will be in the future. It is a framework that enables the Border Security Commander to respond to what is going on at the time, without limiting him.
There has been a common theme throughout the speeches from the Opposition. They seem to feel that somehow the commander does not have sufficient empowerment to command the border security system, that he is not independent enough, and that he somehow cannot get things done, but the functions outlined in these clauses are not the sole capabilities of the commander’s role as empowered by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister.
The Border Security Command is not an operational entity, but a strategic leader for border security. Representatives on the board would be Departments such as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office, as well as operational partners such as the National Crime Agency, the UK intelligence community and security services, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement and policing. Those kinds of people will be convened for a strategic purpose. It makes sense, if we think about it, that the commander can bring these people together as and when he or she sees a need for them to meet, depending on what is on the agenda and what is going on.
The commander is already using the role and its associated capabilities to deploy key functions to lead on border security across Government, including deploying additional resources across partners, such as the additional £150 million for border security that has been announced by the Government, and developing border security legislation to be used by operational partners, such as the powers in this Bill. In last week’s evidence sessions, we heard from operational partners such as the police, the NCA and the Crown Prosecution Service on how useful they felt the powers in the Bill would be in their everyday operational capacity. The operational commander can also lead on international engagement diplomatically, and has accompanied both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on journeys to Italy, Germany and Iraq to ensure that we have meetings at the highest levels with people in other jurisdictions, to try to get more co-operation going to deal with the cross-border issues of border security.
The Bill provides a new significant wide-ranging power to lead the border security system strategically, which is being done for the first time. All partner authorities, defined as those public bodies with functions in relation to border security, must, as a legal duty, have regard to the strategic direction set by the commander. However, this works best if there is not a battle between different bits of the Government—if there is co-operation and co-ordination—and that is what these structures are designed to try to achieve. The Bill will, for the first time, provide a clear and long-term vision for border security, bringing together and providing leadership to all parts of the system that work to maintain the integrity of our border and immigration systems both domestically and internationally.
I hope that that has provided a little more explanation for the Opposition on the thinking and approach behind some of the powers set out in the clauses we are considering, and most specifically in clause 6.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Delegation by the Commander
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 7 ensures that the functions of the Border Security Commander can be delegated to an authorised civil servant when required. Flexibility in the exercise of these functions will support the most efficient and effective delivery of the Government’s actions to tackle border security threats.
Matt Vickers
Clause 7 makes provision about the delegation of the commander’s functions. Subsection (1) provides that
“The functions conferred on the Commander by this Chapter may be exercised by any civil servant authorised by the Commander for that purpose.”
This is further evidence, were any needed, that the post of commander might not be a serious one. We have already seen that the Bill does not specify any minimum qualifications or experience for the commander, and we have seen why: they are not really in charge of anything.
There are serious questions to answer on the delegation of functions. What sort of functions does the Minister envisage the commander potentially delegating under this clause? Can any specific functions be named? The Bill does not specify any level of seniority for those the commander might delegate functions to. Is there any grade within the Home Office that the Minister thinks it would not be appropriate for the commander to delegate to? What oversight will there be of any delegation process?
Dame Angela Eagle
I set out in some detail in my reply on the previous clause some of the things that the commander is involved with, including some of the meetings he is involved in convening and the purpose of those strategic meetings. During the evidence we heard last week from operational partners, both the NCA and the police chiefs set out some of the benefits they felt there would be.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we seem to be having repetition in our discussions about the commander and his abilities within his role? The role is respected, and that came up in the evidence we heard. Does she feel that there is repetition of this point, with the Opposition picking up on it at every moment?
Dame Angela Eagle
The Opposition have asked which bits of the commander’s functions may be delegated and to what level. In theory, it can be any of them. We are trying to ensure that there are no issues in primary legislation that would mean something is prevented from being delegated that would have been effective.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Stockton West would expect me to go into great detail about what might happen with delegation in the future, but I can give an example. If there was to be a high-level visit to Iraq to conclude a memorandum of understanding on returns and activity against organised immigration crime, and the commander was detained elsewhere, it would be possible to delegate that function to somebody who would then go in his place.
We are trying to get to the stage in legislation where we create the commander and give flexibility as to how the job can be put into effect in scenarios that may crop up, without being too prescriptive. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton West will accept that example of the sort of thing that may crop up.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is quite interesting to hear the points that the Minister is making, considering the conversation we had this morning about the commander being functionally a civil servant. Although I was never officially a civil servant in the proper sense, from my experience it is really important that senior leaders within the civil service are able to avail themselves of delegation capacities as needed.
It can be done for many reasons. It could be a bandwidth issue, where someone has multiple priorities and needs to delegate to someone else because they are not able to be in two places at once—and looking at the responsibilities of the commander as set out in the legislation, there are a lot. It could also be a resourcing issue or because of a conflict of interest. That brings me to the point I was making about this being a civil service role; there need to be proper conflict of interest considerations. That is what we are taking account of here.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is right that circumstances often crop up that require this kind of provision. All clause 7 does is allow it, so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Designation of an Interim Border Security Commander
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 8 ensures that the functions of the Border Security Commander can continue to be exercised in the event that the post of commander is vacant for a period, or if the commander is incapacitated or temporarily unavailable. This ensures that the work to enhance our border security and undermine the people smuggling gangs threatening our borders continues in the event that the post either falls vacant or is effectively vacant for a period.
Matt Vickers
Clause 8 allows for an interim Border Security Commander to be designated. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is essentially a stopgap either because a Border Security Commander is going to step down without a replacement yet secured, or for reasons of temporary incapacity to carry out their functions.
Subsection (2) specifies that the interim Border Security Commander can be designated
for such period as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
I would like the Minister to explain whether there is a limit to what could be regarded as appropriate. This is, on the face of it, a temporary measure, so what counts as temporary for these purposes? What are the safeguards against an interim appointment carrying on indefinitely?
Subsection (3) says that the temporary designation can last no
“longer than the period for which no Commander is designated or (as the case may be) the Commander is incapacitated or unavailable”,
but no time limit is set out in the Bill. Are there any minimum qualifications the Minister would expect an interim commander to have?
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 8 is clearly there in the event of the commander being incapacitated or ill and unable to do the job for a while. It is not unusual that people have life experiences that mean they have to take time off work. In that kind of instance, an interim commander could be appointed, pending the return of the role holder, who may be receiving medical treatment or may be incapacitated in some way. There may also be a gap between the resignation or retirement of a commander and reappointment, although one would hope that planning ahead would mean that that would be minimised. The clause addresses the practical issue of having an interim in case there were an issue with appointment.
The interim commander would, obviously, be expected to have the skills to do the job to the full extent. No time limit has been put into primary legislation because if there were a hard timeline it would make it harder in practical terms to get a replacement. It is very much a horses for courses thing, allowing there to be an interim in the case of incapacity, retirement or replacement while the replacement is advertised for and appointed in the usual manner.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Exclusion of application to the armed forces
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 10 states that the duties in this chapter of the Bill do not apply to the armed forces, clause 11 makes amendments to the Data Protection Act 2018, and clause 12 provides definitions of the terms used. The work of the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence makes a significant contribution to the security of the United Kingdom. The Border Security Commander will work across Government, including with the Ministry of Defence, to enhance our border security. Clause 10 recognises the unique work of the armed forces. While the Border Security Commander will work closely with the armed forces, including through the military aid to the civil authorities process, it is correct that the important duty of our armed forces remains independent from the functions outlined in this chapter. That is achieved by clause 10.
Clause 11 amends the Data Protection Act 2018 to ensure that the Border Security Commander may process data for law enforcement purposes. That information is vital to build a shared understanding of the nature of border security threats and inform the priority setting process. Clause 12 provides definitions for the terms used in chapter 1 of the Bill for the reader’s understanding and to ensure clarity on definitions during the implementation and operation of the legislation.
Matt Vickers
Clause 10 makes it clear that this chapter does not apply to the naval, military or air forces of the Crown. Clause 11 is an amendment to the Data Protection Act 2018 to allow the Border Security Commander to be added to the list of competent authorities in relation to the processing of personal data carried out for a law enforcement purpose. Given how toothless the Border Security Commander appears to be, will the Minister explain why this measure needs to be added to schedule 7 of the Data Protection Act, as well as what law enforcement purposes the commander will have and for what purpose they will be processing personal data?
Dame Angela Eagle
The hon. Member asked why the Border Security Commander should be processing data collected from electronic devices. He will know that later in the Bill, there are some new powers that involve collecting, in an intelligence-led way, data from suspected organised immigration criminals. The point is to ensure that data is collected in a lawful manner, and that is why clause 11 allows the Border Security Commander to process data for law enforcement purposes. Some of that is about the counter terrorism-style powers, which we will discuss in relation to later clauses—I do not want to have that debate here—but it is really an enabling power to put beyond doubt the legality of the collection of such material.
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.
Clause 13
Supplying articles for use in immigration crime
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 13, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is an asylum seeker.’
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 13 (“Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”) cannot apply to asylum seekers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 14, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is an asylum seeker.’
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 14 (“Handling articles for use in immigration crime”) cannot apply to asylum seekers.
Clauses 14 and 15 stand part.
Pete Wishart
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairing this afternoon, Mr Stuart. I welcome you to the Committee.
Clauses 13 to 18 are where we start to get into the serious business of the Bill, and where some of its most concerning and controversial aspects are revealed. Nowhere is that more certain than in clauses 13 and 14.
The Government tell us that their whole intention and focus is exclusively on smashing the gangs, disrupting their business and bringing to justice as many of the people associated with and involved in this vile trade as possible. In everything we do in the Committee and in the House, the community must ensure that the Government are supported in that ambition and intention. That is one thing that unites the whole House, and we wish the Government every success in disrupting the gangs, smashing their business operations and bringing them to justice.
As we look at clauses 13 and 14, the first thing we have to do is assess and judge whether they assist in that process. I think we have to come to the conclusion that they do not, and they could make the situation a lot worse. They will certainly make the conditions of those who seek to come to our shores—some of the most wretched people in the world—much harder and more intolerable.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member hold the view that an asylum seeker cannot be above the law when it comes to participating in smuggling gangs?
Pete Wishart
I do not think anyone would assert, contend or propose that. Everybody is subject to the laws. Clauses 13 and 14 are designed to create new ways to criminalise people. I have listened carefully to the Government’s rhetoric, and I believe the focus and ambit of these new laws is to smash the gangs and disrupt their business, but they will not do that. The only people who will be ensnared, entrapped and put on the wrong side of these laws are asylum seekers. I say candidly to the hon. Lady that we are creating new ways to further criminalise the most wretched people in the world, and that is a grotesque ambition for this Government.
I tried to find out from the senior law officers who gave evidence how many members of gangs would be apprehended and brought to justice as a result of these new clauses. The law officers could not tell me. I do not blame them for that; they probably did not know. I suspect it would be really difficult even to make some sort of guess about how many criminals would be brought to justice as a result.
I also asked what would be the ratio of ordinary asylum seekers to gang members—the ones who secure this vile trade—but the law officers could not tell me. However, I know and suspect, as I am sure they do, that nearly everybody who falls foul of the clauses will be an asylum seeker. I suspect they know—I do, and probably everybody else does—that very few gang members will be brought in front of any of our judiciary as a result of the provisions.
Chris Murray
There is an issue around taxonomy and categorisation here. Anyone is entitled to claim asylum. It is a universal human right. Anyone from any nationality and background, whatever their criminal history, is entitled to make a claim to be an asylum seeker. It is possible to be a member of a criminal gang and plan on claiming asylum. From my 15 years of working in the asylum and immigration service, I know it is an undeniable point of fact that some people exploit that to delay or get around the system, and we must act on such abuse.
Does the hon. Member agree that we have to be careful in our classifications? There is a distinction between an asylum seeker who has a genuine claim to refugee status but who might not be eligible, and someone exploiting the system.
The Chair
Before the hon. Member responds, that was far too long, Mr Murray. Please try to keep interventions short. Of course everyone is welcome to speak in the debate.
Pete Wishart
Thank you, Mr Stuart. That is a reasonable point; I think the hon. Gentleman is on to something. Of course some gang members will pretend to be asylum seekers, but it is up to the fine people who came in front of our Committee to determine and ascertain the truth. We should not create further ways to criminalise people that focus almost exclusively on asylum seekers. We must find ways to differentiate; we cannot have blanket, broadly defined clauses that include everybody.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh has a fine history and record of working with asylum seekers and refugees. He has seen the briefings, as I and all Committee Members have. He will therefore know that practically every charity and organisation that works with, and tries to improve the lives of, asylum seekers and refugees tells us that ordinary asylum seekers—those fleeing conflict, oppression and extreme poverty—will be the ones caught up in these new measures.
My amendments are very straightforward. Let us exclude asylum seekers from the provisions of clauses 13 and 14. I want to do that for a number of reasons, but the one the Minister might be most attracted to is that doing so will actually help the Border Security Commander. It will allow him exclusively to focus, laser-like, on the Bill’s main target: the gangs that ply this evil trade. Let us forget about the riff-raff and the chaff. Let us focus our attention on those who arrange and organise this vile trade across the channel, and go for them.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with what Rob Jones, the director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, said in his oral testimony last Thursday? He said:
“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.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 35, Q35.]
If we read the tea leaves, it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is an intent to pursue asylum seekers. Moreover, the NCA’s remit is already to be laser-focused and go after those gangs, as he recommends.
Pete Wishart
Rather lengthy interventions are a feature of this Committee, but I am happy to go with that if everyone else is. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the National Crime Agency. I listened carefully to what Mr Jones had to say to the Committee, and I have no doubt about his intention. I do not think he really wants to ensnare asylum seekers; I do not think that is his focus. But he has these two badly drafted and broadly defined clauses as the net that will scoop everything up. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, everybody will be in that net, and it will be a matter of trying to sieve them.
Why not start with the presumption that we will go for the gangs exclusively and leave aside those who come our shores to apply legitimately for asylum in the United Kingdom? Let us not waste time criminalising such people. The main problem, as I have said, is that the clauses are so broad in scope. They are not just a fishing net; they are a trawling net, trying to lift out everybody who comes across the channel.
The clauses cover not only direct acts of people smuggling, but incidental activities that may not involve any criminal intent. In combination with other clauses, they would make it a crime to supply or receive almost any item that one suspects could be used to facilitate illegal travel to the UK. The proposed legislation criminalises collecting or even viewing information that could be useful in making irregular journeys, if there is reasonable suspicion that it could assist others in migration. Although the Government couch a lot of this in humanitarian language, the provisions will not prevent deaths and harm at sea. Instead, they will criminalise people on the move who have no alternative route to the UK.
Let us look at the provisions in a little bit more detail. Supplying, offering to supply and handling articles for use in immigration crime will now get someone a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. Although there are some limited humanitarian exemptions—for example, offering food and drink—the provisions considerably broaden the potential prosecution of migrant assistance and support. Importantly, with all the proposed new offences, there appears to be no explicit defence for those who are on the move.
Then there are the provisions about collecting information for use in immigration crime. Such information includes arranging departure points, dates and times; in other words, information that it would be necessary to gather if someone attempted to make such a journey themselves. The Bill makes it clear that evidence could include someone’s internet history and downloads. The Government contest this, but even looking up a weather map could put someone on the foul side of these clauses. I expect the Government will tell me, “No, of course that won’t happen,” but nothing in the clauses that we are debating states that that activity is exempt.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. Did the hon. Member feel that the Crown Prosecution Service gave that assurance at our evidence session last week? The witness categorically stated that such circumstances would not pass the criminal test or the public interest test. Does the hon. Member think it is important that we do not make such inferences when we discuss the Bill, so that we can see clearly how our criminal justice system applies these things?
Pete Wishart
That is a helpful and useful intervention, and the hon. Lady is right that the CPS did say that. I listened again very carefully to what was said, because concerns about these provisions have been raised repeatedly. I am sure that the CPS is serious about that, but I challenge the hon. Lady to look at the provisions and tell me how such a scenario could not be caught. The Bill is badly drafted because it provides the conditions to allow such a perception to develop. I know the Government do not want to arrest people who are looking at weather maps. I am certain that is not their intention at all, but when we examine the Bill we can see that it will allow that very thing to happen.
The Minister refers to the provision in section 25 of the Illegal Immigration Act 1972 or 1973—
Pete Wishart
1971—there we go. Section 25 of that Act offers the protection of allowing for a reasonable explanation of why people are caught up in such activity. That is useful when it comes to this Bill, but why do we have to rely on something like that? We are creating a new Bill, which does something specific and unhelpful for some of the poorest and most wretched people who exist on our globe. We have a responsibility for those people under our international obligations and conventions, and this new legislation does nothing to assist them.
The collection of data from people’s phones is facilitated by the Bill, which creates new broad powers to enable the search and seizure of electronic devices. I will come back to the main point I made on Second Reading. We did not get much time to elaborate on this, but I think it is pertinent to the clauses that we are debating, and the Committee must consider it properly.
The gangs have a monopoly and an exclusive right to the irregular migration market. There is no other way for asylum seekers to get to the UK. It just is not possible. There are safe routes available for a small number of countries, but for the vast majority of potential asylum seekers in war-torn regions, areas and countries around the world, the only way to claim asylum in the United Kingdom is to put themselves at the mercy of the gangs, and to go on a small boat to get across the channel.
Business is booming. I do not know if anyone saw the shots today from the camps in France—I think it was on Sky News. What a hell on earth they are! What a disgrace that is for us, who are part of the problem. We cannot get the situation resolved, and we are keeping some of the poorest people in such circumstances. Shame on us, and shame on everyone in the international community who allows such conditions to develop and thrive. Business is booming for the illegal gangs.
I will tell you something else, Mr Stuart. It will only get better for the gangs when the Government cut the international aid budget. What do they think will happen? Do they think that conditions in those areas will get better? Of course they will not. That will lead to so many more people making the journey to the UK, and it will be down to the Government.
Pete Wishart
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but for the last three years we have had a refugee crisis from Ukraine—and there is such a distinction between how we have responded to Ukraine and how we have responded to everybody else. We put forward legal routes to allow Ukrainians to come to our country. My local authority, Perth and Kinross council, has the largest number of refugees from Ukraine in the whole of Scotland except the city of Edinburgh. I am immensely proud of the generosity of spirit of the people I represent who are taking part in that scheme.
Is it not so different when we allow schemes like that? That is what we are asking the Minister for. We will have a depopulation crisis towards the middle of the century, and immigrants might be at a premium by 2060 or 2070. Why have we not been inventive and creative? Why are we not looking to do things other than leave that mess—that disgrace—on the shores of France, as we have done to date?
I am sure the Minister will tell us that there is the defence of “reasonable excuse”. I accept that, and I know that it applies to each of these new offences—in other words, if a person has a reasonable excuse for engaging in the relevant conduct, they will not be guilty of the offence. I know that that is exactly what she will tell me, and she is already indicating that that is the case. But the burden lies on the defence to adduce sufficient evidence of a reasonable excuse, and if they have done so, it is for the prosecution to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt.
To be fair, the Bill sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which the defence of reasonable excuse would apply. Under clause 13, for example, a person will have a reasonable excuse if
“their action was for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”.
They will also have a reasonable excuse if they were acting on behalf of an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services. All that is purely a matter of judgment, and there does not seem to be a specific threshold for conviction. The maximum sentences for each of the new offences is pretty stiff and those for offences in clauses 13 and 14 in particular are disproportionately high. To put it in context, the offence of possession of articles used in terrorism has a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, but someone could get 14 years for falling foul of the provisions in clauses 13 and 14.
The Bill is likely to have an impact on the prison population—I think I heard the hon. Member for Stockton West address some issues about the prison population with the Minister.
Tom Hayes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart, as I should have said earlier. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the proposed sentence for the facilitation of small boat smuggling and criminal activity is too high? Did I hear that correctly? Please do correct me if I am wrong.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he did not hear me correctly. I am talking about the new offences in clauses 13 and 14, falling foul of which could result in a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment. He might contend that that might get some gang member, but I am suggesting otherwise. I suspect that practically nobody from gangs involved in this vile trade will be caught up in these offences, but ordinary asylum seekers will be.
Lastly on the prison population, there is a notable lack of robust evidence that lengthier custodial sentences achieve a deterrent effect or a reduction in reoffending. That is explicitly not acknowledged in the impact assessment for the Bill, which states:
“There is limited understanding of the behavioural impact of this intervention, so the deterrence effect on dangerous behaviour may not be realised as intended.”
I do not know whether the Minister believes that the new laws she is creating will make the slightest bit of difference to those who are in areas of conflict or fleeing oppression. I am not entirely sure that asylum seekers sitting down on the beach, or in the deserts of Sudan, in Afghanistan or in Iran, are the least bit cognisant of the developing, hardening and draconian laws of this country, put in place in Committees like this one. I suspect that they do not know about them—and, if they did know about them, they would not care less. Their sole and exclusive priority is saving their family’s and their children’s lives, and getting the hell out of that place.
That is the irritation; those asylum seekers could not care less about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that is being debated here today. They want out, and they will do anything possible to rescue their family. Imagine that, after all that journey, after sitting in these boats, after being in the hands of the people smugglers and those gang members, they arrive in the good old United Kingdom, only to be apprehended on the basis of clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill.
Mike Tapp
His speech—my apologies; I will not make that mistake again. It is really important that we look at what is covered in the Bill, and how it enables our Border Security Command, the National Crime Agency, the police, the border forces and the security services to act. We said before the election, in our manifesto, that we were going to take this on in a counter-terror style, so that we can get to those who are looking to launch the boats before they launch them. These clauses go some way to achieving that; I will not quote the NCA director general again, but he was very enthusiastic about that. The further clauses include acts taking place abroad and not just in the United Kingdom.
On the specific amendments, we must be clear. We do not know who is a genuine asylum seeker at the point that they seek to cross; we will not know for some time. The elephant in the room is that, even if they are genuine asylum seekers, they are in France. They are not in danger, as they would be in Sudan, and putting others at risk by preparing these crossings, facilitating them or being involved is not acceptable. Asylum seekers are not above the law, and these clauses ensure that they will be held to account.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As hon. Members will have read, clause 13 creates a new offence of
“Supplying articles for use in immigration crime”.
The offence has two limbs. First, that the person supplies or offers to supply those articles to another person, and secondly that, when they do so, they know or suspect that the item will be used in connection with any offence under sections 24 or 25 of the Immigration Act 1971—illegal entry and assisting unlawful immigration, respectively. I have a question for the Minister on the reasonable excuse elements of the clause. It is a defence for a person charged with this offence to show that they had a reasonable excuse. Subsection (3) defines a reasonable excuse as explicitly including that,
“(a) their action was for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”,
which seems reasonable, or,
“(b) they were acting on behalf of an organisation which—
(i) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and
(ii) does not charge for its services.”
That second defence seems to the Opposition to create a large loophole in the law. Does the Minister accept that these defences will have the effect of exempting non-governmental organisations from criminal charges for helping asylum seekers to cross the channel? Why would the Government seek to do that?
The defence categorises organisations that aim to assist asylum seekers into those that do not charge for their services and those that do. Surely this criminal offence is a criminal offence regardless of who is responsible; why would it be any less criminal if someone does it voluntarily? Why is making money from something the determinant of whether it is a crime? As we heard in evidence, charities can be “mischievous”—I think that was the word used—in their activities and in how close they come to facilitating illegal crossings to the UK. Does the Minister accept that the activities of some charities can veer close to the line of facilitating illegal entry? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it?
The threshold for the defence is low. The accused simply needs to provide sufficient evidence to raise an issue, and the contrary must not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Might that be why the Home Office impact assessment considers that between four and six prison places—I believe the central estimate is five—will be required per year once this steady state is reached? The Home Office has lauded the new powers and offences in the Bill as being key to smashing the criminal smuggling gangs, but it does not appear to consider that many people will be convicted under the new offences. How can both those things be the case?
Clause 14 creates the new criminal offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime. The person has to receive or arrange to receive a relevant article, remove or dispose of an article for the benefit of another person, or assist another person to remove or dispose of a relevant article. Again, the clause provides the same defence to the offence as clause 13 does—namely, that the action of the accused was
“for the purposes of carrying out a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”,
or that they were acting
“on behalf of an organisation which—
(i) aims to assist asylum-seekers, and
(ii) does not charge for its services.”
I therefore have the same questions for the Minister about this defence as I did for the defence in clause 13.
Clause 15 provides a definition of “relevant article” for the purposes of the new offences in clauses 13 and 14. There are exemptions for food and drink, medicines, clothing, bedding, tents or other temporary shelters, and anything to preserve the life of a person in distress at sea or to enable such a person to signal for help. Will the Minister set out the kinds of articles that she therefore expects to be captured by the offences in clauses 13 and 14? It would be useful to know what items the Home Office, Border Force and the police specifically wish to disrupt. There is also a power in clause 15 for the Secretary of State to amend the list of relevant articles. Will the Minister explain what purpose that power serves? The list of what counts as a relevant article is almost limitless, so does she envisage that the power will be used primarily to create exemptions?
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has tabled amendment 3 to specify that if a person is an asylum seeker, they cannot commit the offence in clause 13: supplying articles for use in immigration crime. It would be good to understand why the Scottish National party does not think it is possible for asylum seekers to commit that offence. How are law enforcement officers supposed to know that a person is genuinely an asylum seeker—and even if they are, what happens if their application is subsequently rejected?
The hon. Gentleman also tabled an amendment to require the commander to include in their annual report information about how they have paid due regard to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on action against trafficking. My views are the same as those set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West on amendment 1.
Chris Murray
I apologise for my longer interventions, Mr Stuart; I will try to bundle them all into this speech.
One of the most important things that we heard during evidence was from Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory. He said that demand for cross-channel crossings is essentially inelastic. Even if the price of a crossing doubles, there will still be demand for it; people rise to meet that price. That tells us that deterrence and disruption of the demand alone will never be enough to tackle the horrors that we are seeing in the channel at the moment. We must also disrupt the supply of ability to cross the channel. That is an important part of the Bill, and these clauses go right to the heart of it.
On the point about criminalising all asylum seekers, ahead of oral evidence, I read carefully the submissions we have had from organisations I have worked with in the past. I found the testimony of the Crown Prosecution Service very convincing. It stated clearly that in addition to the primary legislation, the CPS will produce guidance that will set out both the public interest threshold and evidential test that it would seek in order for a case to go to prosecution. It was very clear that the kind of hypothetical examples set out by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire would not meet that threshold.
On the point about decriminalising all asylum seekers, to clarify the point I was trying to make in my interventions, during a crossing anyone can declare themselves an asylum seeker. That then breaks down into different categories: someone who is genuinely eligible for asylum in the UK and will, when they go through the process, get refugee status; someone who is genuinely seeking asylum, but will not meet the threshold when they go through the process and will not get such status; and someone who knows that they are ineligible, or might be eligible on some counts, but is engaged in the criminal act of facilitating illegal entry into the UK and putting those other people’s lives in danger. At that moment, it is not possible to distinguish between those people; the asylum process is there to do that.
Were we to accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, it would be a wrecking amendment. I know it is not intended that way, but it would in reality be a wrecking amendment to any kind of intervention on a crossing at sea.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman neglects to mention one thing. He is correctly summarising what is happening with the amendments, but it is already illegal to arrive into the UK illegally—that is what is happening. That is why so many people have been arrested and are now being processed and sent back. It is illegal to come to the UK just now if you have no means to support yourself when you are here. All the Bill is doing is finding new ways to criminalise people. I do not know what the point of the new clauses is, when all that is already happening.
Chris Murray
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but I do not accept that the proposal is creating new criminal offences for all asylum seekers or for all people; it is creating new criminal offences for those engaged in the exploitation of people and the trafficking or smuggling of them across the channel in great danger. We cannot allow that to continue if we care about those people’s lives at all.
In the constituency of every single MP in this room, there will be a cannabis factory where a probably under-age Vietnamese child is working at cultivating cannabis. If they arrived in the past two years, they came across in one of those boats. Significant, serious organised crime networks are exploiting the vulnerability of those people in order to facilitate such crossings. This proposal is how we stop them doing it, and that affects every one of our communities.
I am aware that I am testing people’s patience, but I want to make two final points. The first is about the criminalisation of organisations that help asylum seekers. That is an important point, and the distinction has to be clear. I did have concerns about this measure being in the Bill, but the evidence sessions completely reassured me. The testimony of the CPS was that asking about the weather in Dover when in Calais, and those kinds of things, would not be facilitating immigration crime. The testimony that the National Crime Agency is using these measures to tackle serious and organised crime makes it clear what the purpose of the clauses is.
The hon. Member for Kent—
Chris Murray
Weald of Kent, sorry—that is quite far south for me. The hon. Lady made a point about the sector and charging for services. Some organisations out there are charitable and provide services for free, and some organisations charge enormous fees and are extremely exploitative. That is where that distinction comes from. That would be my interpretation of the legislation.
Chris Murray
That is absolutely right—but, in my experience of the channel coast and of working in the refugee sector, those do not exist. Anyone who was to do that would probably be giving immigration advice, which is a regulated component under UK legislation. That would be structured differently from someone on the coast or on a boat or vessel, in the way that this legislation sets out. I am happy to be corrected, but that would be my interpretation.
Finally, I come to the point about mobile phones and the different things listed that can be seized when a vessel is disrupted. Last week, we heard so much evidence—there is so much evidence out there—that the crossing of the channel is the final stage in a very long process involving criminal gang networks, organised crime networks and just immigration networks that stretch through Europe, including allied countries and countries very difficult for us to have relationships with. We know that those smuggling networks are all orchestrated by mobile phone, so it is important that the Bill incorporates that.
On the concerns that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about criminalising the most wretched people in the world, the exemptions in the Bill are clearly humanitarian. They are clearly the kinds of things that people need to survive on a dangerous sea crossing or on their arrival. The only exception is their phone. It is because we know that the data taken from those phones is critical in the fight that phones are excluded. That is why it is important that that component remains in the Bill.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
These provisions relate to the supplying or handling of articles, the majority of which will, I assume, be held outside the UK. Clause 17, which we will come to, tries to ensure that the offences have effect outside the UK, but how does the Minister see that working in practice? The majority of people will be out of the realms of this law, so how will we enforce it?
On clause 14, on the handling of articles, the Law Society has great concerns that asylum seekers may be victims if they are forced to handle goods. How does the Minister propose to address that point?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have had an interesting debate, and Members have come at this complex problem from different angles. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire would give everyone who gets on the boats the benefit of the doubt, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent was somewhere towards the opposite end of that spectrum, and we had everything in between.
The important thing that we need to get right in this Bill is that we must give those who are trying to prevent dangerous boat crossings all the tools they tell us they need to help them deal with the criminal gangs that have been allowed to take hold across the channel and who are currently perpetrating this evil trade. We all agree that we want to stop that.
I am starting by talking about what we agree on, and I will then explain how the clauses will assist. We all agree that the right way to go about this is to ensure that the decisions about who is allowed to come into our country are taken by the authorities in the country, rather than by sophisticated, internationally organised criminal gangs with supply chains that go across many jurisdictions, and which make millions out of their illegal trade.
I want to give the Committee a couple of examples to put some flesh on the bones of what we are trying to do with the clauses in this group. Although people may think they are wide-ranging, their purpose is not to criminalise every asylum seeker, or even the vast majority of asylum seekers. Our approach will be intelligence-led. The National Crime Agency and others who police our borders have told us that these powers will assist them in doing the things they most want to do. The NCA gave evidence last week in which it said that its strategy is to prevent, which is to deter participation in organised immigration crime; to pursue, which is to disrupt the way that organised criminals work; to protect, which is to detect and act before the damage has been done—not wait until there are deaths in the channel, but stop small boats being launched in the first place—and to prepare, which is to manage and deal with the issues.
I am going to read into the record a couple of examples, to give Members an insight into what we are trying to achieve. These powers are short of those in section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, because they relate to preparatory acts, which is what these clauses deal with. These are two case studies from the National Crime Agency. The first relates to the offence of handling articles. In November 2024, a man called Amanj Hasan Zada, who organised cross-channel small boat crossings from his home in Lancashire, was jailed for 17 years after being found guilty of people smuggling charges following an investigation by the National Crime Agency. Investigators were able to link him to three separate crossings made from France to the UK in November and December 2023, and he was convicted under section 25. Each crossing involved Kurdish migrants who had travelled through eastern Europe into Germany, Belgium and then France.
It is possible that the reasonable suspicion element meant that investigators would have met the requirements to arrest and charge him earlier, ahead of the section 25 powers becoming an option, if the new offences had been on the statute book when this was going on. This man was also moving between the UK and Iraq regularly, meaning that these powers would have assisted investigators. He was overseas, but he had access to some of these articles when he was in the UK, so he would have been in the scope of the offence, and we would have been able to interdict and arrest him earlier and prevent those crossings from happening. Part of the idea of the new offences is that they are intelligence-led, but they relate to preparatory acts. They are attempting to disrupt before the more serious section 25 offence happens, and therefore they will prevent some of the damage done if that is allowed to happen because the authorities do not have enough evidence to arrest on the more serious offence.
Let me tell the Committee about another case study. An investigation into an Albanian organised crime gang using small boats to facilitate illegal immigration to the UK led to the arrest of an individual who was identifying rigid-hulled inflatable boats for sale on behalf of that gang. The gang subsequently bought and used the identified boats for organised immigration crime purposes. The individual was never directly involved in the movement of migrants or the purchase of those boats; he simply sourced them. The NCA provided evidence that they were on the periphery of the organised criminal gang and were researching for the gang to support their criminality. Despite that evidence, he was never directly involved in the actual facilitation, so the case could not go through to charging.
The preparatory acts offence would have enabled prosecution in that case, as the individual took part in the research and planning of acts to facilitate organised immigration crime, despite not being directly involved in the facilitation and illegal entry of migrants. Both the type of information and the circumstances the information was collected under would be captured by the new offence, and the evidence that the NCA had would have been sufficient for a sentence of up to five years.
We are talking about doing prevention work, to disrupt, to interdict and to stop some of this stuff happening before it has reached its full maturity and people’s lives have been put at risk in the channel. It is a different approach. To sit, watch and wait until something has happened and people have perhaps died is one way of doing it, but the entire approach of the counter-terrorism style powers, of which the powers in this clause are an example, is what the NCA and other people have asked us to assist them with. They see the pattern in their information gathering: how these things are organised, what the patterns are, who is involved and how they do their business. They have demonstrated to me and others that these kinds of powers would be really useful in a preventive way and may very well save lives. I hope that giving those two examples will mean that we have more of a handle on the kind of things that the clauses are trying to do.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire was worried that the powers will criminalise all asylum seekers. That is not the intention. The intention of these powers is to be completely intelligence-led and focused on perpetrators, whether they are on the periphery or directly involved. More than 95% of people whom we know of who arrive illegally on small boats claim asylum. The hon. Member’s amendments, which would take all people who claim asylum out of consideration of these offences, would be an obvious way of avoiding the offences being brought to bear and could be used by any of the people who are involved in organised immigration crime to avoid the powers being used against them. Therefore, while I am sure it was not his intention at all, the effect of the amendments is to wreck the approach to prevention and disruption that these powers represent in the Bill.
I want to be clear—it is important that I put this on the record, so I will say it again—that it is not the intention to target asylum seekers with these new offences. The offences do not penalise individuals for entering illegally any more than they are penalised already, but they criminalise the conduct of activities connected to facilitation and illegal entry offences through the supply or handling of articles. In practice, the focus will be intelligence-led and targeted at those who law enforcement believe to be working in connection with organised criminal networks. Believe you me, Mr Stuart, those networks exist in the UK and they come across on small boats themselves. They also travel between the UK and some of the countries of origin they are working with. We know that that is exactly what happens because we can track and follow some of them. It is therefore important that we can bring these powers to bear. We know there are individuals who have claimed asylum in the UK and operated criminal activity from within the UK as part of a wider criminal gang with networks overseas in order to facilitate smuggling into the UK—I have just given the Committee an example. That is a phenomenon we are aware of today and we cannot exclude anyone with an asylum claim from the scope of these new offences, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire would want us to, regardless of the circumstances.
Excluding asylum seekers fuels abuse and exploitation of the asylum system, as well as the intentional frustration of our criminal justice system, with those involved in the supply and handling of articles able to claim asylum on arrival or arrest and therefore evade prosecution. I am sure that that was not the hon. Member’s intention, but I hope he will also take at least some comfort from what I have said about this power not being applied to everybody, but instead being very focused and intelligence-led. We cannot provide blanket exemptions. I hope given the explanation, he will therefore withdraw the amendments.
Turning more broadly to what the clauses will achieve in practice, clause 13 creates a new offence of supplying or offering to supply an article where the individual knows or suspects that the article is to be used in relation to an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, which covers illegal entry, or section 25, which covers the facilitation of unlawful immigration.
Criminal smuggling gangs are using wide international and transnational networks to supply items for their criminal ventures. The new offence is intended to allow law enforcement to target those who act in a way that removes themselves from the direct act of people smuggling, so as to allow them to be caught under existing legislation. It will allow for earlier intervention, as in the example I have just used, potentially before boats have even been launched and lives risked. That is the prevention side.
Pete Wishart
I wish I could say that I was reassured by the Minister’s response. There were things she said that encouraged me and that I think she was genuine and sincere about. She, and everybody who has contributed today and who we have heard from over the past couple of weeks, is right that we do not want to arrest asylum seekers. That is the last thing we want to do, and I accept that that is the case in practically everything that anybody has said. However, more asylum seekers will be arrested because of these clauses. More will be facing justice, whatever way it applies, right across the United Kingdom because of these new offences.
What we have forgotten is that it is already illegal to enter the UK irregularly. In 2020, 6,477 people were arrested because they arrived in the UK irregularly. With clauses 13 and 14 we are not addressing the illegality of issues such as people coming to the United Kingdom; we are finding new ways of ensuring that those people will be subject to court proceedings—to being on the wrong side of UK law—and that is the thing that concerns us most.
Many people have referred to agencies that gave us support today. I listened to the NCA’s evidence, and some of it was very interesting and compelling. I accept that it wants to target the gang members and those involved in this violent trade, and that is what we should be helping it to do. Obviously, asylum seekers will get caught up in all that, but let us enable the NCA to focus exclusively on trying to apprehend the gang members and secure justice rather than trying to find new ways to criminalise people coming to the UK,.
Dame Angela Eagle
Will the hon. Gentleman not take my word that the offences will be intelligence-led? They are not targeting all asylum seekers, but they certainly would target someone coming over on a boat who may claim asylum, who has been involved in an organised immigration gang, and who has been organising the supplies for it.
Pete Wishart
I obviously accept the Minister’s word when it comes to all this, but we need to look at what is in the Bill. There are measures that we do not like and that we do not think will help to achieve the major objective, which is to disrupt the gangs’ business model and ensure that they are brought to justice. That just does not happen with these new clauses. The measure to which amendment 3 refers does not offend me in the same way that the subject of amendment 4 does. I will withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to push the next amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 4 negatived.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Collecting information for use in immigration crime
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
The provisions in clause 16 create an additional tool to act earlier to disrupt criminal gangs smuggling people into the UK. The new offence targets specified preparatory activities associated with people smuggling. These activities relate to the collection, recording and possession, viewing or accessing of information that is likely to be useful to a person organising or preparing for a journey of more than one person into the UK, where their entry or arrival constitutes an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. These specified activities must also be conducted in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion that the information being collected, recorded, possessed, viewed or accessed will be used in organising or preparing for such a journey.
This clause is levelled strongly against people-smuggling gangs and their associates. It includes a defence for someone of undertaking these specified activities for their own journey only. Also included as a defence is a non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses, where one express excuse is conducting these activities to carry out or to prepare to carry out the rescue of a person from danger or serious harm. The maximum sentence for this offence is five years’ imprisonment.
Katie Lam
Clause 16, as the Minister has just set out, creates a new offence of collecting information for use in immigration crime. A person commits such an offence if a person:
“collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person organising or preparing for a relevant journey or part of such a journey…possesses a document or record containing information of that kind, or…views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.”
This is an extremely wide set of information that is being criminalised. We understand the desire to keep these offences broad in order to capture as many offenders as possible, and we support that aim. However, if the definition is too wide, there is a risk that it becomes meaningless and therefore self-defeating. So, it is important to understand how the Minister believes law enforcement will assess whether the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person organising or preparing for a relevant journey. Could she please explain how this test will be met in practice? It would also be helpful, for similar reasons, to know when the CPS will publish its guidance on what might meet the threshold for an offence to be committed under this clause. Finally, it is again a defence for an organisation that aims to assist asylum seekers if it does not charge for its services. So, we have the same questions and concerns about this defence as we did in relation to the preceding clauses.
Mike Tapp
I will quickly talk about this clause, because it is one of my favourite clauses in the Bill. Having worked in a counter-terror role in the past, I know that one of the most effective ways of preventing terror attacks on the streets of the United Kingdom is by identifying hostile reconnaissance, whether it is physical or online. That is why I am so happy to see this clause in the Bill, because it gives our authorities the opportunity to get to these vile criminals before they take to the seas.
Dame Angela Eagle
I take my hon. Friend’s point. This clause is very much about being able to capture preparatory work for any effort to evade our immigration laws and bring people over in small boats, illegally putting their lives at risk and potentially costing lives in return for money.
This clause is about a wide range of potential research, but there are also explicit safeguards within it that are sufficient to protect individual migrants and refugees, or families of refugees, trying to help family members to flee danger or serious harm. The defence that a person is conducting these activities exclusively in preparation for their own journey protects individuals from falling foul of this law. The clause is explicitly focused on and aimed at the work done by gang-affiliated facilitators of immigration offences.
The express reasonable excuse of
“carrying out, or preparing for the carrying out of, a rescue of a person from danger or serious harm”
may—depending on the circumstances—protect the families of refugees wanting to help their loved ones flee. There is also an express reasonable excuse for a person
“acting on behalf of an organisation which…aims to assist asylum-seekers, and…does not charge for its services.”
The list of reasonable excuses in the Bill is not exhaustive, so it is very much a question of looking at the information that has been gathered and making a judgment, knowing that the idea of this offence is to focus specifically on organised immigration criminality, not the individuals who may be asylum seekers or may be being trafficked.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 17 provides for the offences set out in clauses 13 and 14—the supply and handling of articles for immigration crime—and clause 16—the collecting of information for immigration crime—to apply to activities committed both inside and outside the UK, regardless of the nationality of the person by whom they are done. The activities criminalised by these offences are often carried out overseas, as well as in the UK, by perpetrators of various nationalities to facilitate people smuggling to the UK. This clause will strengthen the offences, enhancing the ability to disrupt those involved in this trade, indiscriminate of their nationality and the location of their crime.
Clause 17 also makes provisions for, where an offence under clauses 13, 14 or 16 is committed outside the UK, proceedings to be taken in the UK. For application in Scotland, this clause provides that those proceedings are to be made in accordance with the relevant processes and bodies of the devolved Administration. Finally, this clause provides that section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878, which requires consent from the Secretary of State for certain prosecutions of non-UK nationals on territorial waters, does not apply. In doing so, the impacts of these offences are not narrowed and law enforcement is able to pursue perpetrators of these offences when committed on territorial waters.
Katie Lam
Clause 17 sets out that the offences of supplying articles for use in immigration crime, handling articles for use in immigration crime and collecting information for use in immigration—so the clauses that we have just discussed—apply to things done both inside and outside the United Kingdom, regardless of the nationality of the person by whom they are done. In essence, clause 17 makes these three new offences extraterritorial. Subsection (2) provides that where the offence is taken outside the United Kingdom, proceedings may be taken in the United Kingdom.
When we heard evidence from Sarah Dineley, the head of international at the Crown Prosecution Service and the national CPS lead, she said that this provision and subsection (7) of clause 18, which extends the offence of endangering lives at sea to acts committed outside the UK, create challenges. She said,
“we can obtain intelligence and evidence from our overseas counterparts at both judicial and law enforcement level…the Crown Prosecution Service has a network of liaison prosecutors based across the world…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.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 31-33, Q30.]
However, she also said that, for these new offences to work, there has to be “dual criminality”; that is to say,
“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.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 33, Q33.]
Can the Minister reassure the Committee that offences equivalent to those in clauses 13, 14 and 16 exist internationally in relevant partner countries so that we can be assured that the extraterritorial scope of the offences will be effective in tackling organised immigration crime? Can she name those offences or share a list? We fully support the aims of the Government but are keen to establish the efficacy of these measures in disrupting the vile work of people-smuggling gangs.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Lady for her observations. In practice, the clause allows for prosecution where an offence was committed overseas. It may well rely on evidence sharing from an international partner. She is right to talk about the network of CPS prosecutors across other jurisdictions.
In the time that I have been in the Home Office, we have been strengthening those ties and growing them further. We have done a lot of work via arrangements such as the agreement we came to with the Italians; the German agreement; the work we have done with the Calais group; the information we are sharing in and around the Balkan countries about the routes that go through those countries; the work that the Home Secretary and the Border Security Commander have done in not only Italy, but Iraq, the Kurdish region and Tunisia and some of the other countries that tend to be countries of transit. We are focusing more and more on how we can co-operate operationally.
Some of that work involves cross-country and cross-jurisdiction work to hit particular organised immigration crime across the piece on a set day. There have been some very good examples of cross-jurisdictional days of action. The muscles in this area are strengthening and being worked more. This clause is an added power that will make it easier for us to continue that work.
Tom Hayes
I draw attention to what Sarah Dineley, the head of international at the Crown Prosecution Service, said in her testimony:
“I will start with how we rebuild relations with key allies.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 38, Q41.]
That implies that relations with key allies have been strained and need rebuilding. She then said:
“I have talked about our network of liaison prosecutors.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 38, Q41.]
She then talked about how there is regular engagement and said that engagement events with overseas prosecutors have increased in recent months. Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons we have had an asylum backlog in recent years, and our asylum system has been described as a disaster, a meltdown and worse in oral testimony, is that we strained our relations with key allies?
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes. When things are cross-jurisdictional and cross-country, one has to be able to co-operate with other jurisdictions with some respect for their particular prosecutorial approach in order to be able to share information and work together operationally and diplomatically to deal with the significant challenges that organised immigration crime presents. The Government certainly want to renew and strengthen their approach in that area, and have made a good start.
People should not underestimate how often people who break this law and would fall foul of this increase in jurisdiction come to visit the UK. It is possible that we could pick them up and charge them here and, in some instances, follow them and wait for them when they arrive. The extension of jurisdiction, which is the essence of clause 17, will provide us once more with what we hope will be an extremely effective new tool that will help us to disrupt and begin to dismantle some of the organised immigration criminal gangs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Martin McCluskey.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? As I am sure the Committee is aware by now, tea and coffee are not allowed in the room.
Clause 4
Initial discussions with registered medical practitioners
Amendment proposed (26 February): 278, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to “nothing” in line 16 and insert—
“(1A) No registered medical practitioner may raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person if that person has made an advanced decision which has been recorded in their medical records that they will not in future wish to seek assistance under this Act.
(1B) The provisions in subsection (1A) do not prevent a person indicating to a registered medical practitioner that they wish to change their previous decision and seek assistance under the Act if they have the capacity to do so.
(2) Other than the condition in subsection (1A),”.—(Sarah Green.)
This amendment would prevent a doctor from raising assisted dying with a patient if that patient had previously recorded an advanced decision that they would not in future wish to seek assistance under the Act.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 20 and insert
“shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person who has not indicated to that or another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life”.
Amendment 124, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 20 and insert
“shall discuss assisted dying with a person unless that matter is first raised by that person.”
The amendment prevents a registered medical practitioner from discussing the provision of assistance under the Act unless that matter is first raised by that person.
Amendment 319, in clause 4, page 2, line 20, after “person” insert
“who has attained the age of 18”.
Amendment 339, in clause 4, page 2, line 20, after “person,” insert
“, unless that person has a learning disability or is autistic, in which case—
(a) the person must be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it; and
(b) at least one of a—
(i) supporter, or
(ii) independent advocate;
must be present for the discussion.”
This amendment would require that, if the person is autistic or has a learning disability, they must be given accessible information and sufficient time to consider it. Additionally there must be at least either a supporter or independent advocate.
Amendment 368, in clause 4, page 2, line 20, after “person” insert
“, unless that person has Down syndrome, in which case the registered medical practitioner must be acting in accordance with any statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State under the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to meet the needs of adults with Down syndrome.”
Amendment 320, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, after “person” insert
“who has attained the age of 18”.
Amendment 270, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”
This amendment requires that the doctor ensures that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying.
Amendment 276, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) A medical practitioner must not conduct a preliminary discussion with a person under subsection (3) until a period of 28 days has elapsed, beginning with the day the person had received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.”
This amendment would mean a doctor could not conduct a preliminary assessment until 28 days from the day the person received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.
New clause 6—Advance decision of no effect—
“An advance decision, made pursuant to sections 24 to 26 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which stipulates that the maker of the decision, having become incapacitated, wishes to be provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, shall be null and void and of no legal effect.”
The new clause prohibits an individual from making an advanced directive for voluntary assisted death in the eventuality he or she were to become incapacitated at a future date.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford.
As I have stated previously, my remarks on behalf of the Government on these amendments will provide a factual explanation. I shall not offer a position on how the Committee should vote, as that remains a matter of conscience. The overarching theme of the amendments relates to the requirement on how and when a medical practitioner may raise the matter of assisted dying.
Clause 4(2), as drafted, provides that nothing prevents a medical practitioner from using their professional judgment to decide when to raise the subject of assisted dying. Amendment 278 seeks to prevent a doctor from raising the subject of assisted dying if the person has a recorded advance decision in their medical records that states that in future they will not want assisted dying.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables a person with capacity to make an advance decision to refuse a specified form of treatment in future, should they lack capacity. A person who has lost capacity under the Mental Capacity Act would not be eligible for assisted dying under the Bill. Where such an advance decision is in place, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the doctor from raising the subject of assisted dying, unless the person indicates to the doctor that they wish to change their previous decision, that they wish to seek assistance under the legislation and that they have the capacity to do so.
Technically, amendment 278 appears unnecessary, because advance decisions under the Mental Capacity Act are not relevant to assisted dying. That is because advance decisions are about refusing treatment at a time when a person no longer has capacity, and assisted death would be available only to those who have capacity.
As drafted, clause 4(1) states:
“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person”.
but clause 4(2) specifies that they may do so if, in exercising their professional judgment, they consider it appropriate. Amendment 8 would prevent a registered medical practitioner from raising with a person the subject of provision of assistance under the Bill, unless the person has indicated to that practitioner or to another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life. The effect would be that any conversation on assisted dying will need to be patient-initiated, and not at the discretion of the medical professional within a wider conversation about end-of-life care.
The effect of amendment 124, as with amendment 8, would be to prevent a registered medical practitioner from raising with a person the subject of provision of assistance under the Bill. That would mean that the person will need to indicate to a registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life before an initial discussion can take place. The effect would be that assisted dying can be discussed only if the patient has initiated the conversation.
The Government’s assessment of amendment 319 is that, as drafted, it would not prevent the subject of an assisted death from being discussed with a person who is under 18. There is already a requirement that, to be eligible for the provision of assistance under the Bill, a person must be aged 18 or over at the time that they make their first declaration under clause 1(1)(b).
Amendment 319 would impose additional requirements on the approach that a medical practitioner must make if raising the subject of assisted dying with a person who has a learning disability or is autistic. It would require the person to be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it. It would further require that they must have a supporter and/or independent advocate present for the initial discussion. The amendment would require that a person with autism or a learning disability must have a supporter or independent advocate present for the discussion, even when they have capacity or are high-functioning. Autism is a spectrum disorder, meaning that autistic people have diverse and varying needs, so the effect of the amendment would vary among individuals.
It is already the case that all registered medical practitioners, in meeting their professional standards, are expected to communicate information clearly and effectively. That includes allowing sufficient time for the individual to consider and process the information provided. For example, the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” states that all GMC-registered clinicians
“must take steps to meet patients’ language and communication needs”
to support them to
“engage in meaningful dialogue and make informed decisions about their care.”
Amendment 368 would require registered medical practitioners, when deciding if and when it is appropriate to discuss assisted dying with a person with Down’s syndrome, to act in accordance with the Down Syndrome Act 2022. The Act requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to relevant authorities on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Although this work is being taken forward as a priority by the Department, no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Act.
The relevant authorities in scope of the Act are institutions such as NHS trusts. The Act does not provide for guidance to be prepared for individual doctors. The relevant authorities must have due regard to the statutory guidance, which enables them a degree of discretion in following it, but the amendment would require medical practitioners to act in accordance with the guidance. It might therefore create uncertainty as to how a doctor can comply with their obligations under the Bill.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I hear what the Minister says—the guidance does not exist and there is concern that the amendment may therefore induce some confusion—but would the answer not be to put a commitment into the Bill that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on how the 2022 Act could be applied in the context of the Bill?
In the light of our conversation at the Committee’s last sitting, I put on the record my intention to press the amendment if the Minister cannot give a commitment now to introduce an amendment later that the Secretary of State will introduce statutory guidance to ensure that proper care is taken of people with Down’s syndrome in accordance with amendment 368.
Stephen Kinnock
The challenge is the dissonance in how the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act, which is currently very close to publication, is directed towards authorities such as trusts, but there is no coverage around individual doctors. At this stage, without seeing a clear distinction between the two or how it would work for individual doctors, the Department’s concern is that it could create confusion as to the obligations on individual medical practitioners under the 2022 Act. I am obviously open to conversations about how to clear that up, but the lacuna between the authorities and the individual doctors is the problem being flagged by the Department.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I take the Minister’s comments on board. Will he agree to a conversation with me and with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who tabled amendment 368, to take the discussion forward?
Stephen Kinnock
I am happy to have conversations with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members, but as things stand it is not clear to the Department or to me how the proposal would work in practice.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I apologise for having arrived ever so slightly late, Mr Efford. In the Minister’s view, is it conceivable that he or any future Minister—or, indeed, the current or any future chief medical officer—would not consult with groups representing those with Down’s syndrome in drawing up the various guidelines on the Bill?
Stephen Kinnock
Extensive consultations have taken place with all the key groups and advocacy organisations on Down’s syndrome in the drafting of the guidance. The guidance is very close to publication; once it is published, it will form the basis of a further consultation. It is an iterative process.
Kit Malthouse
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant the guidance on this Bill. Although the Minister may not necessarily be able to say what will be in it, is it conceivable that the CMO, in drawing up guidance as a requirement under the Bill, would not consult Down’s syndrome groups? My point is that, given what has been expressed and the desire of the Committee, I cannot see that a CMO would not talk to Down’s syndrome groups in any event.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification and apologise for my misunderstanding; I thought he was referring to the guidance that we are currently working on under the terms of the 2022 Act. Yes, absolutely: the Bill currently specifies a two-year commencement period, within which a whole range of operationalisation work will need to be done. All of that will need to be consulted on; we will not do it all in an ivory tower from Whitehall or Westminster.
Danny Kruger
It is welcome that a commitment has been made to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, who tabled the amendment, but a commitment to consult is not the same thing as specific protections in the Bill for people with Down’s syndrome. What we really need is a commitment in the Bill that there will be statutory guidance. There will be opportunities for that later, so we may not need to press the amendment to a vote, but if we cannot have a commitment, we must press it.
Stephen Kinnock
It is absolutely the hon. Member’s prerogative to press the amendment to a vote if he so wishes. As things stand, because of the baseline, which is the GMC guidance that I have just read out, we constantly go back to the Government’s position that the current corpus of guidance, regulations, advice, training, expertise and professional judgment is, in essence, satisfactory to the Department. We believe in and rely on the professional judgment of the experts in the field. That remains our fundamental position.
The effect of amendment 320 would be that the safeguards in clause 4(4) in respect of the preliminary discussion apply only where the person seeking assistance is aged 18 or over. The amendment would not prevent a discussion with a person under 18. As the Committee will be aware, there is already a requirement that, to be eligible for the provision of assistance under the Bill, a person must be 18 or over when they make their first declaration under clause 1(1)(b).
Amendment 270 would make it a requirement for a registered medical practitioner to ensure that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying. The amendment does not state what is to happen if the practitioner considers that there are remediable suicide risk factors. As the Committee will be aware, we rely on medical practitioners to make judgments in relation to their patients that draw on their training, experience and expertise. We would expect the judgment and skill of a medical professional to be brought to bear where there are remediable suicide risk factors.
Amendment 276 would mean that a person is unable to have a preliminary discussion or make a first declaration to be provided with assistance to end their own life until 28 days after receiving a terminal diagnosis. The amendment would add an additional pause into the process for a person who has received a terminal diagnosis in the preceding 28 days. The 28-day pause would apply regardless of the patient’s prognosis, even if they had only one month left to live, for example.
New clause 6 would ensure that an advance decision to refuse treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 cannot be used to seek assisted dying. Our analysis suggests that the new clause is not necessary, because an assisted death is available only to those with capacity, whereas advance decisions provide for a person to be able to refuse treatment at a future time when they have lost capacity. If a person still has capacity, they may be eligible for an assisted death. If they do not have capacity, they will not be eligible, irrespective of whether they have made an advance decision.
That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments. As I say, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could change. However, I hope my comments and observations are helpful to Committee members in considering the Bill.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly, Mr Efford. Many other speakers have already made excellent points in support of the amendments, so I will not repeat them, but I would like to put on record one pertinent point.
During these proceedings, there has been a tendency by some to speak as though assisted dying were another type of treatment or healthcare option being offered by medical practitioners, rather than a completely different and separate offering. I have grave concerns about that. The legal norm, and GMC guidance, is that patients should be offered all reasonable medical treatments. A medical treatment can be defined as something that combats disease or disorder. It is fundamentally about healing, relief of symptoms, recovery and cure. Straightaway, we have a conflict. Assisted dying ends the life of a person. It is not a treatment in the normal sense—
Rebecca Paul
We are talking about what a medical practitioner can and cannot say. During the debate, there was a lot of talk about whether it was a medical treatment or not. If so, guidance indicates how it should be treated, so whether it is a medical treatment or not is relevant and pertinent to the clause. I have an important point that I would like to put on the record; I am happy to raise it at a different point, but I honestly believe that clause 4 is the right place.
The Chair
The problem is that this is not a general debate on clause 4; it is a debate about a specific group of amendments. We may come later to a general debate on clause 4.
The Chair
If there is a stand part debate, that will be the right time to make a contribution about the general principles of clause 4.
Rebecca Paul
Okay. I will just put it on the record that whether or not something is a medical treatment is vital. It is possible to give medical treatments without consent, so we need to have that debate.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The amendments relate to the initial discussions with medical practitioners, and it is important to highlight that clause 4(1) states:
“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person.”
However, subsection (2) states that
“nothing in subsection (1) prevents a registered medical practitioner exercising their professional judgement”.
Doctors and healthcare professionals, like any other group of people, hold a range of views on assisted dying. We need only reflect on the oral and written evidence to see that. However, the British Medical Association has a neutral position on assisted dying, and its representatives were very clear when I met them, and in oral evidence to the Committee, that they wanted an opt-in model for doctors to provide assisted dying, as well as the right to decline to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying, for any reason. These requests have therefore been incorporated into the Bill.
The BMA was clear in its submission that it opposes amendments 8, 124 and 276, as well as amendment 342, which we will come to later. It said that adding a prohibition or limiting factors in the Bill would
“create uncertainty and legal risks for doctors, which may inhibit effective doctor/patient communication and understanding.”
It welcomed the Bill’s provision that a doctor is not under a duty to raise assisted dying, which it felt was necessary to avoid any suggestion that doctors have a legal duty to raise it. It was concerned that these amendments would remove that provision, leaving doctors in a position of legal uncertainty. It said:
“If doctors are concerned that they may be legally obliged to raise assisted dying with all potentially eligible patients, this will impact on how, when, and by whom the issue is raised…It is essential that decisions about when and how to discuss assisted dying are made on the basis of what is best for the patient—rather than to avoid legal challenge. All patients deserve to have this important and sensitive conversation with a doctor who is confident, competent and happy to have the discussion…Doctors should be able to talk to patients about all reasonable and legally available options; a provision that limits or hinders open discussion about any aspect of death and dying is likely to be detrimental to patient care. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgement to decide when and if a discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on all other issues.”
That is the BMA’s position, and I agree.
As Duncan Burton, the chief nursing officer for England, said in oral evidence to the Committee,
“it is clear that there is increasing discussion in society around death and dying, and I think that is important. It is important that we have discussions and support people with their choices at the end of life, so anything we can do to increase that is important.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 41, Q22.]
Dr Ryan Spielvogel from California told us:
“People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors…even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 105, Q143.]
He strongly advised against not allowing doctors to discuss patient choice, because in his experience that really hampers their ability to take care of patients. Dr Jessica Kaan of End of Life Washington reiterated the point:
“It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 106, Q143.]
In the light of our recent discussions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the current BMA guidelines regarding patient requests for assisted dying. Those guidelines will obviously need updating if the law changes, but they are comprehensive and give us a much greater understanding of the approach that doctors take when speaking to terminally ill patients, as well as what these hugely sensitive conversations look like, which is really important to know.
The BMA guidance addresses situations in which patients make an explicit request for doctors’ assistance in or information about ending their life or hastening their death. I will refer to that guidance now. The guidance advises the doctors to
“Explore the patient’s feelings, emotions and thoughts….It might be helpful to discuss their understanding of their condition or their fears and concerns…If you feel that the patient is depressed or suffering from another mental health condition, or would benefit from more support, therapy or counselling should be offered.”
Doctors are also advised to
“Use the opportunity to address those concerns: you should also investigate whether other practical arrangements could help improve the patient’s quality of life. Involve a colleague: you might like to involve a more experienced colleague—making clear to the patient that this is what you will be doing.”
The guidance also talks about involving other sources of support:
“you might like to seek support and input from other members of the healthcare team, such as a specialist palliative care team, colleagues from mental health, or the chaplaincy or voluntary services.”
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady says that the GMC states that doctors have an obligation to raise the treatment options before them, and I think that she thinks that this is a treatment option. Surely the obligation is on doctors to raise assisted dying in all cases where it may be an option for the patient. Does the hon. Lady agree that doctors should offer assisted dying when that treatment may be appropriate for the patient?
Kim Leadbeater
I agree that, under the provisions of the Bill, the doctor will have a duty to lay out options available to the patient, if they meet the eligibility criteria—absolutely. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a very clear answer. I just want to be totally clear that we understand each other. Is she saying that every doctor facing a terminally ill patient—someone who is eligible under the Bill—should make clear to them that they have the option of an assisted death?
Kim Leadbeater
Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.
We can see from the guidance that currently exists that doctors take a very sensitive and patient-centred approach to end-of-life conversations. If the law were to change, that approach would continue with additional training specifically related to assisted dying, as has been discussed. It would also mean that the issues that doctors currently face around discussing assisted dying would be addressed.
As the BMA says, at the moment
“The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide…What if a patient wishes to travel abroad for assisted dying? While the act of travelling abroad for assisted dying is not illegal, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging someone to do so is a criminal offence…doctors need to be aware of the possibility of legal and professional sanctions if they were to do so.”
I imagine that that must create a real sense of jeopardy for doctors. Similarly, the GMC recognises that doctors will face challenges in
“ensuring that patients do not feel abandoned”,
while ensuring that the advice or information that they provide does not encourage or assist a person to end their own life.
These are very difficult conversations for patients and doctors, but by legalising assisted dying in this country we can give clear guidance through a robust legal framework, and create the thorough, transparent process that is currently lacking. These conversations provide a safeguard while the person is still alive. As the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Max Hill, told the Committee,
“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]
Mark Swindells from the General Medical Council told us:
“We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q36.]
Bringing those conversations out into the open has to be better for the patient and the practitioner.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
With reference to amendment 8, and further to the intervention from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, can my hon. Friend reflect on the provisions as set out in clause 4(1) and (2), which say that the issue relates to doctors’ professional judgment and that doctors are under no obligation to raise those issues in any situation?
Kim Leadbeater
Absolutely. This is about professional judgment, which is what the BMA is really clear about. Doctors have to be able to use their professional judgment. They are not under any obligation to raise the issue, but they are not under any obligation not to raise it. The BMA is really clear about that. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I welcome amendments 319 and 320 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I thank him once again for his positive engagement with the Bill. He raises a very valid point about the initial discussion. While the Bill is very clear that it applies only to terminally ill adults over the age of 18, in that someone would have to be over 18 to make the first declaration, it is not clear that the initial discussion could also not happen with someone under the age of 18.
We should not prohibit open conversations with terminally ill young people and their families, as they create openness, transparency and safeguards and provide much-needed support at what most of us can only imagine must be the most difficult time of anyone’s life. However, I think it should be made clear that the actual assisted dying process cannot be embarked upon unless someone is over the age of 18. I have taken advice about how best to incorporate that into the Bill from a drafting perspective. As a result, I have tabled amendment 418, which applies to clause 5, and states that regulations must provide that the first declaration contain, among other things,
“a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion”.
As such, the aim of amendments 319 and 320 is achieved. I hope that that is to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.
With regard to amendment 339, I have listened very carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it, and the evidence from Mencap chief executive Dan Scorer, who suggested that for terminally ill people with learning disabilities
“that initial conversation has to be incredibly well supported and structured…the person should have accessible information in advance of that discussion so that they are fully informed about all their rights in terms of treatment options at end of life”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280.]
I absolutely agree with the intention of the amendment. I am seeking advice on the legal and technical implications, as I believe there is some tightening up that would need to be done around some of the phrasing, such as the concept of “sufficient time” or what would constitute a “supporter”. I therefore cannot support the amendment as it stands, but I am very happy to look at ways to take this forward and to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the amendment, which, quite rightly, gives special consideration to people with autism and learning disabilities. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is also considering tabling amendments that would have a similar effect; perhaps we could all meet together.
I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that I am considering the involvement of people with learning disabilities, and groups representing them, in the development of guidance and training on assisted dying and end-of-life conversations. As Dan Scorer said,
“people with a learning disability should be involved in the development of that guidance” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 281.]
I absolutely agree.
Amendment 368, tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, has been discussed this morning. I sought advice about it as it was new to me. I believe that no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Down Syndrome Act, so we lack detail. That Act resulted from another private Member’s Bill; I am sure we can all agree what an excellent process this is for making important changes to the law. As the Minister said, the amendment is likely to be unworkable for doctors so I cannot support it. I would, however, be very happy to discuss the thoughts of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire and look at how we can meet his objectives—possibly through an addition to new clause 8, which is about the duty to consult and the Secretary of State consulting with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At that point, the specific needs of not just people with disabilities but those with other protected characteristics will be represented. Alternatively, we could look at the codes of practice in clause 30.
I am happy to take those discussions forward and may even be able to speak to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire at the drop-in session he is doing this week with the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, ahead of Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week.
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Lady will know, a number of our proceedings have been misinterpreted, shall we say, on social media. For complete clarity, with regard to the initial conversation, the Bill leaves to the discretion of the doctor whether it is appropriate to raise the matter, given their knowledge of the patient. They have no obligation to raise it. If the patient themselves indicates a wish to raise the matter, then a doctor is under an obligation to lay out all the options available to that patient. We would not want to leave the outside world with the impression that, in all circumstances, the doctor is obliged to raise the option of assisted dying. It is only when they professionally think it is appropriate or if the patient raises it with them.
Kim Leadbeater
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I have said, the BMA has been very clear that doctors should use their professional judgment. For example, if they had a patient whom they knew to be deeply religious and who had no interest whatsoever in an assisted death, it is highly unlikely that they would raise the possibility. It is up to them to use their professional judgment to accommodate the wishes of the patient. It has to be a patient-centred approach.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
We have had a good debate on the amendments in this group. I do not intend to push amendment 278 to a vote, and I have nothing further to add to my previous remarks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 20 and insert
“shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person who has not indicated to that or another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life”.—(Daniel Francis.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 342, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out
“may (but is not required to)”
and insert “must”.
This amendment would strengthen the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,
(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”
This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.
Amendment 343, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, at end insert
“, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.”
This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the probabilities and uncertainties of any estimates of how long a person may have to live.
Amendment 344, in clause 4, page 2, line 29, at end insert
“, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.”
This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the impact of any treatment available.
Amendment 275, in clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “any available” and insert “all appropriate”.
Amendment 108, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert
“and offer to refer them to a registered medical practitioner who specialises in such care for the purpose of further discussion.”
This amendment would require the doctor who has an initial discussion with a person about assisted dying to offer to refer them to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other care.
Amendment 183, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(and, accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of, and discussion about, the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)).”
This amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in subsection (3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4).
Amendment 425, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, they must be referred to a multidisciplinary team to explore options for relevant care and support.
(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the requirements for the multidisciplinary team under subsection (4A).
(4C) The regulations must include a requirement for the multidisciplinary team to include all of—
(a) a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse,
(b) a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales, and
(c) a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms.”
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“(ca) has relevant and available palliative care options.”
This amendment would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if they have relevant and available palliative care options.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, leave out “(g)” and insert “(h)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 53.
Amendment 426, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The coordinating doctor may not take the steps set out in subsection (3) unless they receive confirmation from a multidisciplinary team that the person has had a meeting with that multidisciplinary team as specified in section 4.”
Amendment 286, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,
(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”
This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.
Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”.
This is a drafting change.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Mr Efford. I seek your guidance on the votes that we have just taken on the last group of amendments. If any Member, or any external person, were to attempt to misrepresent part of the debate on those amendments, what could we do? For example, in respect of amendment 368, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, with regard to people with Down’s syndrome, somebody could imply or state on social media that the Committee has refused to look at accommodations for those people, therefore disregarding their welfare under the Bill. As you will be aware, that would be a serious misrepresentation of the debate and the intention of the Committee. If a Member of the House or somebody external did that, what measures could we take to correct it?
The Chair
I suggest that you take the advice of the House on that, because what people say outside of the Committee is beyond my jurisdiction. The House has rules, and if those rules are breached, it is up to any hon. Member, including the Member himself, to raise that with the appropriate authorities.
Danny Kruger
On that ruling, Mr Efford, I concur that it is not your job to police social media but I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire: it is important that we accurately reflect the debates held in this place. For my part, I will not be commenting externally that the House has disregarded people with Down’s syndrome. I respect and appreciate the point made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Spen Valley that there will be an effort to engage with the Down’s syndrome community in the drafting of further consultation and guidance. Nevertheless, the Committee did just choose to reject an amendment that would have required the Government to put into the Bill the protections specified by the Down’s syndrome community and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. I will be making that point, but I undertake to do so accurately and fairly.
I turn to amendment 342 and the other amendments in this group. There is a lot to discuss, and I will get through it as fast as I can. We are talking about the “initial discussion” and the “preliminary discussion”. It might be helpful to clarify those terms, because clause 4 is confusing. The clause refers to an “initial discussion”, which is when the doctor, or maybe the patient, raises the idea—it is unclear who will do that and how. The initial discussion does not actually need to take place at all, but if it does, then, according to the Bill, a preliminary discussion “may” be held, at which the topic is discussed in more detail and there is discussion of the requirements that need to be met, and so on.
I welcome amendment 342, which was tabled some time ago by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). It provides that if an initial discussion is held—that is to say, if the topic is raised as an option and the patient indicates their wish for an assisted death—then a preliminary discussion must also be held. Over the weekend the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 419. That would amend clause 6, but I mention it here because it reaches back to clause 4 by stating that the co-ordinating doctor must either hold a preliminary discussion or see evidence that one has been held at an earlier stage.
I was alarmed that the Bill initially envisaged a situation in which someone could turn up to an assisted dying provider and pay their registration and administration fees, and the only thing the co-ordinating doctor would be required to do is check their photo ID. It is extraordinary that that was viewed as acceptable in the first place, so I welcome the tabling of amendment 419. My difficulty is that it leaves clause 4 quite vague and optional about whether a preliminary discussion would take place, and then it applies a retrospective compulsion at a later stage. It allows the preliminary discussion to be not very preliminary at all, because it might take place quite some time later, at the point the co-ordinating doctor is witnessing the first declaration. It could be weeks or months after the process has started, once the patient has found a doctor willing to do the assessment and the paperwork for assisted dying. Rather than tacking the provision on to clause 6, which deals with proof of identity for the witnessing of the declaration later on, let us have it where it is needed—let us insist on it here at the outset of the process.
What should the preliminary discussion consist of? I will speak now to amendment 183 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendments 343 and 344 in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley. In her explanatory statement to amendment 183, the hon. Member for Spen Valley suggests that it “emphasises” that the preliminary discussion must include a discussion of palliative care options. That is, I am afraid to say, repetitive of the sentence at the start of clause 4(4), which says that the practitioner conducting a preliminary discussion must discuss all the options listed. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is embroidery of the Bill—it is fine lacework, unrelated to the job of the clause itself. The statement in the clause that the doctor must discuss palliative care is, of course, already the law under the Montgomery judgment. There is a genuine obligation on the doctor to discuss all the options that the patient has, which will obviously include palliative care.
I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley, which would require the doctor to be clear about the uncertainties of the prognosis and the risks and benefits of the various treatment options. That is absolutely right. That is not embroidery. As a result, patients will make better-informed decisions with full awareness of what is known and, crucially, what is unknown about their prognosis. A requirement in the Bill leaves no room for doubt.
I am concerned by the suggestion that has been repeatedly made that adding obligations for doctors to do their job as guidance currently states is somehow unnecessary or harmful. Indeed, the selective approach of referencing only some elements of GMC guidance in the Bill increases legal uncertainty. Clauses 7 and 9 include only some elements of GMC guidance on the information that doctors must give to patients. There are five areas that the GMC says information should usually include, but the Bill omits
“uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation”
and
“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties”
and so on. The guidance explains:
“By ‘harm’ we mean any potential negative outcome, including a side effect”.
Those are quotes from the GMC guidance that are not reflected in the Bill at the moment. Some parts are, but some are not. I think the fact that some guidance has been excluded would be treated as legally significant by the courts. I would be interested to know why the hon. Member for Spen Valley takes the position that those aspects of the guidance should be excluded, and whether she feels that uncertainties and risks of harm are not relevant to the discussion that doctors should have.
We are often told that this Bill is the safest in the world. Other jurisdictions that have inspired the Bill specify in more detail what informed consent should consist of. In Oregon, the doctor must cover the potential risks, the probable result of taking the medication and the feasible alternatives. In Victoria, the doctor is required to discuss the potential risks—in fact there is a whole series of obligations on them. Interestingly, they are encouraged to inform the registered medical practitioner, so to tell the patient’s doctor what is happening, if they do not know already. South Australia specifies all the same things. In his amendment 50, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is trying to mirror precisely that. That is exactly what should be in the Bill, and yet we are told that it is the safest legislation in the world.
Other amendments in this group address who should do the preliminary discussion or referral, and who else should be involved. Amendment 108 in the name of the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), which would require the doctor to offer a referral to a palliative care specialist, is very helpful. It is significant that the Committee has already voted not to mandate referral to a palliative care practitioner at the early stage—that fork in the road that we debated earlier—so people will be facilitated down one fork in the road only. This is an opportunity to ensure that there is in fact a referral to a palliative care specialist.
Kim Leadbeater
I just want to let the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that I met my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet last night, and I am delighted to support her amendment 108.
Danny Kruger
I am very pleased to hear that. That is very encouraging news, because I have been concerned that the hon. Lady was resting her case on amendments to clause 12, which would not require a palliative care specialist. I am grateful to her for intervening to inform us of that.
Nevertheless, we need to go further. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) would require that a specialist, rather than just a GP, leads the initial assessment. The fact is that despite their enormous range of expertise, general practitioners are not qualified or confident in making prognoses of terminal illness. The written evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland cited a 2021 paper showing that over half of GPs were not consistent in how they applied their predictions to different patients. It is important that specialists in the relevant conditions should be involved in these assessments so that patients receive expert input with a lower risk of error.
It is significant that, during the Second Reading debate on 29 November, the House was unanimous in its appreciation of, and praise for, palliative care specialists. It seems strange that their expertise should not be considered essential to a terminally ill person’s consideration for an assisted death. When we look at other countries, we see that it is not an exceptional safeguard. South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021 specifies:
“Either the coordinating medical practitioner or each consulting medical practitioner must have relevant expertise and experience in the disease, illness or medical condition”—
we are not using that any more—
“expected to cause the death of the person being assessed.”
I urge the Committee to reflect on the South Australia model, which is good in this regard.
I turn to amendment 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and amendment 275, in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Bill currently requires doctors to discuss “available” palliative care options, but that may limit what patients are told. Amendment 275 would provide that patients should be informed of “all appropriate” palliative care alternatives, even if they are not readily available in their local area. We do not want patients choosing assisted dying simply because of unequal geographic provision of palliative care making them unaware of alternatives that could improve their quality of life.
I would go even further in support of amendment 53, which hits the nail on the head. Fundamentally, we have always said that assisted dying should be available only to people who palliative care cannot help. That is what amendment 53 entails: it states that assisted dying should be available only for people for whom the relevant palliative care is actually an option and, if they decline it, that would be their choice.
Finally, I will speak to amendments 425 and 426 in my name, which express the need for a proper multidisciplinary team at the right stage of the assisted dying process. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has emphasised the importance of multidisciplinary teams, and I welcome everything she said. It is very good to get her agreement, through the amendments that she has tabled, that two doctors working alone are not enough to protect and support every patient. I welcome that recognition.
Amendments to clause 12 attempt to fill this gap by introducing the expertise of a psychiatrist and a social worker, but they do not fulfil the role of a multidisciplinary panel. Rachel Clarke, one of the witnesses who told us to consider multidisciplinary assessments, has written subsequent to the amendments being tabled: “A ‘judge plus’ panel”—there will not actually be a judge, so perhaps we should call it a “lawyer plus” panel—
“is not an MDT…the panel’s scrutiny comes only at the end of the process, not at the beginning, when a patient first asks for the intervention of assisted dying. Yet this is a moment of peak vulnerability.”
We will get on to the question of whether a judicial panel should replace a High Court judge, but I emphasise very strongly that the introduction of this process is not the equivalent of having a proper multidisciplinary team considering the application for an assisted death at the appropriate moment.
As the Association for Palliative Medicine said last week, the Bill
“does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.”
It said that the panel is too distant from the patient and comes too late in the process. It said that the Bill would be stronger if the initial assessments were
“carried within a multi-professional team model”.
It is at the stage we are debating here—in the initial assessments—that the MDT needs to apply. For the record, if it has not been properly noted before, I also state that when the hon. Member for Spen Valley quoted Dr Sarah Cox on the importance of multidisciplinary teams, Dr Cox was not endorsing clause 12, but explicitly arguing for earlier introduction of the multidisciplinary process.
Kim Leadbeater
To be clear on the multidisciplinary approach, the point that I was making in that contribution was that that happens already. We are misrepresenting what goes on in current practice with terminally ill patients if we say that there is not a multidisciplinary approach, as indeed various witnesses told us. It is important to acknowledge that.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is what witnesses told us, but we need to ensure that it happens in all cases; the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that good practice is universal. In the case of assisted dying, bad practice would be terrible. Of course, good doctors seek the guidance of others and do not operate in isolation, but the Bill would allow them to do so. It is important to ensure that the system lives up to the good practice that she refers to.
Committee members will be glad to hear that I am not going to rehearse the arguments about capacity and coercion, but those concerns are why it is important to have a multidisciplinary team at an early stage. The Committee has rejected all attempts to strengthen the capacity test, but it could at least allow a psychiatrist to have an earlier role in the process of checking for capacity. We heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of doing that, and that is what National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states. As the hon. Lady said, it is good practice, so as Professor House said in his evidence to us, it would not be “a terribly radical thing” to do it.
On coercion, as the social worker Jess Carrington wrote to us:
“The only people who are comprehensively trained to recognise signs of abuse, in particular, coercive control, are social workers.”
According to research by Dr David Ross, doctors suspect less than 5% of cases of elder abuse. I will not rehearse the arguments around coercion, but I hope that the Committee will note that the only way—or the best way; it will not be foolproof—to ensure that coercion is spotted is by having a social worker at the very beginning of the process.
I think that is enough from me, Mr Efford—I am sure you agree.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 108, 343 and 344. I am delighted that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has said that she accepts amendment 108, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet. It would require a doctor who was having an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying to “offer” to refer them to a palliative medical specialist. That would give the patient a chance to discuss end of life matters in depth with somebody who has the necessary expertise.
We have spent much time in previous sittings on palliative care options, and there was some understandable concern about removing autonomy from those looking for assisted dying. I hope that amendment 108 strips away that concern, because it is about offering, not mandating, more information. When we are talking about autonomy, I think that all Committee members would agree that anybody making an autonomous choice could only benefit from more information, rather than suffer as a result of it.
The Bill says that when a doctor has an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying, they should explain and discuss
“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
The amendment aims to ensure that the patient has access to the best available information to make a decision about what they do next. It would act as a safeguard to prevent people from choosing assisted dying because they did not have a chance to have a thorough and accurate discussion about the care options available to them.
As I said, several people were concerned about autonomy, and providing people with the opportunity to meet a specialist. The written evidence from Hospice UK explains that there are currently wide misunderstandings about hospice care at societal level. It says:
“Implementation of assisted dying without care given to public awareness about palliative care is likely to worsen individuals’ ability to make decisions regarding their end of life. People will need access to information about the services and support available to them.”
That reminds the Committee that terminally ill people at the end of their life often may not know the options available to them. I am sure that every Member in the room wants to avoid that situation, and the option of a discussion with a specialist aims to ease some of that fear and provide accurate information.
In order to make palliative and hospice care a genuine choice, it is important that patients with concerns are able to speak to someone who can answer all their questions and offer accurate information. Marie Curie’s written evidence says:
“There must be clear recognition within the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that genuine choice at the end of life cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”.
Unfortunately, we know that the state of palliative care in this country is not yet of evenly accessible quality. The amendment would not solve that problem—there is quite a lot of work to do in that regard—but it would at least improve the Bill. It would give every patient the option of a discussion about palliative medicine and would make some ground on access. We all want to ensure that those with terminal illnesses are given good support and confidence in their decision at the end of their lives. Amendment 108 would do that, and would give people the opportunity of a real, informed choice, which is why I am delighted that the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has agreed to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled amendments 343 and 344, has a distinguished record in policymaking in health and social care. She served as chief analyst and director of quality and strategy at the Department of Health. Both amendments are very thoughtful, and we would do well to adopt them. It would be helpful to explain what they would do before I set out why I think that hon. Members should vote for them. Amendment 343 would change clause 4(4), on page 2, which reads:
“If a registered medical practitioner conducts such a preliminary discussion with a person, the practitioner must explain to and discuss with that person—
(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis”.
If the amendment were made, subsection (4)(a), on line 28, would go on to read
“, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.”
Amendment 344 would change paragraph (b) on the next line, which says that the doctor must discuss with the patient
“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”.
If the amendment were made, paragraph (b) would go on to read
“, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.”
Like amendment 108, amendments 343 and 344 are both intended to improve the quality of information that patients receive when they have their initial discussion about assisted dying. The first amendment addresses what many of the expert witnesses have identified as a key problem with the Bill. Clause 2 requires a doctor to have prognosed that
“the person’s death…can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
I will not go over the various arguments that we have already had in Committee about that, but many of the very senior doctors who gave evidence to the Committee have said that it is extremely hard for medical professionals to give a prognosis with such assurance.
The Marie Curie palliative care research department at University College London also submitted written evidence, numbered TIAB 39. Those experts said:
“The Bill’s requirement for a prognosis of death within 6 months could lead to significant errors, where individuals either receive assisted dying prematurely or are denied it when desired. The variability in prognostic accuracy, especially for non-cancer illnesses, may exacerbate inequities in patient care.”
They went on to say:
“We also question how the term “reasonably” will be interpreted by doctors, and this is likely to vary between doctors, but also by the same doctor with different patients”.
The Marie Curie palliative care research department also said that predicting someone’s death “too soon” can result in early palliative care, and that such early care is
“not a harm in the same sense as might be implied in the context of assisted dying.”
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I will briefly go through my impressions of the amendments. A lot of amendments in this group call to mind one of the difficulties that we are having in Committee, which is about the role of professional integrity against what we should be putting down in law. One problem is that, if we state something in law and a professional does not do it, then they are acting in an illegal way—and that introduces a different concept into a medical consultation. We must be very careful about introducing to a medical consultation a load of requirements in law, therefore reducing the freedom of that consultation whereby the doctor and patient can decide on what is best for the patient.
Amendment 342 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I reiterate that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, and I absolutely respect them. The amendment would mean that the initial doctor—who is likely to be a GP—to whom the person comes and wants to speak to about assisted dying “must” conduct a preliminary discussion, rather than
“may (but is not required to)”.
The problem there is that some doctors will be conscientious objectors to assisted dying and we have to protect their integrity. We must not force them to do something that is against their will.
I note that amendment 341, which we will come to later, is about the obligation to give information to the patient if they ask for assisted dying. That is an appropriate amendment, but forcing a doctor who does not agree with assisted dying to discuss it is not fair on the medical practitioner. That is not what the Bill is about. In many other places, there is freedom for the medical doctor to avoid getting involved in discussions if they do not wish to. That is an incredibly important part of, and concept in, this Bill. Without that, I think the medical profession would not accept the Bill. That is very important.
Amendment 285 is about needing to consult a specialist in the relevant illness. I think we need to understand the process of what will happen under the Bill. Let us take an example of a patient under an oncologist—a cancer specialist. The oncologist will almost certainly say at some point during the consultation with the patient, “I think that there is no further treatment that is going to prolong your life, and you are likely to have six months or less to live.” That will be done by a specialist. I do not know general practitioners who would confidently predict a prognosis of six months or less; it would come from a specialist. Indeed, cancer care in this country, until the palliative phase, is generally run by specialists and hospitals. GPs are not generally involved, apart from to support the patient. However, if the oncologist feels that the patient has less than six months to live, they would probably come to see the doctor under this legislation, and the initial discussion will then take place. They will already have a steer as to the likely prognosis.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I am trying to understand. My hon. Friend is saying that the oncologist is a specialist, but that they might not be the first doctor to have the first discussion; he said that they might not want to be a part of this process. I would like to understand that a bit more.
Dr Opher
As far as I see, under the Bill there is an initial discussion when a patient who is requesting assisted dying goes to see a medical practitioner. It does not specify what type of practitioner, which is good because it means they can ask either the oncologist or the general practitioner. That initial discussion is with a doctor, and then the doctor will refer for the first declaration, or they may do the first declaration themselves. That is how the Bill is set out, but the general practitioner will have had specialist opinions on the patient. They would not just say, “Well, maybe you’ve got less than six months to live—I don’t really know, but let’s have a guess.” This will be based on informed information from a specialist.
Danny Kruger
I do not want to labour the point, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge the Bill does not require that at the moment? He is saying that it will happen. Why will it happen—just because the doctors do their job well? Does he recognise there is no obligation to have this wide consultation with other specialists under the Bill? The doctor could do just as he has described and take a decision on their own.
Dr Opher
Again, this is a really interesting part of the Bill. If a doctor is routinely giving prognoses of six months where that is not appropriate, they will come up against the General Medical Council for being poor doctors, and the regulation around poor doctors is within the medical profession. If it is proven that someone has given a diagnosis that they cannot back up in any way, they would then be subject to their own professional standards. That is one of the things here: we cannot go through this Bill and specify the medical requirements at every stage, because that comes under a different format, which is called the General Medical Council. If someone has given a prognosis of six months or less, and if that is clearly inaccurate and would be contested by other doctors, they would be brought before the General Medical Council.
Lewis Atkinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of a further independent doctor assessment—both one and two—in addition to the doctor conducting the initial discussion, would provide a further safeguard for a diagnosis, if terminality could not be supported by other professionals?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. We are imagining that the doctors will all be independent and will not know anything about what other doctors have said, but there will be communication and access to medical records, and they will also tell the original doctor what their opinion is, and so on.
If we accept these amendments, we risk over-embroidering the Bill, which will make it almost impossible for doctors to say anything in a consultation. We must leave that free, because that is a central tenet of medical care, and if we put laws around it, there will be legal process over the medical consultation, and doctors will be frozen with fear about breaking the law. They are regulated by the GMC, and we are all terrified of referrals to the General Medical Council for that very reason: because we are trying to operate at the best standard that we can. I truly understand the amendments, but I do not think they will make the Bill any safer, and that is what we are all here for.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to the amendment and have thought long and hard about it. Can my hon. Friend explain to me, from his experience, but also from looking at the Bill and speaking to others, the effect of clause 4(4)(b)? As a non-clinician layperson, it appears to me that if a medical practitioner is discussing the likely effect of any treatment, then by its very nature that would lead to a discussion about prognosis, and the uncertainty and certainty around that.
Dr Opher
What my hon. Friend points out is absolutely true. The Bill’s drafting is simple but very effective. For prognosis, for example, it says that it is
“reasonably…expected within 6 months.”
As we have discussed many times in this Committee, prognosis is not exact; it is an estimate. It suggests that the patient has a terminal illness—that is to say, the illness will lead to their death. All we are arguing about is exactly when that will happen. It is reasonable to say, as doctors already do, “It is likely that you have six months to live.” That is not exact—as doctors, we cannot predict the future, even if people think we can. I totally accept that. However, we can make estimates as to what is likely to happen.
As my hon. Friend just mentioned, there are lots of really good news stories of people living longer than their prognosis. However, for the Bill to be effective, and to give relief to people who genuinely need it, we have to have a prognosis, based on medical evidence, of six months.
Dr Opher
Again, I bring my hon. Friend back to the fact that this is a Bill in law, and what we have to guide us as doctors is the General Medical Council, which sets standards for doctors. That is how we do it. If we are hemmed in by legal matters, we can break the law without being aware of it, if we are not careful. If too many legal parameters are set around medical consultations, the patient will get less good care because the doctor will not be free to offer it. I can see that my hon. Friend does not agree with that, but it is the case.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is praying in aid the General Medical Council as if it is some sort of effective backstop. He says that the guidance does not need to be in the Bill because it is there hovering over doctors anyway, but the Bill makes explicit reference to GMC guidance—some of it is in there. If he objects to our suggestion to include the full GMC guidance in the communication that should be had, why does he support the presence of some of the guidance that doctors should give? The Bill does not include what the GMC requires: uncertainties about diagnosis or prognosis. Why not include the full GMC guidance in the Bill, seeing as we are including some of it already?
Dr Opher
Sorry, Mr Efford. I do not deny that the hon. Member makes a good point, but if we embroider this too much, the Bill will not be safe. That has been the case throughout. Any good medical care is based on giving treatment, availability and the likely effects of that, and on giving prognosis and the chance of the prognosis being longer or shorter. That is all based in good clinical care.
On amendment 343, the uncertainties of estimates of how long a person has to live are covered in clause 2(1)(b):
“the person’s death in consequence of that illness, disease or medical condition can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
“Reasonably” is part of the Bill. It suggests that one cannot say that the estimate is exact. The Bill does not say that it is exact; it says that it is a reasonable estimate of that person’s life. I think that takes care of that amendment.
In amendment 344,
“the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment”
are covered by
“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”
in clause 4(4)(b). My general point is that none of the amendments are actually wrong; they are just unnecessary. I would like to leave it at that.
Lewis Atkinson
I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee needs to make progress. I will speak briefly to amendment 275 in my name, which, as others have said, amends the current reference of “any available” to “all appropriate”. Listen—people at the end of their life deserve the best. They deserve to know about and have the option to access all appropriate care. In my experience of the NHS, that is exactly what clinical teams ensure patients get. But we need to guard against any suggestion that the information given should be somehow filtered around availability, which I know is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
In my experience, views on availability are often incorrect anyway, so ensuring that “all appropriate” options are offered in information is the best thing to do. If nothing else, it creates a level of societal pressure to ensure that all appropriate care is available, which I hope we can all support.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I am going to make some progress because I am conscious of the time, and we want to get through these provisions.
I want to speak in favour of amendments 108 and 183. Those two amendments, taken together with amendment 275, create additional safeguards and assurances on the points made by colleagues on Second Reading that this is not cannot be raised in isolation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has made clear should not be the case—and that referral should always be offered to specialists in palliative and wider care.
As others have said, those patients will almost undoubtedly be in touch with a variety of different multidisciplinary healthcare teams. The suggestion that there must be a further referral to another multidisciplinary team under the Bill, regardless of which teams an individual is seeing, is therefore not appropriate. I also refer Members to amendment 6 to clause 9, which states that a referral to a psychiatrist “must” be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has indicated that she is in favour of that amendment. That reinforces the fact that there will be a multidisciplinary approach, including psychiatric input, where there is any doubt before the third-tier stage of the panel.
For those reasons, I do not feel the other amendments—285, 343 and so on—are necessary. By accepting amendments 275, 108 and 183, we will be able to strengthen the Bill in the way that was set out to the House, and as we heard in oral and written evidence.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I rise in support of the amendments, especially amendments 342 and 425. We have discussed various aspects of the Bill, especially capacity, coercion and medical practices, under many previous amendments. As somebody who worked as a mental health nurse for many years, and who worked as part of a multidisciplinary team, I think that amendments 342 and 425 are some of the most important.
Amendment 342 talks about the preliminary conversation with the medical practitioner with whom the patient makes contact. Do we not think that the doctor who knows most about that patient is the best person to have that preliminary discussion? They will have the most information about them. When the patient, who has gone through so much difficulty, goes to their doctor or to a GP who knows them well and says, “I would like to choose the assisted dying pathway,” would that doctor then say, “I do not want to discuss this. Somebody else will.”?
Kim Leadbeater
Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the concept of conscientious objection? The BMA strongly opposes amendment 342, because it does not think doctors should be obligated to have that initial conversation if they do not want to.
Sojan Joseph
There are other people who support this concept, and they are the people who will be having the conversation—we have both sides of the argument. I believe that the best person to have that preliminary discussion would be the doctor who knows about that patient the most—about their circumstances, prognosis, family situation and pain. We talk about compassionate care, but where is the compassion in here? I am not saying that another doctor would deny that—but I am talking about compassion. Someone going through the most difficult time in their life would have the confidence to talk to the person who knows the most about them, which is why I fully support that the initial discussion should happen with them. I am not saying that they should say yes or no, but they should be talking about the care provisions and options available to the patient. Amendment 342 is one of the most important amendments we will debate.
I will move on to amendment 425. When I tabled amendment 1, my thinking was that a psychiatrist should be involved in these discussions, but I think amendment 425 will safeguard most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sittings. Amendment 425 talks about a “multidisciplinary team” and having a psychiatrist involved as well. Written evidence was sent to us on 29 January by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which recommended that a separate pathway that
“covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines…who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central spoke earlier about how patients may be going through many multidisciplinary teams already, but it could be that none of those multidisciplinary teams have talked with them about assisted dying. They could have been pharmacists or nurses talking about the patient’s care—not assisted dying. We are talking about setting up a multidisciplinary team with a mental health nurse, doctor and social worker who can look in detail at evidence of the patient’s capacity, whether they are choosing it because they feel they are a burden, and whether there is any coercion. I think that is a safeguard for most of the concerns we have discussed in previous sessions. I would love to see a psychiatrist involved, because psychiatrists deal with some of the most challenging patients, including those with suicidal thoughts, on a day-to-day basis. They are the most experienced people to carry out a capacity assessment and, if they are a part of the multidisciplinary team, it will safeguard the Bill.
I strongly support amendment 425 and I urge Members to consider it. It will reassure many people who are concerned about some of the discussions. I know it also talks about giving power to the Secretary of State to formalise who should be part of the multidisciplinary team, which would be a discussion for later. I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendments 285 and 286, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. On amendment 285, we have to understand that, in medicine, clinicians only retain the areas of expertise in which they have clear confidence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who made very powerful points that, if anything, actually support this amendment. This is why we have developed a health system with so many specialities. Although generalists have incredible knowledge, they cannot confess to the depth of understanding that someone who dedicates their career to a speciality has. Therefore, the amendment seeks to draw on such knowledge rather than assume that a GP, for example, specialises in all fields of medicine.
Clause 4(4) would require a generalist to work alongside a specialist to secure the understanding of a patient’s diagnosis and prognosis. Once again, I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggested that that already happens and does not need to be tied up in law. However, I feel the amendment gives us more protections if we are to make the Bill safe. It would then enable specialist clinical advice to be provided in the conversation about treatment options.
Danny Kruger
I am afraid the situation is even worse, because the fact is that under the Bill they will not be liable for mistakes made in pursuit of the scheme set out in the Bill. They will be exempt. They are indemnified against civil liabilities for malpractice in the course of their job. It is only guidance, and GMC guidance specifies that breaking the guidance is not itself necessarily considered a serious matter. The provisions are not strong enough at all.
Naz Shah
The hon. Member makes a valid point. That brings us to a very important question: do we wait for something to have happened? In this instance, people will have died.
If we were considering kidneys, for example, and the issue of consent, it would require somebody independent. It needs a specialist. We come back to the point about specialisms: whether they relate to diagnosis, coercion, the care pathway, palliative care or the drugs that bring a person’s life to an end, which we will discuss later, these are specialisms. I know that later my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will speak to her amendment about the panel, which is intended to require expertise. That is what amendment 285 speaks to, and I hope hon. Members will support it.
Amendment 286 would set out the requirements for the co-ordinating doctor and ensure that the standards are upheld throughout the process of assessment, so that the patient and clinician have the highest levels of advice available. Even though the co-ordinating doctor might already have sought the advice of specialists as part of their assessment, the purpose of having an independent doctor is to assess the patient without preconceptions influenced by the co-ordinating doctor’s decision-making process. It is therefore important for the clinician to have access to the same level of advice to inform their clinical decision making.
In medical practice, should a second opinion be sought, the person providing that second opinion might consult a range of sources to establish an opinion. This measure would therefore be in line with normal medical practice. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.
Dr Tidball
With respect, I stood earlier and your colleague acknowledged it.
Dr Tidball
I rise to speak in support of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I thank her for driving amendment 183 forward and for taking on board my input and that of others on strengthening the language in the clause to include the amendment. I will set out why I support clause 4 overall, as augmented by the language in the hon. Lady’s amendment 183, along with amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, and amendment 108.
To ensure that there is a compassionate choice at the end of life, it is right that the Bill is tightly drawn around the final stage of terminal illness for adults and includes the strongest safeguards. In my speech on Second Reading, I said:
“The choice of assisted dying as one option for adults when facing six months’ terminal illness must be set alongside the choice of receiving the best possible palliative and end of life care, or it is no choice at all.
Having analysed the Bill closely, therefore, there are changes I would want to see in Committee to strengthen those options and ensure the way that choice is presented by medical practitioners is always in the round.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1052.]
I am satisfied that the amendments from my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Sunderland Central will strengthen the Bill in that way, ensuring that choice for those seeking assistance is more efficient and effectively presented in the round by medical practitioners.
Amendment 183, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, emphasises that the initial discussion under clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). It would ensure that the registered medical practitioner must explain to and discuss with the person their diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and its likely effect. Amendment 275, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, would ensure that they also discussed “all available” palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support. I support amendments 183 and 275 because, having looked closely at barriers to access to healthcare for disabled people and others over the past 15 years, I believe in the need for transparency, accessibility and equality of choice of healthcare as a fundamental key principle.
The BMA’s written evidence, at paragraph 5.6, sets out its support for clause 4. In particular, it expounds on the principle that there should be no prohibition on a doctor initiating discussion with a patient about assisted dying. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgment to decide when and if discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on other issues. The BMA goes further, stating:
“Some patients find it difficult to bring up sensitive subjects in their consultations,”
Being able to have these discussions is necessary and helpful.
Dr Tidball
I will make progress.
Clause 4 creates no duty to raise assisted dying, a point supported by the BMA. Keeping things secret is not helpful for the patient making such difficult decisions about how best to live their death with dignity and respect.
Dr Tidball
I will make progress.
In reply to a question from me about those who are seeking assistance, Dr Jane Neerkin, a consultant physician in palliative medicine, said:
“For them, it is about trying to regain some of that control and autonomy and being able to voice for themselves what they want. That is what I tend to see that people want back at the end of life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 201, Q263.]
Importantly, amendments 183 and 275 would strengthen clause 4 to ensure that we avoid a situation that gives those with the most social capital more choice, while leaving those who might otherwise be unaware of all other options available to them without that choice. If the Bill is passed by Parliament without them, it will exacerbate health inequalities rather than abating them.
Together, the amendments expound and elaborate on the need for discussion of all appropriate palliative and other end-of-life options available to someone with a six-month terminal illness. I commend them to the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendments would make changes to the discussion between the medical practitioner and the patient. They are largely focused on clause 4, on the initial discussions, but several are thematically linked or related to later clauses.
Amendment 342 would impose a requirement on the registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion with a person where that person has indicated that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life. As it stands, the Bill allows registered medical practitioners to opt out should they not wish to hold that conversation with someone, although they have an obligation under clause 4(5) to refer an individual to another medical practitioner for that discussion.
The amendment would remove that discretion and thus remove the opportunity for a medical professional to opt out of having the preliminary discussion. That may conflict with the principle set out in clause 23 that no registered medical practitioner or other healthcare professional is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance. Our analysis suggests that in removing discretion as to participation, the amendment could interfere with an individual’s rights under article 9 of the European convention on human rights, on the freedom of thought, belief and religion, and article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination.
Amendment 285 would require the registered medical practitioner who conducts a preliminary discussion with a person on the subject of an assisted death to discuss with them, in consultation with a specialist, the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatments available and their likely effects, and any available palliative, hospice or other care. The amendment would therefore require additional registered medical practitioners or other specialists to be consulted as part of the preliminary discussion under clause 4(4). The additional time required for consultation with specialists would be likely to lengthen the period over which a preliminary discussion can take place.
I also note that clause 9, “Doctors’ assessments: further provision”, will already require the assessing doctor to make such other inquiries as they consider appropriate in relation to the first and second assessments.
Naz Shah
The Minister’s point speaks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I have spoken about in relation to the amendment, so I wonder which bit he supports. The Minister says that there will be extra time, but my hon. Friend pointed out that doctors do this routinely, so the objection is only that it will be on the face of the Bill. I just want to understand the Minister’s position on that.
Stephen Kinnock
If I understood the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud was making, I think it was that the basic provisions in place enable doctors to carry out their work based on their experience and expertise, whereas the amendment would require additional registered medical practitioners or other specialists, so that would be in addition to what my hon. Friend was talking about.
I turn to amendment 343. As the Bill stands, a registered medical practitioner undertaking a preliminary discussion with a patient is required to discuss the person’s diagnosis and prognosis. The amendment would require a registered medical practitioner also to discuss any relevant probabilities and uncertainties of a person’s diagnosis and prognosis. It would put an additional legal requirement on what needs to be discussed during the preliminary discussion with the patient. In considering whether the amendment is required, the Committee may wish to note that all doctors acting in accordance with the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” are expected to discuss uncertainties about diagnosis and prognosis, and potential risks and uncertainties about treatment.
Under clause 4, the registered medical practitioner conducting the preliminary discussion must discuss any treatment available to the patient and the likely effect. Amendment 344 would require the registered medical practitioner conducting the initial discussion to discuss, as part of the conversation on the treatments available, the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life. As with amendment 343, the Committee may wish to note, when considering whether the amendment is required, that all doctors acting in accordance with “Good medical practice” are expected to discuss the risks, benefits, uncertainties and the likelihood of success of treatment with a patient.
Amendment 275 would change the wording of clause 4(4)(c) to “all appropriate palliative hospice and other care”. That would require a registered medical practitioner who conducts a preliminary discussion with a person on the provision of an assisted death to explain and discuss palliative and hospice care on the basis of appropriateness for the individual, not on the basis of the care that is available. Clause 4(4) sets out that a registered medical practitioner who conducts the preliminary discussion on assisted dying must, as part of that discussion, explain and discuss the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect—
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 16 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that we are planning to sit a bit later today, which is fine by me. I wanted clarity from you that the Committee has no hard deadline—that although the intention is that Report stage will take place on 25 April, if the Committee wished to go further, it could. I was a little concerned by some of the remarks made in this morning’s sitting about people being conscious of time; there is a sense of being asked to speed up as we go. Am I right in saying that the Committee can take as long as it needs to, and that in fact it should, to debate this very important matter?
The Chair
The short answer is yes. I think Members will inevitably deal with this in as sensitive and conciliatory fashion as possible, notwithstanding that point.
Clause 4
Initial discussions with registered medical practitioners
Amendment proposed (this day): 342, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out
“may (but is not required to)”
and insert “must”.—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment would strengthen the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,
(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”
This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.
Amendment 343, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, at end insert
“, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.”
This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the probabilities and uncertainties of any estimates of how long a person may have to live.
Amendment 344, in clause 4, page 2, line 29, at end insert
“, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.”
This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the impact of any treatment available.
Amendment 275, in clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “any available” and insert “all appropriate”.
Amendment 108, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert
“and offer to refer them to a registered medical practitioner who specialises in such care for the purpose of further discussion.”
This amendment would require the doctor who has an initial discussion with a person about assisted dying to offer to refer them to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other care.
Amendment 183, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(and, accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of, and discussion about, the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)).”
This amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in subsection (3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4).
Amendment 425, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, they must be referred to a multidisciplinary team to explore options for relevant care and support.
(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the requirements for the multidisciplinary team under subsection (4A).
(4C) The regulations must include a requirement for the multidisciplinary team to include all of—
(a) a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse,
(b) a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales, and
(c) a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms.”
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“(ca) has relevant and available palliative care options.”
This amendment would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if they have relevant and available palliative care options.
Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, leave out “(g)” and insert “(h)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 53.
Amendment 426, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The coordinating doctor may not take the steps set out in subsection (3) unless they receive confirmation from a multidisciplinary team that the person has had a meeting with that multidisciplinary team as specified in section 4.”
Amendment 286, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,
(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”
This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.
Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”.
This is a drafting change.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
When we broke at 11.25 am, I was talking about amendment 108. Clause 4(4) sets out that a registered medical practitioner who conducts the preliminary discussion on assisted dying must, as part of that discussion, explain and discuss
“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
Amendment 108 would supplement that with a requirement for the registered medical practitioner also to offer to refer the person to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other such care for the purpose of further discussion.
The amendment would add an additional level of specificity to the preliminary discussion on palliative, hospice or other care, but would not in itself place a duty on the registered medical practitioner to make such a referral, or on the person to accept it. In considering whether the amendment is required, the Committee may wish to note that the General Medical Council’s good medical practice already requires doctors, when providing clinical care, to refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs.
As the Committee is aware, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on several amendments to ensure that the Bill is legally and operationally workable and reflects her policy objectives. Amendments 183 and 424 are two such amendments.
The purpose of amendment 183 is to emphasise, not change, the existing provisions in the Bill that provide that the preliminary discussion held with the person by a registered medical practitioner must not discuss assisted dying in isolation. Rather, the discussion must reference the matters contained in clause 4(4), including
(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
Amendment 424 seeks to clarify the meaning of “preliminary discussion” in clause 40, to align that with the description of the discussions in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 4. It is a drafting change. As per subsections (3) and (4), a preliminary discussion takes place between a person seeking the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill and a medical practitioner, about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided. The preliminary discussion must include
“the person’s diagnosis and prognosis…any treatment available and the likely effect of it…any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
Amendment 425 would introduce a requirement that a person seeking assistance under the Bill is referred to a multidisciplinary team to consider support and care for the person. The Secretary of State may provide regulations to determine what kind of professionals should make up such a team, but the amendment would require that at a minimum each team should include a medical practitioner or nurse, a social worker and a psychiatrist. The obligation to refer to the multidisciplinary team would apply each and every time
“a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act”,
so there could be multiple referrals. Finally, I note that the amendment might have wider resource implications, including for social workers.
Together, amendments 53 and 54 propose changes to clause 7—rather than clause 4, which we have been considering so far today—the effect of which would be that in carrying out the first doctor’s assessment, the co-ordinating doctor must, in addition to the other requirements, be satisfied that the person has relevant and available palliative care options. As such, the amendments would mean that people are eligible for assistance to voluntarily end their own lives only when they have relevant and available palliative care options. The amendments would create an additional criterion, which may reduce the number of people able to receive an assisted death, linked to the availability of palliative care services to any given individual.
Amendment 426 would prevent the co-ordinating doctor from finalising the first assessment process until they had received confirmation from a multidisciplinary team—as set out in amendment 425—that the person seeking assistance to end their own life had met with the multidisciplinary team. The Committee may wish to note that under the amendment there would be no requirement on the multidisciplinary team to provide that confirmation in a given timeframe. That might lead to delays in the co-ordinating doctor being able to make their statement and onward referral.
Amendment 286 would remove the requirements in paragraphs (a) to (c) of clause 9(2) and insert three new requirements. The three new conditions require the assessing doctor, for both the first and second assessment, to consult specialists in relation to the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatments available and the likely effect of those treatments, and any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.
The Committee may wish to note that, as drafted, amendment 286 might have some unintended consequences. That is because by replacing clause 9(2)(a), (b) and (c), it would remove the words
“explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”
at clause 9(2)(b). Consequently, the amendment would remove the requirement for the assessing doctor to have a discussion with the person about the factors currently set out in clause 9(2)(b). The assessing doctors would also not be required to examine the person and their medical records, and to make other inquiries as they consider appropriate.
The amendment could also lead to a significant loss of essential discussion between the assessing doctors and the person seeking assisted dying. The removal of clause 9(2)(b) would eliminate the requirement to explain and discuss the diagnosis and prognosis, treatment options and palliative care. Additionally, the amendment would remove the requirement to discuss the person’s wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance, which may be seen as important for fully informed decision making.
I thank the Committee for its attention.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because we have had another very thorough discussion. First, my amendment 424 is, as the Minister said, a simple drafting change in clause 40 that confirms that “preliminary discussion” means a discussion as per clause 4(3).
Amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central would, in many circumstances, broaden the scope of the conversation that the doctor would have with the patient, and I am happy to support it.
I am also happy to support the very sensible amendment 108 from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). It is perfectly acceptable to ask the doctor to offer to refer the patient to a specialist, as they would probably do in most cases anyway, but the amendment is for clarity.
I refer colleagues to the comprehensive comments on my amendment 183 earlier in proceedings, and also to the support of the British Medical Association. Following Second Reading, I listened carefully to Members’ concerns about the possibility of doctors only discussing assisted dying with patients. Even though the Bill states that that cannot be the case, for the avoidance of any doubt the amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). Accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—that is, doctors cannot discuss the option of assisted dying in isolation but only in conjunction with discussion about all other available and appropriate treatment.
Indeed, Andrew Green of the BMA told us that
“some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind.”
He asked us to
“please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 42, Q24.]
That concludes my remarks.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 270, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment requires that the doctor ensures that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I beg to move amendment 414, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) If a registered medical practitioner conducts such a preliminary discussion with a person, the practitioner must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 413, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) In Wales, a medical practitioner conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (4) must also discuss with the person their preferred language of Welsh or English.”
Amendment 415, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) When making an assessment under subsection (2), the assessing doctor must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters.”
Amendment 416, in clause 30, page 18, line 25, leave out paragraph (c)
This amendment is linked to Amendment 417.
Amendment 417, in clause 30, page 18, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue one or more codes of practice in connection with the arrangements for ensuring effective communication in connection with the provision of assistance to persons in accordance with this Act, including the use of interpreters.”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 416.
Liz Saville Roberts
I rise to speak to amendment 413, which would require a medical practitioner in Wales who conducts a preliminary discussion under subsection (4) to discuss with the person their preferred language of Welsh or English. Amendments 414, 415, 416 and 417, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich, relate to adjustments for language and literacy barriers. I will speak to those amendments, but it is not my intention to divide the Committee on them. Although I am supportive of the drive behind the amendments from the hon. Member for Ipswich, they refer to a situation very different from that of Welsh and English, because the use of Welsh and English has particular statutory implications.
This is the first time I have risen to speak about how we need to tease out the Bill’s implications in the context of reserved and devolved powers, where justice and criminal law are reserved, while health and social care are devolved. Amendment 413 concerns the need, in my belief, to place in the Bill the requirement to determine whether a person wishes to use either Welsh or English in their initial discussions with registered medical practitioners. I firmly believe that this needs to be written into the legislation. Later amendments I have tabled to clauses 5 and 8, and new clause 18 and new schedule 2, also relate to the use of Welsh.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I fully support the amendments, but they say that the practitioner conducting the preliminary discussion should use an interpreter. Should the interpreter not also be available for all the interactions that follow on from the preliminary discussion?
Liz Saville Roberts
While I agree with the hon. Member in principle, I am operating within the law in terms of Welsh and English, because there are legal considerations with those two languages in particular.
In the matter we are discussing, the ability for the person to communicate as directly as possible is of the greatest importance. I wonder whether the Minister will respond by saying that the codes of practice in clause 30 will be sufficient, but I emphasise that I took advice from the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office, and it was the Welsh Language Commissioner’s officer who advised that I table the amendments. We are operating in unique circumstances with this being a private Member’s Bill, and we need to have clarity on what is required in relation to how the legislation operates between England and Wales.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The hon. Lady will know that the Welsh Language Act 1993 put the Welsh language on an equal footing with the English language in Wales. Does she agree that it would be helpful to have clarity on whether the provisions in that Act apply to the Bill?
Liz Saville Roberts
That is exactly what I am seeking to do, and I am seeking to do it as co-operatively and collegiately as possible. But we need to have clarity on this, and our discussions need to be thorough and exact in order to be accurate.
When it comes to the individual’s right to use Welsh in their daily lives, two pieces of legislation are relevant to the Bill: the Welsh Language Act 1993, which predates devolution, and the Senedd’s Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. The Welsh Language Act remains applicable for reserved matters, such as justice, and the Ministry of Justice operates a Welsh language scheme that enables people to use Welsh in courts, tribunals and other areas of justice. The Welsh Language Measure established the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner, who has the power to investigate complaints from Welsh speakers who assert that their freedom to use Welsh has been interfered with; created a Welsh language tribunal to hear appeals against the commissioner’s decisions; and enabled the development standards, which are particularly significant here.
The Welsh Language Measure states that individuals in Wales should be able to conduct their lives through the medium of Welsh if that is what they choose to do. Under the Measure, the NHS in Wales has a statutory duty to deliver services to the public in both Welsh and English. The Welsh language standards are a set of statutory requirements that set out responsibilities to provide services, and they apply to health boards in Wales, as well as to NHS primary care services that are contracted by the health boards. The standards do not apply to independent providers, which since 2019 must follow six Welsh language duties, one of which is to establish and record the language preference of patients. That is where I have got the terminology used in amendment 413.
That is a summary of the relevant considerations but, before I close, it is important to say why this matters to Welsh speakers. I spoke recently to medical practitioners in Wales who wanted me to emphasise their concerns at the lack of specific mention of language rights. I also spoke to the Welsh Language Commissioner’s officers, who advised me on the necessity of the amendments. There is a critique against providing Welsh language services that shrugs its shoulders and says, “Why bother? They all speak English anyway.” That is to ignore how integral language use is to the individual.
We are drafting a Bill to do two things in a very delicate balance: to respect the autonomy of the individual and to safeguard people against abuse in any form. For many Welsh speakers, Welsh is the language of their emotions. It is the language in which they express themselves most fluently, and the first language of their feelings. It matters to this Bill. English is the language of authority, and many Welsh speakers are anxious not to challenge the authority of high-status people such as doctors. They do that out of ingrained politeness, and out of fear of not being able to access services if they put any barriers in the way. That is the way that language gets used. Welsh speakers do not use Welsh in the way that monolingual English speakers use English; monolingual English speakers use English because it is the only language they have. For anyone who is bilingual or multilingual, the use of language is very complicated and sophisticated, and we need to be alert to it in all its respects.
I return to the nature of the relationship between doctors and their patients. Doctors have high status, and a patient approaches a doctor seeking services, advice and context. That is not a power dynamic that we should allow to go unchecked, so I urge the Committee to consider the amendment. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I want a response from the Ministers. Before Report, I want absolute clarity on its legal necessity or otherwise. I feel instinctively—especially because the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office has told me this—that it should be in the Bill. I would also like a response from Ministers on amendment 414, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 413 and 414, which are very thoughtful and well-considered amendments. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for setting out powerfully and persuasively the importance of the subject. I support the amendments, but in reality we probably need to go further by specifying exactly who would be interpreting and making sure that it is regulated reliably. We do not want just anyone coming in off the street and doing that. That would not be appropriate, so we need to think about whether we need to go further. However, the amendments are a great starting point and would move us closer to where we need to be.
There is much subtlety in this debate. We talked a little in the first week of this Committee about the importance of language and the words that are used. We always need to be cognisant that when we are imparting information to people, particularly in a healthcare context, it is vital that we use language that people understand so that the ramifications of what is being discussed are clear. That is where these amendments become really important, because for those for whom English is not their first language, some of the subtlety and nuance around what a term means could be lost. Interpreters could be an important part of adding the clarity required to ensure that everyone going through the process understands exactly what it involves.
A 2024 Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey found that 39% of people think that assisted dying means withdrawing life support, 19% think that it means providing people who are dying with drugs that relieve symptoms of pain or suffering, and 13% think that it means providing hospice care. That echoes our debate a couple of weeks ago about how assisted dying can be interpreted in quite a few different ways. It is really important that we are clear in the language we use and what we mean by it.
We also find that among ethnic minorities there is sometimes a greater misunderstanding about palliative care. A 2024 King’s College London survey found that 6% of people believe that it is accurate that palliative care involves giving people medicines in order to shorten their life, but 18% of ethnic minority groups think that. We need to be cognisant of that. While 18% of people trust healthcare providers “not very much” or “not at all” to provide high-quality care towards the end of life, that figure increases to 30% for ethnic minority groups. While 6% of people say they have not heard of palliative care, that increases to 22% of people in ethnic minority groups.
It is important to recognise that the text of the amendment is much less stringent than that of section 7 of South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021, which strictly regulates interpreters. That goes back to my initial point. Under the South Australian law, they must be
“accredited by a prescribed body”.
They cannot be a family member, cannot stand to benefit from the will and cannot be involved in the patient’s healthcare. It is really important to ensure that a recognised professional is involved in this most important of processes and information sharing.
I support the amendments, although I think they need to go a little further. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I echo the points that have been made about the importance of the initial conversations, particularly for those who do not have English as their first language. I made a commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich that in his absence I would press amendments 414 and 415 to a Division, as he requested.
I support the general principles of the amendments relating to those who are seeking or who need interpretation to explain aspects of assisted dying to them. I support the merit of that principle and the intention behind amendments 414 and 415.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Like the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Reigate, I will not press the amendments to a vote, but I certainly want to speak to them. I do not think that they go far enough. Let us put ourselves in the position of people of colour: if the English language is seen as superior to or more powerful than Welsh, that means an extra layer of intervention that I do not think the amendments quite capture. We have not even talked about British Sign Language in our discussion of languages, but it is also really important.
I am a qualified interpreter from Urdu to English—in health, funnily enough—and I can tell the Committee that in Urdu there is not even a word for depression. The word for depression does not exist. In a previous life I chaired the largest mental health charity outside London for ethnic minority communities, and I am a former NHS commissioner, so when we talk about health inequalities and patient intervention, I understand acutely the nuances involved in translating from one language to another.
In the first instance, there is a language that someone does not understand. In the second instance, particularly for minority communities who speak languages from the south Asian subcontinent such as Punjabi, Urdu or Hindi, the words do not exist to translate the Bill literally or to talk about assisted death. That speaks to the point that the hon. Member for Reigate made about understanding what it means. I have the same stats that she cited, which show that people do not understand what assisted death is.
I would really value a response from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to these questions about the nuances of having such a difficult conversation. These are really brave conversations, both on the doctor’s side and on the patient’s. Take a woman from an ethnic minority background whose first language is not English and whose doctor is unable to translate their conversation with her. Would that conversation be disempowering? Would it be empowering? Would we be doing a disservice to that person, with the best will in the world from the doctor? I really would like to understand what consideration is being given to making this accessible, if it is to be a service and a piece of legislation that is open equally to all.
I have mentioned this point a few times and have raised it with the Minister, and I appreciate that the Minister has responded, but this is where my frustration—for want of a better word—comes from about not having an impact assessment in the first place. If we had had an impact assessment, the Government would have looked at these things. Even with small Bills, we go out to consultation for weeks and weeks. With this Bill, we have not spoken to anybody during Committee stage about the nuances of the provisions on languages and what they will mean for patients. Although I support the essence of what the amendments are attempting to achieve, they fall short of providing the necessary protections. I do not know how the Government will address that.
Stephen Kinnock
This group of amendments focuses on language and literacy barriers, including discussion of the use of interpreters and translations. If amendment 414 is agreed to, a registered medical practitioner who conducts a preliminary discussion with a person will first have to ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters. It may be helpful to note that, in all areas of practice, registered medical practitioners must uphold the standards in the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, which includes the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers.
The purpose of amendment 413 is to require medical practitioners in Wales who are conducting the initial discussion outlined in clause 4 to
“discuss with the person their preferred language of Welsh or English.”
It may be helpful to note that under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, the NHS in Wales has a statutory duty to deliver its services to the public in both Welsh and English. The Measure, which gives the Welsh language official status in Wales, states that
“persons in Wales should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so.”
The Welsh Government’s active offer for health is intended to support all staff across NHS Wales to provide a service in Welsh for patients, without their having to ask for it.
Technically, I would note that the amendment does not require the medical practitioner to conduct the initial discussion in the person’s preferred language, or to refer the person to another medical practitioner who can conduct it in the person’s preferred language, if they are unable to do so themselves. I have discussed that point with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and am more than happy to have a further discussion about how her amendment might work. The concern that I simply flagged was that we have the 2011 Measure and, as with so many of these things, there is a law of unintended consequences. An amendment that may be designed with the best possible intentions could end up disrupting the system and causing confusion or uncertainty, which I am sure she would not want. As with all these things, that is the challenge.
Liz Saville Roberts
We have raised already in the Committee the need for an impact assessment. I have also raised with the Minister the need for an impact assessment in Wales. The fact that we are having this conversation shows that there is an element of uncertainty about exactly whether it is necessary for this provision to be included in the Bill. I am concerned that it could be in a code of practice; I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Bradford West that we do not know how such codes of practice will operate, or whether we will have any say over how they operate. However, as the Minister has come to this in a spirit of co-operation, I hope that we will find some clarity. If it appears that it is better for Welsh language speakers that such a provision be set out in the Bill, I hope that he will agree in that respect.
Stephen Kinnock
I am happy to have that discussion, to better understand how it might all work in practice.
If amendment 415 is agreed to, it will mean that an assessing doctor making an assessment under subsection (2) must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers, including the use of interpreters. As with amendment 414, the Committee may want to note the existing standards that all medical practitioners must uphold, which include requirements for the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers.
Amendments 416 and 417 would amend clause 30, which states that the Secretary of State may issue codes of practice on a number of matters, including on arrangements for ensuring effective communication and the use of interpreters. The amendments would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to issue one or more codes of practice in connection with arrangements for ensuring effective communication, including the use of interpreters, and to do so within six months of the passing of the Act. The requirement to issue any such code of practice within six months may prove unworkable. Under clause 30, it would be necessary to consult on the code of practice, make regulations to allow for the code of practice to come into force, have the regulations approved by both Houses of Parliament and then issue the code of practice, all within a six-month period after the passing of the Act.
As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on whether or how the law in this area should change. As I have made clear, that is a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to members of the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled to it.
Kim Leadbeater
On amendment 413, from the right hon. Member from Plaid Cymru—with apologies, I will not embarrass myself by trying to pronounce the wonderful name of her constituency—I am very sensitive to issues around devolution. We have had many conversations about it, which I am very happy to continue. The Minister has confirmed, as I understand it, the issue around the Welsh language, in that it would be covered by the Welsh language legislation, which states that individuals in Wales
“should be able to live their lives through the medium of the Welsh language if they choose to do so.”
I am very supportive of that. I am also happy to continue those conversations, where necessary, with the Minister.
I turn to amendments 414 and 415. I think several Members of the Committee have had the same message from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, who was clearly struggling to get here on time. I, too, would be happy to move them in his name. They seem very sensible amendments, and I am happy to support them. Along with the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, which sets out the principles, values and standards of professional behaviour expected of doctors, it is a belt-and-braces approach to an issue that is very important, for reasons that several hon. Members have set out.
I cannot support amendments 416 and 417, however, because the timeframe that they would impose would not fit with the rest of the Bill. In reference to the two-year implementation period, that would just not be workable or possible.
Liz Saville Roberts
I will not press amendment 413, because I anticipate further conversations on these matters.
Amendment 414 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,
(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”—(Naz Shah.)
This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) The practitioner must, following the preliminary discussion under subsection (3), refer that person to the Assisted Dying Agency if the person asks them to do so.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and would establish a pathway by which a person is referred to the Assisted Dying Agency.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) has been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency,”
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and provides that the coordinating doctor must have been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency.
Amendment 73, in clause 7, page 4, line 21, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
“(b) provide the person who was assessed and the Assisted Dying Agency with a copy of the statement.
(3A) Upon receipt of the statement specified in subsection (3)(a), the Assisted Dying Agency must assign to the person, as soon as practicable, another registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of section 8(6) for the second assessment (‘the independent doctor’).”
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and would require the coordinating doctor to send a copy of their statement to the Assisted Dying Agency. That Agency must then to assign an “independent doctor” to the person.
Amendment 75, in clause 8, page 5, line 9, leave out “coordinating doctor” and insert “Assisted Dying Agency”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 74, in clause 8, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(ba) has been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency,”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4 and provides that the independent doctor must have been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency.
Amendment 76, in clause 9, page 6, line 14, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 77, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, after “appointment,” insert
“by the Assisted Dying Agency”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 78, in clause 14, page 10, line 7, leave out from “person)” to end of line 12 and insert “the Assisted Dying Agency”.
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 79, in clause 16, page 11, line 18, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(1A) The Assisted Dying Agency must, as soon as practicably possible, record the making of the statement or declaration.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
Amendment 80, in clause 17, page 11, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(1A) The Assisted Dying Agency must record the cancellation.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4.
New clause 4—Assisted Dying Agency—
“(1) There shall be a body known as the Assisted Dying Agency (‘The Agency’).
(2) The purpose of the body is to coordinate requests from people to be considered for assisted dying, including assigning, at the appropriate junctures, a coordinating doctor and independent doctor for a person seeking assistance to end their own life.
(3) Where a person has previously been referred to the Agency, no future referral relating to that person can be proceeded with by the Agency unless it considers there has been a material change in the person’s circumstances.
(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—
(a) the staffing and remuneration of such staff,
(b) the procedures of the Agency, and
(c) the means by which the Agency can pay coordinating doctors and independent doctors for services rendered under this Act.
(5) The Agency’s expenditure is to be paid out of money provided for by Parliament.
(6) The Agency must, for each financial year, prepare accounts in accordance with directions given to it by the Treasury.
(7) The Agency’s chief executive is its accounting officer.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the Agency must prepare a report about the performance of its functions during that year and lay that report before both Houses of Parliament.
(9) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would create a new body that was principally responsible for coordinating and recording statements and declarations in relation to a person’s request for assistance to end their own life.
Danny Kruger
Although these provisions may seem irrelevant to the Bill—I do not think any of us wishes to see the creation of an assisted dying agency—I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for tabling them. He is playing his usual role of keeping us honest.
It is extraordinary that nowhere does the Bill lay out exactly how the assisted dying service would be delivered—whether it would be an NHS service, a private service or some mix of the two. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for being clear in his suggestion that it should be a non-NHS service and that, if we are to pass this law, we should establish a bespoke agency for the explicit purpose of delivering that service. It is a rather macabre but logical way of delivering on the proposal in the Bill.
The fact is that many doctors, faced with the prospect of being asked to participate in assisted dying, have expressed their preference for it to be delivered outside the NHS. In its written evidence, the British Medical Association, which has been cited a number of times today, says:
“There is nothing in the Bill about how an assisted dying service might be delivered, although the possibility of a separate service is mentioned in the explanatory notes.”
The BMA’s view is that assisted dying
“should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways”.
I stress that point, because it has often been suggested in the course of debate that the way assisted dying will work will be as part of a holistic range of options—pretty indistinguishable from palliative care or other treatment options put before patients. The BMA is clear that assisted dying
“is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role.”
The Royal College of General Practitioners has also pointed out in evidence that the shape of the service is not set out in the Bill.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. In his opening sentence, my hon. Friend said that none of us wanted to see the creation of an assisted dying agency. My interpretation of our speaking to a particular amendment is that we have to address what it intends to do in the Bill. My hon. Friend said that he does not want what the amendment intends and that he is speaking more generally about the delivery of the service. Could we have your guidance as to whether that is in order? One of our problems is that we are having very expansive debates, and previous Chairs have sought to keep everyone in order. I am anxious that my hon. Friend does not exhaust himself by straying from the central point in the amendment.
The Chair
The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member does not have to agree with the amendment, so he is perfectly entitled to speak in that regard.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, and to my right hon. Friend for his concern for my welfare, which is much appreciated. However, he will be relieved to know that I have plenty of energy and can keep going.
To speak seriously, it is very germane to the Bill that the amendments are considered. As I was explaining, GPs and other medical practitioners have been concerned about the absence from the Bill of clauses to specify the delivery of the service, so I am grateful that we have this opportunity to discuss that and to hear from the Minister and the sponsor how they imagine the Bill would operate and whether it would, indeed, be appropriate to establish some kind of agency along the lines proposed. The reason I object to an assisted dying agency is that I object to assisted dying, but I see the logic of the proposal if we are to proceed with the principle of the Bill.
It is extraordinary that this crucial question is not set out. In his evidence to us, Chris Whitty said rather airily that it was for Parliament to decide how the service should be delivered. I would stress that most medics involved, particularly in palliative care and care for people at the end of life, are very hostile personally to the suggestion that they should participate in assisted dying. The BMA’s 2020 survey of its members found that 76% of palliative medicine doctors would be unwilling to participate if assisted dying were legalised. The Royal College of Physicians 2019 members’ poll found that 84% were opposed.
Kit Malthouse
This is not in order; it has nothing to do with the amendment.
The Chair
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point of order, he should feel free to make a point of order.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to you, and I am sorry to interrupt. I do not mean to be rude, but I cannot see how this is germane to the amendment. We have a lot of amendments to deal with in detail, and expanding the debate into a wider one about whether the medical profession agrees with assisted dying does not seem to me to address the question of whether we should include the amendment in the Bill, which is what we are here to decide.
The Chair
The right hon. Member is perfectly entitled to express his view, and I respect it. I will make a judgment in due course as to whether the hon. Member is stepping outside the latitude of the issue. He will no doubt bear in mind your intervention and my response to it.
Danny Kruger
I, too, am grateful, Mr Dowd. I stress that I am discussing the suggestion in the amendment that assisted dying be taken out of the NHS and not be part of the normal pathways doctors are invited to participate in. It strikes me as relevant that most doctors, were the law to be passed, would wish for something along the lines of the amendment to be included.
We do not know exactly how that would work. We know that it could potentially be private, according to the scheme set out in the amendment, or it could be within the NHS. We know from the references in clause 40 that private provision is envisaged, because of the talk of reasonable remuneration for the provision of services. So it would be outside the normal service expectation of medical professionals employed by the NHS; indeed, we know that it could be a lucrative market.
Sojan Joseph
Does the hon. Member think that, if we bring in an agency from outside the NHS—from the private sector—this will become like a business?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The opportunity is there in the Bill for private businesses to be established to deliver assisted dying services. Indeed, it would be quite a lucrative money-making enterprise. Estimates have been given of between 5,000 and 17,000 assisted deaths per year, depending on how they are arrived at. If the charges employed by Dignitas—which is in a sense the model being proposed here—are anything to go by, it could be in the region of £5,000 to £10,000 per patient. Even a small proportion of that would be significant—a multimillion-pound business would be possible under the Bill. Advertising would also probably be possible; we saw TfL suggest that the Dignity in Dying adverts in the tube before Second Reading were compliant. There is no prohibition in the Bill on advertising or on people making money from it.
However, the Bill also specifies that this would be a state-protected service, so if it were to be a private enterprise, it would have all sorts of state protections that would not normally apply to private providers of anything. Under clause 25, the providers would be exempt from any civil liability for providing assistance under the Bill. Under clause 29, a death would be exempt from investigation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Clause 30 says that a failure to comply with any code of practice
“does not of itself render a person liable to…criminal or civil proceedings”.
The only monitoring that would be done would be undertaken by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who is not an independent figure, but the person responsible for setting up the panels that approve the deaths.
The Chair
Order. We need to get back to the assisted dying agency. Can the hon. Member keep to that, please?
Danny Kruger
I shall—I am winding up now, Mr Dowd. These amendments go to the heart of this great absence—this blank space—in the middle of the Bill, which is how on earth it will be delivered. Who would deliver it, and under what regulation? What would be their terms of engagement? All of that represents quite a scandalous gap in the Bill, and my concern is with that enormous gap.
I want to conclude with a reflection on that lack of clarity. Elizabeth Gardiner, who I understand was the very experienced parliamentary drafter who contributed her time to draft the Bill, talked on the Hansard Society podcast of the opportunity that drafting has to change the law. She noted that if the law
“is a restriction that would curtail the ability of this to be delivered through the National Health Service, the Bill could change that.”
So it has been suggested that the Bill would require changes to the National Health Service Act 1946 to remove what the Hansard Society calls the “duty to protect”.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier, and I do not want to reaffirm it, but can we get back to the substance of the assisted dying agency provision, please?
Danny Kruger
I have one last point to make, Mr Dowd, which I hope you will regard as in order because, as I said, it goes to the heart of things. At the moment, the Bill does not specify how these things should be done, and Elizabeth Gardiner, the drafter behind it, said on the radio:
“we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill. And so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out”—
I believe that that is in clause 32. Enormous Henry VIII powers are being established. I deeply regret the gap in the Bill, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who tabled these proposals, for enabling us to have this debate.
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Member to keep to the issue that we are discussing, because if he or any other Member does not, and goes beyond the scope of what they really should be sticking to, I will take a much less lateral approach in future. I say that gently and with the best intention.
Stephen Kinnock
I will speak to this group of provisions as one, given that amendments 71 to 80 are consequential on new clause 4. The purpose of these provisions is to create a new statutory body—the assisted dying agency—which has the purpose of co-ordinating requests from people to be considered for assisted dying. The provisions provide for various functions and duties of the agency, including assigning a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor to a person seeking assistance to end their own life.
The agency would be responsible for accepting referrals, replacing registered medical practitioners with the roles of assigned co-ordinating doctor and assigned independent doctor, and receiving and recording declarations, statements and cancellations made by co-ordinating doctors, independent doctors and those receiving assistance under the Bill.
That would be a change from the current provisions in the Bill, which place a number of those duties on the individual co-ordinating doctor and independent doctor. One effect of the proposed new clause is that a new agency would have to be established by the Government. If it passed, we would have to work to assess how that might be possible in practice.
I hope my brief remarks are helpful to Committee members in considering the Bill, the amendment and the new clause.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing to add, other than to agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire; I do not think any of us on the Committee are keen on the implementation of the assisted dying agency.
Danny Kruger
I really regret that we have had such a small debate on the enormous question of how on earth assisted dying would actually be delivered. We are leaving it to Ministers, subsequent to the passage of the Bill, to design this service. The clear possibility is that a private enterprise could run the service. It might be an NHS service. The fact that that is unclear in the Bill is shameful, but I am grateful we have had the opportunity to debate the matter, sort of, and I am not going to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 276, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) A medical practitioner must not conduct a preliminary discussion with a person under subsection (3) until a period of 28 days has elapsed, beginning with the day the person had received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.” —(Naz Shah.)
This amendment would mean a doctor could not conduct a preliminary assessment until 28 days from the day the person received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 345, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) If a registered medical practitioner conducts such a preliminary discussion with a person, the practitioner must record and document the discussion and the information provided to the patient in their medical record and provide a copy to the patient.”
This amendment would add a requirement ensuring that the preliminary discussion is recorded and forms part of the patient’s medical record.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 288, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(6) All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”
This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record efforts to dissuade the person from taking their own life and subsequently make this available to the medical examiner.
Amendment 297, in clause 7, page 4, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) Any consultation as part of the assessment must have a full written transcript as its record of the conversation.”
This amendment would require all consultations for the first assessment to have a full written transcript.
Amendment 295, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert “, and
(d) collate all evidence provided regarding the condition of the patient in a document to be provided to the Medical Examiner and the relevant Chief Medical Officer after the person has received assistance to die in accordance with this Act.”
This ensures that the documentation that will be required by the Medical Examiner will be available when required.
Amendment 300, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) Any consultation as part of the assessment must have a full written transcript as its record of the conversation.”
This amendment would require all consultations for the second assessment to have a full written transcript.
Amendment 302, in clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert “and
(c) provide details of the way the assessment was conducted and the written transcript of any consultation to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the person’s own GP, maintaining a copy to be supplied to the relevant Medical Examiner after the person’s death.”
This amendment will ensure that medical records are in line with procedures for presentation to the Medical Examiner.
New clause 19—Recording of preliminary discussion—
“(1) This section applies where a registered medical practitioner (‘the practitioner’) conducts a preliminary discussion with a person.
(2) Where the practitioner is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, they must, as soon as practicable, record the preliminary discussion in the person’s medical records.
(3) In any other case—
(a) the practitioner must, as soon as practicable, give a written record of the preliminary discussion to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice, and
(b) that registered medical practitioner must, as soon as practicable, include the record in the person’s medical records.”
This new clause requires a practitioner to include, in the person in question’s medical records, a record of a preliminary discussion under clause 4.
Sean Woodcock
Amendment 345 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon); I referred earlier to her record in this area. The amendment would ensure that medical practitioners record and document preliminary discussions with a patient about assisted dying and provide the patient with that information. I welcome the amendments from the Bill’s promoter to make records of the first and second doctor’s assessments. Those safeguard patients and the process. It is important that we have transparency and clarity on such weighty decisions.
Several people raised in their written evidence the importance of good documentation. These amendments meet those concerns. I assume that not including a record of the preliminary discussion is merely an oversight by the Bill’s promoter. The amendment seeks to do what she says she wants to do—protect patients and doctors—by making records of the discussions.
In written evidence TIAB55, Professor Allan House suggested that
“It should be required as it is in all other areas of medical practice, that specific written records are kept of this assessment and of procedures followed to end life—not just the substances used. The written record to be included in the person’s medical record so that it is available to the Medical Examiner. Records also to be available at appraisal to enable assessment of the quality of the process.”
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Will he take note of my new clause 19, which is in this group and states that the preliminary discussion has to be recorded?
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful for that intervention, which goes to the heart of my next question: why would we record and document later conversations, but not the initial one? That conversation could be one in which coercion takes place and without a record of it happening, patients and doctors are at risk. We have acknowledged that patients can be influenced by their doctors, whether consciously or unconsciously. We also noted how certain groups lack trust in the healthcare system. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in her written evidence, TIAB252, explained that the various inequalities faced by certain communities
“contribute to mistrust in health and social care services”
and that
“minority patients frequently express fear of having their lives shortened by healthcare providers, especially at the end-of-life with medication such as morphine and midazolam.”
In situations where patients are uncertain or lack trust in medical professionals, a record of the initial conversation is important to protect everyone involved. As Professor House stated, documenting the process and making records is common medical practice, so why would we differ here? We must protect patients and doctors, and making clear records at every stage of the process contributes to that.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendments 288 and 295 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), both of which would improve the quality of records kept about people applying for assisted dying. Their aim is to make parliamentary and public scrutiny of the system easier and better. Amendment 288 would insert a new subsection at the end of clause 4, on page 2, line 36, reading:
“All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”
That recognises that a doctor may follow existing guidelines and seek to dissuade the person from ending their life. It would ensure that such efforts are recorded to improve understanding of the Bill and its interaction with suicide prevention. As Professor Allan House noted in his written evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines apply
“in other areas where it is important to explore thoughts about life not being worth living”.
After an episode of self-harm or instances of suicidal thoughts, the medical professionals will explore
“current and recent personal and social circumstances, recent adversities, psychological state beyond merely assessing mental capacity and the presence of severe mental illness.”
In line with this suicide prevention strategy, a doctor may feel the need to explore those psychosocial factors and seek to dissuade the person from ending their life. We know that suicidal thoughts and depression are particularly common among terminally ill people. Dr Annabel Price, a member of the faculty of liaison psychiatry at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, gave oral evidence that among people who need palliative care at the end of their life,
“20% will have diagnosable depression, around 10% will have a wish to hasten death, and around 4% will have a more persistent wish to hasten death.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 270, Q351.]
She went on to say:
“Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275-276, Q359.]
Terminally ill people are therefore at particular risk, and it is vital that the Bill does not diminish wider suicide prevention strategies. The amendment would record instances where the medical practitioner may try to dissuade the person from ending their life. Some doctors may take the view of Professor Allan House, who said in his written evidence,
“a statement about wanting to end one's life cannot be simply taken as the result of a straightforward rational decision to choose one type of end of life care over others.”
Furthermore, this amendment would also address some of the concerns about unconscious bias. Recording efforts to dissuade the person from ending their life would show when doctors assume a person should have an assisted death where others should not. Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK spoke about this in her oral evidence:
“We often find that doctors, because they cannot treat or cure us, do devalue our lives. We have had disabled people who have actually had it suggested to them or their families that their lives are expendable, when actually those people have got a lot of years to give.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 180, Q234.]
Providing records of a doctor’s efforts to dissuade the person from ending their life will address some of these concerns. It will ensure that there can be a more meaningful review of the impact of the Bill on different groups, so that the right to die does not become a duty to die.
In conclusion, amendment 288 would strengthen the safeguards in the Bill by ensuring transparency and accountability in doctor-patient discussions by requiring the documentation of efforts to dissuade individuals from ending their lives. We would lessen the impact of the Bill on wider suicide prevention strategies and provide evidence for meaningful review at a later date.
Amendment 295, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, is about enabling public and parliamentary scrutiny of the assisted dying system. It will ensure that, if the Bill passes, there are good records of all applications for assisted dying and that they are readily available to the medical examiner. Some Members will know exactly what the medical examiner does, but I note for the record that it is a newly created public office, in operation since 2024. The task of the medical examiner is to examine any deaths within the context of healthcare, whether NHS or private, that are not being examined by a coroner.
In light of the magnitude of the decision being made, it is important for records to reflect that. It is equally important that those who will depend on the evidence can access the same evidence on which the co-ordinating doctor made their determinations. Therefore, it is essential that the basis of the decision making is accurately recorded, along with the evidence from other practitioners. For instance, if a palliative care specialist, a clinical consultant and a psychiatrist or psychologist have been consulted, evidence of what they did and said must be readily available, and it is essential that that sits with the record of the co-ordinating doctor. The information must be gathered for the medical examiner to be able to come to their determination with all the evidence before them. It is also vital for the reporting mechanisms to be deployed for the process by which the chief medical officer compiles their report. That is ultimately what Parliament will be able to scrutinise.
Both these amendments would greatly improve the quality of records kept on assisted dying. If I recall correctly, the role of the medical examiner was brought into legislation following Shipman, to tidy up and tighten the records we keep—because clearly we had lessons to learn from them. Also, we have heard in evidence that some other jurisdictions keep good medical records, especially when that speaks to people who are potentially coerced. In one jurisdiction, we had somebody who said that they had never felt a burden, but there were many more who said that they had felt a burden.
There is no doubt that these services will continuously need improving. If we keep these records and understand that these conversations have been had then, ultimately, should this Bill become law, these records would form part of the data collection that we could rely on as parliamentarians and for those service improvements. The amendment speaks not just to the Bill itself, but to ensuring that it continues to do what it is intended to do going forward.
These amendments improve equality in assisted dying. That, in turn, will make it far easier for us in Parliament, for our constituents and for the media to find out what is happening with any assisted dying system. In this country, we believe in open justice and open Government. Assisted dying is much too important to be allowed to operate without strong scrutiny by the press, the public and ourselves in Parliament. I therefore urge hon. Members to vote for both these amendments.
Sojan Joseph
I rise to speak in support of the amendment. The documentation in our healthcare system is a very important matter. It helps us to share good practice and to learn from mistakes. Whether in secondary care, primary care or nursing homes, the quality and the safety of our patient care is monitored by the Care Quality Commission, which uses clinical documentation to carry out its process of monitoring that quality and safety. It is important that any conversation had with patients by the doctor, or by any medical professional or multidisciplinary team, is documented clearly. That will help to safeguard our patients.
Stephen Kinnock
This series of amendments relates to the various discussions and assessments that registered medical practitioners, co-ordinating doctors and independent doctors will have with individuals seeking assistance to end their life in accordance with the Bill. In particular, they seek to amend the requirement for recording information about those discussions. As I have done throughout, I will limit my remarks to comments on legal and practical impacts of amendments. In executing our duty to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with the hon. Member for Spen Valley on amendments to the Bill, including new clause 19 in this group.
Amendment 345 would require the registered medical practitioner, following a preliminary discussion with a person, to record and document in that patient’s medical records the discussion and any information provided to the patient, and it would require them to provide a copy to the patient.
Amendment 288 adds an additional requirement on the registered medical practitioner who conducts an initial discussion with the person on the subject of an assisted death to record all efforts to dissuade a person from ending their own life in the person’s medical records, and subsequently to make those records available to the medical examiner. As drafted, it is not clear whether the wording “all efforts” is intended to include efforts made by the registered medical practitioner alone, or to include efforts made by others that could be reported to the registered medical practitioner. Further clarity would be needed to establish the practical implications of the amendment. The amendment does not require this information to be recorded at a specific time. I would also note that, operationally, medical examiners are not involved in scrutinising all deaths. Some deaths are investigated by coroners. Clause 29 will consider inquests and death certifications in relation to assisted death.
Amendment 297 requires a full written transcript to be produced for any consultations that occur as part of the first assessment undertaken by the co-ordinating doctor. That would potentially add some operability challenges and, if passed, we would want to explore those further. For example, there could be situations in which the person seeking assistance does not want there to be a written transcript. Further clarity is also required on whether the amendment intends to capture only consultations between the co-ordinating doctor and the patient, or whether it also intends to capture conversations with relevant persons other than the person seeking an assisted death.
I turn now to amendment 295. As the Bill stands, if, having carried out the first assessment, the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the person being assessed has met all requirements in clause 7(2), the co-ordinating doctor must:
“(a)make a statement to that effect in the form set out in Schedule 2, and sign and date it,
(b) provide the person who was assessed with a copy of the statement, and
(c) refer that person, as soon as practicable, to another registered medical practitioner who…is able and willing to carry out the second assessment”.
Amendment 295 seeks to add an additional requirement for the co-ordinating doctor to
“collate all evidence provided regarding the condition of the patient in a document to be provided to the Medical Examiner and the…Chief Medical Officer after the person has received assistance to die”
in accordance with the Bill. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the documentation will be available when required by the medical examiner.
Naz Shah
The Minister referred to a patient not wanting to keep a written record. How does that fare if there is a potential issue of negligence later on? Is that not a requirement of every NHS service that we provide? For example, in the case of a kidney donation where an independent assessor was needed, the details would have to be kept. I am just a bit confused. I wonder if the Minister might comment on that.
Stephen Kinnock
The challenge we found with amendment 297 is that it is not entirely clear what would happen if the person were to say expressly that they did not want a written record. That eventuality is not baked into the Bill as it is currently drafted, so I think it would require a lot of thinking through—again, we are back to the law of unintended consequences—about the impact the amendment would have in certain circumstances if, for example, someone were to say expressly that they did not want a written record. That is the question: the impact of the amendment is not clear.
Naz Shah
If that is an issue, then it is my understanding, being new to Bill Committees, that it is not because the provision is poorly drafted, but because the outcome is not clear. Can the Government not clarify that on Report or Third Reading? I have heard nothing from the Government, even where they are supportive of amendments, about going away and looking at them. There is none of that conversation coming from the Government. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Stephen Kinnock
As my hon. Friend knows, there will be an impact assessment on the Bill once it has cleared Committee. The Government’s impact assessment would be based on the Bill as it cleared Committee, so it would include the amendment we are discussing, if it were to pass. As things stand, I cannot tell her what the impact of the amendment would be in the event that it passed, because that has not been thought through from all the different angles, including if someone were to expressly say that they did not want a written transcript.
I turn to amendment 300, which would require a full written transcript of the second assessment as a record of the conversation. This goes further than the requirement that the Bill currently places on the independent doctor, which is to make a statement in the form in schedule 3. As with amendment 297, further clarity is required on whether the amendment is intended only to cover consultations with the patient, or whether conversations with other individuals should also be transcribed.
Amendment 302 would require the independent doctor to provide details of the way in which the second assessment was conducted alongside a written transcript of any consultation to the relevant chief medical officer and the person’s GP.
Naz Shah
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I want to understand the idea that someone might say that they do not want a written transcript, when everybody in our country who uses the NHS has a written medical record. Why, in this instance, are the Government of the view that we should stray from normal practice?
Stephen Kinnock
I think it reflects the fact that, as the Committee has agreed, we are in uncharted territory on a whole range of issues here. I think it is best to think through the implications of every amendment. If it passes, every clause of the Bill will have to be assessed for its potential impact. I have other questions about amendment 297 in my notes. Does it intend to capture only the consultations between the co-ordinating doctor and the patient, or does it intend also to capture conversations with relevant persons other than the person seeking an assisted death? That is not clear from the amendment. What I am saying is that it poses more questions than it answers.
Kim Leadbeater
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that a patient could ask for access to their medical records at any point. On the basis that new clause 19 requires the doctor to record a preliminary discussion, presumably, if a patient wanted to see that record, they would be able to.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with my hon. Friend on that point. As I stated at the start of my comments, officials have worked with her on new clause 19, which I think goes a long way to clearing up many of the points that have been raised, including hers.
The Chair
Order. The Minister is in the middle of responding to a particular question. Will Members wait until he has done so before standing up to ask a question on a question, please?
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I have answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and am happy to take another intervention.
Juliet Campbell
Throughout the debate, we have spoken consistently about things that happen normally within medical practice, but the amendment we are discussing would move us away from ordinary practice. Could the Minister explain why we would do that?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have set out, officials have looked at amendment 297 and raised a couple of flags or questions about it. One is what we have discussed about the transcript. The other is that it is not clear whether other people should be included in the consultation. I do not think it is so much about departing from common practice as about the questions that the amendment raises. As always, the Government are neutral. The Government trust that if the Committee, in its wisdom, sees fit to pass the amendment, it will be workable, but as things stand it raises a number of questions. That is all I am flagging.
Naz Shah
The Minister is being generous with his time. I am even more confused now. Originally, the Minister suggested that a patient might not want a transcript, but in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, he mentioned that under new clause 19 people will have access to their written records. That appears to be a contradiction. I just want to nail this down. What will it be? If a patient does not want a written record, we would not have a written record to access, so that contradicts the Minister’s response. I want to understand exactly what the Minister is suggesting.
Stephen Kinnock
The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The Government’s view is that if the Committee accepts it, then that new clause will provide the level of robustness and resilience that the system requires. The Government are not convinced that, on its own, the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is talking about would provide the level of robustness and resilience we would be looking for. As things stand, the choice has been made to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19, and we are satisfied that that would provide us with the operational integrity we need.
Amendment 302 would require the independent doctor to provide details of the way in which the second assessment was conducted, alongside a written transcript of any consultation to the relevant chief medical officer and the person’s GP. The independent doctor would be required to maintain a copy of that record to provide to the relevant medical examiner.
As I have mentioned, in executing our duty to ensure that the Bill, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on new clause 19. The new clause would require a practitioner to include a record of a preliminary discussion having taken place under clause 4. The record of the preliminary discussion must be included in the person’s medical records. Where the medical practitioner is a member of the person’s GP practice, they must make such a record in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable. Where the medical practitioner is not a member of the person’s GP practice, they must, as soon as practicable, provide a written record of the preliminary discussion to a medical practitioner at the person’s GP practice, who will then be required by the new clause to include it in the person’s medical records as soon as practicable.
The Committee may wish to note that amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the Bill that would make it clear what discussion medical practitioners would be required by law to record.
That concludes my remarks on this group. I thank the Committee for its attention.
Kim Leadbeater
I rise to speak briefly to my new clause 19, which refers to the recording of the preliminary discussion. It would require the practitioner to include in the medical records of the person in question a record of a preliminary discussion under clause 4. The initial discussion with the patient is very important and, as such, should be recorded in their records. I hope that colleagues agree and will support the new clause.
Sean Woodcock
I would like to press amendment 345 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before I call Danny Kruger to move amendment 412, I remind Members to keep within scope and to ensure that any points raised are relevant and not repetitive, or I will intervene.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 412, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert
“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”
This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.
Amendment 338, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out from “so” to end of line 36 and insert
“direct them to another registered medical practitioner or the independent information and referral service established under section [Independent information and referral service]”.
This amendment, which is linked to NC13, would mean that a registered medical practitioner who was unwilling to have preliminary discussions would direct the person to another registered medical practitioner or an independent information and referral service.
Amendment 287, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 36, and insert
“who is qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion, and set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end of life care, including referring them to a palliative medicine expert.”
This amendment means that the medical practitioner who is unwilling to have an initial discussion with a person must, both refer them to another registered medical practitioner and set out the palliative care options including referring them to a specialist.
New clause 13—Independent information and referral service—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to establish an independent information and referral service to—
(a) provide information to persons who are, or may be, eligible for assisted dying in accordance with this Act, and
(b) where requested, facilitate the person’s access to assisted dying in accordance with this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for an independent information and referral service.
Danny Kruger
I rise to speak to this important group of amendments, which are all relevant to the duty to refer, whereby a doctor who does not want to advise a patient on assisted dying is obliged to send them to somebody who does. In different ways, we each seek to provide more protections for those medical professionals.
There are two main reasons why doctors may not want the obligation to refer that is in the Bill. The first is the central point that this is not a healthcare treatment, as is traditionally understood. Assisted dying does not address the condition or treat the illness; it treats only the symptoms, in the sense that it obliterates the existence of the patient. Like the advert for bleach says, it “kills all known germs”—it kills every experience that the patient has or could have. It is not part of the range of treatments that a doctor should have to offer, as clause 4(1) makes clear.
That point similarly relates to the question of referring to somebody who can offer that discussion. I suggest that the act of referring is an act of endorsement, just as offering the intervention itself is an act of endorsement. Dr Green from the BMA made it clear during oral evidence that the BMA does not like the word “refer”, as it implies assent to the option that is being offered. Indeed, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, in conversation with Dr Green during evidence, accepted that the word “refer” was “not…quite right”, as she put it, because it has the particular implication and expectation of a form of endorsement.
We have heard the same opinion from multiple witnesses in written and oral evidence to the Committee, particularly from Muslim medical professionals and their trade body. Those representing pharmacists also expressed significant concern that they might find themselves included in the definition of medical practitioner. The Association of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Nursing were worried as well. A range of professional bodies and representative organisations share my concern that imposing a duty to refer—an obligation to assist somebody to have an assisted death by finding them a doctor who will conduct the preliminary discussion—is itself a breach of their rights of conscience.
The second reason follows from the first. Doctors may reasonably conclude that being in a position to help with assisted dying puts them in a totally different relationship with their patients. That is why the BMA is so unhappy and has asked for the requirement to be removed. It has an alternative, which some of these amendments also propose. It said:
“We urge the committee to remove the referral requirement and, instead, make it clear that the doctor’s duty is to direct patients to where they can obtain information”.
That is what amendment 341, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), would do. The BMA suggests that
“this should be an official body set up to provide individual information and advice to patients, to which patients could be referred or directed to, or could self-refer.”
My preference would be not to have any obligation on doctors to make any kind of referral, but I respect the aspiration of the amendment, which is to ensure that there is an independent body to give advice that patients can seek out themselves or that they can be advised of, so there is no expectation of a referral to a doctor who can facilitate the assisted death.
The Royal College of General Practitioners is also unhappy about the provision. It suggests that instead of expecting doctors
“to refer directly to a medical practitioner who is ‘willing and able to conduct that discussion’”—
as per the Bill—
“the doctor’s duty would be to direct patients to an official service where they can obtain objective and accurate information”.
I think we should pay heed to the advice of the professionals.
As ever, I would like to refer to the experience of foreign jurisdictions, because we are constantly told that this Bill is the safest in the world. None of the legislation in Australia or New Zealand, or the legislation currently going through in the Isle of Man, puts an obligation to refer on to doctors. Victoria and South Australia’s legislation says that a doctor has the right to refuse to participate in the request for assistance process and to give information about voluntary assisted dying, so there is no duty to refer—not even a duty to provide information.
I conclude with an observation that was submitted to us by Dr David Randall, a consultant nephrologist. It was very telling that he said in written evidence:
“I would not be willing to act in accordance with Section 4(5) of the Bill. I am a doctor in good standing with the GMC, and who has always striven to provide the highest standards of care to patients. Passage of this Bill would place my practice in direct opposition to the criminal law.”
He talks about “moral injury”, which is a very important principle. We have an obligation to protect the conscience and human rights of medical professionals.
We are still unclear whether this process will take place within the NHS or outside it. Nevertheless, the obligation to refer in the Bill would be a direct breach of doctors’ rights and would impose a moral injury on them. My preference is to remove clause 4(5) altogether, as that would be consistent with the Abortion Act 1967 and similar legislation on assisted dying in other countries. If we are not prepared to do that, we should at least restrict the obligation and provide more protections, as per the amendments in the names of other hon. Members.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak in support of amendment 341 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion must provide information to the patient about where they can have that discussion, but that need not take the form of a referral.
One of the messages that we heard loud and clear in the evidence sessions was that medical practitioners do not wish to be put under an obligation to refer a patient to another registered medical practitioner by the Bill. “Referral” has a very specific meaning in medicine, and it is that word and the corresponding action required of it that many doctors have an issue with. A referral puts a patient on a pathway, whereas the provision of information merely indicates where such a pathway can be found. During oral evidence, Dr Green said:
“The word ‘referral’, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q41.]
We are well aware that assisted dying is a complex issue and a matter of conscience for many. It is therefore important that we respect the personal views of medical practitioners. One of the points that I have made several times in these proceedings is that assisted dying affects not just the patient but other people participating and supporting. Some medical practitioners will be comfortable with it, but many others will not. It is therefore vital that we recognise their rights and needs, not just the patients’, when formulating this law. If for whatever reason a doctor does not want to refer a patient, they should not have to. Their legal responsibility should be limited to directing the patient to where they can find the relevant information that they need. Doctors should have no further obligation.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the hon. Member for those important points. I reassure her, and possibly other Committee members, that I am minded to support amendment 341.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I will be brief. I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley confirm that she is minded to support amendment 341. It is incumbent on all of us, but perhaps particularly those in favour of the Bill, to place on record our appreciation and recognition of the fact that many people who work in our health services have strongly held religious beliefs, or beliefs of conscience—however they are motivated. As is the case for a range of other procedures and medical interventions, the law has to allow them scope to continue to practise. They make a valuable contribution to our health service and national life, and we should not do anything to impinge on that.
There is already strong guidance from the General Medical Council about personal belief, and that applies, as the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, to the Abortion Act, as well as to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and other procedures. It is not for any of us to second-guess someone’s conscience.
Lewis Atkinson
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I gently say that the GMC guidance specifically references that Act, so that is what I was referring to.
I am pleased to see amendment 341, which I believe would bring the legislation into line with that GMC guidance, ensuring that removing the duty to refer would absolutely not be a licence for people to be left without access to care. The GMC is very clear, as the hon. Member for Reigate said, that people must be given sufficient information and be empowered to seek the options and information that they need. Therefore, I am pleased to support the amendment.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that she is minded to accept amendment 341. I will, however, still briefly speak to amendment 338 and new clause 13, which stand in my name.
The British Medical Association has said that it strongly urges MPs to support the amendments, which would remove the referral requirement in relation to preliminary discussions and establish an official body to provide factual information to patients about the range of options available to them. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned, Dr Green, in his oral evidence, said:
“The provision of information would be very useful, because in a situation where a doctor was unwilling to have an initial discussion with the patient, it would provide a way for the patient to get that information that was in no way obstructive.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q37.]
He went on to say:
“I do not believe that it is ever appropriate for a doctor to recommend that a patient goes through an assisted dying process.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q40.]
He also said:
“The word “referral”, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q41.]
The BMA’s position is that the proposal is analogous to doctors’ professional legal obligations regarding abortion, and consistent with the Bill’s inclusion in clause 23 of a right to refuse, for any reason, to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying. It has said:
“In tandem, we believe creating an official body to provide individual information and advice to patients, to which doctors could direct (rather than refer) patients, would ensure that the doctor’s views are respected, whilst also—crucially—ensuring that patients can easily access the information and support they need. Currently, whilst the Bill acknowledges the need for accurate, impartial information and advice for patients, it gives no indication of how this might be delivered—generic published information would not be sufficient. Patients would need individual advice, guidance, and support so that they can make informed decisions, and an independent information service could meet this need.”
As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners also said:
“The BMA referred to the word “refer”—referring to a colleague, for those who did not want to do it. We agree that signposting is a better process.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 279, Q365.]
He went on to say:
“Similar to other services, such as termination of pregnancy, we think that the best option would probably be that the GP could signpost to an information service, such as something like what the BMA suggested the other day. They would not have to do anything more than that, and they would not withhold any option from the patient.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 273, Q354.]
Therefore, I commend amendment 338 and new clause 13 to the Committee.
Naz Shah
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I rise to speak to amendment 287, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Clause 4(5) currently says:
“A registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion mentioned under subsection (3) must, if requested by the person to do so, refer them to another registered medical practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct that discussion.”
If this amendment was to be adopted, it would read:
“A registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion mentioned under subsection (3) must, if requested by the person to do so, refer them to another registered medical practitioner who is qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion, and set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end of life care, including referring them to a palliative medicine expert.”
Put simply, the amendment would mean that if a doctor met with a patient with a severe illness who might die within six months, but the doctor was themselves unwilling to have an initial discussion on assisted dying, they would still have to refer the patient on to a doctor who was willing to have that discussion. The patient’s decision to explore assisted dying would not be obstructed; the main change would be that that doctor would now have to discuss palliative care options with the patient. That is surely a measure that would increase the patient’s welfare.
Let us think about the kind of patient who can apply for assisted dying. They must have a diagnosis of a serious illness and a prognosis that they are likely to die within six months. The Bill’s supporters have said many times that they are worried about any changes that will reduce the autonomy of people seeking assisted death. This amendment quite obviously does not in any way reduce people’s autonomy, nor does it in any way place an unreasonable burden upon doctors. If a patient has a diagnosis of a serious illness, and if they have themselves asked for a conversation on assisted dying, then it surely must be good practice for that doctor to discuss palliative care options.
It is also only good practice that one of those options would be for the doctor, if the patient wishes, to refer the patient to a palliative medicine specialist who is more able to talk about such options. That means that the amendment would not place any undue burden on either the doctor or the patient. The doctor ought to be offering such advice on palliative care. The patient may or may not decide to take the doctor’s advice on palliative care, but they have had it, and the patient may well benefit from having had advice on palliative care.
Given the conversations we had this morning, I can foretell one objection to this amendment: that since good doctors will do this anyway, it is unnecessary to have a provision on the face of the Bill to ensure it. This seems to me a very weak objection. Let us be honest, the doctors that we have in this country are of extremely high quality. They are dedicated, skilled and compassionate men and women. We are lucky to have them, but we cannot say that every doctor participating in all the processes that they currently undertake always follow best practice.
Similarly, we simply cannot say that in any assisted dying process doctors will always automatically follow best practice. People make mistakes. That includes people who are highly trained and extremely compassionate. I would be astonished if we could find a doctor who said they had always got everything right. As lawmakers, we have to guard against the fact that even some of our most admired professionals can and sometimes will make mistakes. One way that we will guard against that is to set out duties that they have to follow. This amendment does just that.
I hope that we will not hear the objection that we have heard to a great many good amendments: that it will somehow make the Bill more dangerous by adding complications. The amendment simply adds a small step, by placing a duty on a doctor to give palliative care advice to a patient with a diagnosis of serious illness. Surely the Bill cannot be so lacking in robustness that such a small change would make it dangerous.
In summary, the amendment is a sensible change. It would in no way block the ability of adults who meet the conditions set out by this Bill to explore assisted dying, nor would it place any burden at all upon doctors. It would simply place upon them a duty to follow what we can all surely agree is best practice, and it would greatly improve the early access to palliative care advice for patients with a diagnosis of serious illness. That would improve those patients’ chances of receiving good palliative care. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 412 would remove the duty in clause 4(5) on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct that discussion. Guidance for medical professionals requires that, where a practitioner objects to performing a procedure, they must refer the patient to a practitioner who can meet their needs.
Amendment 341 removes the duty on a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to, upon request, refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom they believe is willing and able to conduct that discussion. The amendment requires the registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion with the person to instead ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.
New clause 13 would introduce a requirement for the Secretary of State to create, via regulations, an independent information and referral service for individuals who are, or may be, eligible under the Bill for assisted dying services. The accompanying amendment 338 would require a registered medical practitioner who is unwilling or unable to conduct the preliminary discussion to direct the person, upon that person’s request, to another registered medical practitioner or to the information and referral service, as set out in the new clause. The effect of this amendment is to remove the obligation in clause 4(5) for the registered medical practitioner to refer the person to another registered medical practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the initial discussion. This amendment would make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. In addition, these amendments could carry an operational impact, as the new service would need to be designed and brought into existence.
Amendment 287 would mean that, if the first practitioner is unable or unwilling to conduct the preliminary discussion, they must, upon request, refer the person to a registered medical practitioner who is qualified to undertake the preliminary discussion. They must also set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end-of-life care, including referring the person to a palliative medicine expert. This amendment removes the duty in clause 4(5) to refer to a practitioner whom the first practitioner believes is willing and able to conduct the preliminary discussion.
As with previous amendments, this language could make it more likely for a person seeking assistance to be referred to someone who is unwilling or unable to help. It is not clear what
“qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion”
is intended to mean. In addition, the term “palliative care expert” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for this speciality, provided they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. I hope these observations are helpful, and I thank the Committee for its attention.
Kim Leadbeater
I rise to speak to amendments 341, 338 and 412 together, and I welcome the debate on these important amendments. Choice is one of the key tenets of the Bill, primarily—but not exclusively—for terminally ill adults with a limited time to live. Choice is also very important for medical practitioners, and I am very respectful of, and acknowledge the importance of, conscientious objection for doctors. When it comes to assisted dying, I believe that they should also have choice. Indeed, the Bill is written so that they can choose not to participate in the process for any reason. That is the BMA’s view, and I agree with it.
The BMA has a position of neutrality on assisted dying, and there are a range of views within medical professions, as there are within all groups of people. That is why I have adopted its position of an opt-in model for the purposes of the Bill. Nevertheless, the process must remain patient focused at all times, and that means enabling them to have a discussion on such an important matter. It would not be right to rely on online advice or even the best-designed written materials. As we have already established, doctors are used to having sensitive and compassionate discussions with people who are terminally ill, and there can be no substitute for that. While a doctor may not wish to participate themselves, and I fully respect that, they still have a responsibility towards their patients, and that should include ensuring that they can speak to a properly qualified medical practitioner at such a difficult time.
I understand that the BMA and others would not be comfortable with the word “refer”, which I understand to have a special meaning within medical practice. The GMC guidelines use different language. They talk about where a doctor has a conscientious objection, in which case they are advised that they must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over their role. The BMA’s guidance says that patients must be able to see another doctor, as appropriate, and that it need not always be a formal procedure. It is not, however, sufficient to simply tell the patient to seek a view elsewhere—I agree completely.
The BMA supports amendment 341, which says that a doctor
“must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”
I am therefore happy to support the amendment today and, if it were to need further adjustment, I am very happy to consider alternatives based on existing best practice. I would be very happy to meet with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who is herself a doctor, to discuss her thoughts and draw on her considerable medical experience.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert
“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”—(Rebecca Paul.)
This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.
Juliet Campbell
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out from start of line to end of line 36 and insert
“who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.”
This amendment provides that only a medical practitioner who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners as provided for in NC7 would have a person referred to them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 126, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) Medical practitioners who wish to provide assistance under this Act must “opt-in” to the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners under clause (Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners).”
This amendment provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Act must have opted in to the Register of Medical practitioners.
New clause 7—Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, establish a Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.
(2) A medical professional may only carry out the role of co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor under this Act may if they are listed on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.
(3) Initial discussions under section 4 may only take place with a registered medical practitioner if they are listed on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) must provide that the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners includes all registered practitioners other than those to whom the conditions in subsections (5) and (6) apply.
(5) The condition in this subsection is that only medical practitioners who have completed such training as required by the Secretary of State by regulation must be listed on the Register.
(6) The condition in this subsection is that only medical practitioners who wish to provide assistance under the Act must “opt in” to be listed on the Register.
(7) Regulations under subsection (1) and subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1) and subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.
(9) Regulations under subsection (5) must be laid within six months of the passing of this Act.
(10) Regulations under subsection (1) must be laid within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State, by regulation, to create a Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners. Only those who are on the register would be able to hold initial discussions or act as a co-ordinating or independent doctor, or hold initial discussions under section 4 of the Act. Only those who have had training as specified by the Secretary of State in regulations can be on the Register. Registered medical practitioners would only appear on the register if they had “opted in”.
Juliet Campbell
I will speak to amendments 125 and 126, which are linked to new clause 7. Given the discussion we have just had, and given that amendment 341 has been made, I will not push amendment 125 to a vote. Amendment 126, however, provides that any medical practitioner who wishes to provide assistance under the Bill must have opted in to a register or a service for practitioners who are comfortable with providing care related to assisted dying. In other conversations, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said that the opt-in model is provided within the Bill. The challenge is that it is not explicit in the Bill, and I would like to see it so.
The BMA wrote in its evidence to the Committee:
“The Bill should be based on an ‘opt-in’ model, so that only those doctors who positively choose to participate are able to do so. Doctors who opt in to provide the service should also be able to choose which parts of the service they are willing to provide (e.g. assessing eligibility and/or prescribing for eligible patients)…An opt-in model is not explicit in the Bill…We urge the Committee to make it explicit in the Bill that this is an opt-in arrangement for doctors.”
The BMA says that it wants it explicit in the Bill, and at the moment it is not. The Royal College of General Practitioners aligned with this viewpoint, stating that an explicit opt-in system is completely necessary in the Bill. It is my hope that members of the Committee will support amendment 126, which I intend to push to a vote.
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that I will disappoint the hon. Lady by rising to oppose her amendments, although I understand why she has tabled them.
It was clear from the BMA’s evidence that it opposes the creation of a list of registered providers, which the hon. Lady proposes to create with these amendments. The BMA’s opposition and my opposition are based on two or three—
Juliet Campbell
Based on the fact that we agreed on amendment 341, I am prepared not to press amendment 125 to a vote. It is amendment 126 that I am proposing.
Kit Malthouse
I understand that, but amendment 126 also refers to a register of appropriate medical practitioners being maintained. Of course, new clause 7 would similarly create such a list. We are debating all three proposals, so I wanted to explain why I oppose them, as indeed the BMA does.
As has been outlined in previous speeches, the Bill creates an opt-in model effectively, whereby people who want to be the co-ordinating doctor or indeed the second doctor have to opt in and be trained, and therefore become accredited, so by definition they would be approved for that service.
However, the Bill does not envisage that the initial conversation is necessarily with the co-ordinating doctor. There might well be other medical personnel or practitioners—we have talked a lot about semantics in this debate—who are presented with the situation where a desperate person, somebody who has been given some extremely bad news, wants to talk about their situation and what their options might be. We hope and believe that training will spread throughout the NHS to those who want it. Nevertheless, we have to leave open the option that someone may not be accredited and that they may need to pass on someone, by whatever means the Bill determines, to a doctor who is accredited, who can act as the co-ordinating doctor, who has had the appropriate training and opted in, and I am afraid the register would not allow for that.
The second thing that concerns me slightly, and which we need to avoid for the benefit of both the patient and the system, is any kind of “doctor shopping”—the notion that there is a list of doctors that I can shop around and choose from. I worry slightly about that.
My hope is that these types of conversations, which are necessarily private and sensitive, will take place in an environment of embrace and familiarity between doctor and patient. We have talked a bit about whether doctors have to refer or provide information—obviously, we have just accepted an amendment that seeks to set out how that will work. What I would oppose, for two reasons, is the creation of a list that people can move up and down on, and pick somebody they like the look of, or who they think might be handy for them. First, I am not sure that it would be entirely reputable; secondly, we have to remember who we are dealing with here. These are dying people who may not have long left to live—we are talking about six months as a minimum, but actually they might have only two or three months to go. We need to create a sense that this is something that will be provided to them in an environment that is familiar. They will not have to spend their time finding a doctor on a list, and their phone number, then ringing up their office and saying, “This is what I want to do. Can I make an appointment?” There is a privacy aspect to it.
My third objection is, to be honest, about privacy—not just that of the patient, but that of the doctor. The hon. Lady will know that unfortunately—I do not know whether she thinks it is unfortunate, but I do—there are some people who object so strongly, for example, to abortion that they are willing to go and protest outside clinics that provide that service. This House has legislated to balance the rights of those who want to avail themselves of that service and those who want to protest. That has been a source of conflict.
I am afraid that a public list of doctors who provide this service would raise questions about the privacy of doctors, about patient privacy and about access to that service. I am concerned about it from that point of view.
Kit Malthouse
We do not necessarily have specific registers. People are members of professional bodies, and within those professional bodies, people become accredited because of their training. As the Minister referred to earlier, there is no such thing as a list of palliative care specialists; it is not defined in that way. Creating a list in this way would present problems for the privacy of doctor and patient as they go about what I hope we all acknowledge is a very sensitive and private process at the very end of someone’s life. I will conclude at that point and say that, unfortunately, with great respect to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, I oppose these amendments.
Stephen Kinnock
As amendments 125 and 126 are consequential on new clause 7, I shall speak to them as a whole and not in turn. The purpose of the amendments appears to be twofold. First, they seek to restrict the role of medical practitioners who can hold an initial discussion to those who have completed training. That training would be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations and would make them eligible to be listed on the register of assisted dying medical practitioners.
Secondly, the amendments seek to apply the same principle to the co-ordinating or independent doctor. In addition, they would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations that would create the register to sit outside or alongside the current system of registration of medical practitioners and set out the training requirements to be eligible to be listed on the register.
Both sets of regulations are to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making them. The regulations making provision for the relevant training requirements must be laid within six months of the passing of this Act. The regulations establishing the register must be laid within 12 months of the passing of the Act.
Although the purpose of the amendments is clear, our assessment suggests that the drafting would not achieve the desired effect, because the register would include only those doctors who have not undertaken the specified training or who have opted out of the assisted dying service. Additionally, the suggested timeframe for laying regulations is unworkable, given the need to work with regulators and the proposed duty to consult. There are also significant operability concerns regarding the creation of a new register for a subset of registered medical practitioners.
I hope that the Committee has found those observations helpful. I thank Members for their attention.
The Chair
For clarity, amendment 125 is not being pressed to a Division, as I understand it. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe withdraws amendment 125, there will be an opportunity to vote on amendment 126 and new clause 7 later.
Juliet Campbell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 288, in clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
“(6) All efforts to dissuade the person from ending their own life must be recorded in the clinical records and subsequently made available to the medical examiner.”—(Sean Woodcock.)
This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record efforts to dissuade the person from taking their own life and subsequently make this available to the medical examiner.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I understand that the hon. Member for Reigate wishes to make a point on clause 4 stand part. I am minded to allow a debate on clause 4 stand part, but I remind hon. Members that I do not expect relitigating or rehashing. The debate will have a very narrow scope; it will not be an opportunity to rehash. The Question is simply whether the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. With that caveat, I call Rebecca Paul.
Rebecca Paul
I very much appreciate the opportunity, Mr Dowd. I will attempt to be brief.
First, I welcome the acceptance of amendment 414, in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich; of amendment 108, in the name of the hon. Member for East Thanet; of amendment 275, in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central; and of amendment 341, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. The amendments strengthen the clause, so I thank Committee members for accepting them.
I have one pertinent point to put on the record about clause 4. The clause deals with what is and is not included in the initial discussion with registered medical practitioners, so the definition of assisted dying, as well as what it actually is, becomes relevant to understanding what guidance does and does not come into play. During these proceedings, there has been a tendency to speak as if assisted dying were another type of treatment or healthcare option being offered by medical practitioners, rather than a completely different and separate offering. It has been said many times that assisted dying should be treated in the same way as any other treatment and that the existing guidance from the GMC sets out appropriate best practice and should applicable and relied on. I have some concerns about that, which I wish to put on the record.
The legal norm, and GMC guidance, is that patients should be offered all reasonable medical treatments. A medical treatment can be defined as something that combats disease or disorder. It is fundamentally about healing, relief of symptoms, recovery and cure, so straightaway we have a conflict. Assisted dying ends the life of a person; it is not a treatment in the normal sense of the word. It is important that it is not a treatment, so that doctors are not obliged to offer it in the same way that they would offer another, more normal, medical treatment.
The Association for Palliative Medicine’s written evidence covers the point:
“A crucial question is whether or not assisted death by lethal medication is considered to be a medical treatment. Given that doctors are required to assess eligibility for, prescribe, and be present at the administration of the medication, AD might be considered to be a ‘medical treatment’. If this is the case then either assisted dying should be offered to all people meeting the eligibility criteria, or doctors need to behave differently towards this medical treatment than to all other treatments. Both of these approaches are contrary to all prior medical practice and public expectation, and laden with risks of unintended consequences.
The APM recommends that if AD is implemented in England & Wales it is done outside of ‘usual medical practice’ and is not regarded as medical treatment.”
This is because there are detrimental consequences from classifying assisted dying as treatment and relying on guidance. First, it could undermine the doctor-patient relationship by confusing the distinction between healing and ending life. Patients who are used to looking to their caregivers for help may worry that they will instead be put on a pathway to an assisted death. That could deter them from seeking medical help when they need it. Dr Jamilla Hussain spoke powerfully on that point, so I will not repeat it.
Secondly, the word “treatment” currently has largely positive connotations. If the word starts to be used for assisted dying, its meaning will change entirely. I wonder about the intersection with other pieces of guidance and law that refer to treatment, for example where treatment can legally be given without the consent of the patient. We all agree that assisted dying should never be administered without consent, but that is why we must be careful with our language and definitions. In certain situations, treatment can lawfully be given without consent, so it must follow that, to protect against the risk of unintended consequences, assisted dying is not deemed to be a treatment.
I ask the Minister’s view on that risk—I note that there is no reference in the Bill to assisted dying being a treatment, which is really good news—and his advice on how best to ensure that assisted dying is not and will never be considered a treatment as a consequence of the Bill or of any other statute or guidance. I also ask his view on the appropriateness of relying so heavily on GMC guidance for best practice, as I imagine that that guidance could change at any point without the consent of Parliament.
The Chair
At this point, I will not necessarily call Members, including the Minister, unless they particularly want to speak. If Members do wish to speak, will they please bob?
Danny Kruger
I think that we are just concluding one of the most important debates that the Committee will have: the debate on clause 4. I welcome the concession from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, particularly her commitment to modify the obligation to refer. That is welcome and will make the Bill a little safer.
In our debates on the clause, there has been clear confusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate has just mentioned, about the extent to which assisted dying is a healthcare treatment. That speaks to the question of whether there is an obligation on doctors to offer this treatment—as there should be, if it is a treatment that is one of a range of options for which the patient is eligible—or whether it is something that they are not obliged to offer. That confusion, which was present in the Committee’s exchanges, remains. I want to record in hon. Members’ memory the fact that that question was unresolved. In my view, that is extremely unsatisfactory.
Despite some welcome concessions, the Committee has just decided to reject a series of amendments that would have protected both doctors and patients. Most concerningly, we rejected an amendment to give children the right to be protected from the suggestion of an assisted death before they are even eligible for it.
I will conclude by referring to evidence, which I do not believe has been referred to so far in the debate, on the question of how assisted dying is received as a suggestion or offer, particularly by marginalised groups. I was very concerned by the oral evidence that we took from Professor Ahmedzai, who supports assisted dying. In written evidence, he has said explicitly that he especially wants the option to raise assisted dying with
“patients who are poorly educated, ill-informed or seem to be unaware of the option”.
He has explicitly required and requested the opportunity to put it to these disadvantaged, marginalised patients: “poorly-educated, ill-informed” people. Compassion in Dying, the sister organisation to Dignity in Dying, which supports the Bill, makes the same point: that marginalised people will need to be “directly prompted” with the offer.
I am afraid to say that, in rejecting the amendments, the Committee has endorsed the approach that people who are particularly marginalised and disadvantaged need to have this suggestion explicitly made to them. I am astonished that the Committee proposes to proceed on that basis, which completely misunderstands the dynamic of vulnerable people in the face of authority. I am very distressed to find that the Committee thinks that acceptable, and I am very sorry that apparently we are proceeding with the clause. I do not propose to put it to the vote, because the Committee’s will to proceed is fairly clear, but I hope that everybody is fully aware of what they are doing.
Naz Shah
I rise briefly to put on the record my disappointment. In our debates today on various amendments, we have discussed how some patients could see doctors’ language as a suggestion rather than an option. I make no apologies for the fact that I said that this could be the next Horizon scandal or the next infected blood scandal. I struggle with that.
A chap called Nick Wallis, who exposed the Horizon scandal, said something pertinent that I want to put on the record. He said that the difference is that there will not be anybody else left to campaign—
The Chair
Order. I am genuinely trying to provide as much latitude as possible, but the Question before the Committee is whether the clause stands part of the Bill.
The Chair
For Members’ benefit, as we are coming towards the end of the debate, let me say that I want people to be able to express their opinions as widely as possible, but it is also my responsibility as the Chair to ensure that that is contained within the parameters of our rules of debate.
Daniel Francis
Thank you for letting me speak, Mr Dowd. I will be brief.
As we reach the end of our debate on clause 4, I regret some of the decisions that we have made. I welcome the fact that in due course we will discuss amendment 418, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which also relates to the preliminary conversation. My concern remains that it is “a” preliminary conversation, not, in my determination, “the” preliminary conversation. My amendments would have meant that “the” preliminary conversation could not be held before someone is 18. As I read amendment 418, someone could have preliminary conversations before they are 18; it is just that it will be recorded that there was a preliminary conversation after they turned 18. I regret that, as clause 4 now stands, the paperwork and initial discussion must be completed after someone is 18, but that will not necessarily apply to a preliminary conversation.
Equally, I have some regrets in relation to learning disability issues. I welcome the commitment from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge on the amendment that she aims to bring forward, but I am conscious that it is not on the amendment paper for everybody to see. Just as she committed to work with me, I will continue to work with her on bringing it forward.
We have debated clause 4 long and hard, but I do believe that we have a clause that has loopholes in relation to people under 18 and to people with learning disabilities and autism. I will not press it to a Division, but I regret the fact that we have reached this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Initial request for assistance: first declaration
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 271, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) A person may not sign a first declaration within six months of being diagnosed with a condition which meets the requirements of section (2)(1)(a) unless they have received a psychosocial intervention in relation to their diagnosis with that condition.
(1B) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, create exceptions to the provisions of subsection (1A).
(1C) Regulations under subsection (1B) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would create a requirement that the person must have received a psychosocial intervention if a terminal diagnosis was received less than six months ago. The Secretary of State would be given a delegated power to create exceptions to such a requirement with regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 272, in clause 30, page 18, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) the form of the psychosocial intervention required under section 5(1A).”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 271, and would allow the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with the requirement for a psychosocial intervention.
Sarah Olney
I will not take up a huge amount of time, because a lot of what I wanted to say has been said in previous sittings, but I return to the issue of people who may request an assisted death who may also be suffering from a mental health condition. Amendment 271 was tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and specifically concerns people who have received their terminal illness diagnosis less than six months ago and whose prognosis is less than 6 months in the future. The amendment specifically addresses the fact that the risk of suicide for people who are suffering from a terminal illness increases when the diagnosis has been made less than six months before.
Professor Louis Appleby is a key academic in the area of suicide prevention and advises the Government on it. Research by him and Professor Sleeman found:
“Diagnosis of severe conditions was associated with an increased risk of dying by suicide”.
In particular, they found:
“The increase in risk was more pronounced in the first six months after diagnosis or first treatment.”
They concluded that:
“A diagnosis of severe physical illness is associated with higher suicide risk. The interaction of physical and mental illness emphasises the importance of collaborative physical and mental health care in these patients.”
We talked at length in an earlier sitting about the risk that bringing in an assisted dying law would undermine suicide prevention strategies and efforts to address the issue of suicide. It is important that we return to this issue, and that we look seriously at the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire, because it addresses the specific concern around those people who have had their diagnosis of terminal illness for less than six months and are therefore at a heightened risk of suicide.
NICE guidelines say that if someone is at risk of self-harm or suicide, a clinician must ensure that a psychosocial assessment has been carried out either by a mental health specialist or by a trained person in primary care. That should cover the person’s living arrangements, relationships, social support network, mental health disorders, risk factors, safeguarding concerns and so on. Professor Allan House told the Committee in oral evidence that this should be part of the assessment for assisted dying. He said the current assessment only answers the question:
“‘Is this person able to make decisions?’…it does not cover the psychological and social assessment.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 165, Q210.]
We have discussed at length the lack of the psychosocial assessment in relation to everybody who makes a request for an assisted death, but the amendment seeks to identify those who are at heightened risk of suicide—those who have received their diagnosis of terminal illness within the last six months—and specifically requires psychosocial assessments for those people.
Depression is common among those with terminal illness. Dr Price from the Royal College of Psychiatrists told the Committee that among
“people nearing the end of life…depression is…at around 20%—much more common than in the general population. We know that depression is strongly associated with a wish to hasten death”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.]
and that that wish is significantly alleviated if depression is treated, which is an extremely important point for the Committee to consider.
The Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, which is a user-led charity for those with muscle-weakening conditions such as muscular dystrophy, have stated in written evidence:
“Pathfinders members have outlined how important it is to ensure psychological assessments are part of the process in order to ensure that the individual is in a position to make an informed decision. One member outlined:
‘I’ve been there, I’ve wanted to die, and I’ve been in the position where I would take that option if it was given to me, but looking back I can see I was depressed and now I’m so glad that I didn’t take that option.’”
Currently, the Bill does not require anyone to explore any psychosocial factors in respect of someone’s situation. Although the person can be referred to a psychiatrist under clause 9(3), that only covers a capacity assessment. Again, it only answers the question of whether the person is able to make decisions, and addresses none of the other relevant factors. In Oregon, there is more room to explore those factors—the doctor may refer a patient for counselling if the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression, causing impaired judgment.
On addressing the risk of social pressure and internalised feelings of burden, the British Geriatrics Society warned in its written evidence:
“There is an established link between frailty and feeling a burden to others, meaning many older people with treatable clinical frailty may choose an assisted death to avoid burdening their family, which we view as unacceptable.”
The Committee has already discussed at length the issue of older people or people with a terminal illness wishing to choose an assisted death motivated by the wish to save their family money. Dr Jerram, Dr Wagland and Dr Davis found that attitudes towards assisted dying changed over time. Patients closest to death were least likely to want assisted dying, suggesting that fear of suffering was the driving cause and that it may lessen as end of life care improves.
Psychosocial care is fundamental to good end-of-life care. Committee members and witnesses from other jurisdictions have said that palliative care and assisted dying can complement each other, and that assessment should be part of the picture. Glyn Berry told the Committee about the importance of
“the psychosocial aspect of palliative and end-of-life care”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 53, Q58.]
In its written evidence, the British Association of Social Workers said that
“good health care is not just about clinical interventions”,
but also about
“the wider social context in which a person lives their life…This is particularly pertinent with assisted dying.”
That needs to come before the first declaration, because once somebody has signed that declaration, they are already on a pathway. The amendment would provide an opportunity for people’s needs to be met at the first opportunity.
In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of a psychosocial intervention, which was stressed by a number of witnesses giving oral evidence to the Committee. We have discussed this issue at length. Earlier amendments have been voted down, but I stress the particular importance of the amendment 271 for that group of people who are in the first months of their diagnosis of a terminal illness and the raised level of risk of suicide that they present.
Sojan Joseph
As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, we have repeatedly debated people’s mental health and how, once somebody has had a diagnosis of a terminal illness, it can have an impact on their decision making. Amendment 425, which we discussed earlier, is about having access to a multidisciplinary team. That team could have on it a social worker or a psychiatrist who would make a comprehensive assessment, which would cover amendment 271.
The amendment is an opportunity for the Committee to look into this issue, to make the Bill stronger, and to bring in safeguards for vulnerable people who may feel suicidal, and may feel a burden to society or to the healthcare system, and may choose this way. Those people who are vulnerable would have a psychosocial and mental health assessment, which would make the Bill stronger and safer.
Lewis Atkinson
I rise to speak against the amendment; there are significant issues with it both in practice and in principle. In terms of practice, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that the amendment does not mention a psychosocial assessment; it mentions mandating “a psychosocial intervention”. As defined by the World Health Organisation, a psychosocial intervention can be as brief as five minutes. I know that it is a brief intervention: I used to manage services delivering psychosocial interventions. Nowhere in the amendment is the type of psychosocial intervention or its purpose specified. If Members hope that the amendment will lead to a psychosocial assessment—
Sarah Olney
For clarity, if the amendment specified a psychosocial assessment, would the hon. Gentleman be minded to support it?
Lewis Atkinson
The holistic assessment is already set out elsewhere in the Bill, so the amendment is not required. Amendment 275, which we made to clause 4, requires “all appropriate” psychological support to have been discussed with an individual in advance of the first declaration. I clearly supported that amendment, and I am very grateful that the Committee did.
From a practical point of view, amendment 271 talks about six months from the point of diagnosis, but if I had prostate cancer, I might have had prostate cancer for absolutely years—so is it six months from the point of being diagnosed with prostate cancer or six months from the point of being told that that is terminal? There are a huge range of practical issues with the amendment as currently written, but there are also issues regarding the principle as well.
Sarah Olney
Would the hon. Gentleman not accept that a terminal illness in itself is a risk factor for an increased risk of suicide, and also that that risk is increased in the first six months following the diagnosis? That is the thinking behind the amendment.
Lewis Atkinson
I accept that that is a risk factor, but it is by no means determinative. Therefore, that risk factor has to be considered in the round with other risk factors such as levels of family and social support. As set out, the amendment does not distinguish between someone receiving a terminal diagnosis by themselves without any support network, and someone who expects to receive a terminal diagnosis at the end of a very long illness. As a point of principle I do not accept that we should mandate psychosocial interventions or that people must receive a level of healthcare in order for them to access other options related to their care—let alone the practicalities, which I have laid out, about when the provision would apply in relation to diagnosis and the fact that it is an intervention, which is in no way an assessment or any such thing.
Stephen Kinnock
I have made it clear throughout the debate that I am not offering a Government view on the merits of amendments. My remarks are focused much more on the legal and practical impacts of amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.
The amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire. They would create a further eligibility requirement of the person seeking assistance under the Bill. Amendment 271 and 272 would limit those eligible to seek assistance to end their own life, in circumstances where their terminal diagnosis was received less than six months prior to the date on which the person signs the first declaration, to those who have received a psychosocial intervention. This would be subject to any exceptions provided for by the Secretary of State in regulations. Amendment 271 does not define what is meant by “received a psychosocial intervention” in relation to their diagnosis.
The term “intervention” is usually employed in the health service to mean the provision of support or treatment. This is different from, for example, an assessment that a clinician might undertake to assess whether an intervention may be required. While there is not a standard definition of psychosocial intervention, we understand it to mean psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy. The amendment could create uncertainty as to what type of treatment a person will need to undergo to satisfy the requirement. If a person who would otherwise seek assistance to end their own life under the Bill is unable to, or does not wish to, receive a psychosocial intervention, unless an exemption applies, they may need to delay starting the assisted dying process until at least six months has elapsed from their terminal diagnosis. That could be challenging in circumstances where the terminal diagnosis has a prognosis of six months or less.
The amendment would also introduce a requirement for people in certain contexts to undergo an intervention that could undermine a person’s autonomy in making their own treatment decisions. Were the amendment made, it would confer a regulation-making power on the Secretary of State to create exceptions to the proposed provisions on psychosocial intervention. Regulations made using this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to issue a code of practice in connection with the form of the psychosocial intervention required.
If the Committee decides to accept the amendment, further consideration would be needed on Report to ensure that it is operationally deliverable, and my earlier comments about the definition of psychosocial intervention and other comments would have to be clarified. The Government would, of course, stand ready to assist were the amendment to pass.
As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed—as I have made clear, that is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations have been helpful, and thank the Committee for its attention.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing to add, other than to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central and those of the Minister.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 184, in clause 5, page 3, line 7, leave out “Schedule 1” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a first declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 289, in clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out “another person” and insert “another registered clinician”.
This amendment ensures that the second witness is a registered clinician.
Amendment 418, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must provide that the first declaration contains—
(a) the following information—
(i) the person’s full name and address;
(ii) the person’s NHS number;
(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;
(b) the following further declarations by the person—
(i) a declaration that they meet the initial conditions for eligibility (see subsection (2B));
(ii) a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion;
section 4(4)(a)
(iii) a declaration that they are content to be assessed, for the purposes of this Act, by medical practitioners;
(iv) a declaration that they are making the first declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;
(v) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the first declaration at any time.
(2B) In subsection (2A)(b)(i) ‘the initial conditions for eligibility’ are that the person making the declaration—
(a) is aged 18 or over,
(b) is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months, and
(c) is registered with a general medical practice in England or Wales.”
This amendment makes provision about the content of regulations under subsection (2)(a), which will set out the form of the first declaration.
Amendment 277, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) A person may not make a first declaration under subsection (1) until 28 days have elapsed, beginning with the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.”
This amendment would mean a person could not make the first declaration until 28 days from the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.
Amendment 420, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) After carrying out the first assessment, the coordinating doctor must—
(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (4));
(b) give a copy of the report to—
(i) the person who was assessed (‘the assessed person’),
(ii) if the coordinating doctor is not a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and
(iii) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(c) if satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g), refer the assessed person to another registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of section 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out the second assessment (‘the independent doctor’).
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.
(5) The regulations must provide that the report must—
(a) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (g);
(b) contain an explanation of why the coordinating doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;
(c) contain a statement indicating whether the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to the following—
(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;
(ii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;
(iii) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;
(d) be signed and dated by the coordinating doctor.”
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to make a report about the first assessment, and (if satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)) to refer the person to another practitioner for the second assessment.
Amendment 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.
Amendment 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;
(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.
Amendment 220, in clause 34, page 20, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g);
(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e);”
Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—
(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and
(b) give a copy of the report to—
(i) the person who was assessed,
(ii) the coordinating doctor,
(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and
(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.
(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—
(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);
(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;
(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—
(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;
(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;
(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;
(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;
(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”
This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.
Amendment 203, in clause 10, page 6, line 42, at end insert—
“(A1) This section applies where the independent doctor has—
(a) carried out the second assessment, and
(b) made a report stating that they are not satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 421.
Amendment 204, in clause 10, page 6, line 43, leave out from beginning to second “the” in line 44.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 203.
Amendment 329, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 4 from the clause and is linked to Amendment 330.
Amendment 207, in clause 13, page 9, line 20, leave out “Schedule 4” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 4).
Amendment 330, in clause 13, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) A second declaration must include the following information—
(a) the name and address of the person;
(b) the NHS number of the person;
(c) the contact details for the general medical practice at which the person is registered;
(d) a declaration by the person that they have made a first declaration under this Act;
(e) a declaration by the person that the assessing doctors have made the appropriate declarations under this Act together with the dates of those declarations;
(f) the details of the declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;
(g) a declaration by the person they are eligible to end their life under this Act;
(h) a declaration by the person that they wish to be provided with assistance to end their own life under this Act;
(i) a declaration by the person that they understand that they must make this second declaration under the Act and that they do so voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.
(j) a declaration that they understand that they can cancel their declaration at any time.
(k) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment sets out the requirements for the second declaration by the person and is linked to Amendment 329.
Amendment 331, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the reference to Schedule 5 from the Bill.
Amendment 208, in clause 13, page 9, line 38, leave out “Schedule 5” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 5).
Amendment 332, in clause 13, page 9, line 41, at end insert—
“(6A) A statement made under subsection (6) must include the following information—
(a) a declaration by the coordinating doctor that the person is terminally ill within the meaning of this Act and the nature of the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,
(b) details of any relevant declaration made by the High Court or Court of Appeal;
(c) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is of the opinion that the person’s death is either likely or unlikely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the declaration was made by the High Court or Court of Appeal under this Act;
(d) a declaration that the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements of this Act regarding any period of reflection has been met;
(e) a declaration that the person requesting assistance under the Act has the capacity to do so, and that they have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life;
(f) a declaration that neither the first or second declarations by the person have been cancelled;
(g) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment sets out the requirements for the second statement by the coordinating doctor and is linked to Amendment 331.
Amendment 333, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment leaves out reference to Schedule 6 and is linked to Amendment 330.
Amendment 214, in clause 21, page 14, line 9, leave out “Schedule 6” and insert
“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
This amendment provides that the form of a final statement is to be set out in regulations (rather than in Schedule 6).
Amendment 334, in clause 21, page 14, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The statement mentioned in subsection (2) must include—
(a) the contact details of the coordinating doctor;
(b) the name, NHS number and medical practice of the person given assistance under the Act;
(c) a declaration that the person was provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act;
(d) the date of any declarations made by the person under this Act;
(e) the date of any statements made by assessing medical practitioners under this Act;
(f) the details of the advanced and progressive condition the person had;
(g) the approved substance provided;
(h) the date and time of death;
(i) the time between use of the approved substance and death;
(j) any other information or signed declarations as may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(3B) Any regulations made under subsection (3A) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment sets out the information that must be included in a final statement under this Act and is linked to Amendment 333.
Amendment 403, in schedule 1, page 25, line 25, at end insert—
“7. I have—
1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration
2. decided not to inform my family of my decision
3. no family to inform of my decision”.
Amendment 404, in schedule 4, page 29, line 7, at end insert—
“10. I have—
1. informed my family of my wish to be provided with assistance to end my life and taken their opinions into consideration
2. decided not to inform my family of my decision
3. no family to inform of my decision”.
Kim Leadbeater
I rise to support my amendments in this group, which seek to clarify the details that must be included, under regulations, in the first declaration, and the report that is consequent on that declaration. While I believe it was useful on Second Reading for MPs to be aware of the content of the form that the doctor should complete, the advice I have received—with which I agree—is that the details are more appropriately a matter for regulations. There is always a balance to be struck, but it would not be reasonable to expect the House to have to consider changes in primary legislation simply to alter the contents of a declaration, important though the details are.
The proposed changes go further in a way that I believe should greatly reassure the Committee. As we discussed this morning, they make it clear that a person must have been over the age of 18 when the first discussion under the Bill took place. They also require doctors not just to make formal declarations, but to produce reports covering the eligibility of the person to request assistance, the nature of the assessments they have made, their discussions with that person and, crucially, the person’s understanding of those discussions and of what the process entails. This will ensure that all the relevant discussions have been recorded and understood, and that an account of them has been recorded and will be available for future reference. For reporting purposes, if a person applying for assistance is found not to be eligible, that information will be recorded too. I hope the Committee will agree that further safeguards will be put in place as a result, without imposing additional stress or burdens on terminally ill patients during such a different period.
Kit Malthouse
I rise to speak in support of amendment 184 and to point out that I have now withdrawn amendments 329 to 334, so we will not vote on them later. Like the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I had thought that although it was sensible at Second Reading to have schedules to the Bill that laid out the forms, they were quite limited and strict in their form, so we needed more flexibility and the opportunity for the House, by regulation, to add content to the required forms in the future. I also wanted to insert a declaration by the person that they had had an initial conversation covering all the factors in the Bill and, critically, that they understood the information that had been presented to them. Amendment 184 would do exactly that.
For Members’ reference, I tabled similar amendments that would have done the same with the other schedules. Following conversations with the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I have now withdrawn them all and amalgamated them into amendments that would do the same as those that she has tabled, along with some additional bits and pieces. Amendment 184 is relatively self-explanatory.
I want to speak against amendment 277, which would impose a time limit of 28 days between diagnosis and the first declaration of a terminal illness. In a lot of circumstances, that would be a very difficult time delay for people to face. As the hon. Member for Bradford West, who tabled the amendment, will know, there are already periods of reflection in the Bill, although it also contains provision for a compressed time limit for those who face imminent death. Particularly for those who are unfortunately diagnosed with certain diseases, adding 28 days will insert a delay at a time when people who are facing what they do not want to face—a horrible death—need as much time as they can to get through the process. For example, if we take together all the factors for people who are sadly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the median survival is six to 12 months.
I do not know if the hon. Lady knows this, but pancreatic cancer is a particularly unpleasant cancer, not least because it does not exhibit symptoms in its early stages—people do not know they have it until quite late in its development. Treatment for it is not well advanced, and many people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer sometimes have only weeks to live. The idea that we should make them wait 28 days before they can even start the process seems impractical and, I am sorry to say, cruel to them in many ways. It is worth remembering that this is not a six-month “bang, I go and do it.” Most people who have a terminal illness will begin the application process at six months. Once they have the ability to ask for this service, they will then wait until they decide that their life has come to its end, at the time and place of their choosing. That might be at six months, or it might be at six days. The point of the Bill is to put the power to make that decision in their hands. Although the Bill has periods of reflection—it recognises that people need to sit and think about these things—imposing an absolute 28 days on everybody, without accounting for what stage they are at in their disease and how long they have to live, is not necessarily a sensible amendment, and I will oppose it from that point of view.
I understand the objective of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire in tabling amendments 403 and 404, which are about informing family. I would hope that those are the sorts of discussions that doctors would have—perhaps one of the doctors on the Committee can tell us. On whether we should put that on the face of the Bill, I have been persistent in trying to make sure that the conversation is not guarded. The amendments ask whether I have any family—I am not quite sure what “family” means. Does it mean my children? Maybe I do not want to tell my children. Does it mean my next of kin? I do not know. Is it distant relatives? Is it my whole family? There are problems with the definition of “family”.
While I will not support the amendment, I understand what my hon. Friend was trying to do. I would hope that those are the kinds of sensitive matters that a doctor would tease out of an individual as they look for the various items that we have put in the Bill to make sure that the person is making the decision on a sound basis as a settled view and has the capacity to do so.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. I will speak briefly to amendments 403 and 404, which would create an expectation that a patient at least addresses the question of whether their family is aware of the decision they are making. In an amendment that has not been selected for debate today, I proposed simply to make that expectation clear.
My personal view is that I do not accept that this is healthcare, and therefore that a doctor would have an obligation to ensure that the next of kin of somebody to whom they are proposing to give lethal drugs is informed. However, in the spirit of the Bill, which is all about autonomy, and in an attempt to be constructive and put forward amendments that might be accepted, I accept that this is a decision for the individual in the same way as a healthcare decision, and that there is therefore no obligation under rules of patient confidentiality and the expectations around healthcare that the family should be informed.
Nevertheless, creating a moment at which the first doctor the patient speaks to gently encourages them to consider telling their family before taking the enormous step of signing the first declaration is appropriate. The amendment would give the patient three options: first, to confirm that they have informed their family of their wish to be provided with assistance to end their life.
The Chair
Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to touch on that amendment, but it has not been chosen today. He is talking about the declaration that the person has informed their family of their decision and taken their opinions into consideration. We are not dealing with that today.
Danny Kruger
Nevertheless, amendments 403 and 404 have been selected for debate, and it is those amendments that would effect that declaration in the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, but I want to explain why these amendments are appropriate to the Bill.
The patient would have the opportunity to declare clearly that they do not have a family. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire; it is not always clear what a family is. Nevertheless, if the patient wants to specify that they have no family or do not want to inform their family, the amendments would give them that right. I want to emphasise the importance of this consideration. I recognise that clause 9, which will come later in the process, includes consideration of the family. It states that, in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, they may advise the patient to inform their family, so there is recognition of that question a little later. My suggestion is that it should come earlier because it needs to take place before the first declaration is signed.
Crucially, we need to consider the wider impact of not considering or involving the family, particularly when children or dependants are involved. The Bill accepts the scenario where a family can find out after the fact—not through any formal notification, they just discover—that their loved one has ended their life with the help of doctors and the state. Families can be badly impacted by an assisted suicide: clinical grief disorders, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are all harms that can follow from a family member taking an assisted death. It is unethical and irresponsible not to factor that in as we discuss and design the new law.
A parent may choose to end their life under the Bill, but is not required in any way to consider notifying their family. I wonder if the sponsor could clarify what would happen if they were the sole carer of a minor—would there be an obligation for anyone to inform the child that this was happening? One hopes that that would be an extremely rare scenario; nevertheless, it is possible under the Bill.
I want to mention two more groups quickly. In written evidence, a group of anorexia nervosa sufferers and carers said:
“The Bill does not anticipate situations where someone seeks to end their life as a result of cognitive symptoms inherent to the illness, as is the case with AN. For these patients, families would often be needed to advocate for their loved ones and their potential to recover…Without family involvement, patients may make decisions in isolation, potentially influenced by cognitive distortions or feelings of hopelessness inherent to the illness.”
I hope that we do not want to allow that scenario.
Finally, Dr Jamilla Hussain, who we have heard from a few times, said in written evidence that in her
“consultation with structurally disadvantaged ethnic minority groups”—
which include Pakistani, Roma and Black Caribbean community groups, they showed much concern about the exclusion of families. She said:
“it was emphasised that, traditionally, family and community members provide hope and strength when someone feels like life is too much. There is apprehension that such expressions of care and support could be reframed through a medical or legal lens as coercion.”
That is the saddest thing, which was hinted at quite strongly—in fact, stated explicitly—in some of the evidence sessions. It has been suggested that wanting a loved one to live is seen by doctors as a form of coercion that should be resisted; that trying to argue a loved one out of an assisted death is the coercion that we need to guard against and, on that basis, we should not be making any expectation that families are informed. What a tragic thing for us to say. To enable doctors to issue lethal drugs that kill people without their family knowing is an absolutely tragic thing. I beg the Committee to consider what on earth we are doing allowing that.
The Chair
I apologise to the Member, who was within his rights to speak to amendments 403 and 404.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to my amendment 277, which would add a new subsection to clause 5. Like my amendment 276, it would alter the time that must elapse between a person receiving a diagnosis of severe illness and their discussion of assisted dying with a medical practitioner. To put the most important point first, the amendment aims to prevent people opting for assisted dying while they are suffering from the initial shock of having a serious illness diagnosed, by imposing a pause. There would have to be 28 days between when a person receives a diagnosis and prognosis of the illness that might end their life within six months, and when they could have their second consultation with a doctor about assisted dying.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked me whether I was aware of pancreatic cancer. A dear friend of mine, who was known as the “king of curry” in Bradford, told me only in June—the day I launched my election campaign, funnily enough—that he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In October, he was gone. I am overly familiar with pancreatic cancer and how fast he went down from being a healthy individual. He is greatly missed in Bradford.
The Committee has already rejected amendment 276. I ask all Members to think again and in particular to consider the evidence given to us by several distinguished doctors, including senior psychiatrists. What those doctors said to us, in both written and spoken evidence, was that immediately after someone receives a diagnosis of serious illness they often experience a major increase in depression and a desire to hasten death. For some patients, that desire to hasten death is what psychiatrists call an increase in suicidality; that is, the patient wants to actively do something to end their own life. For other patients, they do not have an active desire to carry out a physical act to end their life, but they do wish that their life would end sooner.
We can all empathise with people who have just received such a shocking diagnosis and prognosis. They have been told that they are likely to die soon. They may also either have been given information that makes them think their remaining months of life will be degrading and painful, or they may assume that they will be. That might well be how many of us would think if we had such devastating news. But the psychiatrists who gave evidence also said that depression and a desire for death are often not permanent conditions for people who have received such a diagnosis. When a patient gets treatment for their physical symptoms plus social care, and if necessary psychological treatment, the desire to hasten death will often fall.
Let me refer to the evidence of Dr Annabel Price, vice chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Liaison Faculty. I appreciate, Mr Dowd, that I am repeating some things I have mentioned previously, but when I spoke previously with reference to this evidence it was to other amendments. Hence, I am having to repeat it for the purpose of this amendment in particular. She said:
“There is a lot of research evidence around depression in people with palliative care needs and people nearing the end of life. We know that depression is common, and across a number of studies it is at around 20%—much more common than in the general population. We know that depression is strongly associated with a wish to hasten death, and that if depression is found and treated in that group of patients, there will be significant change in the wish to hasten death.”
She said that there were a number of factors besides depression that were associated with the wish to hasten death. In those who had received a diagnosis of serious illness, she told us:
“they include difficult symptom experience, poor functional status—needing a lot of help with things—and being socially isolated. Those are really key ones. They also include a sense of loss of dignity and feeling like a burden on others.”
For patients who have all those factors, she said:
“These things can all come together to make life feel very unbearable.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.]
Perhaps the most important part of Dr Price’s evidence was when she said what good medical and social care could do for people who felt their lives were unbearable. She said:
“The evidence that we have from research—this is in populations who would fulfil the criteria in terms of terminal illness—is that the prevalence of depression is around 20%. That is across a number of populations. It is associated with a wish to hasten death. Depression might impact upon that person’s decision making; I am not saying that it absolutely would, but it might. Also, treatment might change their view. We know that there is a strong association, for example, between pain and a wish to hasten death.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 281, Q369.]
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am very sorry, but I just want your guidance. The hon. Lady is giving a speech which I am afraid we have covered before. We have had extensive debates on the impact of terminal diagnosis on people’s mental health and depression. I just want your guidance on what the Committee should do to resist the temptation to repeat debates that we have already had extensively, while we are considering these amendments.
The Chair
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I reiterate the point I have made on a number of occasions. I do not want to interrupt Members when they are making a point, because we are in a very sensitive situation—of that there is no doubt. I exhort Members, when they are discussing these things, to bear in mind those factors and those issues.
Naz Shah
Thank you, Mr Dowd. Before I carry on, may I just add to that? I did refer to that and I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but these things speak to this particular amendment on 28 days. While they speak to many other debates, the Committee will have no doubt that there are many issues in which one piece of evidence crosses over many amendments. I assure the Committee that my intention is just to draw attention to the evidence that is related to the particular amendment that I am speaking to. I appreciate there that there is huge repetition—for want of a better word—but I feel that it is necessary, unless advised otherwise. I would be happy to take your guidance, Mr Dowd.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I rise to set out why—reluctantly—I cannot support amendments 403 and 404, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. It is not because of the principle involved, because my hon. Friend was very clear in setting out the amendments. They would not provide for a prescriptive situation where an individual must tell their family. A range of options are set out, which I anticipate that any sensible and responsible doctor or clinician would take a patient through, encouraging them to involve their family in their decision making.
The issue that I have is around the legal clarity of the wording of the amendments, because under the English and Welsh legal system there is no statutory definition of “family”. There is a concept of family, but the concept of family to me may be very different from that of my neighbour, or from that of someone who lives in another city. For example, for some people stepbrothers, stepsisters and step-parents are very much part of their family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples with children are a family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples without children are a family; for others, they are not.
Danny Kruger
I take that point; families are difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Bill currently refers to the opportunity for a doctor, or the suggestion that a doctor,
“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”
That is more precise. Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment along the lines that I have proposed, prior to the first declaration, but using the language that is currently in the Bill about
“their next of kin and other persons they are close to”?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That would satisfy me. The reason I say that is because at the moment the wording is too broad and ill-defined. The question is: is this about the closeness and proximity of a relationship? The suggested wording that my hon. Friend just put forward would be much closer to that and much clearer, and more akin with the language of medical registration. When someone turns up in A&E, they are asked to give the name of their next of kin. That defines the closeness, the proximity and the permanency of that relationship.
If my hon. Friend was perhaps to consider withdrawing this amendment and tabling it again in an alternative form, or rewording it, that would certainly be something that I would be open to supporting. I have outlined why, as the amendments currently stand, I cannot support them.
Stephen Kinnock
Although it is for Parliament to decide whether to progress the Bill, this Government remain committed to ensuring the legal robustness and workability of all legislation. For that reason, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments have been mutually agreed upon by her and the Government: in this group, those are amendments 184, 418, 420, 195, 209, 220, 421, 203, 204, 207, 208 and 214.
This group of amendments replaces the forms set out in the schedules to the Bill, with the requirement for the forms to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. The amendments also make provision about the content and form of the first and second declarations, statements and reports.
Amendment 184 provides that the form of the first declaration must be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, as opposed to in schedule 1 as currently drafted. Operationally, using regulations will allow for consultation in relation to the form and content of the declaration. It will also provide flexibility to tailor or update the content of the declaration.
The effect of amendment 289 would be to limit those able to act as a second witness to a first declaration to registered clinicians, though that term is not defined in the amendment. In normal usage, “registered clinician” is broader than “registered medical practitioner”, so practically the amendment may lead to a wide range of registered healthcare professionals being able to act as a witness to a first declaration under the Bill.
Kit Malthouse
Just to be clear, a number of the amendments the Minister mentioned are in my name; I have now withdrawn them, albeit they would not have been voted on until later stages. I have withdrawn them in favour of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, which broadly do the same thing.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, because I had heard he was withdrawing but I thought perhaps he meant he would not push him amendments to a vote.
The Chair
Order. As far as I am aware, they are still on the amendment paper, but let us not get too technical at this particular stage.
Stephen Kinnock
I will therefore speak to amendment 208, which provides
“that the form of a statement by the coordinating doctor following the making of the second declaration is to be set out in regulations”
as opposed to the current position, where it is set out in schedule 5 of the Bill. This would have the effect of providing flexibility to update the content of the form of the statement if required later.
Amendment 214 provides
“that the form of a final statement is to be set out in regulations”
as opposed to in schedule 6, on the face of the Bill. This would have the effect of providing flexibility to update the content of the form if required later.
Amendment 404 would mean that, following court approval, the person seeking assistance must confirm, in a second declaration on the form set out in schedule 4, whether or not they have informed their family of their wish to be provided with assistance to end their own life. From a practical perspective, the amendment does not specify how a family would be defined. This may create uncertainty as to who the person would need to inform or how to determine that they have no family. It requires the form of the first declaration, set out in schedule 1, to capture whether a person seeking assistance to end their life has: informed their family of their wish to be provided with assistance to end their life and taken their family’s opinion into consideration; or decided not to inform their family of their decision; or has no family to inform of their decision. It is not clear how the term “family” would be defined. It is also worth noting that the amendment would conflict with amendment 184, which removes schedule 1 to the Bill. I hope those observations have been helpful to the Committee, and I thank Members for their attention.
Amendment 184 agreed to.
Amendment made: 418, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must provide that the first declaration contains—
(a) the following information—
(i) the person’s full name and address;
(ii) the person’s NHS number;
(iii) contact details for the person’s GP practice;
(b) the following further declarations by the person—
(i) a declaration that they meet the initial conditions for eligibility (see subsection (2B));
(ii) a declaration that they have had a preliminary discussion with a registered medical practitioner, that they were aged 18 or over when they had that discussion, and that they understand the information referred to in section 4(4)(a) to (c) that was provided during that discussion;
(iii) a declaration that they are content to be assessed, for the purposes of this Act, by medical practitioners;
(iv) a declaration that they are making the first declaration voluntarily and have not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it;
(v) a declaration that they understand that they may cancel the first declaration at any time.
(2B) In subsection (2A)(b)(i) ‘the initial conditions for eligibility’ are that the person making the declaration—
(a) is aged 18 or over,
(b) is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months, and
(c) is registered with a general medical practice in England or Wales.” —(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment makes provision about the content of regulations under subsection (2)(a), which will set out the form of the first declaration.
Amendment proposed: 277, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) A person may not make a first declaration under subsection (1) until 28 days have elapsed, beginning with the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.”—(Naz Shah.)
This amendment would mean a person could not make the first declaration until 28 days from the day they received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
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
Market Towns: Cultural Heritage
(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
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural heritage of market towns.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank everyone here today for attending and showing their interest in this very important debate, and for contributing to and supporting it. I welcome all Members who represent market towns old and new.
Historically, a market town is a town that has hosted markets and is usually granted that privilege by a royal charter. These towns evolved into economic hubs where local farmers, merchants and traders could sell their goods and produce, and where residents from the local area could pick up essentials. Because of the trade that took place, these towns became the centre of development, with houses, fire stations, stables and mechanics’ premises surrounding them. Notably, market towns can develop not just through royal charter but through and with population growth and economic activity. Where we have developed infrastructure and connectivity, with better roads, trains and river crossings, that has allowed for more trade, in turn encouraging market towns to develop. Local authorities can also classify an area as a market town based on commercial importance.
For me, markets offer vibrancy and opportunity. They are a mini showreel of an area’s special characteristics. I was born on Green Street in east London and grew up with markets all around me, with friends and family owning market stalls. I also worked part time on a fruit and veg stall in Stratford market as a schoolboy. Not only do I have a keen nostalgic and personal interest in market towns and markets specifically; I also have some experience of reanimating markets. Before entering Westminster, I owned and ran a number of independent markets over the years, including fashion, art, artisan and food markets, due to my professional background in events and hospitality.
Commissioned by the London borough of Hackney, I was involved in the successful regeneration of Hoxton Street market, one of Europe’s oldest street markets, dating back to 1687. Hoxton Street had lost its way and required repositioning. As part of the town centre master plan, my team and I oversaw a stakeholder engagement strategy that encompassed existing traders, local shop operators, surrounding community shops and groups, various council departments and, most importantly, local residents. The key thing was that the work on giving that local community asset its historic vigour back included the local community. That was not only the right approach to take, but also the authentic route. Now, some 10 years later, Hoxton Street market as a community asset is still vibrant and, crucially, locally led, thereby adding to the local area’s sense of place, civic pride and local economy.
Let me give a sense of the market town I proudly represent. Rochford is surrounded by historic villages such as Great Wakering, Canewdon, Paglesham, Barling and Stambridge, all of which fall within Rochford district. I will keep it brief, as I have limited time, but if any Members would like to talk about history with me, I would love to have that conversation separately.
Rochford market was created in the mid 13th century, and a charter was awarded by King Henry III to Sir Guy de Rochford in 1247, with the aim of generating income and developing new towns. At the heart of Rochford lies the medieval market square. The square hosted a weekly cattle and livestock sale every Tuesday, Thursday and Whitsun. At the time it was the only market for 20 miles, which made it particularly popular. Nowadays there is a bit more competition but the market is still going strong.
With trade came industry. A wooden market house was built in 1707 to house the livestock, a barber’s shop and a mechanic’s opened, a fire station was built, and there were many taverns packed with residents enjoying the weekly market.
That brings me to the present. As hon. Members can imagine, the market square is incredibly different now. I regularly enjoy going to Rochford square to buy local goods, meet businesses, take my family out for lunch and hold surgeries, so I know how much potential the area has and the wealth of cultural heritage it had in times gone by. Most historic market towns have buildings of significance that shaped the town’s history. In Rochford, we have the Freight House building—a Victorian train workshop that helped move the town into the industrial age. Such cultural buildings provide a heritage footprint that market towns thrive on.
On the challenges and the context, it is fair to say that market towns are up against it and are often at the sharp end of economic downturns. We have 1,300 market towns that serve populations that range from 2,000 to 30,000 people. Over the past two decades, industry has been hollowed out and market towns have suffered. Shop vacancies have increased and footfall has decreased as consumer habits have changed: there has been a greater use of retail parks and online shopping. That change has led to a void at the heart of those communities, and often a rise in antisocial behaviour as there is less opportunity. Although the problem is not limited to market towns—we see that pattern across high streets and city centres—they often feel it acutely. It is also a structural issue.
Historic England’s research on heritage and the economy outlines that local authorities’ historic environment teams have shrunk considerably over the past decade: between 2006 and 2018, the number of conservation and archaeological specialists fell by 35%. Heritage indicators similarly demonstrate decreases in local authority spending on services for the historic environment, including a 34% decrease in museums and galleries, a 35% decrease in heritage, a 38% decrease in archives and a 57% decrease in development control by 2021-22. That means that local authorities no longer have the required expertise to protect the cultural heritage of market towns, let alone maximise the part they play in our constituencies.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
That point is incredibly important. I serve the Tamworth constituency, which has a historic market town and 1,000 years of history; it is known for its castle. It is really important that heritage is used for regeneration. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s £4.85 million heritage revival fund will help towns such as Tamworth and those that he mentioned to focus on how assets can be maximised by the community, and to focus on heritage as a regenerative tool?
Mr Alaba
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that sort of resource helps under-resourced councils. As I said, councils have lost specialist infrastructure and staff, and that has a huge impact on their ability to shape how the local economies grow.
The lack of expertise, compounded by shrinking budgets, means that casework is growing, listed buildings are crumbling and the opportunity for economic growth continues to be missed. The Office for National Statistics estimates that in 2022 there were 33,000 visits to Southend-on-Sea from abroad. That figure has been broadly similar since the VisitBritain data began in 2009. Similarly, ONS data shows that in 2023, 504,000 visits were made to Essex from abroad: people stayed 3.5 million nights and spent a total of £193 million. The data shows that the numbers have been broadly similar, except during covid. Evidence from the annual visitor attractions survey shows that in 2023, seven out of 10 of the most popular paid visitor attractions in England were heritage attractions. Indeed, 63% of us visited heritage sites last year—three times the number who attended football matches.
The tourism industry as a whole is worth £74 billion to the economy and 4% of gross value added, and has huge potential to support the Government’s plans for growth. The visitor economy is one of the biggest best-performing sectors. That should not be under-estimated. Each visit to a heritage site means pounds spent in the local economy. That supports jobs and the vibrancy of high streets, increases well-paid jobs, regenerates communities and creates pride of place. Heritage sites also make fabulous locations for filming TV series such as “Bridgerton”, “Downton Abbey” and “Broadchurch”. I am delighted by the Minister’s ambition to welcome 50 million international visitors by 2035 and the establishment of a national visitor economy strategy, which will be launched next autumn, outlining plans to support the tourism industry’s growth. Market towns will be a key driver to achieving that mission.
We know that there is a real appetite to enjoy our cultural heritage domestically and from international visitors. However, it is essential that we drive those visitors to every UK region, where there is immense cultural heritage. Boosting tourism to every region will fundamentally improve living standards by bringing growth to local economies, jobs, and an increased sense of place and diversity to high streets and town centres.
These communities and cultural assets need to be more accessible. The accessibility increases market towns’ appeal and, by default, their viability. Market towns also hold a unique space for creative industries and owner operators. From having a long career owning a hospitality business and being pivotal in the regeneration of areas in east London such as Shoreditch, Dalston and Hoxton, I know how central owner operators are to regeneration, to increasing the footfall of an area, and to making an area more attractive to visitors by being key champions of place. Independent traders, family-run businesses and local producers are the lifeblood of our market towns, high streets and coastal communities. It is those businesses that provide unique goods and services that sustain both our local economies and the cultural heritage of an area.
Southend and Rochford have a high number of micro and small businesses. In fact, we have over 3,300—disproportionately higher than the number in identical communities. When we look at what drives tourism and trade, often it is the heritage sites and the local offer, made up of a diverse range of owner operators, that provide that. We need to empower our own operators and creatives as they not just offer livelihoods, but help to maintain the very character of our historic market towns. That will not only boost local economies, but create sustainable economies all year round. From my experience, through working with owner operators, local communities and grassroots organisations, markets can be vibrant all year round.
How do we fix this? Central to Labour’s plan for change is the transformation of infrastructure and connectivity. For too long the UK has lagged behind our European partners. Reliable public transport and better infrastructure are necessary so that market towns, villages and local economic hubs can fully participate in our modern economy. By investing in our public transport and improving connectivity, we will enable businesses to grow, attract new investment and create jobs, while allowing local residents to access their towns with ease.
I am currently working on introducing a later trains facility on Fridays and Saturdays in Southend, so that the evening and hospitality sectors in my constituency can thrive again; that commitment to infrastructure and connectivity helps to preserve the historic charm, but also unlocks their full potential for future generations.
Our Labour Government have had to make tough choices to stabilise the economy and invest in public services. I cannot commend too highly measures such as high street rental auctions and ending the scourge of late payments to facilitate us to begin to regenerate our high streets. More recently from the Minister’s Department, there was the announcement of Labour’s plan for change and major investments from the Arts Everywhere fund to boost growth and cement Britain’s place as a cultural powerhouse. In my constituency, Southchurch Hall has recently been granted £423,000 for repairs and protection from water damage. I know the Secretary of State is determined that arts will be for everyone, everywhere. Those strategies are crucial steps in Labour’s plan for change.
In October 2023, writer and regeneration consultant, John P. Houghton wrote in his article “Down Market—Reviving England’s market towns”, that there were a few reasons why market towns have not been on the Government agenda. He believes, and I concur, that central Government have in recent times largely neglected those communities. I will read a small extract from John’s piece, which illuminates the situation well.
“There was a brief flurry of intervention in market towns in the early 2000s. The Market Towns Initiative was launched in 2000 and rolled out across England from 2001. It was funded and administered by the Countryside Agency, the successor body to the Rural Development Commission.
Through the initiative, partnerships of local agencies and community groups were awarded funding to: undertake a ‘health check’ of a town’s strengths and weaknesses; develop a practical action plan; and appoint co-ordinators and project managers to deliver the plan.
The health checks were the first sign that things were starting to go wrong in market towns. A meta-analysis of health checks in the West Midlands, conducted by KPMG, highlighted many of the problems identified in the previous section: house prices rising beyond the budget of local people; poor transport links; retail trends away from traditional high streets and town centres; and an ageing population placing greater demands on public services with already limited capacity.
The Market Towns Initiative could and should have been the first step in a sequence of measures to deal with these problems. Instead, the programme was closed down [under austerity] and nothing took its place. The Countryside Agency warned that ‘as no single organisation is championing the cause of market towns’ they could be forgotten.”
There has not been sufficient Government policy on market towns, but I believe devolution and local government reform will help to bring a more strategic vision to regions, with local leaders bringing the focus that those amazing communities deserve. A few things need to be considered, the first being changing the planning system. The planning system should allow a place to grow, develop and encourage adaptive reuse of both nationally important and locally valued heritage sites.
The Government are working closely with Historic England to streamline the planning system, ensuring heritage protection is not watered down. By streamlining the application process further, we can improve speed, consistency and quality of decision making. There could be fewer applications made and greater clarity among regulators over the type of work that does not require consent, which would lead to greater efficiencies.
Some streamlining requires no new policies but more use of existing powers, such as using enforcement powers to address neglect. Other streamlining would require policy change, such as empowering local authorities to delegate authority to qualified professionals to sign off conditions attached to planning and listed building consent. That would reduce the frustration of waiting for the council’s conservation officer to be available, which can cause costly delays and unhelpful inconvenience to occupiers.
Secondly, as mentioned, local authorities’ heritage spend has decreased significantly, and there has been a massive loss of expertise and specialist knowledge. At the same time, heritage attractions and tourism continue to contribute considerably to the economy. I ask the Minister to consider how her Department could work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education and Skills England to encourage a strategy for the protection of cultural heritage on local plans, and to look at how to fill the gaps in the industry.
Thirdly, I am excited to see the outcome of the review by Historic England, Government Departments, developers and heritage organisations focused on protection and the development of new ideas. The economic, social and environmental benefits of heritage should be assessed with as little struggle as possible, by setting the right balance between sustaining what is significant and ensuring that buildings and places can continue to adapt, grow and meet our economic, social and environmental needs, while remaining well-loved and used parts of our communities for years to come.
Furthermore, while heritage is among the smallest components of local authority spending, it has a disproportionately positive impact on local pride and wellbeing.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. On the issue of pride in local market towns, in my area there is a small market town called Limavady. Over 100 years ago, a family called Massey emigrated from there to New Zealand, and their son became the Prime Minister of New Zealand before, during and after the first world war, playing a key role in the Commonwealth’s response to that war. In a few weeks’ time we mark the centenary of his death. Such things need to be marked in small market towns so that they are not forgotten, and people can take pride in what their forebears achieved in the past.
Mr Alaba
I agree. That is one of the reasons we are all here: we are talking about the unique offer and appeal of our communities. All and any history regarding families and individuals who have helped to shape, and shown commitment to, our communities should be cherished and showcased. I see how that example shows the uniqueness of the hon. Member’s own community.
The key to the development and maintenance of successful place management is governance structures that support effective decision making and give a voice to the variety of stakeholders that engage in places. This is particularly important for many market towns, where proactive engagement is required to stimulate renewal. That is why I am excited about the devolution White Paper and the strengthening of business improvement districts. However, those districts are not active in all areas; therefore, in some places this function could be provided through the development of community improvement districts. That would provide a structure through which community views can be heard and used to shape decision making.
Fourthly, while I cannot thank the Department and the Government enough for their capital funding projects, such as Southchurch Hall in Southend and the Maritime museum in Liverpool, I would like to work on a strategy that encourages small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in skills and developers of assets to create investable propositions that involve repairs. A targeted approach to capital investment for heritage and culture would achieve better outcomes by allowing the growth of skills and the supply chains required to deliver the maintenance and repair of historic buildings and places over the long term, improving the quality of delivered schemes, dampening inflationary pressures and ensuring that the recipients of funding—especially local government—are investment ready. They know where, when and how to make best use of the funding for the benefit of the communities they serve.
I could talk for quite some time but I am sure hon. Members are keen for me to shut up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that if they want to contribute, they should keep bobbing so I know. I am afraid insights will have to be limited to about two and a half minutes if we are to get everyone in.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy. The points I want to make will probably cover all the market towns with important heritage in my constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold. I will give just a couple of examples, but what I say will be relevant to them all.
Let me begin with Boroughbridge, a traditional market town. There is an ecosystem to market towns, which are the subject of the debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing it. In the countryside, farmers’ markets and the whole ecosystem of the trade that takes place is reliant on farming communities, which the towns often grew from. The blunt truth is that there is growing concern about the effect on small family farms, which contribute directly to market towns. A lot of the produce on sale in them comes from an ecosystem that covers the entire rural economy. There is a real concern that goes beyond what we have been talking about. Food supply and the farm inheritance tax can directly impact those areas.
The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford outlined the investment that is needed in market towns, and there are things that we can do. Wetherby in my constituency has a lot of important cultural buildings. Such towns are full of buildings that have been there for centuries. There is no way that they will reach the C grade on an energy performance certificate. That policy, brought in by the last Government, needs to be reviewed because when businesses leave, their premises will not be re-rented unless they meet performance C. That is a real problem because it is almost impossible to get that performance certificate.
A range of policies, whether it is taxation on farms, which contribute directly to the ecosystem of local communities, or net zero contributions that make premises impossible to rehire, will have the effect of hollowing out vital parts of the community. All those issues need to be addressed.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this debate.
I am proud to represent Hertford and Stortford, home to a number of significant market towns steeped in such history that many of them appeared in the Domesday Book. Hertford is my home; I am privileged to have grown up there. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted me to have the very best start in life. Parliamentary scholars will know that when plague overran London in the 1500s, Parliament moved to Hertford castle, where the gatehouse is now home to Hertford town council, on which I proudly once served.
Hertford’s old Corn Exchange, which once linked us to the corn markets of London, has been reborn as a live music venue called simply the Corn Exchange, serving the lively local music and arts scene that produced talents like George Ezra and Rupert Grint. Residents are proud of our weekly charter market in Salisbury Square. Our town centre, in which I found my first job, is home to a diverse offering of independent shops, pubs and restaurants.
Bishop’s Stortford has contributed more than its fair share of musical talent, with famous musicians including Sam Smith and Charli XCX attending local schools. Bishop’s Stortford has contributed its fair share to this Parliament, too. Upon election I became aware of at least four Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who attended local schools in Bishop’s Stortford.
Stansted airport, the largest single site employer in the east of England, sits right on our doorstep, offering opportunities for work, skills training and lifelong learning to our residents in Bishop’s Stortford. The direct train line between the two means that our community is readily connected to the rest of the world.
For reasons of time I cannot go into detail on all the market towns in my constituency, but there are others, including Ware and Sawbridgeworth, of which we are deeply proud. But our towns are not without challenge, so I would be grateful if the Minister could, in her response, touch on the support that the Labour Government are providing for high streets in semi-rural communities and market towns to ensure that residents can readily access vital in-person services. Also, will she touch on the support that the Government are providing for live music venues such as the Corn Exchange in Hertford, of which our residents are deeply proud?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful for the exemplary time discipline so far.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Jeremy. Since last year’s election, I have added another market town to my constituency—Brigg in northern Lincolnshire. Along the beautiful paved streets of Brigg there are a number of excellent independently owned shops and boutiques, as well as a fantastic range of clothing stores, eateries and other attractions. These independent retailers retain the traditional character of the town—some of the shops have served the good people of Brigg for over 100 years. Under the excellent leadership of Councillor Rob Waltham, North Lincolnshire council has made it a key policy to ensure two hours of free parking in Brigg and across the area, which is a vital component of ensuring that our high streets survive.
A number of historical buildings in the town centre remain in use, some dating back as far as the 1700s. The centre of the town is a conservation area. One such building is the Angel, a 17th-century coaching inn. The building has been refurbished and is now a library and café. It is home to the Brigg heritage centre, which is free to enter and tells the story of how Brigg developed as an important crossing point on the River Ancholme.
The most notable attraction is the Brigg raft. This 3,000-year-old flat-bottomed oak boat was discovered in Brigg in the 1880s and moved to the National Maritime Museum, but it was returned to Brigg in 2013.
Brigg is home to a number of weekly outdoor markets. A street market runs every Thursday, providing fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers and the like.
Barton-upon-Humber, in the northern part of my constituency, has a rich history. The name is derived from Beretun, meaning “barley town”—a testament to Barton’s importance for brewing beer. At the time of the Domesday Book, Barton was considered to be the most important town in the area, with two important churches. St Peter’s church closed in 1970. Chad Varah, the founder of the Samaritans, was born in Barton in 1911, when his father was the vicar of St Peter’s. Another notable person is Ted Lewis, the author whose book was famously adapted into the film “Get Carter”. Like Brigg, Barton has kept its traditional charm. People can visit the Wilderspin school to see how school life was in Victorian times.
Both towns have a town council and a mayor. In these days of devolution when we are creating much larger authorities, which I broadly support, it is important that we retain the civic pride to which local town councils and mayors can contribute.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this debate.
I must start with a confession: Carlisle is a city, albeit a small one. However, its population size and look and feel, and indeed its charter, make it more closely resemble a market town than perhaps many cities.
However, my constituency includes two market towns to the north and north-east—Longtown and Brampton. Longtown lies on the English-Scottish border in an area known as the debatable lands, because for many centuries the kingdoms of England and Scotland could not quite agree on who had ownership and claim to Longtown and the debatable lands. Arthuret church on the outskirts of Longtown dates from 1150 and is said to be the resting place of the legendary King Arthur.
Not to be outdone on history and heritage, the original church of the market town of Brampton stands on the site of a Stanegate Roman fort built around 80 AD. During the Jacobite rising of 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Pretender, summoned the mayor of Carlisle to surrender the city. Those familiar with the rising will know that it did not end well, at least for the Jacobite soldiers who were hanged from the Capon tree in Brampton’s town centre. A memorial commemorating that act remains.
The great border city of Carlisle is the final resting place of a further 33 Jacobite soldiers who were hanged, drawn and quartered following the unsuccessful rebellion. We only have to look at the regal lion that sits atop Carlisle’s market cross to understand that Carlisle’s loyalty, and that of its citizens, has largely always been to the English Crown.
Carlisle received its charter in 1158, confirming its status as a trading hub for the north of England, and much of that trading happened in the Greenmarket in the city centre. However, in the late 19th century the market stalls were moved indoors, into Carlisle’s new market hall, which is one of the few Victorian market halls that people can still see. Its impressive ironwork was made by the local engineers Cowans and Sheldon.
In the following years, the market hall established itself not just as a market but as a venue and concert hall for some of the world’s greatest acts. However, like many places we have heard about today, the fortunes of our market have ebbed and flowed. The market hall’s future looks bright once again, and the former Greenmarket is undergoing a multimillion-pound transformation.
As I look forward to Cumbrian devolution and all that it promises for Carlisle and the surrounding area, including its two market towns, I look forward to reimagining and rejuvenating Carlisle city centre, so that it thrives for many years to come under the watchful eye of the regal lion atop the market cross.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate. It is always a pleasure to speak about Strangford. We have constituency heritage across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and our culture, while sometimes different, is worth celebrating.
Northern Ireland is rich in cultural heritage, and there is a list of market towns across my borough. In Strangford, I have Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch. These towns have historically hosted markets and continue to do so today. Newtownards market is run every Saturday by shop owner Clive O’Neill. The town of Comber hosts mini-markets, most notably Comber farmers’ market and the Comber earlies, which celebrates the town’s agricultural history. Comber is famous for the Comber spud, which we all know. Indeed, we are probably in awe of it, because it is definitely the best potato in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, if not further afield.
I am fortunate to have had a constituency office in Newtownards for some 26 years. I celebrate, respect and love the culture of my town, and all its unique historical attributes. Newtownards came into being in 1613 under James I. The town has much older roots, having been developed on the site of an older settlement. Its location on the Ards peninsula, where I live, means that it has always played a key role in growth, trade, agriculture and fishing.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that market towns are a crucial part of our culture, not only here in England but in Northern Ireland, too. In my constituency, King John granted Bingley’s first market charter back in 1212 and the Bingley butter cross still stands to this day. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that thriving market towns are as vital to the future of our economy as they were to the past?
Jim Shannon
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is great to have history. I love history, which is one of my favourite subjects. Indeed, it was probably the only subject at school in which I excelled, but that is by the way.
The Stewarts erected the Market House, which is now the town hall, in 1765, and the bottom floor was used as a market. It is where I have my annual coffee morning for the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association. The town hall also hosts numerous council-run events. Conway Square, a historical public seating area outside the town hall, has a statue of Paddy Mayne, demonstrating our rich history and ancestry, which we remember.
Market towns are crucial to our society and our local economy. When it seems that everything can be done online, market towns give us a real sense of community and allow face-to-face social contact, which is important. It is important for children and grandchildren, as those who once visited the market as children now return with their own families. In the towns I represent, it is often said, “Everybody knows everybody here.” Of course, that is absolutely true. At communal events and local markets, it is normal to say hello to the people we know from our town.
Market towns highlight our impressive nature, and their history is worth remembering. It is important to maintain that history, not just for the current generation but for future generations, including for my children, my grandchildren and—whenever they come—my great-grandchildren. It is the history of the fantastic towns in which we grew up.
I conclude by calling on the Government to engage further with their counterparts and with local councils and to commit to protecting the rich history of our towns, which adds greatly to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Northern Ireland’s great market town history must be protected.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate. Like him, I have the privilege of representing the historic market town of Dartford, where a great market still operates on Thursdays and Saturdays in the town centre.
Dartford and its surrounding villages have a proud cultural heritage, with the borough council running its own blue plaque scheme to celebrate historical events and figures from around the borough. This includes Dartford football club, with a plaque at the site of the original entrance to its Watling Street ground. It also includes the Rolling Stones. I am sure the music aficionados here know that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met as teenagers on platform 2 of Dartford’s railway station in 1961—a year before forming the band. The iconic duo is immortalised in the town, with a pair of statues unveiled in 2023.
Dartford football club is an integral part of the town’s cultural heritage, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of Dartford working men’s club. It currently sits proudly at the top of the Isthmian league. The club was saved by supporters in the early 1990s, and the team now play at the fantastic Princes Park on the edge of the town.
Another proud part of Dartford’s heritage is the Orchard theatre, which was built in the early 1980s and has hosted comedians, musicals and pantos ever since. Sadly, it is currently beset with RAAC in its roof and has been closed, with a temporary theatre created to hold performances in the interim. Additional work is needed on fire safety, and we look forward to the theatre being open again in 2026, which is sadly a year later than planned.
As others have stressed, pubs are an important part of our cultural heritage. Historical pubs are a key part of an area’s social infrastructure. In Dartford, the Royal Victoria and Bull pub on High Street is a leading example. The Lads of the Village pub in Stone was built in 1793 and has recently closed. The parish council has successfully campaigned to get the pub listed as an asset of community value, but despite the council offering the full asking price, the owner is refusing to negotiate, leaving the site in limbo with the parish powerless. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the “English Devolution” White Paper to a strong new right to buy to maintain beloved assets. That cannot come soon enough.
I hope the Government will continue with their plans to revitalise our high streets and historic market towns, looking at how business rates can be reformed. Again, I welcome the commitment in the devolution White Paper to support high streets by strengthening business improvement districts. Let us all work together over this Parliament to ensure that our market towns can thrive.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
In the spirit of working together, I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are still eight people who want to speak, so I am afraid speeches will have to be less than two minutes or someone will be disappointed.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), not least because I represent six market towns in my constituency—Honiton, Axminster, Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth, Seaton and Cullompton; I will probably have about 20 seconds for each of them.
To draw the strings together, I will say that our heritage affects us not just locally but nationally. I will give an example. In 2022, Mr Speaker visited Honiton’s Allhallows Museum, where he told us how he would be proud to wear the jabot and cuffs made by Honiton lacemakers in times gone by. He visited Patricia Perryman, who made the jabot and cuffs out of Honiton lace. He told us that he would be using them in the future, and so it was. For the King’s coronation, people in east Devon were proud to see Mr Speaker wearing those items.
I cannot do justice to those amazing market towns in the time available to me. Members will, I am sure, have heard of Axminster Carpets; of Ottery St Mary’s tar barrels festival; of the fashionable seaside resort of Sidmouth and its folk festival; of Seaton, once a coastal trading hub, which today has a tramway in place of a railway; and of Cullompton, with its wool heritage and absent railway station. We really need to reinstall the station to reinvigorate the town and bring back some of our more recent cultural heritage. To summarise, these market towns tell a story of a resilient, creative and proud community.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for bringing forward this debate. When people think of Swindon North they do not necessarily think of market towns, but my constituency happens to have one of the most beautiful market towns in the country. Some people call it “the gateway to the Cotswolds”; I prefer to call it “the entrance to Swindon”. That truly beautiful town is Highworth. I am short on time, but I give a massive thanks to Highworth town council, and mainly to the mayor, Julie, for her hard work in keeping its cultural heritage.
I want to talk about the importance of development. Although I welcome Labour’s plan to build 1.5 million houses, I am keen that we do that responsibly and ensure that the developments have the infrastructure to support market towns, making them more accessible but not taking away their independence. I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting debate. My big ask for the Government is to build those houses responsibly and to support communities.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I have 10 market towns in my constituency, but—do not panic—I am not going to talk about them all. They include Caerfyrddin, which is the oldest town in Wales and has the amphitheatre to prove it. Honestly, though, people there are still struggling to recover after covid.
A few years ago, the council decided to inject around £100,000 into each of those towns, and each town brought forward plans. Some wanted better parking and some wanted improved leisure facilities for their youngsters, but all chose exactly what they wanted and how they wanted to move their towns forward. With shared prosperity fund money and other available grants, it had a threefold multiplier. That allowed Llandovery, for example, to improve its tourism offer, Llandeilo to build a BMX park for its youngsters, and Newcastle Emlyn to reopen the old amphitheatre to stage open-air concerts. On top of that, money from the SPF pot has been allocated to refurbishing shop fronts—many businesses have utilised that—and to creating smart towns, a concept that can help businesses to attract footfall.
I want to talk about footfall, because car parking remains an issue for many of our towns. Laugharne and Whitland, for example, want more space, but paying for parking is also an issue. No councils can afford to pay for free parking while paying business rates on those car parks—that cannot be the answer. If the Government are serious about revitalising our cultural and historic market towns, they need to abolish the business rates on our car parks. Not one council across the UK can support free parking while paying millions to the Government in business rates.
Free parking would help our town centres, as it helps in the retail parks that have been placed all around our town centres. The Government have a choice: either they abolish the rates payable to our local authorities or they continue to allow our town centres to deteriorate.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate. The medieval market fair in Scarborough has entered world culture thanks to Simon and Garfunkel, who popularised the medieval English folk song, although we all know that that was not the subject of the song. In fact, Scarborough fair was an important event for merchants all over Europe as it attracted buyers and sellers who, as well as being entertained by local minstrels and fortune tellers, had to be kept in food and drink.
Although the Scarborough fair had died out by the end of the 18th century, that same mixture remains central to the current market hall and vaults, which were built in 1853 and renovated in 2016. On the ground floor there are traditional market stalls offering meat, fruit and vegetables, such as our wonderful butcher Mark Nockels, Solange Bakery and Deli Delicious—a café I make a beeline for whenever I can. In the gallery and vaults, there are more cafés alongside quirky independent shops.
It remains a challenging time for retailers, so I am pleased that the Government have committed to permanently reducing business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026, funded by a tax rise for the largest business properties such as online sales warehouses. The Labour Government are also investing in Scarborough with our plan for neighbourhoods, through which about £20 million will go towards regenerating our town centres, supporting parks and libraries, and building stronger communities. That is a welcome boost to protecting our cultural heritage for the future.
The original Scarborough fair has been reimagined in a stunning year-round series of festivals such as Scarborough Lights, Scarborough Art and Scarborough Streets. They increase local pride, enhance aspirations and provide wonderful entertainment for locals—as well as a treat for the thousands of visitors who flock to Scarborough every year. The new Scarborough Fair links to the heritage, geography, culture and people of our town in a way that articulates our story. The story of Scarborough is in the future, not the past.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I will briefly touch on the market towns in my constituency, including Hexham itself, which has Hexham abbey, England’s first purpose-built jail, the Victorian Queen’s Hall—which, to declare an interest, now has my office in it—as well as a local arts centre and dancehall.
Market towns define Northumberland. Hon. Members have touched eloquently on many of the challenges facing them, but one of the main challenges is a lack of transport, especially accessible transport, sometimes caused by potholes in some of our more rural roads. That isolates people who are trying to get from places such as Allendale or Otterburn into Hexham, which is a central point for much of Northumberland’s rural economy, as it has a large farmers mart.
Hexham is also ill-served by frequently delayed and cancelled rail and bus services that, to be honest, are not entirely fit for purpose. The Conservative-run Northumberland county council sometimes forgets that the west of Northumberland exists. It is fair to say that my constituents are frequently angered when investment is shifted away from them in the west of the county, because that simply fails to address the problems. I am frequently confronted by potholes on my roads that we are told have been fixed but then open up again a week later. Those bread and butter concerns hold back market towns from their true potential.
I will briefly touch on the creative industry and its contribution to market towns. That is one of the few industries in the local economy that does not always rely on getting a delayed bus or a delayed train, or not hitting a pothole. It includes the poets, writers and artists who contribute so much to the character of each of our towns. They frequently contact me with concerns about AI and the potential damage that it could do to the rural economy, so I would like the Minister to acknowledge that in her response.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this important debate. I represent the town of Rugby, which has perhaps the ultimate origin story in a sport that carries our name across the globe, but our great town is about much more than the sport. I will take a little canter around it, as I did when I joined Ken on the volunteer-run walking tour of Rugby.
Rugby has so much to offer. To take the music scene, for example, we have the Rococo players, the Bilton brass band, Boldfest in Newbold, Rugbylele—our own ukulele band—as well as great bands such as Courthouse, singer-songwriter Jessie May and much more. In the arts sector, we have Art at the Alex, a former pub, which is now a community-run arts organisation. We also have a wonderful art gallery and museum that currently has a fantastic exhibition from the Ingram Collection, and also runs a superb exhibition on a history of Rugby in 50 objects—I thoroughly recommend it to anyone who wants to come and have a look.
Rugby has a wonderful literary heritage, including being the birthplace of Rupert Brooke. It has a fantastic, vibrant sports sector, and Rugby borough women’s football team narrowly lost, unfortunately, to Liverpool in the FA cup recently. It has a wonderful industrial heritage, with British Thomson-Houston and Willans Works factories covering aviation, maritime and automotive. The inventor of helium was born in Rugby, holography was invented there, and Sir Frank Whittle first tested the jet engine in Rugby. We had the incredible radio masts at Hillmorton. Today, GE Vernova provides high-tech jobs.
This debate is about the future. There is such huge potential in small market towns that needs to be unleashed, so I wonder whether the Minister might consider a campaign to encourage people to visit small market towns such as Rugby. If we go to the VisitBritain website, we see a lot about cities, but we do not see much about towns. All too often, smaller towns are forgotten by officialdom—they are not forgotten by politicians, as everyone can see from this debate, but they are often forgotten by officialdom. We must invest in our small towns, our people and the potential. Cultural heritage is about the past, the present and, most importantly, the future.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate.
My constituency of Watford is a town with borough status in Hertfordshire. It is an historic market town, having been granted a charter in the 12th century, and the town grew as a result of the Grand Junction canal and railway expansion. The vibrancy and therefore, over time, the cultural heritage of Watford as a market town can excite, stimulate and trigger fond nostalgia. As a child, my friends and I would race around Watford market, which was at the time a place I would have understood to be brutalist in its architectural style—that has nothing to do with the skinheads who also frequented the area.
Sustained by an iced bun or doughnut as a special treat, we would explore, weaving between market stalls and diving into adjacent shops like WHSmith, with its records and computer department. That market in Watford no longer exists. Its site has become part of a more contemporary shopping experience—more Zara than zaniness. Tastes and fashions change, of course, but we adored it, and as I grew older and became familiar with markets in other towns and places—Amersham, Kensington market, the Birmingham Bullring—the memories of Watford and its market embedded themselves. That is important. The cultural heritage of market towns can easily be misrepresented as a narrow strand of admittedly delightful “traditional” market towns, but the fun and the cultural heritage of what Watford market once offered should be celebrated as part of that heritage, too. It attests to the validity of that period of history.
Watford market does still exist in a different location. Spilling out on to the high street, it offers food, shopping and other experiences for residents. In challenging times and circumstances, the new Watford market endeavours to deliver the experience of socialising of an evening, lunches for busy workers and shoppers, and new ways to create memories for people exploring and wandering through.
This Labour Government are determined to deliver growth and housing. Let us hope that, as part of their drive to stabilise the housing market, the plan for new towns will include markets, as we build our future and cultural heritage.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
If she can limit herself to one minute, I call Catherine Fookes.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy. In Monmouthshire, we are really lucky: we have not one, two or three but five market towns. I thought that would be a record, but it is not, because there is a constituency with 10. Our largest town is Abergavenny, which Members might be familiar with, and it is beautiful. It has an iconic town and market hall built in 1869, which is home to the market, the Borough theatre, the library and our world-famous Abergavenny food festival, which has been described as the Glastonbury of food festivals. The Beatles played there in 1963, which I think trumps all the other bands we have heard mention of today.
The Welsh Government have done really well in supporting our market towns and our culture. They have just announced an extra £4.4 million to support our arts and culture sectors. They have used the transforming towns grant to support our market towns, and the upcoming Budget commits to a £335 million package of non-domestic rates support for businesses, which will be hugely important for our businesses. I will close by asking the Minister to share how she will work with our Welsh Government colleagues to ensure that our market towns continue to flourish.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank all colleagues for their brevity. We now move to the Front Benchers.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate.
Market towns are essential to our national heritage. Taunton and Wellington have been markets since 904—not 9.04 am—and 1215, when they got their respective charters, and a market structure for Colchester has been traced back to the first century. Outside bigger cities, market towns are the basic unit of local community—the natural centre to which every local area looks—and have provided the seats of district councils for hundreds of years. However, the withdrawal of essential services in recent years has had challenging consequences for residents, particularly older people, those without digital access and small businesses.
The Government are currently imposing council reorganisation, which too often exacerbates those problems by taking local decision making from our proud market towns and the jobs and resources that go with it. Ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester will have their councils cancelled, as district councils are effectively being abolished. The Liberal Democrats reject the taking of power away from our towns. Councils should reflect natural communities, and local communities should sit at the top of decision making, not at the bottom.
It is therefore time for the Government to support market towns better and the markets they provide. Promoting local markets increases footfall in our town centres, creates community spirit in our all-too-often online world and provides an outlet for local produce, which travels fewer food miles to get there.
For the shops, pubs and other venues in market towns, we were disappointed that the Government did not go further to reform business rates in the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, and we were disappointed with the reduction in discounts available to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Bill will not scrap business rates or deliver the fundamental reform to business rates that the Liberal Democrats have called for to benefit small businesses and those in our cultural sector. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of local communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on.
The Liberal Democrats are fighting for small businesses, starting with a call for more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system. Business rates are harmful to the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than the profits or the fixed stock of land. To benefit small businesses, we would therefore abolish business rates and replace them with a commercial landowner levy so that investment in shops and buildings is no longer disincentivised, as it is now. That leads to far too many remaining empty on our high streets, as business rates are one of the biggest obstacles to letting commercial premises. As a result, the most deprived areas will see the biggest fall in amounts paid in business rates, whereas some big shops in high-value areas will see increases.
The change to national insurance contributions will be completely counterproductive for businesses in market towns, and particularly small businesses. Businesses in Taunton and Wellington town centres, including our theatres and museums, as elsewhere, face a triple whammy of increasing business rates, increasing wage bills and higher national insurance costs for every person they employ. That comes after years of trying to survive the pandemic and some of the highest rates of inflation and interest that have ever been seen in this country under the previous Conservative Government. It is no wonder, as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown, that this new jobs tax means that firms are planning to reduce their headcount through redundancies or by recruiting fewer workers.
Every market town has its care homes and private care providers. For older people, the cultural heritage of market towns and town centres often make them great places to live. Last week, I was delighted to host Somerset’s Registered Care Providers Association and Linden House here in Parliament. They are struggling with the increased cost of care due to the increase in national insurance contributions. We therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords, proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Barker, to exempt care providers from those increases, because it will be vulnerable people and their loved ones who have to pay.
The Government claim that the national insurance hike will result in additional revenue of £25 billion, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that after employers in the public sector are compensated and other employers change their employment habits by reducing headcount or pay, the Treasury will be left with revenue closer to only £10 billion a year. The Government could have raised that amount through a number of other fairer tax changes, such as those we put in our manifesto. Reversing the Conservative tax cuts handed to the big banks would generate an extra £4.2 billion every year, and increasing the digital services tax to 6% would generate another £2 billion a year. They could have introduced a fair reform to capital gains tax so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or even cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers to generate another £5.2 billion per year.
The OBR makes it clear that, precisely because this tax rise will be passed on to people’s salaries, it will have a negative effect on living conditions. This comes after five years under the Conservative party that saw living standards fall year on year. The last thing people need now is a reduction in their incomes. We recognise the new Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they must not allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses in market towns and elsewhere.
We also need to support market towns with better public transport. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes most especially. Delaying station projects such as the new stations proposed to serve the market towns of Wellington in my constituency and Cullompton in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) is also a mistake for the economic growth and new housing the Government want to see. Those decisions will both make congestion worse and travel by public transport more expensive. Of course, for rural communities, it does not matter if the bus fare cap is £2 or £3 if they do not have a bus service in the first place. Market towns need proper rail and bus services if they are to thrive and survive. At the very least, the bus fare hike should be scrapped.
Other initiatives are needed to boost our market towns, to properly fund local councils, especially when it comes to social care, so they can focus on other things to support market towns and businesses, to support more planning and conservation officers, which the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford spoke eloquently about, to introduce free parking periods to enable town centres to compete with out-of-town and online retailers, to grant permitted development rights under planning controls for outdoor markets, and, with the ending of the rural services delivery grant, to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that properly reflects the impact of rurality and sparsity on the areas they serve through the application of a fair funding formula. But fundamentally our market towns and the businesses that sustain them need three things: an end to business rates that punish our town centres and high streets; good public transport; and an end to loading taxes on small businesses, which we need to provide the seeds of recovery in our great economy. The Liberal Democrats will do all three.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Jeremy. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and long may it continue.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the cultural heritage of market towns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing the debate and thank him for his remarks, which were well placed; he made lots of good points. We have had some excellent speeches. Unfortunately, I will not be able to canter through them all, but I particularly want to recognise some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), which I will address, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his comments. He has just inherited a new market town—he seems to be collecting them. Although I will not be able to recognise all the Members for their contributions, I particularly want to call out the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean), who reminded everyone how, during the plague, Parliament decanted to Hertford Castle. While decanting is not something I advocate in the current debate, it is always nice to know that we have options. I thank Members who have raised venues that relate to food. As I fast through Ramadan in the month ahead, I will certainly be thinking of them.
Throughout history, market towns have been a defining feature of economic and social life. Informal markets have existed since before Roman times, and trade was a hallmark of the interaction between Celtic, Roman and Saxon peoples. It was trade that spurred on the development of urban centres and the exchange of knowledge and ideas, as well as goods and services.
Our network of medieval market towns is the most enduring example of that history. A royal charter to hold a market was a jealously fought for privilege. The earliest date to over 1,000 years ago and some remain in force today, as we have heard. The fortunes of many of our great historic towns were won and lost by their right to host a market and to reap the rewards that commerce brought.
Market towns brought ordinary working people together to engage in civic and economic life. Evidence of that can still be seen today in the architecture of our market towns, with market crosses standing proudly in the centre of grand open squares and market stalls nestled among guildhalls and churches. It is striking just how much continuity there has been in the history of market towns, with even 20th century new towns designed around the principles from medieval times.
Preserving that wonderful heritage is no mean feat, and it is vital that we recognise the work of Historic England and other organisations in doing so. Its role in providing a voice for historic places, managing England’s national heritage list and educating us on the benefits of our cultural heritage is invaluable in supporting market towns and in raising awareness of their contributions to our society.
It has been deeply encouraging to see the success of Historic England’s heritage action zones, from the Dewsbury living market town to the north Lowestoft heritage quarter. The scheme has seen local partnerships work tirelessly to improve the quality of life in market towns across England. To date, 20 historic places and market towns have been revitalised through the scheme, and 157 historic buildings have been brought back into use through restoration.
Equally encouraging has been the success of the high streets heritage action zones: 67 historic high streets across England have received new investment, more community engagement and hosted more cultural events through the scheme, with more than 460 shopfronts and 224 historic homes restored. The fact that over 2.7 million people took part in those cultural events, hosted by historic high streets, is a testament to how the scheme has renewed people’s pride in local market towns, as well as providing a much-needed boost to high street businesses and local communities.
It is vital to create the conditions to allow market towns to thrive, embracing their rich heritage as well as new opportunities for growth. An area with particular success in combining history with innovation is the revitalising of historic market squares and the hosting of outdoor markets through permitted development rights introduced by the previous Government.
Permitted development rights have allowed historic market towns to host markets in their public spaces and sell food and drink in marquees at listed buildings, without the need for planning permission, providing a regular business outlet for local craftspeople, farmers and traders, who might otherwise lack large indoor spaces. Those development rights have given local businesses and market towns the flexibility to make the most of their cultural heritage.
It is vital that we do not allow the new planning proposals put forward by the Labour Government to create huge headaches for local communities in and around market towns. With many rural communities near market towns concerned about the impact of housing targets, it is essential that the Government listen to the concerns of local people and ensure that there is sufficient infrastructure to deal with a rising population, a point made by numerous hon. Members today.
Many people are already stuck on long waiting lists for GP appointments, are struggling to get their kids into the best schools and are seeing road networks take even more strain. Will the Minister confirm that our market towns will continue to be supported properly when their populations are likely to increase? Will the voices of local communities be taken into account, as we are concerned that they are being written out of that legislation? Does she recognise that the Government’s proposal to rapidly expand housing could risk market towns losing their identity and sense of community, a point that was made earlier? How will Labour’s planning laws protect the heritage of our beautiful historical market towns?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold made an eloquent point about family farms and our concerns about the impact of changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief. Those farms play a huge part in the future of our historic market towns. I previously raised the issue of the impact of changes to business property relief and APR on the future of stately homes, which are essential to many market towns. The Conservative party has committed to reversing those changes to APR and BPR.
It is welcome to see that Historic England recognises the benefits that permitted development rights have brought market towns. Historic England notes how outdoor markets support
“the cultural heritage offer and the economic future for historic high streets”
and that revitalising market squares
“benefits those historic centres whose unique character is a product of a long market tradition.”
I urge the Government to continue the work begun under the previous Government, to ensure that permitted development rights become permanent, providing certainty for the future of traditional markets.
Inhabitants of market towns are not the only ones to recognise the cultural heritage on offer; millions of tourists visit them each year. VisitBritain’s research into international tourism highlights the importance of market towns and other historical places that attract visitors from overseas: 78% of tourists said they value a destination having history and heritage to explore. That shows the value of our historic market towns and what they do to bring tourism and promote our culture.
Although I welcome the Government’s commitment to growing tourism outside London and the south-east, I question whether the business rates relief reduction to 40% for retail, hospitality and leisure will help our market towns to prosper. Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. There is also concern about the increase in the cost of electronic travel authorisations for those visiting the UK. I hope the Government can provide more clarity on the impact that that will have on the tourism that many market towns rely on. At the most recent oral questions, I asked for an impact assessment—not from this Minister, I should add. I know that she is stepping in today, but perhaps she can discuss the impact assessment, if indeed there is one.
Our historic market towns face many of the same pressures affecting high streets and town centres across the UK. While traditional markets have an enduring appeal, there is no denying that many have also been affected by online shopping, developments in out-of-town centres and recent policy decisions. Thriving market towns need a strong local economy and a strong local community to maintain them.
Small businesses are the bedrock of local communities. That has to be more than just a slogan, and it is equally true of our market towns. It is our historic pubs, our crafts and shops that give historic market towns so much of their character. Yet so many are now unsure whether they can continue under the burden that is being placed on them by the current Government. In particular, the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief on business rates, as I have mentioned, and the increase in the national living wage are all going to weigh heavily on those small businesses. I urge the Government to reconsider those policies in the context of our historic market towns, which we are at risk of losing to closure and decline.
Ensuring that market towns continue to perform their traditional civic functions is as important as preserving their heritage. Making more public services such as libraries and social mixed-use spaces available could go a long way in shaping the appeal of market towns. The House of Lords Built Environment Committee has led important research in reversing high street decline. It is important that its findings are reflected in the decisions taken by the Government in the context of market towns.
Historic market towns are an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage. It is vital that the Government understand their contribution to our country’s heritage and do not push policies that actively harm their future. I urge the Government to consider the costs of their decisions that will be imposed on market towns, and to ensure that our cultural heritage is not lost in the decline of our local businesses and town centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I am pleased to be responding to this debate. I begin, of course, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing it, especially on the eve of Heritage Day. I thought he made a really thoughtful speech, as have Members from parties across the House.
I will briefly respond to some of the questions that have been put to me, and I will go into a little more detail in my speech when time allows. There have been a number of questions from the shadow Minister and others, including my hon. Friend who secured the debate, about changes to the planning system for national and local buildings of importance and access to local services. They also asked about a strategy on heritage for market towns and mentioned a number of Departments. I will refer those questions to the Departments responsible. I have heard the questions and concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) asked about high streets, as did a number of Members, and live music venues. From the spring, a new £85 million creative foundations fund is available for urgent capital works to keep venues going. That was part of the arts everywhere fund, announced at the Jennie Lee lecture, which I will touch on later in my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) referenced the devolution White Paper with specific reference to pubs. I was really pleased to speak at the British Beer and Pub Association event in Parliament a few weeks ago.
I look forward to meeting my Welsh counterparts— I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) raised that point. I am very familiar with Abergavenny as my cousin grew up and went to school there. I look forward to visiting Cardiff soon. I meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very regularly.
I will turn to the substantive part of my speech, but go into more detail on those questions as part of that. Market towns are a proud part of our national story. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, and other Members from across the House, are passionate advocates for everything that they represent. As he said, in the past, market towns might have been defined as places with a historic market or a market square and a royal charter, but they are more than that. They are part of how a community sees itself.
Every market town has its own unique character and story, and their importance goes beyond the cultural heritage and identity they give to an area. A bustling market or an iconic market square helps to support the economy of these towns in the here and now, drawing in tourists, supporting local trade and sustaining connections between local people.
I am very proud to represent Barnsley in South Yorkshire, a market town with a bustling indoor and outdoor market. My own constituency of Barnsley South is home to a number of historic market towns, including Hoyland, where my constituency office is located, and Wombwell, which dates all the way back to the Domesday Book.
I am not the Minister responsible for this area—that is the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—but as a Government, we want to see market towns thrive long into the future and we take the future of these places extremely seriously. In the previous Parliament, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on industrial heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) touched on that; perhaps he can pick up the mantle. Of course, that is a slightly different topic from today’s debate, but our work covered some aspects of market towns. By working with the likes of Historic England and visiting restored heritage sites, from the Shrewsbury Flaxmill Maltings—an incredible transformation—to Battersea power station just down the road, I saw at first hand how regeneration can keep culture alive while boosting the local community and economy in the here and now.
I plan to use my speech to bring together the various ways in which the Government are looking to support market towns and nurture the cultural heritage they represent. I will focus on the specific support that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gives in this area, although of course it is a cross-Government endeavour, as a number of Members have reflected on; as I said, I will relay their questions to the Ministers responsible for the relevant areas.
Let me start with heritage funding. Members may have seen that we marked the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts White Paper. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke about her determination to
“revive culture in places where it is disappearing,”
and the arts everywhere fund will provide £270 million for arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage. A significant part of how we plan to do that is by getting behind local community organisations—the groups that know their areas the best—that want to breathe fresh life into local heritage.
Anna Dixon
In our market square in Bingley, we have Bingley arts centre and, next to it, Bingley town hall, which is ripe for redevelopment. The community would love to make it into a creative arts centre. Will my hon. Friend ensure that I and members of the local community can meet the relevant Minister to see what opportunities there are to access the huge amount of funding that Ministers have announced for arts and culture?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. I drove through her constituency at the weekend. It is a beautiful part of the world, and I am very happy to offer a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism.
Through the heritage at risk capital fund and the heritage revival fund, we are making an extra £20 million of investment available to the sector, to repair our most at-risk heritage sites and support groups who are ready to bring derelict old buildings back into good use. The heritage at risk capital fund will account for £15 million from this spring, and it lives up to its name: it is all about providing grants for repairs and conservation for heritage buildings at risk, with a particular focus on those sites that need it most. It could help all sorts of different types of heritage—shops, pubs, parks and town halls.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I know the Minister’s Yorkshire constituency very well. There are many great old buildings, but one problem will be getting their energy performance certificates to band C. It is all very well investing the capital so that they can be reused, but if they are not meeting band C, they cannot be used. Will she take back to the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism the point that this area needs to be reviewed, because I think the policy of the last Government was a mistake?
Stephanie Peacock
I very much heard the points that the right hon. Member made. I commit to taking them back to the Minister responsible, and I will ensure that he writes to the right hon. Member in good time.
The heritage revival fund is a new scheme altogether, and one that is designed to put local people in the driving seat. The Government recognise that restoring buildings that once stood as visible symbols of progress is an important way of restoring people’s pride in their area and empowering local people to take control of their own destiny again. The fund will build on the previous transforming places through heritage fund, which provided support to market towns in places such as Lancashire, Suffolk and West Yorkshire. For example, it gave more than £120,000 to the Bridgwater Baptist church in Somerset, a grade II* listed church built in 1837, enabling it to be converted to a multi-purpose space supporting wider community use and providing workspaces for businesses. That fund provided a really useful model for how Government backing for local community organisations can help to unlock further backing from the private sector, such as commercial loans and other grants.
On top of our heritage capital funding, my Department delivers the listed places of worship scheme, which gives grants towards VAT paid on repairs and renovations to listed sites of worship across the UK. My colleague the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism recently set out in a debate in this Chamber how the scheme is playing an important role in keeping culture alive and well in our communities, providing facilities and meeting points for local residents. In addition to providing places to worship, many of these buildings act as music venues, food banks and community halls, all of which contribute to the cultural heritage of a place. We know that the scheme is making a difference in market towns and local areas up and down the country, which is why we are making £23 million-worth of funding available between 2025 and 2026.
Support is not just limited to central Government Departments such as DCMS; our arm’s length bodies and executive agencies also play a key role. Arts Council England, the national funding body for the arts, provides a range of supports for villages, towns and cities up and down the country. The Arts Council recognises how important it is that funding gets to places that need it most, and over 60% of its investments are now outside London, with more support for regional venues and cultural assets in market towns.
Through its national portfolio programme, Arts Council England is supporting initiatives such as the Essex Cultural Diversity Project, which has a main office in Rochford in my hon. Friend’s constituency and aims to boost cultural diversity in the arts and heritage through local projects. The Arts Council has given £300,000 to Rochford alone since 2020, which includes some vital support during the pandemic.
DCMS also makes public funding available through the National Lottery Heritage Fund. Last year that fund invested more than £293 million of money raised by national lottery players in almost 1,300 heritage projects across the UK. It has backed a range of community heritage projects, including schemes such as the Rochford Town Team, which is promoting a heritage trail around the market town. I will not list every project, but hon. Members will know that the National Lottery Heritage Fund gives grants that will make a visible difference in an area.
I will briefly touch on the importance of market towns to our visitor economy and tourism sectors. As all Members here today know, many market towns are magnets for tourists who want to visit, soak in the culture and spend their money on local hospitality. From the historic streets of Stamford to the literary heritage of Stratford-upon-Avon—I always remember my granddad taking me there when we were growing up—we have so many examples across Britain.
My colleague the tourism Minister’s goal is 50 million international visitors by 2030; we need to ensure that the benefits of UK tourism are being felt well beyond our major cities and in places such as market towns. To match those words with action, we are working in partnership with VisitBritain, VisitEngland and local visitor economy partnerships to put market towns at the heart of our tourism strategy.
I would love to say more on that, but in the interests of time I will move on to say that, although I have spoken to DCMS’s contribution, I am pleased to confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister has today launched the Government’s new plan for neighbourhoods programme. The plan for neighbourhoods will provide £1.5 billion to 75 communities across the UK over the next decade, including a number of market towns.
In each place, the Government will help set up a new neighbourhood board, bringing together residents, local businesses and grassroots campaigners to draw up and implement a new vision for their neighbourhood. In consultation with their community, each board will be given the freedom to decide how to spend £2 million a year to deliver the priorities of local people, whether by regenerating their historical high streets, supporting new and historical open-air markets or unlocking further local investment. Our new approach puts communities at the heart of delivery and is aimed at revitalising local areas and fighting deprivation at its root by zeroing in on three strategic objectives of building thriving places, strengthening communities and empowering people to take back control of their local areas.
Taken together, the support we are making available to market towns will help to deliver what we all want to see: thriving market towns that can look forward to a prosperous future. We want to preserve the heritage that gives those towns their identity, to make them central to our tourism sector and visitor economy, and to sustain the local cultural assets that inspire this generation and the next.
Mr Alaba
To summarise our debate, it is fair to say that market towns are up against it and often feel the sharp end of economic downturns. I know at first hand how local communities’ involvement in decision making creates thriving economies all year round and a long-term sustainable protection for cultural heritage. By harnessing the unique character of cultural heritage in our market towns, we can help to achieve local growth across the country, with all the benefits that come with that. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and thank the Minister for her response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural heritage of market towns.
Community Sport Facilities
(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
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Andy MacNae to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered community sport facilities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance today, and for all the work that she and the Government are doing to champion community sports facilities. I and many colleagues believe that easily accessible sports facilities have a huge untapped potential to contribute not just to the vibrancy of communities, but to the missions that the Government have set out to achieve. To deliver on that, we need to align funding and partnerships with need, opportunity and impact.
As a non-statutory service, local leisure provision has been disproportionately hit by years of austerity. That is especially true in the case of smaller local authorities, which lack the capacity and resilience to mitigate the cuts. The impact is particularly felt in our small towns, where hollowed-out local services amplify the feeling of being left behind. Young people in small towns rightly say, “There is nothing here for us to do,” looking with envy towards distant big towns and cities and asking, “Why do they always seem to get the money?” In this debate I will argue that we must have an approach to sports and leisure that properly values the benefits of active lives while addressing the increasing inequality of provision and being agile enough to respond to opportunity when it comes. I will start by considering the wide-ranging benefits and impacts in support of our missions.
First, well-tailored sports programmes centred around local facilities can help to drive economic growth and unlock opportunity. We know that sport builds confidence and resilience in young people, equipping them for work and helping them to break down the barriers to opportunity. If we want to see the next generation thrive, they need the confidence to seize the opportunities before them. Regular sports and physical activity provide an excellent way of embedding that confidence while growing teamwork and leadership skills. The Youth Sport Trust has provided strong evidence for that, demonstrating that sport is a key predictor of children’s self-confidence and resilience, with girls receiving an even greater positive impact from sports than boys.
The trust finds that the economic value of providing physical activity in primary schools alone is worth at least £4 billion under the Treasury’s wellbeing measures, but the economic benefits of physical activity through improving health, wellbeing and resilience are doubled for children who are either disabled or receiving free school meals. In addition, sports can provide strong and unique incentives for people to continue coming to school. RugbyWorks supports young people excluded from mainstream education; its term-time programme offers participation in key stage 3 and key stage 4, with a year-long intervention underpinned by the four pillars of its theory of change, including developing life skills, raising aspirations, improving physical wellbeing and focusing on mental wellbeing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is absolutely right to set the scene very clearly for community sports facilities. Obesity seems to be rising in the United Kingdom. Does he feel that access to sporting facilities would reduce obesity? Rural bus connections to the community centres are also part of the issue, because if people cannot get there, the centres will not be much good to anybody.
Andy MacNae
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. That is a hugely important point. Connectivity and accessibility of local facilities are vital. That is the point I am making about small towns that feel cut off—not only do they not have the facilities themselves, but they are unable to get to facilities in the towns nearby. It is a crucial part of the mix, and of course young people are particularly reliant on bus services to get to those sorts of opportunities.
The RugbyWorks programme can be delivered as a preventive programme in a mainstream setting, or with children in alternative provision who have been excluded from school. Some 89% of programme graduates progressed into sustained education, employment or training. For young people in alternative provision, the national average is just 62%, so that shows a massive impact. Overall, sport can help to engage young people in education and motivate them to gain the confidence and skills that they will need in a growing economy.
For those who have fallen out of work, sport can be a route back. We have nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds out of work—a record number, representing nearly one in seven young people. Poor mental health is by far the most commonly cited reason. For each individual, that is a tragedy, because being in work or training, with the potential to learn and progress, is crucial to getting a good start in life; on a societal level, it undermines our economic growth and puts huge pressure on our finances. The cost of poor mental health alone is estimated at £56 billion per year, with the total economic cost of economically inactive 18 to 65-year-olds coming in close to £300 billion a year. If we get a grip on that, we can really start to turn things around.
Sport can play a vital role in starting individuals on the route back to work. There are many examples of how that works well, including one close to my home: Rossendale Works is a partnership between Active Lancashire, Rossendale borough council and the Department for Work and Pensions, through the local job centre. The project works with individual suffering from entrenched worklessness and low self-esteem to understand what may be preventing a return to work. It develops a tailored work plan to address those barriers and includes a focus on sport and physical activities to boost confidence, health and wellbeing. Delivered through council leisure facilities, it has proved very effective in inspiring participants, getting them off the streets and work-ready, and reducing demand on local health services.
Importantly, there is also a process of job matching and close relationships with local employers with skills needs. The idea is that there is at the very least a guaranteed interview at the end of the process, and support is maintained through the interview and the work placement. Since the project kicked off in 2018, it has supported hundreds of Rossendale residents and has proved really effective at getting them into employment. For instance, 203 people with multiple issues were supported in 2022-23, with 68 getting into employment as a result.
Despite that, the project has remained under constant funding pressure. Over the past few years, funding has been predominantly via the shared prosperity fund on a year-by-year basis. The current programme comes to an end this month, with the council seeking a one-year extension. Such continual uncertainty undermines the benefits that a fully secure programme could deliver. Once again, we see a disconnect between funding structures and programme benefits, with small councils such as Rossendale least able to bridge any gaps.
Moving on to our health mission, accessible and engaged sports facilities play a crucial role in the health of our communities, preventing and mitigating illnesses and, in doing so, easing the pressure on our NHS. The “Healthy Britain” report, by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), highlights that obesity alone is estimated to cost the UK economy at least £58 billion a year. The British Heart Foundation estimates the annual cost to the economy of cardiovascular disease at £19 billion. The NHS spends more than £10 billion a year—or 10% of its budget—on diabetes. Sport has a massive potential to address those and other conditions. Even with our current provision, Sport England found that over 600,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, 150,000 cases of heart disease, and 1.3 million cases of depression were prevented through sport in 2023-24. As it stands, it estimates that sport activities provide at least £10 billion of savings for the NHS.
Looking specifically at mental health, overall there is a 20% to 30% lower risk of mental illness for those taking part in daily physical activity. In 2019, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report “Changing Lives” noted:
“Living Streets reported that 80% of participants on their programme for older people felt less stressed or anxious and 76% felt fitter or healthier as a result, while parkrun told us 95% of people doing free timed runs in their local park said that they felt both healthier and happier and 97% said they felt more positive as a result. Crawley Town Community Foundation used football coaching and other activities to support people experiencing or at risk of experiencing mental health problems, with 78% of participants strongly agreeing that the project had given them a positive activity to focus on.”
Similarly, Sport in Mind, a charity that works specifically to support people with mental health issues with regular sport interventions, found that after six months 94% of attendees had improved mental wellbeing, 91% reported higher self-esteem, and 82% showed reduced symptoms of depression.
Sport really does work. Overall, for every £1 we invest in sport, we get £4 in return in social and health benefits. That incredible effect led the chief medical officer to note in 2019 that if exercise
“were a drug, we would refer to it as a miracle cure”.
With better-equipped, more accessible sports facilities and an increase in social prescribing, we have the opportunity to significantly improve the physical and mental health of this nation, boosting our economy and helping the NHS. However, for that to be a true game changer, we must do it at scale and with real ambition.
Locally led and well-targeted sport-based interventions could also make our streets safer. The College of Policing has investigated the effect of sport-based intervention programmes, which are often aimed at young people in deprived areas who are at risk of falling into crime, but can also be targeted to support those who are in prison or leaving prison. The combined effect of strong communities, good role models, challenging physical activity and healthy competition has been shown to be effective at lowering crime rates. On average, sports programmes result in an increase in psychological wellbeing for 31% for the cohort and a lower reconviction rate of 14%.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that community asset transfers offer a real opportunity for grassroots clubs such as mine in Warrington South, allowing for the enhancement of community facilities while also giving local people a stake in how their clubs are run, putting people over profit and retaining an identity rooted in the community?
Andy MacNae
I absolutely agree. Of course, communities know best. Communities know what works; local people know what works, and empowering them to get involved in their local sports facilities is a hugely beneficial approach.
I will highlight the Sunderland Community Action Group’s “Night Riders” initiative, which specifically targets people in antisocial behaviour hotspots through detached youth workers. In the evenings, kids are taken from hotspot areas to cycling hubs, where they take part in a fun group cycling activity and are given bikes and helmets covered in LED lights. It takes people away from hotspots and puts them in a controlled, safe environment, with good mentors to work with them.
We know that sport-based interventions are an excellent way of tackling the causes of crime and antisocial behaviour. Through introducing young people to new experiences and new peer groups, their impact is long-lasting. Again, however, to make a real difference, we must take the best practice, mainstream it and do it at scale.
Finally, investment in modern and well-maintained sports facilities, and encouraging people to go cycling and walking, can help us to meet our net zero targets. Older, poorly maintained sports facilities can be difficult both to heat and to run. This is a huge issue, with 63% of sports halls and swimming pools now over 10 years old; indeed, nearly a quarter have not been refurbished in over 20 years. The Local Government Association has also found that leisure facilities produce between 10% and 40% of district and unitary councils’ direct carbon emissions. Inevitably, with those come higher running costs. Investing in modern, well-maintained facilities, ideally with renewable energy generation, is a route to environmental and financial sustainability.
Walking or cycling rather than driving to work or school delivers multiple benefits—a key benefit, of course, being reduced emissions and better air quality. Indeed, a University of Oxford study found that those people who switched just one trip per day from car to cycling reduced their carbon footprint by about half a tonne over a year.
Yet despite the great potential to support the delivery of such a wide range of benefits, after 14 years of Conservative cuts and the impact of covid, community sports facilities are struggling to survive. Many have been forced to close and many remain at risk of closure. It has been particularly difficult for small councils, without the reserve spending powers or bid capacity of larger councils, to maintain leisure facilities. Despite the best efforts of their officers, it is incredibly difficult to maintain facilities, let alone open new ones.
My Rossendale and Darwen constituency is a good example: we have four small towns, with populations ranging from 15,000 to 25,000. The borough council budget is less than £9 million a year. For the past 15 years, there has been some pretty heroic work by council officers, councillors and volunteers to try to keep our leisure facilities open, but despite that work we are now in a situation where two of our four towns have no significant public sector leisure provision.
Despite having a clear forward plan to deliver the facilities that we need, along with innovative and high-impact projects, at present the council, with dwindling reserves and myriad cost pressures, has no realistic way of funding it or indeed of match funding any potential capital grants—so we fall ever further behind. Yet the irony is that these are exactly the kind of small-town communities, often lacking opportunity and with serious patches of deprivation, that are most in need of the benefits that local sports and leisure facilities can offer.
I am pleased by this Government’s commitment of £123 million for funding to grassroots facilities in the current year and I am sure that we will see equally significant commitments in the future. However, I ask the Minister how we can ensure that we do not leave behind small towns and struggling councils, and how we make sure that we focus support where it is needed, and not just where the voices are loudest or the match funding pockets are deepest.
The need to ensure that funding is structured to recognise particular challenges and opportunities in small towns is one part of the equation; responding to opportunity and maximising impact is another. Our country is full of innovative people and local organisations who are keen to get together and make a difference. Our funding structures should embrace this reality and not put up barriers by pretending that central Government know best. I have already given the example Rossendale Works; for seven years now this locally designed programme that has been helping long-term unemployed people into work, yet it has been reduced in ambition and remains reliant on short-term funding.
Let me give an equally exciting example in Darwen: a top-class BMX and skatepark facility called Junction 4 Skatepark. Next to it is Darwen Vale high school, which is run by the Aldridge academy trust. Drawing on its experience of delivering the Aldridge Cricket Academy in Brighton, which has delivered excellent academic and sporting outcomes, the trust has come up with an innovative proposal for Britain’s first BMX and skateboard academy.
This approach would give students the chance to develop sporting talent and academic qualifications together, rather than having to choose between the two. More broadly, it is a chance to target pupils who have not engaged well with education and are at risk, and to give them a powerful reason for getting positively engaged in school life. At the same time, the skate park has been developing innovative proposals to add media and creative elements to their offer. As well as learning to ride, young people can learn about filming, content development, photography, event organisation and so on—all skills that could lead to excellent careers.
The academy trust and skate park are currently working on a business plan to pilot this approach. The only funding gap is likely to be revenue to cover the sports coaching elements, yet as things stand there is no obvious way of addressing it. I ask the Minister to consider how we can support such innovative approaches, responding to opportunity where it comes and mainstreaming what works, and I invite her to visit the facility and see what they can do.
The evidence for how sport can positively impact our missions seems crystal clear. Indeed, Chris Boardman would say we are “drowning in evidence”. We have plenty of examples of how to deliver on this potential with local authorities and sporting and community organisations that have initiatives ready to go. Yet under the previous Government, interventions were piecemeal, short-term and small scale, usually subject to competitive bidding and the need to fit with predetermined outcomes. At the same time, community and leisure facilities were closing at an unprecedented rate. That has led to pockets of good practice, constantly under threat of funding running out and with very limited impact nationally. That then leads to a key question. When we have an approach like this one, which is clearly capable of delivering an excellent return on investment and a positive impact that supports the objectives of multiple Departments—such as DWP, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Home Office, as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—how do we properly value these benefits? How do we mainstream these programmes at scale, with an appropriate level of support to deliver nationwide impact? How do we ensure that our small towns and left-behind places equally benefit from any such approach? I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has a saying that,
“Whatever the problem, sport can be the solution.”
We know the benefits and power of sport and physical activity, and its awesome, unarguable return on investment. However, the previous Government let our community facilities wither, leaving young people in small towns like mine with nothing to do and nowhere to go. With our focus on prevention and our commitment to left-behind communities, I hope and believe that our new Government will grasp this opportunity and empower our local authorities, sports clubs and volunteer organisations to put sport back at the heart of our communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so swiftly, Sir Jeremy. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. I know he has a great interest and passion for this subject, having already met him and discussed it. I will touch on some of his work later in my remarks.
Grassroots sports clubs are at the heart of communities up and down the country. They are places where millions of people play sport and get active every week, families share lifelong memories, barriers are broken down and friendships are made. High-quality, inclusive facilities are central to that. This Government are committed to ensuring that every community across the country has access to outstanding community sports facilities.
The benefits of being physically active and participating in sport are well known. We know that even relatively small increases in physical activity can contribute to improved health and quality of life, and that it is good for both our physical and mental health. More than that, we know that community sport can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. As things stand, not enough people are active or participating in sport. This Government are committed to getting more people active, regardless of their backgrounds, maximising the power of sport to empower diverse local communities.
It was great to attend the Football Association’s Made for this Game event in Parliament last week, part of their campaign to empower girls in schools across the country to get involved in sport. I am also looking forward to supporting the FA’s campaign next Friday, closer to home in Barnsley, for their fourth annual Biggest Ever Football Session. These are great examples of grassroots sports being open and accessible for all.
To ensure solid foundations, the Government have committed to investment in facilities that support local communities to take part in sport and physical activity, and to a review of the school curriculum that will consider the future of physical education and school sport. The Government’s approach brings in a range of Departments and public sector organisations. Sport has a central role to play in delivering in our missions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned. The health and the opportunity mission boards are bringing Departments together to ensure that action is taken around preventive health and ensuring that all children have equal opportunity, to support the country to be more physically active. My Department is representing the voice of community sport in these discussions.
The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools, sports halls, pitches and community spaces. It can help to create a sense of pride in place and improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons. We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen knows that. Today and in previous months, he has made a powerful and passionate case for the important role that high-quality and accessible community facilities can play in his constituency. By securing the debate, he has illustrated his commitment. He works closely with his local councils and takes a keen interest in their ambitions to improve the community facilities for his constituents, as evidenced in the recent sport and physical activity strategy, published by Rossendale borough council. I understand that like other local authorities—including my own—it is facing significant pressures after the past 14 years. I heard my hon. Friend’s thoughts about funding and deprivation. While local authorities are responsible for decisions about sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges they face, especially smaller councils, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out.
The Government are taking immediate action to begin to address those challenges by ensuring, in the latest local Government finance settlement, that funding goes to the places that need it most. Overall, the provisional settlement ensured that in core spending power, local government will receive a real-terms increase of about 3.2%, and I am committed to working to support our leisure sector up and down the country.
My Department is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help to increase physical activity levels. Sport England has taken a place-based investment approach, working with local authorities and active partnerships, to encourage system-wide change, and we have recently announced plans to extend its work into a further 53 communities across the country to ensure that those in greatest need can be active.
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will agree that it is great to see that his constituency is part of Sport England’s Pennine Lancashire place partnership. That work places the community at the heart of decision making, including those small-town communities that my hon. Friend champions. He gave some great examples and kindly invited me to visit them; I would be delighted to accept.
The benefits of investing in community sport and physical activity were brought to life last week, when Sport England announced new figures showing that every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 for the English economy and society. The Government recognise that high-quality, inclusive facilities help ensure that everyone has access to sport. We will continue to support grassroots sport, including through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which has involved investing £123 million across the UK in this financial year, and which leverages significant funding contributions from both the FA and the premier league. That funding is structured to prioritise areas that need it the most, taking into account local inactivity rates and deprivation.
Funding from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme continues to be invested in England through Sport England and our delivery partner, the Football Foundation, which plan their investment pipeline based on local football facility plans. Those plans have been developed in partnership with local authorities and are in the process of being refreshed to reflect the current landscape.
While facilities are no doubt vital for community sport, it is the people who really make the difference. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who give up their time, whatever the weather, to make community sport happen. Volunteers are the lifeblood of sport and physical activity. Every day, night and weekend, people can learn, play sport and get active, thanks to others giving up their time to facilitate it. Volunteers are vital to achieving a vibrant and resilient civil society, and sport accounts for more than 50% of all volunteering in the UK. One volunteer creates the capacity for at least eight and a half more people to participate—a fabulous statistic. Volunteering connects communities and is an essential means of supporting grassroots sport. As well as providing the capacity for people to take part in sport, volunteering also benefits the health and wellbeing of volunteers themselves.
Sport and physical activity are central to preventive health, and the biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. There is an evidenced direct correlation of increased activity levels in the areas of the country with the highest density of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen that we must, therefore, ensure that those facilities exist and are accessible, as a key lever to getting people active and to help in tackling health inequalities. Around 23% of people in Rossendale and Darwen are inactive, and we want to see that figure come down; I know it is higher in my own area of Barnsley. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to the NHS, preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. For publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities, we want to look at the potential to support communities on health needs in particular. We are looking at how co-location between sport and health services could help inactive groups.
I recently saw co-location in action in Essex, where local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between the health and leisure sectors, including by co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. It means that, for example, people with long-term health conditions can access activities that not only improve their physical health but are fun and social. I heard some amazing stories on my visit there. I have also seen the impact of community facilities in my constituency of Barnsley South. Your Space Hoyland, for example, is just up the road from my office and I have visited a number of times. It provides swimming, football, badminton and a range of services that support my constituents.
There are multiple examples of similar work around the country. GoodGym is adapting to tackle the increase in isolation and loneliness by offering opportunities to combine physical exercise with volunteering and providing ongoing support to individuals. As the Minister responsible for tackling loneliness, I am keen to see what more the Government can do in this space. I recently held a roundtable with a number of organisations working on loneliness, and I will work to drive further progress in the coming months.
My Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking as we look ahead to future policy around community sport and leisure facilities, as they contribute towards genuinely tackling a range of different issues, whether that be inactivity and inequality, health, or crime and antisocial behaviour, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Across all those examples, one thing is clear: having high-quality, safe, affordable facilities is vital. But more importantly, it is the people who make those facilities genuine community hubs, and this Government are committed to ensuring that facilities are built with the community at their heart.
We appreciate the huge contribution that publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities make to health and wellbeing. I am hugely passionate about that agenda; I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has made an important contribution today, championing his area, and I thank him for that.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister, who has worked a double shift this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Palestinian Rights: Government Support
(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
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This will be a very personal speech. I declare that, with a number of colleagues from all parties, I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the west bank organised by Yachad, a moderate Jewish group that seeks to promote peace between Arab and Jew. I refer to my declaration of interests.
We went to a couple of the kibbutzim that were attacked on 7 October, which was of course incredibly moving. I want to start, in order to have a fair balance, by unequivocally condemning Hamas and all their dealings, and the way they even killed women and babies. It is not my purpose to apportion blame or take sides. I am pro-Israeli and pro-Jew, and I am pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian.
What was most moving about the trip was to be in a kibbutz listening to an 80-year-old lady. On that day in October she was cowering with her husband; her daughter was down the road. Next door to her daughter, people in their eighties were deliberately burned to death. What did that woman say to us? She said, “All my life, I’ve striven for peace, and I will go on striving for peace. I even took my driving test in Gaza. I have many friends in Gaza.” What an inspiring moment that was.
Later, we talked to another Israeli woman, whose son had been shot dead by a Palestinian sniper when he was simply doing his military service. She too said, “I’m absolutely dedicated to peace.” We talked to the brother of a hostage who was a conscript dragged from his tank—he is still a hostage—and he also talked of peace. We talked to a youngish Palestinian, whose father is very well known and has been imprisoned by the Israelis for a very long time, and they also talked of peace. We talked to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who also talked of peace.
The purpose of this debate, if we have any moral authority at all, is to convince our moderate Israeli friends that it is simply not in the long-term interests of Israel to hold down in occupation some 5 million Palestinians—2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the west bank. There are many moderate Israeli citizens—I would say a majority—who agree with that supposition. However, there are some extremist settlers who have the completely wrong idea that somehow they can expel people who have lived for centuries in the west bank from their ancestral homelands. That is something that I know our Government and everybody in this debate will unequivocally condemn.
On our visit, we spent time in the west bank. It was incredibly moving to visit a small Palestinian settlement on dry lands to see how they were coping. We saw a beautifully turned-out little girl, the same age as my granddaughter, living in those appalling conditions. In that very hot and dry climate, they traditionally sheltered in caves to protect themselves from the heat, and from the cold in winter, and extremist settlers had deliberately smashed the caves. We went to another village nearby where the hall had been deliberately smashed. The moment that we turned up, two young settlers—I can only describe them as punks—turned up with sub-machine-guns, in a clear act of intimidation.
The purpose of this debate—and I agree that our influence is only moral—is to draw attention to what is happening on the west bank, because so many eyes are fixed on Gaza. I will not talk a lot about Gaza; it is incredibly important, but I have very little time and I want to talk about the west bank.
Data from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs suggests that there were 1,800 incidents of settler violence on the west bank between 7 October 2023 and 31 December 2024, which is an average of four a day. With the whole world’s attention on Gaza, perhaps there has been too little attention on the west bank. The Nablus governorate saw 411 incidents. These incidents vary in nature; they include up-front violence but also other forms of harassment.
The olive harvest in October and November has been a particular time of tension. Harvests have been interfered with and crops damaged. Often the police, army and armed settlers, organised as civilian security co-ordinators, are either physically present or alleged participants. Settlers and soldiers have attacked, beaten or threatened harvesters. There are even eight cases of live fire being directed at Palestinian farmers. Soldiers shot and killed a 59-year-old Palestinian woman from the village of Faqqu’a. Agricultural equipment has been stolen, property damaged, and crops taken or destroyed.
The west bank is economically precarious, and destroying crops or preventing a harvest is extremely damaging. Hundreds of Palestinian-owned olive trees have been torched, sawed down or destroyed. Because of the deployment of Israeli troops in Gaza and Lebanon, settlers have been drafted into the army to protect other settlers. As a consequence, some settlers have committed violence while in Israel Defence Forces uniform.
A delegation of British rabbis organised by Yachad witnessed young settlers spitting at and kicking a Palestinian woman in Hebron. And so it goes on. We went to Hebron; again, it was unbelievably moving. On the main road, right in the middle of this ancient city, it is completely deserted. A small settler movement has moved into Hebron and there are 800 Israeli soldiers protecting them. The Palestinians are prevented from even walking down the main road in their own town.
It was moving, when we went to Ramallah, to talk to a grandmother—actually, she is a very distinguished banker—who cannot even see her grandson in Nablus, because although it is a very quick drive to Nablus from Ramallah, there are so many checkpoints that it takes seven or eight hours to get there. Everywhere in the west bank, there are checkpoints.
Virtually every application—over 90% of them—to build or extend a settlement is granted, but virtually every application by Palestinians to build is rejected. This is totally one-sided. It is intolerable, and we should speak out about it in this Parliament. That is what I want to do today.
I know that it has become unfashionable to talk about the two-state solution; people say that it is just western politicians going on about it and it is never going to happen. It must happen. There is no solution other than a two-state solution. As a young MP 40 years ago, I sat in the office of Abba Eban, a distinguished former Israeli foreign minister. He said, “It is completely absurd and ridiculous for us to hold down 5 million people.” That was his view, but unfortunately there are now people in the Israeli Government who actually believe that Palestinians can be ejected.
There is a role for us, and it is not just moral. We had a very good meeting with our Foreign Office civil servants in the West Bank Protection Consortium. I say to the Minister that I hope he will give them more resources, because they are doing a tremendous job in calling out some of this settler violence.
We were anxious to get both sides of this issue, so we also had a meeting with the Israeli foreign service. They were very reasonable and charming people. They knew all about us—fair enough. Of course, I raised the issue of settler violence—why would I not? They said, “Oh, it’s illegal.” Of course it is illegal, but the Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow. They choose not to.
So many people make suggestions, but if I may make one, it is in the absolute interest of Israel to try to calm this down, to clamp down on illegal settlers, to stop all new settlements and to come to a settlement. I will end on that point. It is in our interest to go on encouraging this process, to have the moral courage to remember these people and to say that this debate is about peace. I know that everybody is depressed and full of doom and gloom that it will never happen, but people often thought that way in history. People thought the Soviet Union would last forever. I am confident that, eventually, logic and peace will break out, and these two great peoples—Arab and Jew, Palestinian and Israeli—can live side by side in peace.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob in order to be called—although, by the look of it, they do not need reminding.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this important debate.
Last month, I was with the Father of the House as part of a cross-party group of MPs who visited the occupied west bank and Israel. While in southern Israel, we also had the chance to look towards Gaza from a distance. We stood up high on a viewing platform that looked toward the Mediterranean and, through a telescope—and a close-up on an hon. Friend’s iPhone—what emerged was the stark image of the bombed-out buildings and smashed streets of a war-torn city. It was truly a vision of hell.
Just this week, Israel has suspended aid deliveries to Gaza—a move that is all the more devastating during the holy month of Ramadan, when food has particular significance. The latest blockade confirms that the Netanyahu Government see humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip; it is a callous tactic of political leverage. It lays bare that this Israeli Government do not see aid as their legal duty to help the most vulnerable in a conflict zone.
On our trip we visited the site of the Nova music festival—a very moving sight indeed—where nearly 800 young Israelis were murdered on that horrific night of 7 October. We also met Yotam Cohen, brother of Nimrod Cohen, who was taken hostage by Hamas and remains with them. Yotam Cohen’s cold anger at the Netanyahu Government was palpable to everyone who met him. He felt that the Government could have freed his brother, along with all the other hostages, much sooner—many months ago.
But while the tens of thousands of deaths in Gaza rightly deserve our attention, on our trip to the west bank, as the Father of the House has just said, we became very conscious of the fact that a future Palestinian state is being slowly suffocated by extremist Israeli settlers enabled and protected by the Israeli police and armed forces.
As the Labour and Co-operative MP for Rochdale, what heartened me was how the co-operative movement has deep roots in both the Israeli kibbutzim movement and the Palestinian economy. In Ramallah, I met the general union of Palestinian co-operatives, which shared with me video footage showing how, miraculously, amid the rubble of Gaza, the agricultural co-op is growing seedlings for strawberries, peppers and aubergines, and trying to rebuild an income for all those who have been devastated by the war. These are literally green shoots of hope amid all the darkness and despair.
Our trip, organised by Yachad—a British Jewish group that campaigns for a political resolution of the conflict—allowed us to see the trauma on all sides, and talk to many Palestinian and Israeli peacebuilders who believe that there is still hope. We met Roni Keidar, a resident of Netiv HaAsara in southern Israel who, as the Father of the House said, had to hide in her house as Hamas fighters murdered 20 people in her village. When we asked her for a message to the British people about the state of Israeli and Palestinian relations, Roni said: “Tell them there are many people like me who do think there is room for both of us…If we keep saying ‘it is either us or them’, eventually there will be neither us nor them.”
Throughout our visit, the resilience of the Palestinian people was evident. Arab Barghouti, son of the jailed Palestinian politician Marwan Barghouti, told us that his people’s very existence is itself an act of resilience and resistance. Mohammad Mustafa, the Palestinian Prime Minister, perhaps put it best when he told us, “Being hopeless is not a privilege we Palestinians can have.” It is our job in the UK and in this Parliament to make sure that we do everything we can, locally and nationally, to fuel that hope with practical action and diplomacy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I see a lot of Members are standing. I will not impose a formal time limit, but if people stick to about three minutes, everyone will get in. I discourage interventions.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour and privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for securing this critical debate.
Together with other Members speaking today, I have just returned from a cross-party visit to Israel and the west bank—a journey that brought us face to face with the human cost of war and violence for Israelis and Palestinians. We met so many people of all ages, from all sides and at all levels of power, who are working daily to try to bring about the conditions for a lasting peace in spite of the unspeakable and ongoing trauma. On the one hand are the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October, killing over 1,200 people and taking hundreds of hostages, with 60 still held captive. On the other hand is the brutal war in Gaza, killing 45,000 Palestinians, including 18,000 children, displacing thousands and imprisoning many.
A different kind of violence extends to the west bank. It is not new and it did not start on 7 October. It has been ongoing and escalating since the ceasefire agreement. During our visit, we were witness to the impacts of daily violence by extremist settlers in the occupied territories and of the policies that continue to erode the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. That includes the rights of the young Palestinian schoolgirl and her family, whom we visited in their village of Susya. She told us how, on a nightly basis, she is woken up terrified by marauding settlers who have set up their outpost nearby. Just a couple of nights before we arrived, late at night, she heard the sound of stones being thrown at the window of her home. That night, the settlers also smashed the window of her father’s car and slashed the car tyre. She can name them, describe them and point to where they live.
We visited the nearby primary school, built with UK and European aid funding, that had been completely demolished by the settlers. Desks were mangled and educational picture books were strewn in the rubble. Through a remaining window, we had a clear view of the settler outpost. From there, a quad bike came rushing towards us with two settler youths, grins on their faces, swagger in their steps and a sub-machine-gun slung over their shoulder. For us, it was just harassment. As anyone can imagine, however, for Nasser’s daughter and the families in the village, it is a terrifying ordeal.
That is why many people, Israeli and international, offer to provide what is called a protective presence for Palestinian schoolchildren in the rural areas in their villages to try to ensure that they have the basic right of safety as they walk to school. They also provide a protective presence for Palestinian farmers to harvest their crops.
That same night, after we left the village, between 3 am and 5 am there was a settler incursion during which the neighbour’s car was torched with a petrol bomb. The police attended at the request of the village, but the main outcome was that two of the internationals, staying overnight as a protective presence, were arrested. They were then in Jerusalem with a two-week ban on visiting the west bank.
There is impunity for the perpetrators, and the removal of the equal rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the law and in the protection of the police. In fact, since 2005, only 3% of investigations into ideologically motivated crime against Palestinians in the west bank led to a full or partial conviction. It is not just the violation of Palestinian rights through the actions of a few extremist settlers.
There has been a huge increase in settlement and settler violence since the Hamas attacks on 7 October. With attention focused on Gaza and the hostage crisis in Israel, it has given settlers an opportunity to attack with increasing impunity. At least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied west bank were recorded.
The suffering we witnessed compels us to act, speak out and ensure that the rights of those who have long been marginalised are protected. The face and future of Nasser’s daughter at the mercy of marauding extremist settlers haunts us. We also heard from Roni Keidar, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned, whom we met at Netiv HaAsara. On the day we met, Roni had just received the English translation of her new biography. I remember her words so vividly—that either the Israeli and Palestinian people find a way to live together, or they will die together.
I ask the Government to reassure us with, first, a clear and public renunciation of President Trump’s Riviera proposals as ethnic cleansing—the forcible transfer of the over 2 million people of Gaza would constitute a crime against humanity; secondly, the UK Government’s recognition of a Palestinian state and commitment to a two-state solution, because everyone needs a political horizon to have hope; and thirdly, extending the sanctions that the UK already has to regional councils in the west bank, which are responsible for funding the construction and the supply of services to illegal and violent outposts.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing this important debate. We are discussing the rights of Palestinians, but when our constituents watch on television or their smartphones what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, they would be forgiven for thinking that the Palestinian people have no rights at all.
We need absolute clarity in this House that every single Palestinian man, woman and child has the right to life and the right to a decent existence, and that Palestinians have a right to a state. The Father of the House is correct: a two-state solution is often talked about, but we have to be careful that that does not just become a ritual—we want to see it happen in practice. What we see is an Israeli Government allowing the settlements so that a two-state solution becomes a practical and geographical impossibility. We cannot allow that to happen.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “vile”. We want that moral clarity in relation to the actions of Netanyahu’s Government. What that Government have done to the people of Gaza and the people of the west bank is vile. A war crime is a war crime, whoever commits it—whether it be Putin, Netanyahu or anyone else. Many of our constituents look at what goes on in this place, and look at what goes on in the world, and think that there are double standards. All lives are equal, and international law applies to all. Where does that leave us as a Parliament? Where does that leave us as a state?
Quite often, the Government have called for the right things. I am pleased about that, but I am afraid that Netanyahu does not listen, so action is required. In relation to the unlawful invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s war crimes, the Government have shown that they know how to introduce widespread sanctions, and they have rightly done so.
We need widespread sanctions to be brought against Israel until it complies with international law and stops the war crimes. We see the rulings of the international courts, including the International Court of Justice; there is no legal or moral reason not to. In fact, there are legal and moral imperatives for our Government to take action with specific sanctions, including imposing targeted sanctions against state actors, banning the import of illegal settlement products, a total and immediate arms ban, and the suspension of the trade agreement with Israel.
All too often, it is easy to think that the voices in Parliament for peace, international law and a just outcome are minority voices on the world stage. In fact, that is not the case. The position of the United States and, historically, a number of UK Governments, has been out of step with the international community. We need to get in step with the international community.
I will conclude by referring to a meeting that took place in Parliament just last week with the chair of The Hague Group. I was lucky enough to go, along with others, to the launch of the group—nine nations that have taken practical action to uphold the international court rulings and bring practical sanctions against Israel—at The Hague. If we do not do that, our words will not mean enough. Words, I am afraid, are not enough to relieve the suffering, death and horrendous experiences that are going on in the west bank and Gaza on a daily basis.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am delighted that we are having this debate. I compliment the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate, but for the decent, human way that he presented the case for people who want peace in the region. That must be the message that we all put forward today. The images that we have seen and heard about today are unbelievably horrific; I can relate to many of them, having visited Israel, the west bank and Gaza many times and seen those horrific images for myself.
People’s thirst to gain peace, and in particular peace through justice, has led to a search for peace through international law, hence the application that was made by South Africa to the International Court of Justice and the application that was made to the International Criminal Court. It was my pleasure to go to the International Court of Justice with the South Africans to observe the proceedings there.
I was recently in The Hague, alongside the hon. Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for the launch of The Hague Group. The group is made up of a number of nations that have determined to proselytise on every global stage for the carrying out of international law, with respect to the illegal nature of the occupation and the bombardment of Gaza, as well as the continuing bombardment of the west bank.
As Members of Parliament, we have been elected and we are all very proud to be here. Our primary function is to hold the UK Government to account and to demand policies of our Government that are appropriate to a given occasion. I wrote yesterday to the Prime Minister to ask that he initiate a Chilcot-style inquiry into the whole gamut of policies in relation to Israel, Palestine and the conduct of this war. I think that we, as a country, need examine ourselves in this, and what we have actually done over the past few years. I say that with respect to both the current and previous Governments, because some of us were in the previous Parliament or previous Parliaments before that. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough and myself have been here for an equal length of time; it is just that he signed the book 15 minutes earlier than I did on that fateful day in 1983. I compliment him on his speed.
In my letter, I put the following points to the Prime Minister. History is repeating itself. Today, the death toll in Gaza has exceeded 61,000; two Israeli officials are now warranted by the ICC for war crimes; and Britain has played a highly influential role in all of that. A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee outlined the extent of that relationship, including the sale of weapons, the supply of intelligence and the use of RAF bases in Cyprus. Many of us have repeatedly objected to the use of those bases, and the continuing supply of weapons. We must pursue all the avenues that we can for an independent inquiry and some transparency about what is going on.
Our Government—both the current and previous Governments—have supplied weapons, have supplied intelligence and have allowed the use of the RAF bases in Akrotiri. Some 61,000 people are already dead in Gaza, there is a rising death toll in the west bank and, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, the Israeli Government are encouraging the settlement policy. Let us have some transparency and let us hold our Government to account so that we can play our part in bringing about peace and justice for the people of the region.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their abbreviated remarks. If people keep going in that way, everyone will get in.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for moving the motion. The remarks we have heard today have been powerful.
Last week, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I travelled to the west bank—to the Occupied Palestinian Territories—and passed through area C. We also visited Saudi, where we met leaders to discuss their plans and hopes for peace. We went to Jordan, where we met Ministers, and again discussed their plans and their hopes for peace. Finally, we went to Tel Aviv and to East and West Jerusalem. We went into the heart of the Knesset and met our counterparts on the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee.
It was a sobering trip, but I believe in the invaluable power of diplomacy and the immeasurable importance of seeing places in person, so that we can come back and speak authentically about the reality of what is happening on the ground. As the daughter of a community who have faced persecution and fled armed conflict, I found it a particularly emotional and tough trip. In Israel and Palestine, the depth and strength of feeling on both sides is palpable.
The United Kingdom and our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff on the ground in the region are putting in painstaking and tireless diplomatic efforts; our ambassadors are an unsung testament to Britain’s efforts to find peace. That is why UK politicians must not inflame tensions, and must genuinely commit to working to find a peaceful way forward, while holding people to account for the atrocities we all know are happening.
I have come home determined to redouble my efforts to find peace, as well as to stand up and be a voice for the things I have seen. In Israel, it is evident that the release of the hostages and the return of the bodies is paramount, and the issue seems to be hampering any chance of progress. The nation is in deep collective trauma and grief. Every single person has a story of being touched by the terror of 7 October and Hamas.
I met former hostage families who are themselves calling for peace, and who feel the pain of what is happening on the Palestinian side. Still they want our hand of peace and friendship, and they want us to understand what they are going through. I was there on the day of the Bibas family funerals—a mother and her two young babies, who were killed. Grief permeates that society, which I fear may never recover. We must show that, as global partners, we understand that grief.
The frustrations of people in Israel are palpable, and those frustrations are with their political class. Sitting down with counterparts in the Knesset, I saw no will or desire to push forward for peace. That was sobering and, frankly, quite depressing. Without breaking diplomatic protocol, I will say that some of what was openly said to us—members of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee—was sobering. I certainly would not say things like that in Parliament; it is not acceptable, and we must call it out at every turn.
Some people we talked to are not willing to accept the hand of support from stable regions in the middle east, and I fear that that will hamper their efforts. Normalisation with Saudi is key to finding a way forward. However, I also met brave Israelis working in non-governmental organisations who are putting their lives on the line, pushing for peace and trying to find a path forward. We must remember that they, too, are struggling against a Government that do not seem to be listening to them.
In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I was the only Member of Parliament who was able to go and meet Bedouin women and their children. I do not care to repeat some of what they showed me on their phones; the Bedouin—particularly the women and children—face unfathomable settler violence, and we must call it out. The community’s wider conditions are stark: their access to electricity is limited, and their access to water is hampered. There is a stream within touching distance, but they are unable to use it: above it there is a sign, with a Star of David, that makes it very clear that they may not drink or even touch the water. It is terrifying and shocking.
I was there as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with full diplomatic protection, security and a reinforced 4x4, and we still had guns pointed in our faces. We were still terrified, and our drivers would still not take us any further into area C, for fear of what would happen to us. I was there as a British Member of Parliament. Can you imagine what the Bedouin people face day in, day out? Can you imagine the settler violence they face? The IDF turn up and the police turn up, and they let it happen. It is sanctioned by the state, it is sanctioned by the IDF and it is sanctioned by the police. The intimidation and violation is around the clock. The reality of settler violence is not going away, and we must call it out.
In the Old City, the arbitrary demolishing of family homes from generations past is stark; it was shown to me by a brave Palestinian man and a brave Israeli NGO worker who walked us around, and who told me he expected to get a call from the security services the minute we left because, as we know, this is the most surveilled place on Earth, with cameras at every turn. I walked past the rubble of family homes and of lives once lived, and I felt the fear of those still living. Despite that, their resilience and their determination to stand for their homes and their land is unwavering.
The UK must continue to push for unhindered access to and provision of aid. We must resist the Knesset’s crippling restrictions on NGOs and foreign aid workers. We must resist its ability to block foreign reporters from reporting on what is happening on the ground. We must allow humanitarian aid access into the west bank and, crucially, into Gaza. I ask the Minister what our Government’s response is to the settler violence, and call for them to consider sanctions on settlement goods. We know that Israel is now stopping the entry of all aid into Gaza, and we must condemn that at every level.
Hamas’s military capabilities need to be eliminated. An ideology is much harder to root out, but with time, peace and education it is possible. The Palestinian Authority need political reform, so that they have the confidence of the Palestinian people. It is clear that neither side can do it alone; international allies and allies in the region have a seismic role to play, and so do we in this room.
I will not forget what I have seen for the rest of my life, and I promise that, now that I have come back, I will redouble my efforts to be a strong voice here and to work with partners globally to push forward so that the region finally sees peace, Palestinians have their statehood and Israel can be safe and secure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I appreciate that the debate is arousing strong feelings, and I want to get everyone in. Please work with me. If Members speak for a couple of minutes each, we will get you all in.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I want to say a special thank you to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for his compassionate and humane speech. It was extremely touching.
I want to speak about a certain aspect of this conflict. Last Monday, 24 February, a piercing shrill broke the silence of the night. It was a mother crying because her two-month-old baby, Sham, had frozen to death. These are the real human costs of this conflict. Sham joins five other children who have frozen to death in the past month, joining the 116 other Palestinians who have been killed since the ceasefire began. Like many other Members here, I have spoken about this issue countless times here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, and nothing seems to change. We sit here and discuss the rights and wrongs, but as the Father of the House said, this conflict keeps nobody safe, including the Israelis.
I want to be a little more forthright than the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who could not repeat what she heard in the Knesset. There are sentiments that have been openly declared and that, unlike any BBC show, require no translation. Let us take a glimpse into the minds of many Israeli Ministers. Nissim Vaturi, who is the Deputy Speaker of the House, said that Palestinians are “scoundrels” and “subhumans”, and that Israel must
“separate the children and women and kill the adults in Gaza. We are being too considerate.”
He has previously called for the complete erasure of the Gaza strip. The Israeli Heritage Minister, Amichai Eliyahu, openly suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said that there were no “uninvolved civilians in Gaza”. The then Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, who announced a “complete siege” of Gaza, said Israel was fighting “human animals”. And, of course, we have Benjamin Netanyahu himself, who—reciting the Hebrew Bible—said:
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
We rightly ask about the impartiality of the BBC, but I do not recall the same level of hysteria about the open sentiments expressed by Israeli Ministers that demonise, dehumanise and destroy two-month-old babies. The BBC’s infamous documentary merely gives us a glimpse into the blighted lives of Palestinian children, at a time when no independent journalist is allowed into Gaza and over 160 journalists have been killed.
All I ask the Minister is this: when will the Government call out the atrocities as war crimes and as genocide, and when will they do that with the same conviction as we call out other conflicts? Or are Palestinian lives simply not as important?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing the debate. It was a privilege to join him recently on the delegation organised by Yachad to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
At the outset, I must share my horror at the Israeli Government’s most recent action in stopping all aid going into Gaza. It is paramount that both Israel and Hamas move to the second phase of the ceasefire so that we can secure the return of all hostages and a long-term peace.
Visiting the west bank and the Gaza envelope was an honour, and it brings a perspective I will never forget. While we were in the west bank, we heard directly from Palestinian families who have been victims of settler violence. It is estimated that there are around 250 settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem—settlements that have led to Palestinian families being attacked, Palestinian children being harassed on the way to and from school, cars being burned and damaged, houses and schools being destroyed, access to water and roads being blocked, and families being prevented from working their land to make a living and feed themselves.
Not only did we hear about settler violence, but we witnessed it at first hand when we were approached by two armed settlers in the south Hebron hills. An even more alarming incident occurred last week, when Yachad organised a trip for a group of British rabbis on a similar visit to ours. A settler drove his car towards the delegation, threatening to run into it on several occasions, blocking the participants from leaving the area and then driving into the side of their bus, as well as the car that was accompanying them with the photographer. The same delegation of rabbis—British Jewish leaders who care about Israel and who want peace—saw at first hand how settler youths attacked Palestinian women in Hebron, spitting at them and kicking them until the military intervened. No punitive action was taken. It is clear that, in the west bank, settlers control the land.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking so passionately about her visit. I worked as a human rights observer in Hebron several years ago, and one thing that is too little understood in this place and the other place is the day-to-day humiliation and degradation that Palestinians are put through, in addition to the horrific violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that that day-to-day humiliation and degradation are just as unacceptable?
Tracy Gilbert
I absolutely agree that the challenge the Palestinian people face just trying to live their day-to-day lives is completely intolerable.
Luckily, to return to the incident I was describing, no one was hurt on this occasion—but that is not the case on every occasion. Those are just a few examples of the threats of violence that Israeli settlers inflict on Palestinians every day.
The situation of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza is desperate. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation of the west bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip to be unlawful under international law. The court emphasised that Israel’s prolonged occupation and settlement activities violate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and contravene international legal principles. It also stated that all states are obligated to ensure that they are not in any way aiding or assisting the maintenance of the continued presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
As a democratic country committed to the rule of law and human rights, the UK must consider the gravity of that ruling and how it will affect UK-Israeli relations. In particular, it must examine whether continuing to allow goods produced in settlements in the west bank into the UK market would be considered assisting and prolonging the occupation, hence denying basic rights to the Palestinian people. I welcome the sanctions put in place last October, but I am keen to hear from the Minister what impact they have had and what further actions the Government can take. For example, they could extend sanctions to regional councils in the west bank that are responsible for funding illegal and violent outposts.
I will close with the powerful remarks made by Roni Keidar, whom our delegation met, as colleagues have pointed to. As a woman who has lived on the Gaza border most of her life and survived the attacks on 7 October, she said that
“either the Israeli and Palestinian people find a way to live together, or they will die together.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for setting the scene.
The topic of Government support for Palestinian rights cannot be discussed without acknowledging Israel’s right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. That is a non-negotiable principle for me, and for many others in this Chamber. Israel has the right, and the duty, to defend herself against the terrorists Hamas, who have long inflicted violence on innocent civilians. We must remember that it is Hamas, with their acts of barbarity and their deliberate targeting of civilians, who have led to the consequences of retaliatory warfare that we see today.
The acts of 7 October were despicable, but more recently we saw the celebrations around the coffins containing women and children who were Israeli hostages. The awful, inhuman celebration, which made a mockery of the innocent lives contained within those coffins, would have been cause for further Israeli action. I thank the Israelis for their strength in the face of further pain, hurt and provocation.
However, although I remain unwavering in my support for Israel’s right to defend herself, I also recognise the need for compassion and empathy for the Palestinian people. Many Palestinian civilians are victims of violence, deprived of necessities and subjected to an increasingly precarious living situation through the acts of Hamas, whom they have no ability to evict from their own communities. The collapse of infrastructure and diversion of aid, which is intended for civilians but has been used by militants, exacerbates the almost impossible life lived by the families in Gaza who wish for nothing more than peace and a safe place to raise their children.
Acknowledging the Palestinian people’s suffering does not diminish my support for Israel. We must advocate for a compassionate end to this dreadful conflict that recognises both the needs of those innocent Palestinians who are victims of the terrorists Hamas within their communities, and Israel’s right to security and safety. Were it not for the fêted Iron Dome, the simple fact is that Israel would have been wiped off the map, and the genocide of its people, which is the aim of Hamas and all other interested parties, would have been completed. Of course, Hamas have been baby killers. They have raped women and they have murdered everyone.
The suffering of women and children are realities that cannot be ignored, which is why we are all in this Chamber today to advocate for peace, a new way forward and hope for all the children on each side of the boundary in Gaza. It is clear that peace cannot be achieved unless there is a mutual recognition of each other’s rights. Palestine must unequivocally acknowledge Israel’s right to exist politically, territorially and socially. That recognition must be accompanied by a commitment to peace, which means an end to terrorism and violence. For peace to flourish, we need both sides to renounce hatred and violence. It is crucial that we hold firm in demanding an end to terrorist attacks launched from Palestinian territories, as they undermine the prospects of a lasting peace.
It is my view that a two-state solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace and security, cannot exist with Hamas’s continued aggression. The Government have a role to play in addressing this issue—not just by offering support for humanitarian aid, but by standing firm in our support for Israel’s security while pushing for genuine peace. If we do that, we can find a way forward. We can find a way if there is a willingness, and if Hamas are eradicated from the Earth.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I extend my thanks to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for ensuring that this important debate took place.
Gaza is not a political football. It is home to 2 million people, and the west bank is home to 3 million. Five million people’s lives are impacted. Gazans are not pawns to be used in any game. Gaza is home to millions of innocent people. Have they not suffered enough? This conflict in their homes has devasted communities, decimated entire areas and destroyed countless lives. Yet the first phase of the ceasefire has expired, weakening the hopes of innocent civilians because that process hangs by a thread.
The coming days are critical. Every time progress stalls, the stakes grow higher. Humanitarian aid falters, rebuilding efforts crumble and a return to the levels of bloodshed, violence and tragedy we saw just weeks ago looms closer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) said, the stakes are so high. The degradation of the Palestinian people and the untold amount of bloodshed must not continue. We must call it out for what it is.
More families are being torn apart. Children are left without vital food and water, and more lives are left in limbo with little relief in sight. Gazans are living with uncertainty on all sides. They are uncertain if Israel will allow aid in, uncertain if they will ever rebuild their homes, and uncertain if they will ever have a land of their own. How many more Palestinian lives must be lost before we finally them afford them the same respect and dignity that is afforded to others?
The next few days and weeks are crucial. We cannot allow this deal to break down. We must continue the fight for a two-state solution. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, is absolutely right when he says we must keep up the pressure. We must shine a light on this tragedy so it is never forgotten. Palestinians need a safe and secure state, alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Unlike other Members who have been reflecting on recent visits to the region, although I have visited the region more recently, I visited both Gaza and Israel as long ago as 2012. My reflection when I returned, particularly from Gaza, was how appalling the conditions were. How much worse they are now. I wrote an article for my church magazine reflecting on my visit to Israel and I said that one could feel the tensions within society. It was not a society at ease with itself, and I suspect that is probably still the case.
In preparing for this contribution, I looked back on the Backbench debate that took place in October 2014 about the recognition of Palestine. I noted that 39 Conservatives voted for recognition, including me and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was a Teller on that occasion, I noted. It would be interesting to hear from the Front Benchers what their views are now on that particular situation.
One of the contributions came from our former colleague Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who of course in the 1990s was Foreign Secretary. His view was that it was not the right time for recognition at that point because to be a recognisable state there needed to be a functioning Government and military. In the present circumstances, achieving a functioning, democratically accountable Government and all the extensions of that such as a military is clearly an impossibility. I am very interested to hear the Front Benchers’ comments on that.
As the Father of the House said, and I agree entirely, Israel has a perfect right to exist. I would describe myself as a friend of Israel, but friends can be critical and there is a lot to criticise the state of Israel about. It must surely recognise that its actions in Gaza—while with the perfectly legitimate aim of eliminating Hamas, particularly after the appalling atrocities of 7 October—are creating the Hamas of the future. They are radicalising the children and young people, who see death and destruction all around. How will they not grow up wanting revenge for what they see?
In so many ways, Israel is an admirable country. The people have shown courage. Their science and technology are very advanced, and the resulting benefits are tremendous. However, Israel has a proportional representation system of Government, which inevitably means coalitions, and the extreme elements that exist within those coalitions will always hold them back. I very much hope that after this debate a united approach can be taken, whereby we recognise the rights of Israel but are also extremely critical where appropriate.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will delay calling the Front Benchers until 3.30 pm, so that I can get more Back Benchers in.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for securing this debate; I got to know him well recently on our visit to the region. I also thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I am rapidly rewriting my speech, because many things that I would have said have already been covered.
I start by paying my respects to the more than 1,200 people who were killed on 7 October 2023 in those horrific and barbaric attacks by Hamas, whose intent was genocidal, in the sense that they saw anybody who was in that space as a legitimate target. Hamas are completely against the existence of the state of Israel. I have always been a believer in Israel; I believe in a homeland for the Jewish people. However, what I discovered while I was in the region is that Hamas are not the only organisation within that space who are opposed to a two-state solution; extremist elements in the Israeli Government are seemingly opposed to a two-state solution as well. When we met Mohammad Mustafa, the Prime Minister of Palestine, it became clear to me that he was the only political actor I met who is committed to that two-state solution.
Other Members have already spoken well on the settler violence that we witnessed, which was horrific. It is horrific to see people living under decades of occupation. One thing that struck me is the challenge that the Palestinian Authority face to give hope to people, and persuade them not to use armed resistance but to be peaceful after decades living under occupation in a situation where they do not have the same political rights as others, and where Palestinian families are driven away from their villages. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described well a school that we saw had been smashed to pieces; the remains of children’s workbooks were still strewn across the floor.
I was grateful this week to see our Prime Minister literally put an arm around President Zelensky. I feel that the time has also come that we need to put an arm around the Palestinian people—indeed, not just the Palestinian people but all people in that region who are moderates but whose voices are being drowned out.
I will briefly suggest three or four things that we need to look at. One is the ICJ ruling. We know that last summer the ICJ gave an advisory opinion that there is an unlawful occupation, and that the prolonged presence of Israel is unlawful and breaches principles of international law, including the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring civilian population into the territory that it occupies. That ICJ ruling also put obligations on states to recognise the illegal situation. It is disappointing that the United Kingdom Government abstained in the UN General Assembly on this issue. Can we please revisit that, because as Israel’s position shifts our position needs to shift as well?
I used to be of the opinion that recognition of the state of Palestine should come as part of a negotiated settlement, but it is now clear to me that a Palestinian Authority who are committed to a two-state solution needs that recognition sooner rather than later. Could the Minister set out a road map for that?
It is also deeply concerning that the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to Israeli prisons is being blocked, because we know that human rights abuses and torture are occurring in those prisons. Can we please do something about that?
The economy of Palestine is in a terrible state. When we visited the Bank of Palestine, a specific ask was to include Palestine within the mandate of British international investment, to strengthen the Palestinian economy. Finally, can we do more on sanctions to address settler violence? Can we please put an arm around those people and say, “enough is enough”?
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on bringing this important debate. I will cut down my speech to the bare bones and focus on the rights of the Palestinians as attributed to them by the Government here.
I believe that the UK’s denial of Palestinian rights for more than a century has directly led to the situation we face today. What rights have we denied them? As right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, they have a right for the UK not to refuse to recognise their state, their homeland. They have a right not to be starved and denied essential life supplies, such as water and medicines. They have a right not to be unlawfully killed by Israeli forces and settlers at any point in their daily lives. They have a right not to be unlawfully and violently evicted from their homes, and forcibly displaced.
They have a right not to face abusive detention and torture in Israeli prisons. They have a right not to face movement restrictions, blockades and checkpoints that prevent pregnant mothers reaching hospitals to deliver babies. They have a right not to face discriminatory laws passed daily by the Israeli Knesset. They have a right not to undergo collective punishment and not to be sexually abused trying to live their lives.
To conclude, it is clear that successive UK Governments and many in this House have denied the rights of Palestinians, and continue to do so in blind loyalty in defence of Israel and its many war crimes. Palestinians are as human as any Israeli or Ukrainian, and deserve the same rights from the UK.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman have agreed to have slightly shorter times. I will try to get two more people in for one minute each.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir John. I also thank the Father of the House for securing this debate. In his Oscar acceptance speech, the director of the film “No Other Land”, Basel Adra, called on the world to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. We must bear witness to the atrocities documented in his film, and the genocide documented on our mobile phone screens, and heed his call.
Having committed what many experts are clear is genocide in Gaza, Israel is now, during the holy month of Ramadan, once again collectively punishing the people of Gaza by withholding aid. The UK has licensed arms for export to Israel, and UK military bases have been used to facilitate military cargo to Israel, and for surveillance flights over Gaza. It is very difficult to argue that the UK Government are not complicit in at least some of Israel’s breaches of international law.
If the UK is seen to take an inconsistent approach to war crimes, it undermines the international legal order, which is there to protect us all. We must not treat Israel differently just because it has been our ally. If the ceasefire holds—we must do everything in our diplomatic power to ensure that it does—rebuilding Gaza will be a huge challenge. We must play our part in that by committing significant funding and other resources.
I would like the Minister to answer the following questions. When will the Government recognise the state of Palestine? Will the Government stop all arms sales to Israel and other military support? Will they implement sanctions on Israel? Will they commit to funding the rebuilding of Gaza?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, why not? Why are our responses to Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza so different? Can the Government not see that hypocrisy on this issue does the whole world a disservice and threatens global security? We must be consistent and stand for human rights everywhere. That means doing everything in our power to hold Israel to account, prevent genocide in Gaza and secure rights and justice for the Palestinian people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not just for securing the debate but for the manner in which he introduced it. I will speak briefly about what I saw and heard on my visit to Israel and Palestine. It was a journey of stark contrasts—immense suffering, but also remarkable courage. Those experiences should carry us forward in how we set British policy on Palestinian rights.
In Gaza, the devastation is beyond words. In the shadow of Gaza’s skeleton ruins, I met aid workers risking their lives to provide vital relief, and refugees whose homes and futures have been torn apart. The scale of the destruction means that we must push for immediate and sustained humanitarian aid, and we need to stand firm against any measures to undermine that aid getting to where it is needed. In the west bank, I saw the daily reality of life under occupation: the constant roadblocks, the endless checks and the ever-present fear. I met families who have been forcibly removed from their homes and villages that have been demolished six times. Palestinians are treated worse than second-class citizens. The UK cannot turn a blind eye to this injustice. We should use the financial sanctions available to us as a country to target Israeli settlements, to uphold international law and human rights.
When we talk about Palestine, it is easy to focus on the sheer terrible nature of the events, but on my visit I also heard voices of hope—from Israelis who lost loved ones but refuse to embrace revenge, to Palestinians committed to building a peaceful and democratic future. I met a family of a young Israeli hostage, desperate for the safe return of their family member but let down by their own Government’s indifference. These voices remind us that peace is possible, but only through justice and equality.
The UK can play a role in that. We need to recognise the state of Palestine. We must ensure that aid gets to where it is needed. We must challenge policies that entrench division and violence, whether they come from Hamas, the Israeli Government or any other actor. We have seen Trump and Vance bully their guest Zelensky in the Oval Office recently, yet across the Atlantic, Britain continues to stand up for its ally, Ukraine. We must seize the chance to support countries that find themselves enslaved, isolated and bullied by their neighbour’s aggression. The UK should use its worldwide respected authority to support such nations in gaining recognition of their statehood.
The people I met deserve our support. Let us stand with those who want a better world, and pursue an agenda of peace that upholds human rights and self-determination—for a safe and secure Israel alongside a free and independent state of Palestine.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Harpreet Uppal. A paragraph, please, Harpreet—no more.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House for bringing forward this vital debate.
The already strained Palestinian healthcare system in the west bank has been further weakened, and is facing significant budget constraints stemming from Israel’s increased withholding of tax revenues meant for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, as stipulated by the Oslo accords. The World Health Organisation reports that 45% of essential medications are out of stock, and health workers have not received their full salary for over a year, meaning that most clinics and hospitals are running at significantly reduced levels. Of course, the effective ban of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East is impacting the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Hardly any healthcare facilities are running in Gaza.
I will leave it there, Sir John. I am sure that the Minister has heard those concerns.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
That was wonderful. A few commas, a couple of semi-colons, but a paragraph, I reckon—don’t you? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for bringing this critically important debate.
Late last year, I also visited the occupied territories and the west bank, and I share his and other hon. Members’ strength of feeling. I also pay tribute to our officials in East Jerusalem, who work so hard to tell and navigate the story, to all those there who are seeking peace—there are many of them—and to all those who are living under the daily horror of conflict.
In this debate, I reaffirm the Liberal Democrats’ unwavering commitment to human rights, international law and a lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis through a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. First and foremost, the Liberal Democrats support the UK Government in their efforts to uphold the current ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Negotiations to move from phase 1 to phase 2 of the ceasefire deal must occur as quickly as possible. In the meantime, I urge the Government to do everything they can to secure the unconditional release of hostages, all the while ensuring that humanitarian aid flows unhindered into Gaza. They must do that.
Last weekend, Israel blocked further humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, which is a contravention of international humanitarian law. It also imperils the delicate but essential cessation of hostilities, and will impose yet more suffering on Gazan civilians, who have already suffered so much. Israel must act in line with its obligations under international humanitarian law and permit aid in.
I also note with concern developments in the west bank. Despite the ceasefire in Gaza, there are strong indications that the Israeli military are refocusing efforts on the west bank. Israel’s Defence Minister, Israel Katz, confirmed last Sunday that 40,000 residents were displaced from refugee camps in the north of the west bank, and that Israel will not allow the return of the Palestinian residents. Will the Minister condemn this forced displacement, particularly in view of the comments of Minister Katz?
Moreover, the UK must respect and act upon the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the occupation, cease all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and work to end the arbitrary administrative detention of Palestinians by the IDF. The continued expansion of settlements in occupied territories is an obstacle to peace, and the UK must stand firm in its condemnation of those illegal actions.
On arms exports and human rights, I want to re-emphasise that it is indefensible that the UK continues to export arms to countries in which human rights violations are rampant. The Liberal Democrats have long been calling for an immediate suspension of all arms exports to Israel, in line with the Foreign Office’s own human rights priorities.
The UK must also take a stand by immediately recognising the state of Palestine. When I visited, I saw for myself the rapidly shrinking state. Before it disappears, we must recognise it. However, recognition alone is not enough; we must actively work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, invest in peacebuilding initiatives, and use trade as a tool for economic co-operation and stability. The international fund for middle east peace must be supported, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to the future of co-existence and mutual security.
As we debate, leaders of the Arab world are meeting in Cairo to develop counterproposals to President Trump’s destabilising rhetoric. They intend to provide a peaceful, long-term solution for the people of Gaza. President Trump has previously advocated for the permanent resettlement of Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, calling to “clean out” the strip. Such a policy would violate international humanitarian law and severely damage relations with the Arab nations, whose support and commitment will be essential to any lasting peace agreement. Will the Minister therefore affirm that the British Government oppose President Trump’s proposal for Gaza? Will she also outline how the UK is working with partners in the region to help secure lasting peace?
I cannot leave out the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Beyond the immediate violence, the long-term effects of the conflict, if left unaddressed, will devastate generations of Palestinians. It is alarming to think that we might see that devastation start to bite far more quickly than we previously feared, now that the UK and the US have cut back on their overseas aid budgets. The UK must seriously reconsider that shameful decision to reduce overseas aid to 0.3% of GNI—the lowest level this century. In her resignation letter, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made it clear that one of the areas of UK development spending potentially affected by the cut to aid is Gaza. By putting that vital work at risk, we are not only diminishing our ability to alleviate vast amounts of human suffering—in Gaza, more than 80% of hospitals have been reduced to rubble—but we are also rolling the dice on a more dangerous world. Failed states create more Hamas.
I want to include Jordan, which has for so long been a refuge for so many Palestinians fleeing their home, and who we have supported for so long. I regret that the UK follows where other countries cut aid or stop aid. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to ensure that the UK can continue vital development work in view of these major cuts.
I share the outrage and concern of Members of this House at the violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The UK has a moral duty to uphold human rights and the principles of justice on the global stage. The Government must strain every sinew to uphold the ceasefire, get the hostages out, condemn all violence and war, and they must recognise the Palestinian state. It is way overdue.
I will leave hon. Members with the words of a Palestinian Catholic priest who visited my constituency at the weekend to tell the story of the children of Bethlehem. He said to me, “I am not political, but I am here to ask you to work for peace.” He reminded me of the teaching of St James, that faith is nothing without action. The peacemakers in the region need our action. I call on the Government to act.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Please divide the remaining time by two, allowing Sir Edward a few moments to sum up the debate at the end. I call the shadow Minister.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I start by congratulating the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), on securing this debate and for sharing with us his thoughtful and informed contribution, based on his own very personal experiences and recent visit to the region.
I want to start by talking about the immediate situation. The ceasefire continues to be extremely fragile and there remains a long and difficult road ahead. We want this agreement to endure. That means, as I have said before, the release of each and every single hostage held by Hamas.
We recently passed 500 days since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 and the taking of the innocent hostages. They and their families did nothing to deserve the unimaginable horrors that have been inflicted upon them by Hamas. Since I last spoke in this place, we have witnessed further hostage releases. Tragically, last week, we also saw the return of the bodies of Ohad Yahalomi, Tsachi Idan, Itzik Elgarat and Shlomo Mantzur. The week prior, we witnessed the return of the bodies of Ariel and Kfir Bibas, their mother Shiri Bibas and Oded Lifschitz. Our hearts break for their families and we stand with the state of Israel at this desperately sad time. As the Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis said:
“It is pure evil to take a mother and her young children and an elderly man hostage. It takes another layer of evil to be responsible for their deaths.”
Nobody should be in any doubt about the evil of Hamas and their total disregard for human life and human dignity, which I shall return to.
On the present situation in Gaza, I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on four points. First, what conversation has she had recently with the International Committee of the Red Cross on its efforts, both on hostage releases and on humanitarian assistance more broadly? Is there any further practical or diplomatic assistance that the UK can provide to support its operations?
Secondly, can the Minister offer her latest assessment of the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza? Thirdly, what is the Government’s practical response to Israel’s decision on aid access? How are the Government working to unblock the situation, and what is happening to British aid that is already in the region or en route? Fourthly, what role is the UK playing to help get an agreement on phase two of the ceasefire over the line? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with American, Israeli and other regional counterparts in recent days?
Turning to the main subject of this debate, we must acknowledge that fundamental freedoms and rights have been denied to the people of Gaza for many years by Hamas. Hamas have no regard whatsoever for human life, let alone human rights, women’s rights, freedom of expression or political freedoms. Hamas have been deeply repressive of civil society and political opposition, and they have arbitrarily arrested journalists. Hamas have also executed Palestinians, and have form on sentencing Palestinians to death. In both Gaza and the west bank, the LGBT community has been subject to attacks, and elections have not been held in the west bank since 2006. There have been reports of thousands of detentions in relation to freedom of expression and political affiliation in the west bank.
We are still at an early stage of the ceasefire agreement, which remains delicate, but we hope in time to be able to progress to the next stages and consider the future governance of Gaza. What are the Government doing on the diplomatic front to help to ensure that there can be no future role for Hamas in Gaza, and what conversations have they had with Israeli counterparts and key regional actors on bringing this about?
In government and before, Conservatives called for many years for the Palestinian Authority in the west bank to reform. If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, it is even more important that they implement the most significant programme of reform in their history, including to their welfare and education policies. Of course, they must also demonstrate real, serious democratic progress. In government, we made those points directly to the Palestinian Authority, so will the Minister tell the House whether the Labour Government have done the same, and specifically whether they have outlined a clear set of expectations to the Palestinian Authority on when they want those reforms to take place?
As I have said, we would also like Israel to take steps in relation to the west bank, including with regard to releasing frozen funds, on settlements and, in particular, in holding to account those responsible for extreme settler violence.
We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must help to give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. Do the Government have a vision for what that could look like, and do they intend to present the outlines of a possible blueprint in the time ahead? Although it is difficult, we must strive to lift people’s eyes to a brighter future and a regional peace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I congratulate the Father of the House on securing this important debate and on bringing together Members from across the House to speak in it. In the short time we have remaining, I will endeavour to respond to all the issues raised.
I pay tribute to the work of Yachad, which educates Members of Parliament on the realities, brings people up to date on important work that is happening, and gives us hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned—as a good Co-operative MP—in remembering the importance of green shoots.
The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans while allowing the release of 38 hostages in Gaza so far. They include British national Emily Damari and Eli Sharabi, who has close links to the UK. The bodies of eight deceased hostages, including Oded Lifshitz, who had links to the UK, have also been released.
We have been clear from the outset that a ceasefire is simply the first step towards a lasting solution to this crisis and a lasting peace. What is needed now is a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. That is why it is so important that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee visited the region to deepen their understanding, so that we can continue to have these debates in Parliament, and push those of us who are on the frontline in discussions with interlocutors to ensure peace, security and the protection of fundamental rights for both Palestinians and Israelis.
The Palestinian Authority will have a key role in the future security and governance of Gaza. For the current fragile deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate. That includes making future security arrangements that protect Israelis and Palestinians and respect their human rights. Most importantly, aid must now flow into Gaza and must be sustained. We just had an urgent question on this in the House, to which I refer others who were not there. Aid includes the supply of medical equipment, shelter items, water and sanitation equipment, which are essential for humanitarian and early recovery needs. A halt on goods and supplies entering Gaza, such as that announced by Israel, risks breaching obligations under international humanitarian law, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) mentioned, should apply to us all.
The UK is investing in this ceasefire, and we continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We announced a further £17 million in funding at the end of January to make sure healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Crucial partners such the Red Cross, which the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), mentioned, and individuals working in the field of aid and development must be able to pass borders and get desperately needed aid into these difficult areas.
The Government have announced £129 million of funding for the OPTs so far this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, delivering essential services to civilians in Gaza and the west bank and to Palestinian refugees across the region. This includes support for essential healthcare, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, is so important. On education, we earmarked £5.8 million of UK funding this financial year for Global Partnership for Education work in Gaza and the west bank, and for the Education Cannot Wait initiative.
The UK will play a leading role in international efforts to support a Palestinian-led recovery and reconstruction, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). We welcome the leadership of Arab partners, as demonstrated by the discussions in Cairo today about plans to reconstruct Gaza—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) talked about the importance of agriculture and the economy. We are supporting efforts towards finding a single viable plan for the next phase of the ceasefire and reconstruction.
Civil society must have a strong role in Gaza’s early recovery. It is crucial to lay the groundwork for inclusive governance, accountability and transparency. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US, and Arab and regional partners to build consensus for a governance and security framework in post-conflict Gaza.
So many have mentioned the west bank. Its stability is absolutely essential if the fragile ceasefire in Gaza is to last. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) described the use of protective presence and the NGOs that are working in this important area. We recognise that Israel has legitimate security concerns, but we have continually urged it to show restraint in its military operations and for civilians to be protected. We also continue to call on Israel to hold violent settlers to account. In October, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions targeting three illegal settler outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank.
We reiterate, as the Father of the House did in his opening remarks, that settlements are illegal under international law and undermine prospects for peace. The UK condemns comments that propose the annexation of land in the west bank. This would undermine prospects for peace, lead to greater instability, and be illegal under international law.
We are not in the business of providing running commentary on the US role in this particular conflict, but we do share the US President’s desire for the ceasefire to be sustained. Like him, we want Hamas to release the remaining hostages, as is set out in the ceasefire agreement. The UK commitment to a two-state solution remains strong and unwavering, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) emphasised in their contributions.
Gaza needs to be rebuilt for the Palestinians who live there. Our priority is the implementation of the ceasefire deal in full, creating the foundations for a pathway to peace. An effective Palestinian Authority is vital for lasting peace. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and to President Abbas, and has offered our support as their Government implement much-needed reforms to build the pathway towards the future. However the Government of Israel, as well as the Palestinian Authority, retain a responsibility to support the rights of Palestinians. Working closely with our international partners, we will continue to pursue the objectives of the two-state solution. I shall leave it to the Father of the House to wind up.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thank you, everybody, for taking part in what has been a very powerful debate. We are completely united. We condemn Hamas, but we stick up unequivocally for the rights of the Palestinian people. Everybody, from all parties or from no party, has made that point—it has even united the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and me.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for Palestinian rights.
North Staffordshire Ceramics Industry: Energy Costs
(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
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy cost support for the ceramics industry in North Staffordshire.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I am grateful that this topic has been selected for debate today. I am also delighted to be joined by my fellow Stoke MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I thank all other hon. Members in attendance today. This is a city-wide and a nationwide debate, and it is critical that we speak with one voice on the issues, to support the industry as much as we can.
Now is the time to act. It was only last month that Royal Stafford, a ceramics firm in my constituency, went into liquidation after nearly 200 years of making fine pottery. That was a devastating blow for our local economy; more than 80 people lost their jobs, and it highlights the real urgency of today’s debate. What happened at Royal Stafford should not have happened, and it should not have happened to all other companies over the years. We must fight for our pots.
I would like to place on record my thanks to Colin, Sam and the wider GMB union for stepping up to support want to pay tribute to the ceramics companies that operate in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North—Moorcroft, Burleigh, Steelite, Moorland and Churchill, to name only a few—and I thank Rob Flello and Ceramics UK, who have campaigned tirelessly on behalf of the sector.
The ceramics industry is integral to our story as a city—hence our “Potteries” name—and today, in our centenary year, it still employs more than 3,000 people, exporting our fine products all around the world. We cannot afford to lose those jobs, nor the skills of our workforce. Already, in Stoke-on-Trent, disposable household income sits some £5,000 behind the UK average, according to the latest Office for National Statistics data. Over the years we have lost our pits, and we cannot afford to lose any more of our pots. Our ceramics companies must remain a focus of economic growth and industry for our city.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to highlight the issue of the ceramics industry. Similarly, in Northern Ireland, we have Larne, Belfast and Londonderry, which also have a very rich history in ceramics. In terms of education—to help the hon. Gentleman if I can—Ulster University in Belfast has helped to develop new advancements in the ceramics field. There is much more that can be done. There is a future for ceramics—that is the point I am trying to make. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more could be done in education to encourage more young people into the field, if there was a vision—and an opportunity—for the future?
David Williams
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for attending my first Westminster Hall debate. As always, he raises some important points. I remember the old days of Stoke, when we actually had bottle kilns attached to our local schools, giving people their first opportunities to learn a skill. Sadly, those have all gone, but the point about getting people interested in the sector and learning skills is a valid one.
I am delighted that last year Stoke-on-Trent was awarded world craft city status for our ceramics heritage. Many people will be familiar with our household names in tableware. I have spoken before about our “turnover club”, where people pick up the plates and look at their provenance. I have explained in the past that my mum and my grandad worked in the potbanks of Tunstall and Burslem—namely, at H&R Johnson and Dunn Bennett & Co.
However, many people do not realise that ceramics shape every aspect of our lives. Ceramics companies manufacture the clay bricks, roof tiles and pipes that we need for our homes.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
There is another sector alongside pots and roof tiles: bricks. I wanted to come in on that point as the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. We have Ibstock—looking to the future, a huge amount of investment is going into the Ibstock factory in Aldridge—and Wienerberger. I think one of the challenges—the hon. Member may agree with me—is that this sector is really impacted by energy costs, so we have to continue to look at how to support the energy-intensive sector in every way we can, because this is the future.
David Williams
I thank the right hon. Member for those comments. I know that she has spoken passionately about this matter in the past, and I will come on to the point about the need to support companies with their energy bills.
I was talking about how ceramics have an impact on our everyday life. Without refractories, we would not have the ability to make steel, glass and other high-temperature products. Without ceramics, we would have no cars, no buses and no mobile phones—what a scary idea. Without advanced ceramics, we would have no aircraft, defence or medical equipment.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Like me, he will have heard that advanced ceramics carbon filters are going into submarines being built not just for the UK, but for the Australian navy. With the commitment that this Government have rightly made to huge increases in defence spending, perhaps he will allow me to join him in suggesting to the Minister that one way we could help the entire ceramics sector is by redirecting some of that commitment to defence spending to ensure that those ceramic component producers get the help and support they need right now.
David Williams
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. I could not agree more; I am certain that the Minister will have heard those comments and I wholeheartedly support them.
Of course, we would be eating and drinking from wooden bowls and cups without the beautiful tableware that we enjoy—including, as I have said, many of the plates, cups and saucers we see here across the Westminster estate. The world as we know it simply would not exist without ceramics. I urge the Government to recognise that the UK ceramics industry is a critical enabler of the UK economy—used, as we have said, from building homes to high technology to steel making.
However, I repeatedly hear concerns from companies regarding their sustainability following dramatic increases in their energy bills. For energy-intensive industries such as ceramics, energy cost pressures are significant. In fact, I have heard from companies in my Stoke-on-Trent North constituency that their energy bills have trebled. One company told me that it has seen energy bills increase by 300% in 10 years. The sector was hit hard by the energy crisis, and inaction left us too dependent on tyrants such as Vladimir Putin. That has had a huge impact on both production and raw material costs, and support is urgently needed to protect these businesses. Sadly, some employers across our city are already making redundancies due to escalating costs, and that disturbing trend will only be exacerbated by inaction.
It takes a vast amount of heat to produce the kind of ceramics products we make. According to Ceramics UK, the UK ceramics industry uses about 650,000 MWh of electricity and about 4.5 million MWh of gas every single year. With gas currently costing about £47 per megawatt-hour and electricity in the region of £297 per megawatt-hour, the costs quickly add up. When we consider that gas used to cost about £11 per megawatt-hour, the impact on those businesses is clear to see.
Of course, a significant portion of those costs comes from non-commodity taxes and levies. Many ceramics companies pay high carbon taxes under the UK emissions trading scheme and ever-tighter restrictions on free allowances are pushing up costs even more. Because the industry is gas intensive, while still using a lot of electricity, very few manufacturers receive the energy-intensive industries exemption.
I am really proud that this Government take the climate crisis so seriously. A move towards green energy is desirable; if we can get to that point, wonderful. However, the reality at the moment is that companies face significant bills. That is a fixed cost that the companies cannot do anything about, and moving towards low carbon is not always straightforward. It is absolutely right, as I said, to push towards a clean energy transition, but energy-intensive industries need a higher level of support in switching to low-carbon methods. The technology to switch from gas to electricity firing is not readily available for many ceramics manufacturers, and connections to the grid are poor.
Some European countries are already taking action and have been for some years to support their ceramics sector. The European Commission recently unveiled its affordable energy action plan, which includes investing in liquefied natural gas projects to help companies to lower their costs. A number of other countries are also helping their energy-intensive industries. It is vital that the UK follows suit.
The history of our city is one of hard-working people. The ceramics industry is in our DNA. If we fail to act now, we risk losing not only the unique skills that, as we talked about before, have been honed in the Potteries for hundreds of years, but the communities formed around them. I have questions for the Minister, but I start by thanking her for agreeing to meet me, my parliamentary colleagues, Ceramics UK and the GMB union to discuss the technical details around the support the sector needs.
As a starter, however, following my discussions with Ceramics UK, the sector would like the Minister to consider the merits of offering subsidies for smaller manufacturers’ energy costs. Indeed, Ceramics UK has told me that the cost pressures can be up to six times greater than they were in 2021. For the manufacturers that can use electricity, eligibility for the Government’s energy-intensive industries exemption scheme could be opened up for all UK ceramics manufacturers, including by removing the UK business level test. The Government could also mandate priority grid connections.
For ceramics manufacturers unable to switch from gas, could the Minister consider exempting the sector from new taxes and levies on gas, in recognition of the limited alternatives currently available? Ceramics really is the hardest of all energy-intensive industries to decarbonise. Although Great British Energy will reduce energy bills in the long term, failing to reduce energy costs for the sector now could put our ceramics industry at further risk, and that is simply not acceptable.
With carbon taxes hammering the sector, I also ask the Minister to consider the merits of introducing a temporary exemption from the UK emissions trading scheme for UK ceramic manufacturers until an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism is up and running and ceramics manufacturers can apply for CBAM phase 2.
Something that might also be of great help to our wonderful small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector would be the provision of ultra-low interest loans to help to finance more energy-efficient kilns, dryers and related equipment. Hydrogen presents an opportunity for the sector to decarbonise: Ceramics UK recently unveiled a custom-built pilot kiln that runs on hydrogen. Will the Minister evaluate the hydrogen supply chain and market currently available to the ceramics industry, and how that can be better distributed? I also ask the Minister that, as we discuss the support the sector needs, the Department for Business and Trade work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, among others, to find a solution on a cross-departmental footing.
Without a desire to move away from the topic of energy costs, it would be remiss of me not to point out one further concern that the sector often raises with me and my colleagues. Counterfeit back-stamping of tableware products from the likes of China is affecting our UK businesses. Although I appreciate the Government’s efforts to regulate against those products through anti-dumping regulations and anti-dumping duty, I am concerned that many of those products slip through the net. The fake products get listed on internet sites, so I ask for a cross-departmental approach to review tabling offences and the classifications for importing counterfeit tableware products.
I thank the Minister for coming to answer my questions, and I invite her to visit my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North so that she can see just how brilliant our potbanks are and how important they are to our local economy and people. We must keep those pots open and those kilns fired. The time to act is now.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for securing this important debate. I begin by echoing his thanks to the trade unions, the industry and Ceramics UK for all they do. I have engaged with Ceramics UK quite a bit since taking up this role, and previously in opposition, and I work closely with the unions and the industry.
My hon. Friend clearly laid out the challenges we face, as well as the challenges facing his community’s disposable household incomes, and the importance of getting this right. He is right to look to the future of ceramics, not to the past. There are several industries that we want to grow in the UK, but we have historically focused on the past—steel is a case in point—not the future.
My hon. Friend talks about new advanced technologies, and the important uses of ceramics in our mobile phones, our aircraft, our defence and our medical equipment are clear to see, though little understood by those outside this sector. We can all do more to make sure people understand the ceramics industry and what it is for. The industrial strategy is one way to do that.
As my hon. Friend knows, the industrial strategy is coming out in the spring. We promised it for years in opposition, and the previous Government but one tried, but they did not persevere. We have identified eight growth sectors within the strategy—advanced manufacturing is one of them—but foundational industries have to power those growth sectors, which is where ceramics is important.
I nod to my hon. Friend’s well-made point about defence, which is one of the growth sectors in the industrial strategy. Over the last few days, we have seen this Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending. The Chancellor spoke at the Make UK conference today about how we can change defence procurement to include more of this country’s SMEs. We have also been creative in using UK Export Finance to create jobs with Thales in Belfast. There is more we can do, and I will take away my hon. Friend’s point about advanced ceramic carbon filters. I suspect there are other potential applications in this space.
I acknowledge and appreciate the very real challenges that my hon. Friend raises. The cost of energy bills is very difficult for the ceramics industry and other energy-intensive industries. Every one of us has suffered from the huge price hike after Russia invaded Ukraine, although our energy costs are not comparable with those of our neighbours.
My hon. Friend also highlighted how electricity costs so much more than gas and the challenges that will bring as we decarbonise. He mentioned the emissions trading scheme and the ongoing consultation on free allowances. I also heard his well-made points about the low carbon transition and the challenges for sectors such as ceramics, where its up-front cost is potentially prohibitive.
Gareth Snell
The Minister probably knows as much about ceramics as those of us from Stoke-on-Trent, as she is constantly on her brief.
On the transition, one of the challenges facing ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent and around the country is that the margins on their products are not sufficient to allow big up-front capital investments, which means that going from a gas kiln to an electric kiln is often beyond their reach as they simply do not have the cash flow.
One solution that the Minister could potentially take back to the Department is some sort of VAT exemption for energy-intensive industries and companies that are looking to move towards more low-energy, low-carbon equipment. Perhaps the public sector decarbonisation scheme, which is currently undersubscribed, could be used in some way to help energy-intensive private companies to access new technology that would reduce not only their carbon output but their long-term energy costs through efficiencies.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for those points, which he has previously raised with me. I can certainly take away the point about the public sector decarbonisation scheme. Bizarrely, as he knows, it is not part of my brief, but that does not matter. This Government work across Departments and across barriers, and I will endeavour to look into it. The point is well made that it can be challenging when a company has small margins and big up-front costs, especially in these industries where there has not been infrastructure investment for a long time. A lot of places need general infrastructure investment, and we are looking actively at this issue through the spending review process.
Happily, I can say that we are looking to answer all the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. I cannot promise what the answers will be at this point, and I cannot promise that we will do everything we seek to do, but we are well aware of all his points and are looking at them in depth.
We are looking at subsidies on energy costs. My hon. Friend said that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero should work together. I sit in both Departments, so I have conversations with myself about these issues. There are competing vantage points that we need to grapple with, but the advantage of my sitting in both Departments is that officials from the two Departments meet to find solutions before speaking to me, which is helpful. They are working well together.
We are also looking at the energy-intensive industries exemption scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, grid connections are an issue across the board. We are working on how to remove undeveloped, speculative programmes from the grid connection queue and prioritise others. One of my roles as the Minister for Industry is to point to the need not to forget our existing industrial base and the need for it to connect to the grid, as well as the need for the important data centres, artificial intelligence and new technologies and new investment that we want to come to the UK. If we cannot get our own industry connected in the way we want, we are getting something wrong, so my hon. Friend is right to make that point.
I met representatives of the energy-intensive industries last week, including Rob from Ceramics UK, and I am following up on all these things with the Treasury and with officials. We agreed on a couple of things at that meeting, and one is to have a session with the industrial strategy team and the energy-intensive industries to make sure we are all working towards the same outcome. Another is to talk to the Treasury about the challenge we face in how the ETS and the CBAM align and fit together, or not, depending on policy. These things are enormously complicated, as my hon. Friend knows, and CBAM is a Treasury lead. However, I am very aware of the need to get that relationship right; otherwise, the system does not work at all.
My hon. Friend talked about hydrogen, which is very important and is part of my brief in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are developing a kind of hydrogen network. We have had what we call HAR1, or hydrogen allocation round 1, which was the initial agreement to fund 11 hydrogen projects—electrolyser projects—around the country. There is hydrogen in the carbon capture and storage clusters that we are developing, and we are currently looking at what the next phase of the hydrogen roll-out will be.
My hon. Friend knows that hydrogen is currently very expensive. We need to work out a path to reduce costs, which is what we are grappling with at the moment, in a climate where it is difficult to bid for money in the spending review. How can we unleash the hydrogen industry and give certainty to businesses that want to invest but need the right signals? How can we do that and use money wisely? And who pays for it? People are very interested in hydrogen, whether in steel, in transport or in the green energy space—it has a lot of uses. We need to make sure we are making the right decisions. I will speak to the hydrogen team about ceramics, and I will ask what we are looking at in that space.
Gareth Snell
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) is right that hydrogen could be the thing that helps our industry, but electrolysis requires electricity. Electricity generation is capped to the gas price, and therefore the gas price drives the hydrogen price. Unless there is a way of decoupling that rather difficult circuit, we will find ourselves replenishing fuel without a particular discount.
Our other unique challenge, as my hon. Friend expertly laid out, is that these factories are in communities, because that is how ceramics worked—a potbank was built and then houses were built around it. Connecting to hydrogen would not be suitable if the hydrogen has to be contained in large towers, which are better suited to large out-of- town factories.
Although I welcome the Minister’s commitment to hydrogen, I hope she can bear those two points in mind, because ceramics are a unique challenge. However, we are willing to work with her to find a solution.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend articulates his concerns very well. Connecting the gas sounds like a song: “The hip bone’s connected to the thigh bone.” It is very challenging, and he is right to say so. The challenge with hydrogen is getting it to a point where we can deliver it at the scale we want. Or will it always be used in certain areas for certain things, as we will never get the cost down? That is what we are grappling with. On the potential jobs, potential growth and potential exports, these are huge opportunities for the UK, but we need to work out how we take it forward.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the huge challenge of counterfeiting. He nodded to the actions taken by the Trade Remedies Authority. I know that Ceramics UK and ceramics manufacturers have responded to that review and a final recommendation is due in July. Of course, I will make representations where needed. I recognise the challenge that my hon. Friend highlights.
Trade officials regularly meet representatives of Ceramics UK. I do not wish to add to the burden of my colleagues, but it might also be good for my hon. Friend to speak to the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), if he has not already done so, about some of the challenges we face.
Hopefully, I have answered my hon. Friend’s questions. I congratulate him again on securing a debate on such an important issue, on behalf of his constituents who work in such a fantastic industry for our country, and hopefully we can work together to fix some of these challenges.
Question put and agreed to.
Bathing Water Regulations
(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
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered bathing water regulations.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon.
We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year.
That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this important debate. I know how much he enjoys a dip in the River Tone. The River Parrett in Langport is a well known and loved body of water for swimming and water sports, which I hope will soon become a designated bathing water site. Sadly, polluters discharged sewage into it 54 times in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to support such sites to obtain bathing water status, so that they are safe for all who wish to use them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman. He has invited contributions from those of us who are interested in bathing waters. My constituency has Strangford lough and the Irish sea on the other side. Back home, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs designates water quality. I am concerned that, if anyone wants to check water quality on the Ards peninsula, Strangford lough or the Irish sea, they must go online, which does not suit everybody. Does he agree with my suggestion to DAERA that there should be signs at designated bathing waters indicating the water quality? That would be much simpler. People who go for wild-water swimming and other pursuits, would be able to see right away if the water quality is at the level it should be.
Gideon Amos
Seeing the quality of the river water is key, and that is one thing that bathing water status allows us to do. In tackling the need for improvement, many local groups face an uphill battle. Sewage pollution is a national disgrace. Time and again we see reports of raw sewage being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas, turning what should be places of recreation into sites of contamination.
In my constituency, further downstream on the Tone, examples of recent discharges of untreated effluent are commonplace. At Hook stream, which could otherwise be a charming stretch of the River Tone, there have been over 188 hours of discharge in the first eight weeks of 2025 alone. Residents are rightly appalled by the sewage releases; no one should have to fear that going too close to their local river could make them ill, especially as, all the while, water companies have paid out millions of pounds in dividends and bonuses. We need flow-rate monitoring, extra stormwater storage and resources for the Environment Agency to increase enforcement, but bathing water regulations are a key tool in reducing pollution.
That brings me to the main topic of the debate. There are elements of the consultation that I welcome. Removing the automatic five-year de-designation rule for bathing waters is a positive suggestion. It would simply be unfair for communities to lose the protections that come with designation just because a site has remained polluted for five years. The reality is that people will continue to swim in those waters, as they have done at French Weir for hundreds of years, regardless of whether they are officially designated. Having a high number of bathers is what allows sites to be designated, and that should continue to be the main criterion. Removing monitoring, which is what happens with de-designation, would just put rivers and their users at further risk. It would not stop people using the rivers. Water companies and regulators frequently take longer than five years to clean up sites, and people should not be punished by losing their designation because that has not happened fast enough.
Let us not forget that improving water quality in bathing areas has wider benefits throughout the whole of the river’s catchment area. Improving infrastructure in bathing areas that are susceptible to flooding benefits communities along the whole length of the watercourse. Part of the problem is misalignment between the four-year rolling cycle of bathing designations and Ofwat’s five-year price review for water companies, which sets out its investment plans for the period. A newly designated bathing water often has to wait years for the price review to receive the investment required. Designation of a bathing water should be aligned with those improvements in investment. Has the Minister taken any steps to resolve that discrepancy?
The health and wellbeing of those who use the water should also be a primary concern of regulation, which is why I am concerned about core reform 2 in the consultation, which proposes the introduction of feasibility tests for bathing sites. That would mean that if it is deemed too difficult or expensive to improve water quality, a site could be denied designation altogether. Who would really benefit from that approach? Certainly not the swimmers, rowers, kayakers or residents. The only people who stand to gain would be the very polluters responsible for the problem in the first place. We must not give water companies a loophole to argue that it is too costly to clean up a bathing site that people are regularly using for swimming and other recreation. Designation should be based on where people actually use the water, so will the Minister please reconsider that aspect of a perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately damaging proposal?
Core reform 3 of the consultation proposes the removal of fixed bathing season dates and moving them into guidance. I welcome greater flexibility, but the now well accepted 15 May to 30 September bathing season should remain the irreducible minimum that everybody understands and knows about. This should not be a cover for reducing bathing seasons to such a short window that they become meaningless. We should be going further: year-round testing should be standard, in my opinion.
We also need better quality testing, and for better integration with other monitoring systems we should be monitoring sewage volume from spills, not just hours. We should also consider testing for a wider range of bacteria than just E. coli and enterococci, especially considering other harmful pathogens such as salmonella and leptospirosis have, since 2010, contributed to a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases. There should be greater funding for the EA to monitor run-off into rivers as well. Only by understanding the scale of the problem will we be able to start to tackle it.
This will not be prohibitively expensive. Research by Surfers Against Sewage, which I thank for all its great work on this issue, suggests the additional cost of year-round monitoring per site would be roughly £775. Across the UK, that amounts to £350,000—less than 4% of the bonuses paid to water company execs last year. That is surely an investment worth making. Will the Minister publish a review into the potential cost of year-round water testing?
The reality is that our inland bathing waters are already in a dire state. While 92% of the 450 bathing waters in England meet minimum standards, that figure drops to only 53% of inland bathing waters. In contrast, Germany has almost 2,300 bathing sites, the vast majority inland. The fact that 98% of them meet minimum standards shows us what is possible. Instead of looking for ways to limit new designations, we should expand them so that more communities benefit from cleaner, safer waters. Had a feasibility requirement existed previously, we would never have seen so many bathing waters granted in the first place; perhaps there would be no more inland water bathing designations in the country.
We also need urgent action to hold polluters accountable. Water companies operate on five-year investment cycles, meaning that improvements to polluted waters often get kicked down the road for years. We cannot afford to wait. We need a tougher regulator than Ofwat, one with proper powers to hold these companies to account. We also need more immediate funding to improve water quality at newly designated sites, rather than forcing them to wait for the next investment cycle, as I said.
Ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle: everyone should have the right to access sites with unpolluted water. The Government must not allow water companies to dictate which sites are worthy of protection and which are not. Let us take this opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, our protection of bathing waters. It is time to expand, not limit, the sites that benefit from designation. Above all, it is time to ensure that polluters are held accountable so that future generations can enjoy bathing waters like those at French Weir, as well as our rivers, lakes and seas, without fear of pollution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. If Members want to contribute they should bob. I want to call the Front Benchers at about 5.10 pm, so Back Benchers can work out how long they should speak for so that everyone can get in.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this critical debate.
While covid-19 undoubtably brought on many challenges, one positive outcome was the surge in open-water swimming. More people than ever before enjoyed blue spaces for recreational activities, reaping significant benefits for both their physical and mental wellbeing. However, many were more cautious about diving into freezing cold lakes, rivers and streams when they were aware of the level of bacteria and pollution present in our waters. As Liberal Democrats, we have long and passionately campaigned on this issue. Last year, the Lib Dems discovered that water companies had discharged sewage over 100,000 times in areas designated as current bathing waters, putting public health and local ecosystems at risk.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My constituency of Tiverton and Minehead neighbours the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Very recently, one of my constituents shared a harrowing story with me, in which his children fell seriously ill after swimming in a local river last summer. These public health risks are further exacerbated by bad flooding in our areas, as we have seen in recent episodes, which sweeps contaminants and overwhelms sewage systems into our waterways, degrading water quality. Does my hon. Friend agree that stricter regulations must be introduced in the interest of public health and to ensure that our bathing waters are safe for everybody to enjoy?
Pippa Heylings
I completely agree. I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington said: that is why we need tougher action on the water companies. We also need to take action on combined sewers and make improvements to the small sewage treatment works on many chalk streams, like in my constituency. However, today’s debate is about bathing site designation, which is one of the effective levers that can be used.
We are talking about the proposed reforms by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to bathing site designations. I would like to talk about the second core reform being proposed, which I am concerned would lead to a real reduction in the number of bathing sites being designated, rather than the increase that we should see, particularly for inland waters. The second core reform says that we should
“Include the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least ‘sufficient’ as a criterion for final designation. This would avoid poor value for money, by limiting expenditure where water quality improvement is not feasible or proportionate.”
To best demonstrate why that reform would not only fail but could also damage water quality in our rivers, it is worth sharing the story of Sheep’s Green in my constituency. For centuries, people have been enjoying Sheep’s Green—a popular spot on the River Cam. It was at Sheep’s Green that we worked to bring in a bathing site designation, because of the poor quality of the water.
In October 2023, the Cam Valley Forum, a local voluntary organisation, submitted an application to DEFRA to grant Sheep’s Green designated bathing water status. That came after three years of hard work by local volunteers, which is truly commendable, and was based on the success of the River Wharfe. Sheep’s Green had been used for decades without official recognition, and the idea of getting it designated bathing status had widespread public support. Over the course of a 10-week consultation, the Cam Valley Forum received more than 500 responses, with an overwhelming 93% in favour of the designation. South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council also formally backed the proposal. Anglian Water, with whom I worked, also fully supported the designation application.
Once designated, as predicted by local volunteers and citizen scientists, Sheep’s Green was classified as having poor water quality. That triggered a statutory obligation for improvements to clean up the source of the pollution—the Haslingfield sewage works in my constituency. For years, local citizen scientists had suspected it was the culprit. Now, finally, Anglian Water was legally required to act.
Bathing water status also unlocked funding from Ofwat under the water industry national environment programme. Tens of millions of pounds vital for the infrastructure improvements needed to reduce the sewage discharges were made available for Haslingfield, with work expected to begin in the next two years. These improvements will not just benefit swimmers at Sheep’s Green, but have a wider impact on the ecological health of the River Cam.
However, had core reform 2 been in place when the Cam Valley Forum began its journey in 2020, there would have been no bathing water designation for Sheep’s Green. Without that designation, there would have been no investigation by the Environment Agency, no identification of Haslingfield sewage works as the source of the pollution and no legal requirement for Anglian Water to take action. The WINEP funding would not have been available and we would have lost the opportunity for water improvements and nature restoration in South Cambridgeshire.
In short, core reform 2 would have inadvertently blocked the clean-up of hundreds of rivers. Local organisations like the Cam Valley Forum are not just highlighting a problem with their concerns around core reform 2—they are demanding action. They are rightly pushing for bathing water status because it is a vital tool for driving cleaner, healthier rivers. We should be supporting these efforts, not hindering them.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this important debate.
As a former cabinet member for climate change and nature recovery on South Oxfordshire district council, I have been involved in two bathing water status applications. One was successful, one was not. We often learn more from failure than success, so while I am delighted by the bathing water status achieved at Wallingford Beach, I will speak mostly to the desire to establish bathing water status in Henley.
What I learned is that the current system is perverse. It requires swimmers to brave potentially dirty water before a site is cleaned up. This topsy-turvy thinking is all wrong. That is why I very much welcome the Government’s review of the status and have contributed to it. My contribution focused on the bonkers criteria that stopped Henley from being successful.
Despite widespread use of the river for canoeing, paddleboarding, pleasure boating and, of course, rowing, only spontaneous, immersed swimmers count as river users, but if someone has my balance, or indeed that of the leader of the Liberal Democrats when paddleboarding, they know that being a paddleboarder does not mean they will not end up in the water. Equally, rowers are constantly exposed to spray and contact with the water during their sport—a fact that leads every year to reports of domestic and international athletes falling ill at the Henley Royal Regatta after being exposed to our effluent. It is embarrassing to know that during the regatta, if I flush the toilet, it may well end up on the sides of one of the boats.
It is bonkers that organised swimming events have also been excluded from the criteria. While I understand that we do not want to see the system gamed with events organised solely for the purpose of meeting the criteria, Henley has enjoyed a vibrant, organised swimming culture for many years, with four annual swims organised by the brilliant Henley Swim. I urge the Government to replace the current bathing water state designation with a recreational water designation with teeth, taking into account the full range of river users.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We have talked a lot about the ecological and health benefits, but there is also an important economic impact, as shown by all the events in Henley that he outlined. For example, tourism contributes more than £700 million every year to the local economy in West Dorset. We have the Jurassic coast and the River Lim church cliff beach at Lyme Regis, which has just been designated as bathing water. It is important to recognise that clean water benefits our local communities not just in terms of health and nature, but in terms of our tourism industry.
Freddie van Mierlo
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every year, we welcome to Henley thousands of visitors who contribute to our local economy.
I urge the Government to row back—no pun intended—from the idea that cost and deliverability should be determining factors for investment in a site. When Henley welcomes the world to our wonderful section of the Thames each year, it would be simply unacceptable to say, “Sorry, we must expose you to our sewage, because the Government think it is too hard to treat.” I would therefore be grateful if the Minister commented on the intended change to the criteria for bathing water status and met me to discuss the situation in Henley.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this timely and urgent debate.
A healthy natural environment is essential for both public health and our economy, yet our rivers and bathing waters are being polluted at an alarming rate. In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, the River Avon, meandering along its valley, is a treasured natural asset that is used by many residents for kayaking, swimming, boating and rowing, but sewage discharges and pollution threaten its water quality.
Under the previous Government, water companies were allowed to pollute our rivers while consumers paid the price. We need stronger regulations, legally binding water quality targets, and more transparent, year-long testing to tackle this crisis. Local authorities must also be given greater powers to hold polluters accountable.
I thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency, such as Safe Avon, that have highlighted the scale of the issue and the impact of poor water quality on the Avon, its tributaries, and our many precious brooks and streams. Our local residents and groups have come together to create River Hope, which is a new participatory process taking place in Stratford-on-Avon. It fosters a positive narrative for the River Avon ecosystem, and involves individuals, community groups and others implementing activities and events in, on, around and about our local water catchments and their biodiverse ecosystems. Residents not only engage in practical actions to restore and protect the wildlife and flora that the river sustains, but create a positive narrative of gratitude, good stewardship and love for the water as an essential element of thriving biodiversity.
The river has rights. Our rivers and waterways should be safe for swimming and for thriving wildlife, and should be protected for future generations to cherish and enjoy.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am calling the Front Bench spokespeople early. That is not an invitation to speak—[Interruption.] Sorry, do we have Cameron Thomas? I did not think you were bobbing.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I was not bobbing; I was just going to intervene.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Then I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople. That is not an invitation to speak at inordinate length. We are delighted to hear from Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will not take that personally, Sir John, although I am sure it is intended. It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon and to speak in a long line of Liberal Democrats, as you might expect when water is mentioned.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing the debate and for the eloquence with which he spoke on behalf of his communities. I know how active he is, not just as a bather but as a campaigner for clean water swimming in his constituency, recognising and amplifying the importance of bathing water status for the people who use the rivers in his communities and in all our communities. He also recognises that it is an important way of upping the ante and improving the standards that all those responsible for the quality of our waterways are held to.
I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about de-designation and how that will not help people or keep them safe; we will simply be in a situation where people will carry on swimming in those places and will no longer have the protections they had beforehand. He rightly talked about an issue I am deeply concerned about, which is the potential for flexibility over fixed season dates. The minimum must be the May to September window, but many people who are enthusiastic about open water swimming do so at other times of the year. I have swum in Windermere in February, but I know people who have swum in Grasmere and Rydal in January and December and marvel at their hardiness. They tell me it is good for their mental health, and I believe them. That falls without that window, and it seems a nonsense to not have year-round testing.
I want to pick up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington made about what it is we are testing. There is much good in the Government’s new Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Nevertheless, the insistence on only testing for the duration of spills in our waterways, lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas means that we do not get the full picture. There could easily be a brief deluge or a lengthy trickle. The reality is that not testing for volume and content does not give a full picture of what is happening in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about the public health and ecological aspects of maintaining bathing water designations and how important it is to extend those designations in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) talked about bathing water status in his communities and his active campaign to extend access in his constituency. He also talked about the topsy-turvy nature of the bathing water status, which can create all sorts of perverse outcomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who is no longer in his place, made a really important point about the economic value. There is a clear case in my communities in the lakes and the dales, because people do not visit the Lake district not to see the lakes. The value to our communities is something like £4 billion every year in tourism revenue. Any threat to the cleanliness of our bathing water sites or the rest of our waterways could be catastrophic for our economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) made incredibly important points about the biodiversity of our waterways and how it is important to protect them and stand by the wonderful citizen scientists who underpin the work of trying to maintain them and their cleanliness. It is also about recognising that, as with all aspects of nature, our job is to preserve our waterways for those who come after us. Caring for our neighbour means caring for the environment for those we will never meet. That is vastly important.
In my communities in the lakes and the dales, there are seven designated bathing water areas, on Windermere and Coniston. One of the sites on Coniston was recently designated as poor, which is deeply concerning. However, it has been pleasing to see the local parish council work very successfully with the national park, Councillor Suzanne Pender, the business forum and others, and United Utilities has agreed a significant package of investment to help deal with that problem.
The current bathing water regulations have not been sufficient to protect our waterways from egregious offences. For example, in the north-west alone in 2023, United Utilities spilled 10,467 times for 76,259 hours into bathing waters alone. That does not include all the other times that it has spilled in other parts of our region. Indeed, United Utilities is the worst offender of all the water companies, despite the fact that there are other serious offenders across the country.
The Liberal Democrats take the view that water is precious. It is important to our economy, our ecology, our heritage, leisure and human health, as well as biodiversity. It is of such significance that we have made it one of the key issues that we continue to campaign on, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), is so dedicated to our waterways that he spent much of the election in them.
Much of what the Government have done in the first part of this Parliament, including the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, has been commendable. We wait now for the Cunliffe review to see whether there will be the advances that have been promised or hinted at. There are three things that we need to make sure we do better. First, monitoring must be much more comprehensive. We welcome the fact that the Government are engaging citizen scientists in the process, including the Clean River Kent campaign, Save Windermere in my own constituency, and the Rivers Trusts up and down the country. But we are not helping them if we do not ask for them to be given a place on water company boards. Nor are we helping them, although they are very useful to a degree, if the monitoring sites available for those people to look at do not have historical data. We depend on our brave water campaigners around the country committing their time to never, ever go to bed or go to work or look after their children. They cannot look backwards. If they blink, they may well miss egregious offences in our bathing waters and in other parts of our waterways. Monitoring is important.
Secondly, regulation is all important. I always try to be careful not to castigate the individuals working for Ofwat or the Environment Agency, or any of the water companies for that matter, but I recognise the system is broken and we have a diluted regulatory framework in this country. That is why the Liberal Democrats think that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and other water regulators should be merged into a much stronger regulator that the water companies would actually fear, rather than running rings around them all the time.
Finally, there is ownership. We could have an organisation called the clean water authority. It would replace and advance on Ofwat and create real powers. It would have real teeth that the current regulatory system does not have. Ownership matters. It is an outrage that between 11% and 40% of the water bills of every person in this country are going to pay off the debt of the water companies. That is a disgrace. And it is time that we moved those water companies into a not-for-profit status. We do not want to call for nationalisation, but we do call for public-benefit companies to be incorporated to make sure that those who look after our waterways do so in the interests of our water quality, and of meeting the needs of the consumer, not racking up huge profits.
Finally, because bathing water status does give communities more power over the cleanliness and the standards of the waterways that they care about so much, particularly in my part of the world in the lakes, it is clear that very often DEFRA does not grant clean bathing water status when it really should. So I want to say on behalf of my own communities—communities up the River Kent, north of Kendal through Burneside and Staveley—that the river desperately needs to be given bathing water status in several places. That would allow the communities who campaigned so vigorously for the cleanliness of that river to be able to hold United Utilities and other polluters fully to account.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
My remarks about brevity were neither targeted at nor limited to Mr Farron. I call the shadow Minister, Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship., Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing this really important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed and made incredibly valid points, which I will pick up on in my summing up of this debate. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are pleased that the River Tone in French Weir has been awarded its bathing water designation. I was the Minister who signed that off when I was in the Department, so I am pleased that that has been welcomed. I also want to thank his predecessor Rebecca Pow for the work that she did in campaigning vociferously to get that bathing water designation in place.
In 2010, 76% of bathing sites were considered good or excellent and by 2024 that figure had reached 90%, which I am sure all of us would welcome. That is despite the criteria changing and becoming much stricter in 2015. And I was proud, as I have indicated, when I was the Water Minister for a brief period in DEFRA to sign off an additional 27 bathing water designations last year, bringing more areas under the spotlight with additional monitoring and ensuring more water companies were then able to be held to account for the pollution that they were causing. It brought the total number of bathing water designations up to 451 sites for the 2024 bathing season. I was proud to see that the River Nidd in Harrogate was one of the rivers awarded bathing water designation and that there was an additional such designation on the River Wharfe. In my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, the Wharfe was the first to have a bathing water designation on a river. I must congratulate a very active campaign group in my constituency, the Ilkley Clean River group. It was founded by Karen Shackleton, who is an incredible campaigner. She and many others have tirelessly campaigned for improving water quality, not only in the River Wharfe but across the country. I am sure many Members have received emails from this campaign group.
When we announced those 27 bathing water sites to be added to the list, I was also proud to announce the review of such designations. From my experience with having the River Wharfe designated, I felt the bathing water designation regulations at the time were not fit for purpose. I am pleased the Government carried on with that review, which has now taken place. I have seen many contributions to it, not least from the Office for Environmental Protection which in their feedback of November 2024 was supportive of many of the changes that needed to take place.
I shall go through some of those. On dates, for example, I do not feel that it is just to have bathing water designation sites ringfenced only between May and September. As has been mentioned by all Members in their contributions, many of us who are lucky to use a bathing water site are not just doing so between those specific dates but actually throughout the year. Why should we be constrained by having the bathing water designation sites between May and September? It seems right and just that those sites have all-year monitoring, to be able to hold to account those who pollute our rivers but also to make sure the level of resource, whether financial or community, is able to improve the water quality in those areas.
That brings me on to the name “bathing water regulations”. Is it fit for purpose? From my experience in my constituency, once a bathing water designation is approved the assumption is that it is safe to bathe in that area. When bathing water sites are being allocated to rivers, or indeed on our coastal environments, it can be unsafe to swim in those environments given the undercurrents that exist, particularly in river networks. The water quality does not need to be good or excellent. In fact, many of those sites are unfortunately designated as poor. I urge the Government to think about whether it should be changed to something like “clean water status”, so as not to give the impression that it is necessarily safe to bathe.
I would also like to pick up the point on automatic de-designation. This is something I have experienced in my own constituency. We were lucky enough to have the River Wharfe bathing water designated but unfortunately, as probably expected, it has consistently been designated as poor as a river—year on and year on. Fortunately, Yorkshire Water has responded very positively in realising that an additional level of investment needs to go in there. We have seen £15 million spent on improving water capacity and retention, to help with the sewage treatment works in Ilkley. We have now seen an additional allocation of about £45 million being spent in Ilkley to deal with the wider sewage treatment works.
However if one knows the designation is consistently going to be poor, and then after year five drops off and there is no bathing water designation, I fear there is a real risk it reduces the onus on the polluter to do something about this. The polluter may not just be a water company. It may be agri-runoff through phosphorous or nitrate. I know that the civil servants sitting behind the Minister will have listened to many of the conversations that we have been having, and, on that point, I congratulate the civil service on the work that it has done on the regulations and in bringing forward this review.
However, I do feel that, when we are relying on evidence coming forward to secure enough resource or finance to improve things, we sometimes need to rely on longer datasets than just one or two years to see those improvement measures. That relates not only to water companies but the agri-environmental benefit from many of the stewardship schemes that farmers enter into as well. I therefore urge the Government to remove the automatic de-designation.
Then I come on to users, because, at the moment, the regulations specifically relate to those who wish to bathe, but, as has also been indicated by those who have contributed today, we are all using our river networks, our coastal environments, or indeed our lakes for many purposes other than swimming. I do not want to comment on the Lib Dem leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), but I am not the only one who goes paddleboarding and ends up underwater. The point is that, under the current regulations, if someone wants to kayak, canoe or paddleboard, that is not sufficient to get a bathing water designation. I therefore urge the Government to look at the users of these sites so that we can ensure that more rivers, coasts and lakes achieve more bathing water status.
On the issue of multiple measuring points, from my own experience from the River Wharfe in Ilkley, a bathing water designation relates to a specific point where that monitoring takes place. In my constituency, that specific point is actually upstream of the outfall from the water treatment works—which Yorkshire Water is rightly putting a huge amount of investment into. That monitoring is pointless if it is upstream. That may be at the point where most bathers bathe, but it is less likely to put pressure on ensuring that polluters are held to account.
I therefore urge the Government to look at having multiple measuring points associated with a bathing water designation. Indeed, as we see more rivers getting allocated bathing water sites—and I was proud to sign off more rivers when I was lucky enough to be the water Minister—I do wish the Government would explore having multiple measuring points, particularly in river environments, because, as the river flows through, bathers are more likely to bathe over a wider stretch, rather than at a single point, as with coastal environments.
I am grateful to Surfers Against Sewage for specifically raising the issue of prior testing with me in advance of today’s debate—indeed, as they have before—because proposals under consideration, including those of sites to be designated going forward, could be tested before the designation is granted. Should those prior tests come back as poor, my worry—indeed, the point has also been raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—is that that could allow a Minister not to grant, or to be less inclined to grant, that bathing water designation. I would not want prior testing to result in a bathing water designation not being given approval, because actually, as I have demonstrated in my own constituency and others, having a bathing water site, in itself, puts that pressure on the polluter, whoever, or whichever organisation, that is.
Forecasting has also been picked up by other Members in this debate. Forecasting is important, because it provides much more onus on future programming to do with finance that may be going into cleaning up the rivers, and enables more comfort for the community in understanding what is happening to improve the water quality at those bathing water sites.
However, as we all know, even when a site is designated as excellent water quality, it could experience a huge amount of rainfall, or potentially a serious pollution incident, but, because the monitoring is taken over a wider period of time—and the designation is therefore taken over a wider period of time—a single issue to do with pollution or a heavy downpour will not necessarily impact the designation itself. Therefore, I think it would be helpful if more awareness was raised. That is about not only additional rainfall events, or additional water entering into the system, but forecasting to better prepare those who do want to bathe, or use that water, to make the right decision at the appropriate time.
I would like to sum up by thanking the Ilkley Clean River Group in my constituency, because it certainly helped me to get a much better understanding, not only when I was first elected to the House in 2019 but in the role that I ended up in, which was as a Water Minister in DEFRA. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, because water quality is a major challenge.
The infrastructure responsible for much of this issue is literally Victorian. It cannot be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed with a dedicated and serious plan. The previous Administration delivered the start of that plan with the “Plan for Water”, and in opposition we will very much welcome working with the Government and, indeed, other parties from across this House to improve water quality. I hope that the Minister will reiterate my thanks to her team, who I know have worked incredibly hard behind the scenes on this issue. I would like to say to the Minister that we would be more than happy to provide support in the right places to make sure that we are all focused on improving water quality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is always a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John.
I feel that we are having a little bit of a love-in this afternoon, which is always a nice way to start. Of course I will be more than happy to pass on the thanks from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), to the team who have worked on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this really important debate. There is so much agreement in the room that I almost wonder whether we are still in the House of Commons. I will certainly try to cover most of the points that have been made.
Just to set the issue in context, we completely accept and believe that the water system at the moment is broken. That is why, when we first came into office, we changed the articles of association to put customers and their opinions into the water boards. It is why we are doubling the compensation for people who face water outages. It is why we have ringfenced money so that it cannot be diverted from infrastructure improvements and into bonuses. It is why we have the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which just came into force and got Royal Assent last week—because we know that the system as a whole is broken. It is also why, just last Thursday, I was in Manchester with Sir Jon Cunliffe, launching the call for evidence on water. I strongly urge every Member here to respond to that call for evidence. There is a huge, 200-page consultation document that goes with it but, just because we are kind, there is a 20-page executive summary as well, so please have a look at that, respond to the consultation and make some of these points there.
Bathing waters in and of themselves are not under the water commission. The reason for that is that I wanted to do something on bathing waters really quickly; I did not want it to get delayed by the water commission when we already knew some of the things that we wanted to look at. I will quickly go over some of the things that we are looking at changing. At the moment, the regulations are one size fits all. I would like to reassure people talking about the dates around bathing waters. Obviously, we will officially respond to the consultation; there will be an official Government response, but so far I have yet to see put forward any evidence that seems to indicate that there is a wish to shorten the bathing water window. In fact, most people are advocating to keep it the same or extend it, recognising that some people go swimming all year round.
This is the perfect point at which to mention my mum, who has decided to do open water swimming and swims all year round, and now has her own wetsuit. I think it is amazing that she has discovered open water swimming in her retirement—slightly crazy, but definitely amazing. As I said, we will obviously have a formal response to the consultation, but so far I have not seen anybody advocating shortening the bathing season. I wanted to make a point of mentioning that.
On the de-designation points, I wholeheartedly accept the points made by the spokesman for the official Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats that it would be an incentive for companies not to invest in improving the water if they knew that after a certain number of years it would be de-designated—although of course I must add the proviso that we have not officially responded to the consultation. However, from looking at what we have had so far, that is certainly what I am feeling.
I also want to address this point. I am sure that it was not intended, but I wondered whether it was coming through that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water in an area. I do not accept that, because if we are saying that bathing water status is the golden ticket to improve the water, that means that we are also almost accepting, on the flip side of that, that if people do not have bathing water status, we are okay with their water being completely polluted.
We are not okay with that. We want to clean up all our rivers, lakes and seas, and we have a plan to do so. We have £104 billion of investment going into the next five years. We are looking at what is happening in bathing waters, and looking at iconic sites around the country. The argument that somewhere needs to have bathing water status or its waters will remain polluted, is one that I challenge head on. That argument almost accepts that we are okay with things remaining polluted. No—we should focus on something much bigger than that, which is how we clean up all of our rivers, lakes and seas, especially looking at bathing waters.
There is a major public health aspect here. It is an important point, and it is why I am delighted that Sir Chris Whitty is one of the expert advisers on the Cunliffe review looking at this. An argument is being made that asks why we are setting a standard, as if to say, “If they are really poor, we don’t want to allocate them as bathing sites.” We should pause and think about that for a moment because, as was illustrated by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), if we are saying something is a bathing site and we give it bathing water status, it implies that it is safe to bathe there. If we designate a site that we know will not be safe for many years to come, and would take a huge amount of investment to become safe, is it right to call that a bathing water site and imply that people are safe to bathe there?
So, I think the sensible and correct decision is to improve all our water everywhere through reforms, which is why we are doing the water review and why we passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Let us look at the areas that are likely to improve more quickly, and say to people, “You can bathe here, because it will improve more quickly and we can see rapid progress, but these other sites that you want to bathe in—if we think seriously—are not going to improve for a long time.” As a Government, we think that it would be irresponsible to call those sites bathing water sites when we know full well that there could be serious damage to public health.
Pippa Heylings
I wanted to clarify that there are two bodies of argument here. Given that there has been a complete lack of regulations and ways to enforce the “polluter pays” principle with water companies until now, status has been seen as one of the only mechanisms to do it. However, I would like the Minister to recognise that these are already bathing sites because the criteria is that they have to show that they are already being used as bathing sites—that they are recognised as culturally and ecologically important. Given that, even though they are poor we should be investing in them to ensure that they continue. We know that if they are declared poor, people are warned of that and therefore do not swim. So we are not subjecting people to unsafe water; we are recognising that these are key bathing areas and have historical, cultural and ecological importance—now and in the future.
Emma Hardy
I do not disagree in the slightest. To be completely clear, sites that are already designated as bathing sites of course need enhanced investment and support to improve them, even if they are poor at the moment. I was addressing the point about when we are looking to designate new sites, and answering the question why we are looking at core reform 2.
Again, I stress that we have not officially responded to the consultation. If we are looking at a site that we wish to designate in the future, which is of a really low quality, is it irresponsible to designate that site knowing that it will not reach for five to 10 years the standard it needs to reach? Like everything, that is a question for debate. But for sites that are designated at the moment, I agree that we should be putting extra investment into them even if they are poor.
I do not want to rehearse the many debates and discussions we have already had. There were 36 amendments, I think, to the Water (Special Measures) Act on Report.
Emma Hardy
Forty-four amendments! We had many debates and discussions during the passage of that Act. To rehearse an argument we have had many times before, the reason why we are not focusing on the volume of water coming out is simply because volume can be very diluted, and therefore not a great threat. There can be a small amount of incredibly toxic waste causing a huge amount of damage. I would like to see the investment going into water quality monitors. That is part of the next price review—how can we put water quality monitors in? They would measure whether it is a huge amount and it is dilute, or a small amount and it is toxic. We just want to know what damage is being done to the river. My focus is, and remains, on water quality.
There were some genuinely helpful suggestions from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about where to place those monitors for measuring water quality. That was a really helpful contribution. While I am paying credit to him, the way we describe it—how we say it is safe to bathe—was also a helpful suggestion.
Emma Hardy
I will; I am praising the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—let us get back to normal.
Joe Morris
The Government have moved quickly on this issue. Does the Minister recognise that it is important that we maintain an engaged and concerned public? I have met with the Wylam clean river group and with other concerned groups throughout my constituency along the length of the Tyne. One thing that continues to resonate with me is that these groups understand that this is a consistent piece of work, and that we need to be constantly iterating on making sure that our rivers do not just get clean, but remain clean into the future. The Government and the public need to consistently work in partnership.
Emma Hardy
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he cares deeply about this issue and has spoken to me many times about the importance of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas. I would like to think it is something that we are united on.
Many stakeholders, many people and many Members have called for bathing water regulations to be updated to reflect the new ways in which we are using our waters or falling into our waters, whatever it might be, and to continue to support public health outcomes. It would be irresponsible for us not to consider public health when we are thinking about designation.
We are a Government who listen. We are a Government who believe in co-production. We are a Government who actively engage. I encourage all Members to contribute to the water review. It is out there now; the consultation is only open for the next seven weeks, so please do not lose the opportunity to have your say.
I put on the record my thanks to all the environmental campaigners, Surfers Against Sewage and all those organisations involved in supporting our clean rivers, lakes and seas.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Minister made some points on the length of time it would take to get some popular sites up to standard. Would she consider a pre-designation status, so that those sites are not left on the shelf with no support whatsoever—so that we are recognising, as my hon. Friends have said, the importance of certain sites for sporting, cultural and historical reasons?
Emma Hardy
That is a really interesting consideration. I hope the hon. Member fed that into the consultation. I will not commit either way, but it is an interesting point and one I will reflect on—as I said, this is a Government who listen. On that note, I think it is time for me to finish talking. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Well done for getting your mum in Hansard. I call Gideon Amos to say a few words to sum up.
Gideon Amos
I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank them very much. I am delighted that when I was filling in the form for bathing water status in French Weir, it was such a successful initiative that it attracted not only the support of the Opposition spokesperson but also my predecessor as Member of Parliament at the time.
We were delighted to get that designation, but it would not have happened if core reform 2 was in place. Even though that bathing site has been there for hundreds of years, dating back to at least the 18th century—we have records and pictures from the 19th century of changing rooms beside the river—the designation would not have happened and people would continue using the river and they would not have the benefit of bathing water status.
I urge the Minister to think carefully about introducing this very different criterion and moving away from places where people actually swim towards places where the industry think that they can afford to make the water quality better. That is the wrong criterion. The right criterion is where people are already using the river. I was in the river every Saturday in February—I did not quite make January—and people will be there throughout the year, whether or not the signs are up and it has bathing water status. I urge the Minister to think a little more on that.
I reiterate my thanks to everyone for taking part. I hope the Minister will ensure a debate on the regulations when they go through this House, because they are really important for our water quality.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered bathing water regulations.
Culture, Media and Sport
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chi Onwurah
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.
[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 940.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Lisa Nandy
… On her specific question, having had discussions with the BBC, I can confirm that this was not a BBC programme; it was commissioned by the BBC but made by an independent production company.
Making Work Pay: Consultation Responses
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government’s plan to make work pay is a core part of our mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will tackle the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that has been holding our economy back. The landmark Employment Rights Bill (ERB) will benefit more than 10 million workers in every corner of the country.
We are committed to working with all stakeholders on how to best put these measures into practice. In October the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I launched an initial package of four consultations, with the potential to inform amendments to the ERB. We greatly appreciated the many detailed responses we received. The insights we have gained from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society, and others have been invaluable in developing proportionate and effective policy.
Today we are publishing the Government’s response to each consultation on gov.uk, including our next steps, as well as the Government’s response to a consultation undertaken by the previous Government on tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market. I will also be tabling a number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill today for consideration at Report stage, reflecting the outcomes of these consultations.
The Government are committed to continuing with this approach through full and comprehensive consultation on the implementation of Make Work Pay to ensure that the changes we are making work for both workers and businesses of all sizes.
Consultation 1: The application of zero hours contracts measures to agency workers
The Government believe that every worker should be able to access a contract which reflects the hours they regularly work. We believe this should extend to agency workers, not only to offer them greater certainty of hours and security of income, but to ensure that agency work does not become a loophole in the plans to end exploitative zero hours contracts. We also recognise the important role that the temporary work sector plays in both the public and private sector, and the need for employers to retain flexibility in their workforces. This consultation sought views on how to apply zero hours contract measures to agency workers, receiving 629 responses from a broad range of stakeholders.
Based on the consultation responses and further stakeholder engagement, we will table amendments to the Employment Rights Bill which would allow the Government to implement the zero hours contracts rights for agency workers. We believe it is important to narrow the broad power currently in the Bill so that end hirers, agencies and agency workers are clear where responsibilities will sit in relation to the new rights. The obligation to provide a guaranteed hours offer will rest with the end hirer, but legislation will maintain flexibility to place the obligation on agencies or other intermediaries instead, in certain scenarios, which will be set out in secondary legislation. Both the end hirer and agency will be responsible for providing an agency worker with reasonable notice of shifts, shift cancellations and changes to shifts. Agencies will be responsible for making payments to workers which result from short notice cancellations, movements or curtailments of a shift. Agencies and hirers will remain free to negotiate terms which may allow these costs to be recouped from the hirer where the hirer was in fact responsible for the change. In the case of pre-existing contracts, legislation will allow agencies to recoup these costs to the extent the hirer was responsible.
Significant details of the legislation will be set in regulations. We will take the necessary time to consult on the regulations, to ensure clear, detailed and workable provisions. We will continue to engage with employer organisations, the recruitment sector and trade unions to identify the best way to achieve the policy objective of extending rights for agency workers without causing unintended consequences to employment agencies and end hirers.
Consultation 2: Creating a modern framework for industrial relations
This consultation sought views on proposals to update the legislative framework in which trade unions operate to align it with modern work practices, removing unnecessary restrictions on trade union activity and ensuring industrial relations are underpinned by collaboration, proportionality, accountability, and a system that balances the interests of workers, businesses and the wider public. This consultation received 165 responses from a range of stakeholders.
We will table amendments to improve the process and transparency around trade union recognition and access, including streamlining the trade union recognition process and strengthening protections against unfair practices. This includes addressing unfair practices to prevent mass recruitment designed to influence the bargaining unit and prevent recognition being granted; a new fixed timeline for employers and trade unions to agree access arrangements for recognition purposes; removing the requirement to prove that an unfair practice influenced voting behaviour; extending the code of practice on access and unfair practices from the point the CAC accept a recognition application; and extending the unfair practice complaint timeframe from 24 hours to five days. We will also amend the Bill so that independent unions can apply for recognition where an employer has voluntarily recognised a non-independent union following receipt of a formal request for voluntary recognition by the independent union.
We will also table amendments to extend the trade union access provisions to cover digital access, in line with modern-day workplaces, while also introducing a fast-track route for achieving an “off-the-shelf" access agreement where certain conditions are met, alongside a mechanism to ensure there are robust penalties in place for non-compliance.
As part of our efforts to remove unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, and deliver a balance between allowing for effective industrial action, while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare, we will amend the ERB to abolish the 10-year requirement for unions to ballot members on political fund maintenance, simplify the information requirements for industrial action ballots and notice to employers, extend the expiry of mandate for industrial action from six to 12 months, and ensure that trade unions provide a 10-day notice period for industrial action.
The Government also want to ensure that trade unions have a meaningful mandate to support relationships and negotiation with employers and deliver effective dispute resolution. That is why we are committed to making balloting more accessible by delivering e-balloting, which we anticipate will increase participation in statutory ballots and demonstrate clear mandates. We will launch a working group with trade unions and businesses imminently. While we continue to engage on how to ensure that trade unions are able to secure a meaningful mandate for industrial action, and as the other reforms to trade union legislation come into force, the Government will table an amendment to the ERB specifying that the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold will be subject to commencement on a date to be specified in regulations. The intention behind this approach is to align as closely as possible the removal of thresholds with the introduction of e-balloting. This will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.
Consultation 3: Strengthening remedies against abuse of rules on collective redundancy and fire and rehire
This consultation sought views on increasing the maximum period of the protective award for failing to adhere to collective consultation requirements, and on applying interim relief to fire and rehire and collective redundancy scenarios. We received 195 responses, from a range of stakeholders.
We will table an amendment to increase the maximum period of the protective award to 180 days (up from the current maximum of 90 days). Increasing the maximum value of the award means an employment tribunal will be able to grant larger awards to employees for an employer’s failure to meet consultation requirements.
The Government want to enhance the deterrent against employers deliberately ignoring their collective consultation obligations and ensure it is not financially beneficial to do so. The Government are not proposing to bring forward the proposals to make interim relief available for either collective redundancy or fire and rehire scenarios. The most overarching and prominent theme from the responses on this section of the consultation is that it would be difficult to implement interim relief in practice, and the complexities for the employee in bringing a claim would outweigh any benefits in doing so. We will keep the area under review though and if it is found that further measures are needed, we will look to introduce them.
Consultation 4: strengthening statutory sick pay
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are removing the waiting period so that SSP is paid from the first day of sickness absence and extending eligibility to those earning below the lower earnings limit.
We are introducing a new rate for statutory sick pay which will be paid to the lowest earners, including all those earning below the lower earnings limit. An employee will be entitled to the flat rate or a percentage of their earnings, whichever is lower. We consulted on what this percentage rate of earnings should be.
Following this consultation, and together with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I am today tabling an amendment to set the percentage rate of statutory sick pay that will be paid up to the flat rate of SSP at 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings. This percentage rate provides a fair earnings replacement and strikes the right balance between providing financial security to employees who are unable to work due to sickness, while also limiting additional costs to businesses.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will also publish the full Government response to the consultation on statutory sick pay, which sets out the findings and rationale in more detail, and will submit the Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on statutory sick pay.
Consultation 5: Tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market consultation
In 2023 the previous Government consulted on proposals to regulate umbrella companies and options to tackle tax non-compliance in the umbrella company market, but no action was taken to address this. This means that many workers are unaware of who is responsible for providing their employment rights, or whether they are entitled to any employment rights at all. Many have reported a lack of pay-related transparency and mishandling of pay (typically, non-transparent deduction from wages). Yet the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is currently unable to take action against non-compliant umbrella companies, as they do not fall within scope of the legislation covering employment agencies and employment businesses.
We will therefore table an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill to expand the scope of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, allowing umbrella companies to be regulated for the purposes of employment rights. We will set out the detail in regulations following further consultation, aiming to ensure that workers have comparable rights and protections when working through an umbrella company as when taken on directly by an employment business.
Next steps for consultation
This package represents the first phase of formal public consultations on how best to put our plans into practice. We have committed to full consultation on the implementation of this legislation, and expect this to begin this year, ensuring reforms work for employers and workers alike.
[HCWS490]
Early Support Hubs
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health, my noble Friend Baroness Merron, has made the following written statement: Hub Name Constituency ABL Health Mansfield (Steve Yemm) Base 25 Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) Brook Young People Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) West Central London Mind Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) Centre 33 Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) ChilyPep Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis) The Children’s Society Torbay (Steve Darling) The Children’s Society Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) CHUMS Charity Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) Family Action Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) Isle of Wight Youth Trust Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) Lancashire Mind Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle) Mancroft Advice Project (MAP) Norwich South (Clive Lewis) Noah’s Ark Centre Halifax (Kate Dearden) No Limits South Southampton, Test (Satvir Kaur) Onside Worcester (Tom Collins) People Potential Possibilities Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) Sheffield Futures Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) Spring North Blackburn (Adnan Hussain) Warrington Youth Zone Ltd Warrington Youth (Sarah Hall) YMCA St Helens St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Marie Rimmer) Young Devon North Devon (Ian Roome) Youth Enquiry Service Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) Young Persons Advisory Service Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson)
Nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children. That is why the Government made a clear commitment in our manifesto to improve the mental health of young people through specialist support and earlier intervention. We continue to make progress on delivering these manifesto commitments, such as access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, as part of our drive to reform the NHS through our 10-year health plan and create opportunities for young people through mission-led Government.
Today, I wish to inform the House that the Government are providing continued top-up funding in 2025-26 for 24 early support hubs in England and running an evaluation of the support that they deliver, backed by £7 million.
Building on a shared outcomes fund project being delivered in 2024-25, this means that over 12,000 children and young people will continue to have access to innovative early mental health and wellbeing support at an early stage.
In our manifesto, we committed to providing open access mental health support for children and young people through Young Futures hubs. Working with the Home Office, the Department for Education and colleagues across Government, our hope is that the evidence and insights collected through the early support hubs evaluation will support the delivery of Young Futures hubs, alongside best practice and learning from other initiatives. This learning will inform our ambitions for community mental health and wellbeing support for children and young people, and ensure that they have access to the kinds of support they need.
As well as providing mental health support in every community, we are also continuing work to recruit 8,500 new mental health workers to cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier.
I know that we still have a long way to go to ensure that all young people are provided with access to the mental health support they need. However, today’s investment marks a step in the right direction to support children and young people’s mental health.
[HCWS493]
Local Audit Backlog in England: Non-compliance Lists
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
Effective local audit provides transparency, accountability, trust and confidence in local bodies to spend taxpayer money wisely. Close to 500 local bodies in England are required to publish their audited accounts annually. Financial year Backstop date Up to and including 2022-23 13 December 2024 2023-24 28 February 2025 2024-25 27 February 2026 2025-26 31 January 2027 2026-27 30 November 2027 2027-28 30 November 2028
However, the Government inherited a broken local audit system in England, evidenced by an audit backlog that peaked at 918 outstanding unaudited accounts in September 2023. More recently, the whole of Government accounts for financial year 2022-23 was disclaimed in autumn 2024, primarily due to a lack of audit assurance on local government accounts.
In July 2024, I outlined proposals to clear this unacceptable backlog and give taxpayers’ the confidence they deserve. These measures were implemented in autumn 2024 via amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and through the Comptroller and Auditor General’s new code of audit practice. Without these measures, audits would continue to be delayed, and the local audit system would move further away from timely, effective audit, with significant additional cost to the taxpayer. The measures are supported by all key local audit system partners.
The Government appreciate the efforts that bodies and auditors are undertaking to support the drive to fix the foundations. The outcome of the 13 December 2024 backstop shows a shared commitment to restoring sound financial practice to the sector.
Backstop publication requirements
The 2015 regulations, as amended, require bodies to publish audited accounts (including the audit opinion) on their website by the statutory backstop dates below:
The 2015 regulations also specify circumstances in which bodies may be exempt from meeting a backstop date (these are in line with exemptions for auditors set out in the code of audit practice). Where such an exemption exists, bodies must publish an explanation on their website on (or as soon as practicable after) the relevant backstop date, and publish audited accounts as soon as practicable.
If a body is not exempt and fails to comply, it must publish an explanation on its website on (or as soon as practicable after) the relevant backstop date, send a copy of this to the Secretary of State and publish audited accounts as soon as practicable.
13 December 2024 backstop (for financial years up to and including 2022-23)
Following the 13 December 2024 backstop, the system has taken a significant step forward. The vast majority of bodies (approximately 95%) have now published audited accounts for all years up to and including 2022-23. 233 bodies (approximately 50%) have published all audited accounts for years up to and including 2022-23 with unmodified opinions.
In line with expectations, around 200 bodies (approximately 45%) have published at least one disclaimed opinion due to the backstop. Across all years, close to 400 backstop disclaimers have been published.
Six bodies were exempt from this backstop date.
In the interests of transparency, my statement of July 2024 committed to publishing lists of bodies and their appointed auditors that do not meet backstop dates. I can confirm that the Government have today published two lists on gov.uk as follows:
a list of 21 bodies yet to publish all audited accounts for financial years up to and including 2022-23 as of 19 February 2025, and;
a list of 47 bodies that had not published one or more audited accounts for financial years up to and including 2022-23 by 13 December 2024, but had published all audited accounts as of 19 February 2025.
The publication of audited accounts is a joint endeavour between bodies and audit firms, and is shaped by a complex array of factors. Accordingly, today’s publication does not provide detailed commentary on individual circumstances as to why a body did not publish all its audited accounts by the backstop. It does, however, include factual context on whether the body published its unaudited draft accounts by 31 October 2024 to allow the 30-working-day statutory public inspection period to conclude ahead of the backstop date.
Bodies and audit firms named in the lists were contacted prior to publication, including to help reinforce the legislative requirements and, where relevant, to emphasise the importance of publishing audited accounts as soon as practicable. The Government will continue to engage with bodies with outstanding accounts as appropriate.
28 February 2025 backstop (for financial year 2023-24)
The deadline for publication of audited accounts for 2023-24 was 28 February 2025. The Government will update on the outcomes of this backstop in due course.
Systemic reform
Clearing the backlog is a vital priority. However, to fix the broken local audit system, systemic reform is clearly also needed. In December 2024, the Government published a strategy for overhauling the local audit system in England: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-audit-reform-a-strategy-for-overhauling-the-local-audit-system-in-england/local-audit-reform-a-strategy-for-overhauling-the-local-audit-system-in-england#local-audit-office-remit-1
The Government committed to a series of measures as well as consulting on others, and we are carefully considering responses to those consulted on as part of the strategy (the consultation closed on 29 January 2025). The Government response, which will set out next steps, will be published shortly.
Overhauling the broken local audit system demonstrates our determination to drive sustained improvement and ensure that local government is fit, legal and decent. It is the least taxpayers can expect, and this Government fully intend to use all levers available to fix the local audit system and give the sector the firm foundations that it requires.
[HCWS492]
Plan for Neighbourhoods
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
This Government’s defining mission is growth, and we are determined that nowhere will be left behind in that pursuit. The following list includes eligible local authorities for the Plan for Neighbourhoods, ordered alphabetically. Accrington Arbroath Ashton-under-Lyne Barnsley Barry (Vale of Glamorgan) Bedworth Bexhill-on-Sea Bilston (Wolverhampton) Blyth (Northumberland) Boston Burnley Canvey Island Carlton Castleford Chadderton Chesterfield Clacton-on-Sea Clifton (Nottingham) Clydebank Coatbridge Coleraine Cwmbran Darlaston Darlington Darwen Derry-Londonderry Dewsbury Doncaster Dudley (Dudley) Dumfries Eastbourne Elgin Eston Farnworth Great Yarmouth Greenock Grimsby Harlow Hartlepool Hastings Heywood Irvine Jarrow Keighley Kilmarnock King’s Lynn Kirkby Kirkby-in-Ashfield Leigh (Wigan) Mansfield Merthyr Tydfil Nelson (Pendle) Newark-on-Trent Newton-le-Willows Kirkwall (Orkney Islands) Peterhead Ramsgate Rawtenstall Rhyl Rotherham Runcorn Ryde Scarborough Scunthorpe Skegness Smethwick Spalding Spennymoor Thetford Torquay Washington Wisbech Worksop Wrexham
Over the last decades the impact of austerity and decline has not been equally felt. Some neighbourhoods have been starved of investment and reform, worsening deprivation and making the path to growth more difficult than in other communities.
The new £1.5 billon plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade into 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundations to kickstart local growth and drive-up living standards.
No more sticking plasters; no more short-term fixes—rather, a 10-year programme allocating £2 million a year to unlock the potential of the places people call home. This goes hand in hand with everything this Government are delivering to rebuild our country: whether that is the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war, tackling NHS waiting lists or ending the “Whitehall knows best” approach by empowering local leaders to strengthen communities and determine their future.
The programme will help revitalise local areas and fight deprivation at root cause by zeroing in on three strategic objectives: building thriving places, strengthening communities and taking back control.
In each of the 75 communities, the Government will support the establishment of a new “neighbourhood board”, bringing together residents, local businesses, and grass-roots campaigners to draw up and implement a regeneration plan for their area. Communities have come up with their own grass-roots solutions: opening foodbanks and warm banks, shopping local to back jobs and enterprises in their high streets, and raising support through trade unions, charities and civil society bodies. Our plan for neighbourhoods will empower local people to take ownership for driving the renewal of their community.
Our country has all the raw ingredients to ignite growth—untapped talent and potential across every town, city, village and estate. But we also have people without enough to get by, and places and public services which have been hollowed out. People feel divided and disempowered, perceptions which are made worse by deprivation that for too long has been tackled with sticking-plaster politics.
Together, this Government will work in partnership with people on the ground and local authorities to deliver in every corner of the country. The plan for neighbourhoods is just the start: through the introduction of community right to buy and further initiatives to support high streets and communities, we will give people and places the resources and the powers they need to succeed. I will deposit a copy of the prospectus in the Library of the House.
Programme timeline
February to Spring 2025
Neighbourhood boards and local authorities receive a tailored data pack detailing metrics across the three strategic objectives.
Neighbourhoods boards and local authorities receive polling on local sentiment around investment priorities for their area.
Neighbourhood boards to confirm finalised membership and any proposals to alter the default area boundary for spending in their community to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government by Friday 15 April 2025.
MHCLG to review membership and boundary proposals and confirm to places whether acceptable.
Spring 2025
Further guidance on fund delivery, policy toolkits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the submission, assessment and approvals of regeneration plans to be published.
MHCLG issues 2025 to 2026 capacity funding payment to all places.
Spring 2025 to winter 2025
Neighbourhood boards submit their regeneration plan to MHCLG for assessment and approval.
April 2026
First programme delivery funding payment to be made to lead local authorities, commencement of delivery phase.
MHCLG issues 2026 to 2027 capacity funding payment to all places.
[HCWS494]
Household Support Fund
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are committed to a sustainable, long-term approach to drive up opportunity and drive down poverty across the UK.
At the autumn Budget, we announced a one-year £742 million extension of the household support fund in England, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. The devolved Governments will receive consequential funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way, to be spent at their discretion.
We know that local authorities have the experience and relationships to determine how best to support those in their local areas. This extension of the household support fund will enable local authorities to provide everything from immediate crisis support such as food vouchers or warm winter clothing to more preventive approaches to tackling poverty, such as referring people to debt and other advice services, working with community and voluntary organisations to signpost people to wider support, and helping with costs of energy bills and white goods.
We also encourage local authorities to consider how their provision of crisis support could have a longer-term, sustainable impact, such as providing insulation or energy-efficient household items which reduce bills and repairing or replacing white goods and appliances.
The scheme guidance and funding allocations for the forthcoming extension will be shared with local authorities imminently.
[HCWS495]
Ministry of Justice Contingency Fund Advance: 2024-25
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Ministry of Justice requires an advance to discharge its commitments which are set out in its supplementary estimate 2024-25, published on 11 February 2025 as “HC 655 (Central Government Supply Estimates 2024-25, Supplementary Estimates)”.
This is a temporary cash advance due to the timing of Royal Assent for the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill (“the Supply Bill”), and does not reflect an overspend.
Once the Supply Bill achieves Royal Assent the advance will be repaid in full.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £300,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £300,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS491]
Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, it is the usual drill: if there is a vote in the Chamber, a bell will ring and we shall adjourn for a time to allow your Lordships to go and vote. So let us begin.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, before we start, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the Select Committee on the Bill: the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jamieson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I particularly express gratitude on behalf of the House, as much as the committee, for the extraordinary devotion to the committee’s work on the part of those who supported us, bearing in mind that there were 18 petitions against the Bill and three KCs. They were Chris Salmon Percival, the clerk to the committee; Che Diamond, assistant counsel to the Chair of Committees; Mike Wright, private and hybrid legislation manager; and Kiran Kaur, committee operations officer. They worked well above and beyond their duty.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of Conservative Friends of Israel and a supporter of its current fight against the new attempts to destroy the Jewish homeland from the river to the sea. I say that because I do not want my opposition to this Bill to be misconstrued.
So why am I opposed to the Bill? It is because it fails in every way to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. The commission recommended a campus with large amounts of space:
“The Learning Centre should include facilities to host lectures and seminars and to run educational courses and workshops, as well as the opportunity for Holocaust organisations to locate their offices, or set up satellite offices, within the wider physical campus”.
This Adjaye design fails that requirement. The commission recommended a unique British design; Adjaye has given us a cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission said in its first recommendation that
“it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn more”.
about the Holocaust. “Close at hand” does not necessarily mean shoehorned into the wrong space, which is too small to do justice to the commission’s recommendations but far too large for this little garden.
The commission recommended three possible solutions: the Imperial War Museum site, Potters Field and a site further along Millbank. Indeed, it waxed lyrical about the Imperial War Museum and a plan to build a whole new wing to house the campus on the extensive land around the museum in Lambeth. Victoria Tower Gardens never entered its contemplation because the experts on the commission knew it was entirely inappropriate. Ed Balls claimed that Victoria Tower Gardens was his suggestion, but we have never heard why the Imperial War Museum offer was turned down. Nothing has been produced regarding any comparison of the sites, why they were rejected and why Victoria Tower Gardens was picked on a political whim. I think I know why: politicians in my party took the arrogant view that Victoria Tower Gardens was an easy win, right next to Parliament and run by the Royal Parks, which would buckle to political domination.
In summary, I am opposed to this project because it fails to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, is grotesquely ugly and is designed by a discredited architect whose previous iterations of this were rejected by Ottawa. It does nothing to properly commemorate the evils of the Holocaust nor the ongoing threat of a new one.
I turn specifically to the cost issue, as in my Amendments 1 and 27. I shall use more temperate language and say this: successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery that at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.
“The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”—
that is not a Lord Blencathra observation but the words from the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority in its latest report of 16 January 2025. That is the third year in a row where the authority has given it its most damning “Red” categorisation.
I cannot blame the present Government for pushing on with this out-of-control shambles. The Government whom I supported were more guilty, because they were told two years ago that the project was unachievable. Did the department do anything to sort out the project definition, the schedule or the budget, which the authority said was not manageable nor resolvable? No, of course not, because it was a big sacred cow—or, to mix metaphors, no one dared to suggest that this emperor had no clothes. Just as Jewish organisations were told, “You’d better back this proposal or there’ll be no Holocaust memorial”, so no one dared to admit that this project in Victoria Tower Gardens was out of control, for fear of being accused of not supporting Holocaust commemoration.
The project was originally costed at under £100 million, and the Government proposed to finance it with at least £25 million in philanthropic funding. There has been no suggestion that the Government would not fund the rest of the project and its operating costs as well. The latest capital cost estimate for HMLC—the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—is £138.8 million without any contingency, which shows a substantial rise in the estimate before contingency of 36% between 2022 and 2023. This estimate was based on the expectation of starting construction before 2025.
The only comments about costs which it has since been possible to extract from MHCLG has been a figure for the total spend to date of £18 million, given by the then Minister, Simon Hoare, to the Commons in May 2024 and a recent estimate of a further £2.1 million spent in the last six months. That would bring the total to £20.1 million. If the figures are correct and comparable, that would represent an acceleration on 2020 to 2024, when only £2.8 million was spent over 22 months.
In July 2022, the National Audit Office delivered a report with a whole battery of criticisms of MHCLG’s performance in preparing, planning and managing the project to date, at a point when £15.1 million had been spent with absolutely no result. In particular, the NAO criticised the management of the project and the provision of data on cost escalation to justify the project costs between 2020 and 2022. The NAO report described at paragraph 23, among the “emerging risks” causing potential cost increases, the promoters’ failure to consider any alternative site or the possible effects of legislative delay, or
“to quantify, or account for … the risks”
that that has created, but there has been little subsequent evidence that this NAO criticism has been heeded by MHCLG.
The NAO was critical of the fact that MHCLG had made no provision for defining the governance of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It commented that the MHCLG accepted the need for a non-departmental public body but insisted that it would set up a new, dedicated NDPB which, the NAO commented, would mean a minimum of 12 months to pass the requisite legislation—and it wants to set that up 12 months before the thing is due to open.
MHCLG made an insubstantial reply in 2022 to the NAO’s criticisms but its statements since then show that it believes it has responded to those criticisms, even though no change is visible to the world outside the ministry. For instance, MHCLG has never provided any estimate of the inflation that would apply to construction costs based on starting construction in, say, 2026 and starting operations in, say, 2028. The Government have never made any provision for operating costs and have made the likely costs higher by agreeing in 2022 to make all entry to the learning centre free, although visitors will still have to register online.
The operating costs will be high and have so far escalated from £6 million to £8 million per annum, but absolutely no detail has been provided about what the costs will cover. This is particularly important because it is not clear what provision the department has made for the costs of policing and other security measures required for the project if it is built. I also believe that MHCLG is not charging significant or even realistic amounts of civil servant management time to the project, which is either poor accounting or evidence that the project has insufficient governance, or both of those things. It is therefore no surprise that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times now—in 2023, 2024 and 2025—classified the memorial project as undeliverable.
In 2024, the MHCLG created the post of senior responsible officer for the project and gave that officer the power to act within cost overruns with a contingency of £53 million—£53 million as a contingency for a £138 million project, well above the normal 10% to 15%. There has been no explanation for why this contingency was pitched at that figure. The MHCLG budgeting process within the published management and other accounts remains completely untransparent about what the HMLC costs will be, what they are for and who is accountable for them.
Finally, I note that, despite the MHCLG having stated in 2024 that it had suspended work on the project, thus partially justifying the suspension of Sir David Adjaye, it recently—this year—told the Lords Select Committee that its design team is already working on adjustments to the design in relation to the assurances provided to the Select Committee, so that shows that some design cost has continued to be spent.
Here we are today, debating a Bill for a project which the Government’s own top infrastructure authority says, and has said for the last three years in a row, is undeliverable. I say that pushing on with a failed project with no proper cost control is treating Parliament with contempt. We need to know the best estimates for the operating costs and exactly who will be in charge. We will debate the possibility of a new NDPB to run this in Amendment 5, but it is legitimate to ask about the financial sustainability of the entity or entities which will execute and operate the project. A report on that should be laid before Parliament. If we pass the Bill, Parliament is entitled to see the legitimacy of what we have sanctioned.
When the Minister replies, I do not want him to answer my points, I want him to answer the points raised by the Government’s own infrastructure authority. Let him tell us what the Government will do about
“the major issues with project definition, the schedule, the budget, the quality and/or benefits delivery, which do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
Will he do as it has asked and rescope the whole project and reassess its overall viability?
Finally, I apologise to colleagues for speaking at length, as I probably will on some other amendments also. This is partly a reaction to the various gagging attempts we faced when giving evidence to the Commons and Lords Select Committees, where every other week we seemed to be copied in to a letter from those lawyers, Pinsent Masons, telling the committees that they could not ask this or that question and that they had to limit their inquiries. I thought it was appallingly arrogant to attempt to tie Select Committee hands in that way. Well, our hands will not be tied and we will not be gagged in these debates, except by our own rules of order and procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall not mimic my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has spoken extremely well and raised a great many issues. I did not petition the Government, although I think I signed a couple of petitions, but I happen to know the area very well, not least because my four month-old puppy, who noble Lords would all adore, goes there for exercise every morning, but that is not a particularly good reason for stopping the progress. I am opposed to the Bill, not opposed to a memorial. I am opposed to putting a learning centre in such a small area. It would destroy the park—there is no question of that.
To turn to the amendment, we can all hear from what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said that nobody really knows how much this will cost. I have seen the scope of the archaeologist who has looked at the diggings by the Thames, and it is almost certain that this area will flood. I am not an archaeologist, so I have not got a clue. I have never dug a big pit next to the Thames, but it is almost certain that this will flood. It is a bonkers thing to do—absolutely mad—and that is why I absolutely support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in this. It is the wrong place to put a large building such as this. It will, furthermore, cost a great deal more than £138.8 million, as I think we all know, even including a 15% contingency, so I support this amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in their attempt to bring some fiscal discipline to this project. Not only has the cost escalated beyond the original estimates without even a spade in the ground; the figures that are available are old. No allowance for inflation has been made. The contingency is far higher than usual. Private funds have not been identified publicly and there is no management control, as pointed out by the National Audit Office.
I am struck by the contrast with the planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to our late Queen, together with a space for pause and reflection, which is reportedly to be sited in St James’s Park. The construction cost is £46 million excluding VAT—including a replacement of the Blue Bridge in the park—and it is going to be ready in 2026. If such fiscal restraint is good enough for our late Queen, surely something has gone adrift in the financial plans for the memorial.
Before the Select Committee on the memorial a few weeks ago, the petitioners asked that the Government should present, for the approval of Parliament, a report on the capital and operating costs of the project, as well as the financial sustainability of the entity that will execute the project and operate it before presenting any new or amended proposal for planning permission. This has not been taken up but it should be.
Originally, the government grant towards this project was £50 million. That was soon raised to £75 million, with £25 million to be raised privately when the cost was estimated some years ago at £100 million. Now, that has nearly doubled. We can assume only that the Government will pick up the entire bill. The latest estimate, made a couple of years ago, is £138 million without contingency and £191 million with contingency. There is no information about who will do the building—indeed, whether there are any builders willing to do it, given the security risks.
There are gaps in our financial knowledge. The Commons Select Committee commented on this, saying:
“We are particularly concerned about the costs around security of a Memorial and Learning Centre, which would need to be taken into account. Security is likely to be required around the clock, and this is, as yet, an unknown cost. Security is likely to become an expensive additional cost, which we urge the Government not to overlook”.
Construction costs are bound to rise because this is an historical site very close to the river. It oozes underfoot when you walk through it in the rain and it squelches. It is a fair bet that obstacles relating to water and archaeological finds will emerge if digging ever starts.
About £20 million has been spent so far, I believe, with nothing to show for it; nor has inflation been accounted for. A specific charity is fundraising for the private element but we have heard nothing about its success. Can the Minister tell us how the funding has now been settled, including how much has been raised privately and from where?
In 2022, as we heard, the NAO delivered a report that was highly critical of the department’s performance. It was particularly anxious about management. It noted the failure to consider an alternative site. All this got a complacent response from the department that all was well, with no changes in management and no transparency. Operating costs are also a mystery. The Government have pledged free entry to the learning centre—provided, of course, that visitors book in advance online. Operating costs so far are estimated to have risen to £8 million a year and the cost of security is a big unknown. The Government had hoped to make some money from the learning centre by opening it for conferences, even in the evening, but it would be a most unattractive site: open to the elements; open to risks of various sorts; and calling for expenditure to run it out of hours, not to mention disturbance to the neighbours.
Can the Minister tell us about the operating costs and what plans there are to commercialise the space? The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times rated the project as “red” and “undeliverable”—most recently, just a few weeks ago—in the same bracket as HS2. The Minister believes that this is because planning permission has not been granted, but that is mistaken because the authority has reported three times in three years on this and, during one year of that, there was planning permission before it was quashed. Anyway, if not having planning permission was the important factor, why is HS2 regarded as “red” and “undeliverable”? This is a quasi-HS2 project.
An important recommendation in the Prime Minister’s report in 2015 on remembering the Holocaust was that there should be an endowment fund. This was to be used to
“support Holocaust education around the country for generations to come”,
to support
“local projects and travelling exhibitions”,
and to ensure that the learning centre would be
“at the heart of a truly national network of activity”.
The report said:
“In administering the endowment fund, the Learning Centre’s trustees would be expected to ensure maximum value for money. This would include requiring organisations to work together more collaboratively across the network, removing duplication and enhancing the impact of the whole sector”.
Have the Government made an allowance for this in their cost calculation, and if not, why not?
The Commons Select Committee on the Bill commented:
“It seems to us that the true cost of this project has not been established. We note that it is not unusual for the costs of major projects to increase with time, due to unforeseen building issues, the ambition of the project, and increases in inflation. The longer that building works go on, the more expensive this project will become. On this basis, we urge the Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money”,
which it clearly does not. This amendment seeks to cap the costs to force proper management of the project and bring it into a reasonable financial framework. It also proposes a normal contingency fee rather than an extraordinary one.
This Government pride themselves on financial management, and now is their chance to demonstrate that. If the Government will not accept this amendment, will they meet the signatories to the amendment and show transparency about the cost calculations and where they are going?
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I have a clause stand part Motion in this group. I am a neighbour of Victoria Tower Gardens, I live with my wife in Smith Square and I was a petitioner to the House of Lords Committee.
After what my noble friend Lord Blencathra told us, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I will try to be short. My purpose is, and always has been, just to set out the contrast between what was put on the tin in January 2015 and what is on the table now. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, they are very different, and I think it will help the Committee if they can be clear about what the differences are.
In January 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron said:
“Today—with the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—I am accepting the recommendations of the … Commission”.
You could not be clearer than that, and later, in his Statement in the House of Commons, he reiterated that. I suppose—because I do not think we have ever been told—that after 10 years, nine and a half of which, of course, were under the previous Administration, that undertaking is still in existence, so we are going to carry out the recommendations of the commission.
There were five recommendations from the commission, and the first was that there should be a “striking memorial”. Its very first qualification of that was that it should be
“a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate … and offer prayers”.
I rather doubt that what is on the table now—which I gather as best I can from Clause 1 and the Explanatory Memorandum—is a suitable place for paying respect, contemplating and praying. As I understand it, the people visiting will be expected to move through in something like half an hour.
You can make an argument, which I will later, that this is not a suitable memorial. Remembering people is a private affair. The Holocaust was 6 million Jewish tragedies. It is not to say that this is, as we would expect, a London-based conventional memorial. It is something different. In its report, the commission in no way indicated that the memorial would be manned or that there would be interactivity at the memorial. It is clearly set out as a conventional memorial, in a long paragraph.
The second recommendation, about the learning centre, is much longer. It has a huge text. It is clear that the commission did not expect that to be done in five minutes. It did not see this as part of the memorial. There was mention of a campus. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is not the same thing but a completely different activity. Yes, the commission said that it should be close to the memorial, but that closeness depends on where you choose to put the memorial. As the noble Baroness said, the commission proposed three big sites and on all of them it would not have been difficult to put the learning centre and build it up over the years as a campus. It also said that the money for that should be raised immediately.
The third recommendation was for an endowment fund. We all know that endowment funds are not easy. They are very difficult things. It is clear that the commission saw the fund as being for, as the noble Baroness said, the development of the learning centre. The fourth recommendation was that records should be brought up to date. Out of the £20 million that has been spent, a certain proportion has been spent on records of “survivors and liberators”, to use the commission’s words. However, we do not know what has been collected and I cannot see why we have not been able to see some of that work. It is not dependent on the construction of David Adjaye’s building in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Finally, in two places—in Mr Davis’s summary and in the commission’s summary—it is said that an immediate executive independent body should be formed. There was an effort to start one by the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister—who, we must remember, was there for only some 18 months after his January statements before he resigned. Clearly, when Sir Peter Bazalgette was appointed to the foundation, it was in mind that it would be executive. He secured the Victoria Tower Gardens position and held an exhibition—and showed us the result. However, in April 2018, quite a long time after the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Cameron, had made way for my noble friend Lady May, he resigned. We do not know why he resigned, or why the body then formed under my noble friend Lord Pickles was made advisory. One can speculate but it has never been explained why there was a change from the proposal of an executive body to one for an advisory body. The fact is that nobody is accountable for managing this project.
There is such a serious difference between what was on the tin in 2015 and what is in front of us now that it needs to be thought about again. It seems to me that the new Government, who have been looking at this whole issue as accountable only for the past seven months, are in a very good place to review it and, if it requires change, to make those changes.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library—my grandfather’s Holocaust library—that I was a member of David Cameron’s Holocaust Commission and that I take a long-standing interest in this as the son of a Holocaust survivor. Of course, not all Holocaust survivors agree about this memorial, but my mother certainly did, as did Ben Helfgott, who sat on the commission with me. Indeed, he regarded the issue of the location as central.
Although this is an amendment about costs, we have heard a number of what amount to Second Reading speeches, so I hope I can be indulged in responding to some of those points a little. Although the noble Viscount is correct that David Cameron resigned, I do not think that he resigned because he appointed my noble friend Lord Pickles to look after the Holocaust memorial. I would just say that it is possible to make an argument against any kind of construction of anything, anywhere. I think that probably the preponderance of people who have attended today have done so in order to be against it, because we tend to get very annoyed when we see points against something and we want to stop it happening.
Every single point that I have heard was also made against the erection of Nelson’s column. They did not have the money. The public subscriptions had fallen short of how much it would cost. The cost ballooned. It was too high. It had to be made shorter. People were not sure about the design and lots of people were not sure about Nelson either. They were furious that the Tsar had contributed. The economic strain was regarded as too great. These are points that are made about the construction of anything when it is first proposed and are later found to be entirely irrelevant to the impact that it will have.
This Holocaust memorial is a memorial to everything we fought the war for and that the young people who liberated Belsen liberated Belsen for. It is a reminder of why we have a Parliament and why we have a parliamentary democracy and therefore it is relevant that it be right next door to Parliament. There is not a single place you could ever put anything that does not disrupt anyone. If we put it somewhere where no one goes, we would have a committee full of people saying, “We cannot believe you are putting this thing in the middle of nowhere”. We have put it in the middle of somewhere where people might actually visit it, and people are worried that too many people will come to it. If we put it somewhere else, people will worry that no one will come to it. There is an argument against doing anything, ever. If we do not do this, we absolutely after 10 years will not have a Holocaust memorial. It was the dearest wish of Ben Helfgott and my mother also supported it. I am going to robustly support it because of that.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lord, I am most grateful to noble Lords. Again, I would appreciate a degree of latitude. First, coming to the point that was made with regard to the advisory nature, it was always an advisory committee. When Bazalgette resigned to go on to other artistic projects, I was appointed, along with Ed Balls, as a co-chair to demonstrate the political unity of putting this together.
I was disturbed by what my noble friend Lord Blencathra —my dear friend—said. He seemed to be almost on the defensive to suggest that if you are opposed to this, somehow you are opposed to Jewish people or opposed to Israel. Nobody thinks that and no one has a greater, more distinguished record in their support of Jewish people than my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I want to make that absolutely clear.
I admire my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He was an amazing Chief Whip when we were in opposition, as indeed my noble friend opposite was an amazing Whip. He taught me many things, one of which was the kind of amendment to put down to embarrass the Government, to hold them down and to get them to say various things. He did it with great style.
But there is something that we need to be clear about. We saw a newspaper article yesterday. I do not blame the reporter—they are as good as the information they are given. I should be grateful if, when the Minister comes to reply, he can confirm that in all the briefings that he received, none suggested that this memorial would be about the glorification of the British Empire or the trivialisation of the Holocaust, or that the Holocaust would be diluted by references to other genocides.
A lot of the amendments before us might best be described as about planning. There is always a balance in planning. There is no absolute, and that is why we have such an elaborate system of planning to test the damages and balances. We are almost trying to set ourselves up as a planning authority to second-guess. This Committee, distinguished as it is, is not in a good position to do that because supporters and objectors do not have the same rights as they would have in a planning application, committee or appeal.
There is also an element in this of marking our own homework. If this went through a planning committee now—there is no criticism of anybody here—the fact that people who are expressing views live close by would be taken into account. If they were on a planning committee, they would have to recuse themselves. They would not be able to speak or vote. We cannot have a situation in this country where it is one rule for their Lordships and another rule for the rest of the country.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Can I just finish this point? I am not criticising. It is within the rules. Nobody is doing anything wrong. But it does not look terribly good from the outside.
We do not like the design. We have become almost like Queen Anne. We kick over a stool and say, “Build it like that”. This design won an international competition among top international architects. Frankly, saying it looked like something that somebody in Canada objected to is wrong. That is the style of the architect, Ron Arad. It would be a bit like saying to Picasso, when he was going through his blue period, “That’s enough, Pablo. Too much blue.” That is the nature of Ron Arad’s work.
The trust that had been put together to raise the sums of money cannot start until we have proper planning permission. We cannot gather lots of money, although Sir Gerald Ronson is confident that we can do it. The state of the park is a disgrace. We have allowed it to get into such a situation.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Just give me one moment and then I will bring you in. This will improve the park. It will improve the park’s access for the disabled, for young people and for four month-old puppies.
Lord Robathan (Con)
If we are talking about planning permission, the whole point about this design was it was turned down flat by Westminster City Council—by both Labour and Conservative councillors.
Lord Pickles (Con)
That is why we have a planning system. When I was a Planning Minister, we often had situations where gaming was played.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Allow me to allow me to develop the point. We always have an independent inspector to look at these things. If the Secretary of State disagrees with the independent inspector, then there is generally a row. But we accepted the report.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I appreciate that my noble friend had a lot to do with planning when he was a Minister. The point is that this is not planning. This is to try and overturn a legal dedication of this park to being a park. That is what it is about.
Lord Pickles (Con)
With the greatest respect, my noble friend needs to look more carefully at what is being asked here. It is second-guessing the planning.
In terms of the size, it is the size of the Berlin Holocaust underground site. It is the size of the one in Jasenovac. It is the size of the large temporary exhibition in America. It is not particularly small art; it is adequate for its size. It will not have any exhibits. It will all be digital. That does seem reasonable. On the location, more than 50 different sites were looked at.
I apologise for going on for so long; I hope that I will have an opportunity to speak in further debates.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I cannot contribute with the degree of fluency and authority of those noble Lords who have spoken so far, but I have a question for the Minister and an observation.
The question stems from the Explanatory Notes. Years ago, I had the function in another place of looking at Explanatory Notes in draft—not taking responsibility for their contents but ensuring that they were not used by the Government of the day for the purposes of advocacy. I looked at these Explanatory Notes, and they were pretty much typical of the breed: they are certainly notes but they are by no means explanatory. Where I hoped that I would have their assistance was on Clause 1(3) of the Bill, which states:
“For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), ‘construction’ includes erection, extension, alteration and re-erection”.
I would dearly like to see the instructions that counsel was given before it drafted that particular provision. It sounds as though the memorial is going to be mobile, which I am sure is not the intention.
If I can move on to the observation, at the north end of the Victoria Tower Gardens is the education centre; I have a particular reason for remembering this because, as a corporate officer, I was the applicant for the planning permission when it was originally given in 2015. As noble Lords will know, the planning consent ran out on 22 August last year; it was renewed or extended to 2030. When that runs out—or in anticipation of it running out—there will be substantial works, but I have not seen any reference to those in any of the supporting papers that the Committee has before it today. There will be traffic of substantial character, such as heavy lorries moving kit to and fro. If that is going to happen, as is possible, as the memorial and learning centre is in the later stages of construction, whatever difficulties of security, access and safety that that is going to pose will be exacerbated by doing all this to the education centre at the same time.
I am not sure whether my observation should find a home in our discussion of security or in our discussion of planning, but it seems to me that the Clause 1 stand part debate is a pretty good place to put it to begin with. I would be very grateful for the Minister’s reaction to that simultaneity of works and to the additional element of complication and cost that is no doubt to be introduced.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I was not proposing to speak on this group, but I have been moved to do so by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Finkelstein and Lord Pickles. As I do so, I make clear my gratitude to them and to everybody else who has been determined that there should be a memorial and a memorial learning centre. I absolutely applaud that, for reasons I explained in another debate in the Chamber. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, that I was rather shocked by what I hope he will forgive me for describing as his grandiose lecture creating an analogy with Nelson’s column. First, I remind him—I regret having to remind him, because he has an extraordinary family history, of which we are all aware, and we are hugely grateful for the contribution that his family have made to the remembrance of what happened to my and many other people’s families and ancestors—that Nelson’s column was a memorial to a man who had lived and not to 6 million people who had died. It is a very different proposition.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have always felt that this is a most appropriate Room in which to have this debate—it tells you everything. Also, in Prayers today, there were several mentions of Jacob; those of you who were there may remember.
I am afraid that I have a different viewpoint. I will not talk about anything to do with construction whatever, although some of your Lordships know that I know quite a lot about it.
I am the second generation born in this country after the pogrom which happened in 1880, from which my great-grandmother managed to escape. She got to this country and some of our relatives went to New York. What I wanted to say was that when one thinks about the pogroms then, and I take my own family, we finished up here. This country allowed us to be free and to live; it is a great country and we are proud to be part of it. But I also know that some of my family did not get out and finished up in Auschwitz. I am not going to go into what has been happening for the last few thousand years; we could spend years on that.
I was approached early on by friends in both Houses, and the comment which was made to me—I see the Father of the other place back there; we talked about this years ago—is that there are nearly 3,000 people in the Parliament complex, and they love this park for what it is and how they enjoy it. At that stage, it was said to me, “Would you be prepared to get involved, because the problem is that there are many in both Houses who actually are nervous, afraid and very worried that if they come out publicly to state that they are not happy with this park being used for that purpose, they will be considered anti-Semitic”. So, a dear friend and I, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of all people—she is now facing me—talked about the pros and cons. I thought I knew what I believed in, and what I managed to achieve and not achieve, and the mistakes—all the usual things all of us around this table have made—but she knew the law. I did not know the law.
As a result, there was a major article in the Times—your Lordships can look it up if you want. It was supported by many people on the basis that I said that there were at least four memorials in this country—in fact, in the London area. If you go into Hyde Park, you will see one there, and the best and most important one of the lot is in the Imperial War Museum.
I remember when our late head rang me up, the marshal—sadly, he has now died—and he said, “Jeffrey, can I have your advice? Could you come along and have a chat?” I said, “Yes”. He said, “I’m seriously thinking that I would like to have built in the Imperial War Museum a whole part dedicated to what happened”. If any of your Lordships have not been there and seen how it is been done, you should go. It was supported by a very large number of the Jewish population, of course, and what is even more splendid is that many people who are not Jewish supported it. So you have that.
Also, from the way I am built, you cannot destroy ideas—they are impossible to destroy. You do not need things such as memorials to think about this. You can go out in the morning and look up in the trees and think about it yourself. I have never felt you can destroy it. I have to tell your Lordships, speaking personally, that I love that park.
I come back to the concern about danger, and taking into account anti-Semitism, which has got even worse. In the days to come, as I have said many times before, we could live to regret it if there is any form of memorial in that park; in practice, that is very dangerous. With my other hat on, I am very involved in what happens on the military side on terrorism and so forth. It is from both sides of the park. If you have 500 children, shall we say, when the whole thing is built and the schools come along, and we say, “Right, you can come there”, and there are kids from all over the world, you only have to get somebody to drop a satchel and blow the bloody thing to smithereens. But more importantly, for those noble Lords who know, we have only to look outside at the protection we have here; somebody could come along and fire something into that area. We could therefore live to regret totally what danger there could be.
I strongly advocate that we have these wonderful memorials, but when you speak to people in Newcastle and so forth, they are not even aware of or interested in it. During the war, as we know, and even earlier in 1938 or 1939, the Government here knew that there were problems. They knew what was happening in Poland and other areas. It all got back, but the key was: “We are willing; this is a fight for world survival”. I hope the Committee does not mind me saying that I like the idea that we have that lovely park, which people enjoy. In the morning, there are young families with their children and babies wandering along there and enjoying it. I would like it left like that.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my great concern, because I am a strong supporter of a memorial and a learning centre. But I am also pretty clear that if the plans continue on their present course—as it is now nine years since this started on its way—then God knows how many more years may be involved, with all the controversy and concerns about the proposals for the learning centre. The original proposal was for it just to be a memorial and then, as we know, a learning centre was added to it. Since then, other opportunities have come up of various Jewish institutions and facilities that might be suitable. Meanwhile, the learning centre itself has shrunk, because of the obvious problems of cost involved.
Perhaps my only justification for getting to my feet at all is that I know a little about what is going on in the construction industry in London at present. I would be interested to know what quotations there are around for building this learning centre. What I know is that with events elsewhere—Gaza and other things certainly have not helped—any company invited to undertake this is going to look at a very different scale of figures from what it might have looked at a year or two ago.
I declare my interests as in the register; I am involved in quite a major construction activity in London at present, and I know something about the problems that the industry is in. It is not in good shape, and I think this will be very difficult. If you can get somebody to quote who thinks it will be all right on the night, the problems could then emerge in trying to stick to those figures and seeing what sort of money might be involved. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has spelt it out. It will not be that figure; there is no chance of anything being built for remotely near that.
As I say, I speak from some personal experience, having seen what is happening to quotations being put in for works in London at present. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, very much and his objective, which has my full support, is to have a good memorial and a good learning centre. But let us have a decent-sized learning centre, and one that can be built without all sorts of reservations about whether it can be done.
One of the comments made was that we need to get on with this or the few remaining Holocaust survivors will not be around to see it opened. How many have died in the last nine years while we have been trying to put this project forward? It is embarrassing for both Governments. My Government put it forward; the Labour Government felt the duty to pick it up again. It is not right to offer a bet on this, but it is almost impossible to see this project going ahead as it is at the moment. If we could start again on the learning centre, there are opportunities which could be quickly achieved without too much controversy. We could then get our memorial and learning centre achieving both the objectives that we all want to see.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I did not declare my interests. I also reference that I am a trustee of the fundraising committee. Given the enthusiasm, I shall certainly be coming round with my tin for a collection fairly soon.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not because I have any involvement—I have no Jewish blood in me—but because we are looking at the project through rose-tinted spectacles, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has just said. I have in the last two or three years been personally involved in two significant big construction projects. The rate of inflation in the building industry has been going through the roof. The thing that he touched on will undoubtedly make this even more difficult to budget and then to carry through on budget.
On top of that, whatever it will ultimately cost depends upon the detailed design. It is clearly a difficult site, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. That is why the contingencies are on the high side, and what are we faced with from the Government? We do not have any realistic figures giving any worthwhile indication of the order of magnitude of the bill that we are likely to be paying at the end of this process. It is not a matter of arguing about the detail of the morality, ethics or desirability of the project. Anyone embarking on a big project of this kind, which will incur very substantial expenditure, particularly public expenditure, ought to have a proper budget in front of them so that they can then take an informed decision on where they want to go. We do not have it. It is as simple as that. It is irresponsible to talk in grandiose terms about all kinds of things when the boring, prosaic aspects of cost and delivery have not properly been considered.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an accountant.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to what has been said because it is all about education. If your Lordships look back, in every educational course at state schools, as they were, there had to be education on what happened with the Holocaust and other holocausts. It was there to be done. I can tell your Lordships from my own grandchildren that over the last few years it has not come up at all. I have checked with teachers, headmasters and headmistresses in some of my other roles, and they say that one of the biggest problems is that now they are advised that it is not necessary, other than on a wider front. That is the key point in education—for it to get back into state schools. It does come up in non-state schools but not in state schools in the form that it should.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, for the information of the Committee, I mention that I will not be speaking in every group on behalf of these Benches. Indeed, I do not speak on behalf of my Benches because if any vote were to come up, it would be a free vote. Any comments that I make will be my own views.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that we need a national Holocaust memorial, a fitting one, a respectful one, somewhere we can remember the suffering and death of 6 million people in the last century. We also need a learning centre. We must never forget, and we must ensure that future generations never forget either. However, like others, I think that they should not necessarily be in the same place and that they should not necessarily be where they are currently proposed to be.
I want to speak about Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, requiring a detailed cost estimate to go before both Houses of Parliament before any planning permission is determined, because my particular concern about the location of a learning centre underground in Victoria Tower Gardens is flooding. As noble Lords will see, I have tabled Amendment 25 about this, so the Committee will hear a lot more from me and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who supported it, when we get to that amendment.
In my researches in tabling that amendment, it became very clear to me that even to reduce the chances of flooding—and you certainly cannot completely remove the chances of flooding—would require measures the cost of which cannot be known at this time. When it comes to the point of planning permission, at least some sort of estimate will have to be given of the cost of them, and I do not think that the risks of flooding can be accepted under any circumstances. When we get to that point, there will be some idea of the cost, but currently there is not, and that is why I support Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have been living at Tufton Court since 1982; it is just around the corner from this park. I was not intending to speak to this amendment until I got rather provoked by a number of my noble friends.
My noble friend Lord Finkelstein said, “If it doesn’t go here, where else does it go?” I think my noble friend Lord Sterling has answered that point. There is a very satisfactory Holocaust memorial at the Imperial War Museum, which is not a place where nobody ever goes. It is a place where lots of people go, and it is very regularly visited. Could there be a better location for it than that?
My noble friend Lord Pickles said that this is going to improve the park. It is one of the smallest parks in London. I do not claim to go to it very often, but it is a very, very small park and, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, I am not sure it has been much improved by the Parliament Education Centre, which is a disgracefully low-budget architectural piece of building. I am very glad that it is going to be rebuilt —perhaps it will be rebuilt better than it is now—but it occupies quite a lot of this very small park, and the idea that we should shove yet another building into the park seems unbelievable. I cannot quite understand where we are going on this.
I do not understand why the Government have volunteered taxpayers’ money, when there is so little of it, to finance this. The Jewish community in Britain has an awful lot of money. It has a lot of education charities that would contribute towards this. I do not understand why they should not pay for their own memorial. Unlike my noble friend, I have plenty of Jewish blood, and I am a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is not a memorial for the Jewish community—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
The noble Lord was not here at the start of the debate.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I was under the impression that you could speak even though you were not.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Well, perhaps somebody else might like to make the point that it is not a memorial for the Jewish community.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I take that point, but the driving forces behind putting up this memorial are the Jewish people in this country. They are people who have property everywhere. I do not see why they should not fund it. I just do not understand why the British taxpayer should be asked to pay for this when there is quite clearly a tremendous shortage of taxpayers’ money to go around. The whole thing is very strapped. I would have thought that this could be financed by individuals, Jewish charities and so forth that would be happy to contribute to it. I am just amazed.
I do not pretend that I go into this park on a regular basis, but I do occasionally go into it. It is very small, and it will be made even smaller if this memorial is put into it. There will be no room for anybody to do anything in it at all. London is not blessed with a number of parks anyway, and the particular park that we are talking about is one of the smallest there is in London. It is not like Hyde Park, where you could tuck this away in a corner; this is going to be completely dominant in a very small park, and it will reduce the amenities available for local people who live in Westminster.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I really cannot leave that comment on its own. The noble Lord cannot stand up here and say, “The Jews want the Holocaust memorial, and they ought to pay for it”. The Holocaust is not something that is just about the Jews. I am sure that others on the noble Lord’s side of the Room do not associate themselves with that comment. It illustrates the variety of arguments being put together, each one of which is an argument against it but many of which clash with each other. It is probably a pretty eloquent contribution as to why we need this memorial—and near Parliament.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have been careful to confine my remarks to the precise amendment, so I do not want to stray into other issues. I just want to pick up on three small points.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, mentioned Ben Helfgott. It is the case that most of the remaining Holocaust survivors do not know what is being done in their name or the details of it. In fact, people have gone to great lengths to stop them finding out. I was temporarily banned from talking to a group of survivors in north London in case they found out what was going on. However, one of the greatest survivors, Anita Lasker- Wallfisch, is opposed to this project; I believe that there will be some comment from her in the Times tomorrow.
Secondly, it is a matter of profound Jewish scholarship that the Holocaust is diluted by mixing it with other genocides, but there is no time to go into that now.
Finally, even if the Jewish community had money, it supports its own people through a number of charities. If it was called on to come up with £200 million, there would be nothing left for anything else. It is a misconception that this is a community project or that the community should pay for it.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what has just been said. I have no problem with the British taxpayer paying up its share to realise this noble objective; I just wish there were a figure that would allow us to think of the scale, size and nature of the project so that anything above and beyond that would rest with others in the private sector. I do not care whether they are Jewish or not Jewish.
It seems to me that the bald statement on the face of the Bill—
“The Secretary of State may incur expenditure”—
pure and simple—is not helpful at all. If people do not agree with the figure in the amendment, let them come up with a better one, but it seems to me to be a responsible thing, at a time of great financial stricture, for us to be generous but to indicate the levels of our generosity by putting in the Bill the sort of figure that we would be happy to endorse in legislation coming from this Parliament.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has been a mostly good opening debate on this very important Bill. I want to begin by setting out His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s broader approach to this legislation before addressing the specific amendments in this group. As I said at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton made a solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, saying that
“the past will never die and your courage will never be forgotten”.
That was 11 years ago.
We have heard a great deal about solemn commitments already this week, but this is not a promise that we can break. In the 80th anniversary year of so many liberations of concentration camps, we have a duty to deliver a Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that survivors who are still with us can see it opened to the public, sure in the knowledge that we as a nation have renewed our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. That is what is at stake with this Bill. I fear that if the Government do not succeed in securing this Bill in this Session, we may lose our chance to build the memorial that the survivors of the Holocaust and their families deserve in their lifetime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government gratefully acknowledge the Select Committee’s report and conclusions. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the members of the Select Committee, who performed their task conscientiously and thoroughly, dedicating considerable time and effort to ensuring that they tested and understood the evidence presented to them. Their report is proof of the balanced approach they have taken. The Government thank them for their patience and dedication.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments. It would be appropriate alongside this amendment move the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. This group of amendments deals with matters relating to public expenditure on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The purpose of Clause 1 is to authorise expenditure on the construction, use, maintenance, improvement and operation of a new national holocaust memorial and learning centre. We want the centre to be a permanent feature of our national consciousness that ensures that the lessons of the Holocaust and the testimony of those who survived have an enduring legacy.
This clause will enable the Government to deliver the commitment, first made in 2015, with cross-party support, to deliver a fitting national memorial that meets the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission found widespread dissatisfaction with the existing memorial in Hyde Park. That is why the commission recommended that there should be a striking new memorial, prominently located in central London, to make a bold statement about the importance that Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.
Plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have been endorsed by every living Prime Minister and have widespread support from leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors, refugees and the wider public. The proposed memorial will honour the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust and all other victims of Nazi persecution. The collocated learning centre will examine the Holocaust through British perspectives, looking at what we did and what more we could have done to tackle the murder and persecution of the Jewish people and other groups.
By long-standing convention, based on the Public Accounts Committee concordat of 1932, reflected in the current Treasury guidance Managing Public Money, specific legislation is needed for funding new services that are expected to continue beyond two years. Clause 1 meets that requirement.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would put in the Bill a limit that would apply to both the construction and the operational costs of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Although I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern to manage public expenditure, I think noble Lords will be aware that other mechanisms are used to allocate funding and control costs. The figure of £138.8 million is evidently taken from the Written Ministerial Statement made by the previous Government in June 2023. As a consequence of that Statement, Parliament and all interested parties were fully aware of the expected costs when the Bill completed its passage through the other House and passed its Second Reading in this House.
The amendment would use that published sum, plus an arbitrary 15% contingency, to set a cost limit for both the construction and the ongoing operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre programme. Setting a limit in primary legislation in that way would create a great deal of inflexibility in the management of the project. The project to create a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being taken forward in line with normal procedures and processes for government projects. As part of the Government’s major projects portfolio, it is subject to regular and transparent reporting.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, particularly as he has been so amenable to consultation throughout the process of the Bill. Is he saying that the passage of the Bill would allow the Government to raise the money, whatever the cost of the project would be? Is it not the case that all that the Bill would do is allow the Treasury to be asked, from its vote, to allow a certain sum of money to be granted? My understanding is that the Bill does not give a blank cheque to the Government without further checks and balances in normal Treasury procedures. If that is the case, please would the Minister not leave that impression?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall clarify what Clause 1 is about. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to spend money to build the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. That is what it is about.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
With respect, the Minister is not answering my question. Of course this Bill, once an Act, would allow the Secretary of State to spend money, but the implication of what he says is “any” money. Is it not a fact, and the law, that it has to be provided from the Treasury vote? Therefore, decisions have to be made as to how much money will be permitted. Can he help us, if that is true, as to how much money it is intended to permit?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is correct. The appropriation Act allows us to spend the money.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
The Minister said the Government needed flexibility in the case of additional cost. Is that limitless?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it would help if I can come on to more details about contingencies and costs, and then we can come back. If I do not answer anything specific, I can come back to the noble Lord in writing or in a further meeting.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
We will deal with this issue more extensively in the third group of amendments, but perhaps it would help to quote from page 11 of the National Audit Office report, which sets out all the organisations in charge of trying to run this project. It says that the Treasury is:
“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.
Another box also says that the Cabinet Office must give approval as well.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I must make progress but, very quickly, we will follow the normal public expenditure rules, as I have illustrated. I remind noble Lords that Clause 1 refers to allowing us to spend the money to build the project. I understand that it does not say how much money, but whatever the Government do will follow the normal Treasury rules, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Minister is under a bit of flak here. This is a very unusual Bill, as he will understand. It is not like voting for huge amounts to go to defence, or whatever it might be. We in Parliament surely exist to control what public money—not our money—is spent on. We are talking here about some astronomical amount that we do not know. That is why people are asking these questions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but this Bill allows expenditure. Funding will be allocated through the normal public expenditure arrangements. The House of Commons passes annual appropriation Acts.
The project is also subject to review by the National Audit Office. In July 2022, the National Audit Office conducted a review and produced a report noting, among other points:
“The programme has controls to try to safeguard against substantial cost increases”.
Three recommendations made by the National Audit Office have been implemented. On the points that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised about the management of the project, we welcome the National Audit Office’s July 2022 report on the project and have addressed all its recommendations. The National Audit Office also recognises that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme.
It is also important to make the point that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which the noble Lord referred to, currently rates the project as undeliverable because the Bill needs to be passed and planning consent granted in order for it to proceed. That is why there is a red flag rating on this. The project needs planning consent. That was quashed, and it was given a red rating as this Bill needs to be passed.
The £138 million estimate is based on professional advice from cost consultants and allows for inflation.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Are those the same cost consultants who advised on HS2?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to limit myself by saying “yes” or “no” because I do not know the answer. As you would expect, I do not have that knowledge here.
On contingency, the estimate considers potential inflation being more than expected and the risks of the site. Again, the estimate is based on professional advice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the commitment to raise charitable donations. The commitment to raise £25 million has been given by the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, which is chaired by Sir Gerald Ronson. Specific donations will be agreed once planning consent has been granted.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised improving records. The testimony of 120 Holocaust survivors has been recorded and is being made available online for all to see before the memorial opens. We have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees to create an online portal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also talked about the operating costs. These have been estimated at £6.5 million to £8 million per annum.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was responding to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the operational costs. Operating costs have been estimated at between £6.5 million to £8.5 million per annum, and the estimates draw on comparisons with other museums and galleries of a similar size. Further detailed costs will be developed as the programme proceeds.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
If those costs have been estimated in line with other museums, do they include the extra costs that will be needed for potential demonstrations at that particular memorial, especially as it is so close to Parliament?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes; all the costs associated with the operation of the memorial learning centre reflect the estimation I have just detailed, but further details of costs will be developed.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the Explanatory Notes and re-erection, the purpose is to avoid having to come back to Parliament to change legislation in the event of damage and related issues. We have regular discussions with the Palace of Westminster on the issue of other works, including the restoration of Victoria Tower. These will continue to take place and we expect to manage logistics, deliveries, and so on, through sensible planning. The estimated cost of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre has been produced in line with the Treasury Green Book guidance. Taking all that into account, the last accounting officer assessment from June 2023 concludes that the project represents value for money. The ordinary mechanisms by which Parliament allocates public funding and holds Ministers to account can apply to this programme, just as with any other programme.
The further Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would introduce an additional step in the process of seeking planning consent for the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. While the noble Lord is to be commended for his focus on cost control and value for money, the additional step he proposes is not necessary and would simply add still further delay to the decision-making process. Costs are regularly reviewed, and updated figures will be published in due course, in line with the Government’s major projects portfolio reporting process.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body that is ultimately accountable to Parliament. The Government will continue to be transparent about the costs and future arrangements for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This should, however, not delay the separate planning determination process.
The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be a source of pride and an inspiration to the whole of society across boundaries of religion, class, geography or political party. I have only to quote the words of 94 year-old Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich, MBE, to underline why this is so vital:
“As the Holocaust moves further into history and we survivors become less able to share our testimonies this Memorial and Learning Centre will be a lasting legacy so that future generations will understand why it is important for people to remember the Holocaust, to learn from the past and stand up against injustice”.
I just want to echo—
Lord Pickles (Con)
I am sorry; I agree very much with the tenor of what the Minister is saying. He may recall that earlier I asked him to address a specific question. During his briefing, has he seen anything to suggest that the memorial centre will be about white- washing our history and praising the British Empire, and not about telling the whole truth, warts and all?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was literally going to come on to that particular point. There will be nothing at all like that. If I can further add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, the memorial and learning centre will draw on the history of the Holocaust, and particularly the decisions made by the British Parliament, to stress the importance of tackling intolerance and hatred at all levels in our society. It will deliver this message for all the people across the UK and the rest of the world, regardless of faith and background.
I just want to remind noble Lords what we are debating. The Holocaust Memorial Bill includes measures essential for the Government to deliver the long- standing commitment to build the planned Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Bill authorises expenditure on the construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Finally, the Bill also disapplies the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, ensuring that this legislation does not block the building of a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and assurance as to the purpose of this Bill to enable the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw his amendment. I also hope that my explanation of Clause 1 will enable noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to agree that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Can I ask the Minister something before he sits down? Does he have evidence that there are companies that are willing to quote for carrying out this construction? What is the situation over there?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction contracts once planning consent is secured but, to use the noble Lord’s words, we need to get on with it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can recall this Committee Room being so packed out with colleagues, on all sides, for such an important and controversial debate. As the Minister would say, some passionate speeches are being made here today; I am grateful to all colleagues who have taken part.
I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who gave a powerful criticism of the Explanatory Notes. It is not just this Bill where I have found that the Explanatory Notes did not explain much; as a former chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I found that in almost every Bill we got. The noble Lord is right to make the points that there could be substantial changes to Parliament’s visitors centre and that that has not been taken into account here.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly praised the dedication of my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein to a memorial. My noble friend Lord Pickles has for many years championed this cause; just because I think that it may be the wrong place and the wrong memorial does not take away from the fact that he has been an absolute hero. However, my noble friend said that this memorial would improve the park, but that is not what Adjaye, the architect, said. When people said that these fins are despicably ugly, he said:
“Disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”
on the memorial. I thought that key to the thinking was finding a memorial that commemorated the 6 million exterminated Jews, not putting something ugly in the park. Of course, the Government never mention Adjaye now. In the press release announcing that his bid had been accepted, he was named 12 times as the greatest architect in history. Now, he is wiped out from the memory, and the name is given to the rest of his firm but not to Adjaye.
Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right to point out that people will come to a memorial if it is good enough, not because of where it is sited. That is a key point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sterling. His description of his family circumstances and the Holocaust match, if in a different way, the circumstances of my noble friend Lord Finkelstein. The noble Lord, Lord King is right: let us have a decent learning centre and a fitting memorial.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that building in inflation, which is going through the roof at the moment, will be absolutely essential. That tied into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the fact that we must have a cost ceiling. It may not be £138 million—indeed, it may be something else—but, unless there is a cost ceiling, the costs will go through the roof.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her comments and her personal statement. I appreciate that she was not speaking as a party spokesperson.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that he was not an accountant, but at least what he said added up and made sense to me in any case.
The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, said that no one wants to break a solemn promise. I suspect that there is no one anywhere in this Room who wants to break the promise to build a memorial, but what we all want is a proper memorial and a big, proper learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended.
I come to the Minister. I have always liked him, ever since he was a Whip. I used to be a Whip in the Conservative Party. Us Whips have to stick together, in a sort of camaraderie; someone should explain that to Simon Hart. I welcome the Minister to his position—he is a thoroughly decent man and a caring, nice Minister—but he has been under some pressure today and that is not his fault. We have the National Audit Office’s report, which is devastating against his department. We have the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s report, which is also highly critical. That same department has had to give the Minister a brief. He has had to defend the indefensible today, but I give him credit for trying.
I want to conclude by asking the Minister something. Before Report, when I suspect that noble Lords—perhaps better noble Lords than I—will wish to put down a new amendment on costs, will the Minister produce a full, updated cost for the project? Will he give detailed answers before Report, as well as full answers to the NAO’s criticisms? I should say to him that I do not think the NAO criticised this project because we have not got the Bill through yet. It said that this project was undeliverable based not on that but on the fact that there was no schedule, no budget and no quality control. For a whole range of reasons, it found it grossly inadequate.
I think the Minister said that my ceiling of a 15% contingency was an arbitrary figure. Well, the Government have suddenly bunged in an extra £50 million with no justification, and I suggest that that is also an arbitrary figure.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Obviously, I will not push it today, but we will need to get some detailed answers on the costing and control of this project before Report, or I suspect that we will have to come back to this then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just point out for Hansard that I am Lady Scott of Bybrook, not of Needham Market.
Baroness Blackstone
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by correcting the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I think she suggested that I had my name down on the first group; I did not. I may have misheard her but I was not alone in hearing that. If she did not, that is fine.
I have a couple of other opening remarks. I really hope that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who is not in his place at the moment, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, will respect the views of those who are opposed to the Bill and not in any sense intimate or suggest that we are not in favour of a Holocaust memorial or indeed a learning centre. That is not the case as far as I am concerned and I do not believe that it is the case among any other members of the Committee who are speaking against the Bill.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Can the noble Baroness point to a single sentence I have uttered over, say, the last 10 years where I have suggested that?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I am not alone, because I have talked to one or two people in the intervening time, when we were taking part in the Division, who believed that that was what was intimated from what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I will reread what the noble Lord said and come back to him if in fact if what I understood does not seem to be held up in the Hansard report of what he said.
I also want to say that I think I am one of the few Labour members of this Committee who are speaking against the Bill. I know many Labour Members who are not taking part but who are very concerned, and I expressed my worries about this to the Minister. I do not like opposing the Government on any issue and I am not known to be serially disloyal. However, there are two particular things in my past that make me worried about the Bill.
The first is that I am a former Minister responsible for heritage, including heritage parks, and I think it is a great and grave mistake to change the 1900 Act that was set up to protect heritage parks in a way that will lead to great damage done to this park. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Sterling and Lord Hamilton, that this is a beautiful, much used but small park which will not have the same role as it had in the past because of putting this very large—from the point of view of the size of the park—memorial and learning centre in it.
The second reason I am worried about this Bill as it is currently proposed is my interest in education. I do not think that the learning centre as currently proposed is fit for purpose. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech now but want to go straight in to my amendments in this group. I will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13, all of which concern the learning centre, which is at present an intrinsic part of the design of the Holocaust memorial as proposed by the sponsors.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans has had to go to another meeting and asked me, with noble Lords’ permission, to speak to his Amendment 23. It is about an endowment fund to help counter anti-Semitism. An Ofcom report of July 2022 showed that for teenagers, Instagram gave them 29% of the news, TikTok 28% and YouTube 28%. These are the main sources of news with ITV and the BBC way down in fourth and fifth places. The Ofcom report also states:
“Users of TikTok for news claim to get more of their news on the platform from ‘other people they follow’ (44%) than ‘news organisations’ (24%).”
The report continues:
“Teenagers today are increasingly unlikely to pick up a newspaper or tune into TV News, instead preferring to keep up-to-date by scrolling through their social feeds”.
If those social media outlets were accurate, we would have little concern, but also in July 2023 we had a United Nations report History Under Attack. It was a co-operation with an Oxford organisation and found that up to half of Holocaust-related content on Telegram denied or distorted the facts. It said that distortion and Holocaust denial was present on all social media but that moderation and education can significantly reduce this. It went on to say that UNESCO and the United Nations sought to measure the extent of this phenomenon on social networks and commissioned researchers to identify and analyse about 4,000 posts related to the Holocaust on the five major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. These were the findings: on Telegram, there was 50% distortion and denial of the Holocaust in English language messages; on Twitter, which is now X, there was 19% distortion; on TikTok, 17%; on Facebook, 8%; and on Instagram, 3%. Many of those comments were anti-Semitic as well.
Another key finding of the United Nations report is that the researchers identified that perpetrators have learned to evade content moderation through the use of humorous and parodic memes as a strategy intended to normalise anti-Semitic ideas and make them appear mainstream. I had no idea what anti-Semitic memes were, or any memes, but I found hundreds on the internet, some suggesting that the Jews had attacked USS “Liberty” in 1967, others that the Jews had brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Some said that if America was to save itself then it had to declare war on Israel. Thousands of these memes are absolutely scurrilous, despicable lies and hate-filled, but millions of our young people are lapping them up.
Up to even three years ago, I thought that education on the Holocaust of 80 years ago was all that we needed to do, but now we see hundreds of thousands of people on our streets calling for a new Holocaust, the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews. Indeed, in 2019 the BBC published a poll of more than 2,000 people that was carried out by Opinion Matters for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. It found, and this is quite frightening, that 5% of UK adults—that is, out of 45 million—do not believe that the Holocaust took place, and one in 12 believes that its scale has been exaggerated. Some 45% of those polled said they did not know how many people were killed in the Holocaust, while 19% believed that fewer than 2 million Jews were murdered and 5% believed that there was no Holocaust at all; that is 2.2 million people. That is frightening—all those British people denying the Holocaust or completely ignorant about it.
It is therefore essential that we create an endowment fund to undertake 24/7 Holocaust education and rebuttal of all the new anti-Semitic attacks. That is why we need a proper campus, as recommended in the Holocaust Commission report, staffed by experts who can work online 24/7 countermanding lies about the Holocaust and the new Holocaust demand to push the Jews out of Israel, their homeland, from the river to the sea. Anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, and it seems to be even worse in the UK, so a monument to the unique Holocaust of 80 years ago is essential. Equally essential is annual funding to tackle the new lies about Jews and the calls for their extermination.
I turn to my Amendments 29 and 30, and I believe my noble friend Lord Hodgson will speak to Amendment 31 in my place. I also support Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As I said in my speech on Amendment 1, I concluded that Conservative politicians opted for the completely unsuitable Victoria Tower Gardens and ignored the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission because they thought the gardens would be an easier bet. However, the site fails to deliver a central theme of the commission—indeed, its key recommendation 2. Recommendation 1 concluded with the words:
“But it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn”
about the Holocaust. This is what the commission said about the ideal site for the memorial and learning centre. In its “Delivery and Next Steps” section, it said, and it is worth while quoting it:
“The Commission has identified three possible locations that should be considered as part of a consultation taken forwards by the permanent independent body … The Holocaust Exhibition at IWM London is very highly regarded, as was demonstrated throughout the evidence received. There is therefore an obvious advantage in locating the Learning Centre alongside IWM London in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park near Lambeth. The site is within easy reach of Westminster and accessible via several routes by public transport. It offers existing high footfall with approximately 1.5 million visits to IWM in 2014. IWM has proposed the building of a new wing to house a memorial and a learning centre and to link to newly expanded and upgraded Holocaust galleries in the main building. This would also benefit from being able to use the existing visitor facilities and essential infrastructure of the IWM building”.
Lord Robathan (Con)
As a matter of interest, I do not know how many people in this Room have been to the Holocaust memorial galleries in the Imperial War Museum. They are incredibly instructive and similar to the ones outside Tel Aviv, whereas somewhere here would be about one-eighth of the size.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. I visited them almost two years ago, and they are extraordinary. The good thing about the museum is that it has physical artefacts, although not many—it has more Nazi uniforms than Jewish uniforms —but it has physical things to look at, whereas the Adjaye bunker will merely have videos showing on a screen that kids can look at on their mobile phones and iPads much more easily. Why build a museum if you have nothing physical to put in it?
The Holocaust Commission concluded on the Imperial War Museum by saying:
“It is the view of the Commission that this is a viable option, provided a way can be found to meet the Commission’s vision for a prominent and striking memorial”.
Then there was Potters Fields as an option—it is between Tower Bridge and City Hall—but I believe that it has been sold and is no longer available. On Millbank, this is what the commission said:
“David and Simon Reuben have been inspirational supporters of the Commission’s vision and have proposed a redevelopment of a large area of their Millbank complex. The location offers great potential for a prominent riverfront memorial, a short walk along the river from the Houses of Parliament. The campus could include a hidden garden, reflective pond, wall of remembrance and a learning centre, incorporating the existing cinema, doubling as a lecture theatre. The complex sits alongside Tate Britain which attracts 1.4 million visits a year. It also benefits from its own pier with river boat connections to Westminster. There may be the opportunity to work alongside Tate Britain to further develop the area to increase its appeal, helping to create a new cultural and educational quarter”.
That is what the official Holocaust Commission recommended on the location of a memorial and a learning centre nearby.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I appreciate that. I apologise for going over 10 minutes, but I did not expect to have to do two minutes on the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
If I can conclude with just a few more seconds to go, the commission commended the 9/11 exhibition in New York. In November last year, I had to attend some official meetings at the United Nations, so I thought I would go along to see it. I was half expecting it to be, in the usual American way, a bit over the top and a bit tacky, but I was utterly wrong. It was exceptionally well done, moving and authoritative, with exquisite architecture—and it was absolutely massive. It was to commemorate just—just—2,977 victims. We are trying to commemorate 6 million victims by squeezing them into this tiny little bunker under the ground, which has usable space of just 1,700 square metres. It is simply not good enough. I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee but this is my first intervention on the Bill. I declare my interest as a former chairman of Arts Council London. I rise to speak to Amendment 29 and the consequential amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
I would like to put on record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and all the work that she has put into this extraordinary debate today. I have a few brief observations to add to the comprehensive remarks that my noble friend delivered just now with his customary eloquence and wisdom, with which I entirely agree. I support the analysis by several noble Lords of the problems of this site in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I must begin by saying that I am entirely in favour of a Holocaust memorial in central London. We all want present and future generations to recognise, understand and learn what the Holocaust was, why it happened and why it still matters. It is frightening that anti-Semitism is ever present. As my noble friend highlighted, a poll showed that more than 2 million people —about 5% of our population—believe that there never was a Holocaust at all. That figure is probably much higher now as a result of social media. Anti-Semitism must be a central element of whatever or wherever the learning centre is.
As Prime Minister in 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton had a noble ambition when, with cross-party support, he announced details of his proposal. The memorial and learning centre would be world-class. My noble friends have already set out clearly what was promised and what will now be delivered. There is no doubt that the original ambition has been radically reduced as, now, the proposed learning centre would be just a few rooms, all digital. My noble friend Lady Bottomley once memorably described the learning centre as a “subterranean shoebox”.
Several eminent historians, including Sir Richard Evans, have pointed out that London’s contribution would be put to shame by what can be seen elsewhere in the world—indeed, in our own Imperial War Museum, which has been referred to already, and its Holocaust galleries. In preparation for today’s debate, I revisited the Holocaust galleries. They are indeed world-class: through more than 2,000 photos, books and letters, they tell individual stories of some of the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust.
The first room is extraordinary. It introduces us, through home movies, music and photos, to Jewish families across Europe in the early 1930s. They are smiling and posing on graduation from school or university, at family weddings, skiing and playing table tennis. With the dark reality of what was to come, we then see personal possessions—a child’s teddy bear, a darning mushroom and sheet music—displayed in the large cabinets. A dozen or so spacious, themed rooms link events from the rise of Hitler through to the final solution. It is a profound, emotional and educational experience.
The proposed learning centre, squeezed into the very limited space of Victoria Tower Gardens, lacks this essential content and impact. Surely the Imperial War Museum, set in the verdant 14-acre Harmsworth Park just a mile from Westminster, is a potential alternative site for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Victoria Tower Gardens site is totally inappropriate. As my noble friends have said, it has been criticised by UNESCO, Historic England and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rated it red—in other words, undeliverable. Victims of the Holocaust and survivors, as well as our future generations, deserve a world-class learning centre. That cannot be in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 29 and 31 in this group. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has, as my noble friend Lady Fleet just pointed out, spoken with great eloquence to them, but I have a few sweeping-up remarks to make about Amendment 31 and some tangential matters arising therefrom.
Before I speak to them, I owe the Committee an apology because I did not participate at Second Reading on 4 September last—I am afraid that I was abroad at the time—but I did make a submission to the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Bill and appeared before it to plead my case. If I may, I will return to that in a minute or two.
Since I did not participate in the September debate, I should perhaps say a few words about where I stand on the principles of the Bill as a whole. I am not nihilistic. I reject the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Finkelstein that one is going to find objections to everything. I am very much in favour of a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am prepared to work and live with the design that people think is satisfactory.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I was half way through explaining my position on the proposals of the Bill. I believe that there should be a memorial to the Holocaust and that it should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. I would work with almost anybody regarding the design. I do not think that the present design is particularly attractive. I also support the proposal for a learning centre but have difficulty with putting that into Victoria Tower Gardens, for the reasons that have been given by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. That site is not suitable for the scale and importance of the task that it would be undertaking. That is the background to Amendments 29 and 30—the need for a campus and all the other things that have been mentioned.
Amendment 31 has a slight additional edge to it, because the Jewish Museum in Camden has closed due to a lack of funding. All its exhibits are now in storage. It might be worth while considering that this could be included in an overall context of a British-Jewish experience and a national, or London, Jewish museum. That is simply the background and purpose of Amendment 31: that this is included in any consideration of alternative sites.
My noble friend Lady Scott—I know she is “of Bybrook”—explained that we had to consider some of the tangential impacts. I will do that briefly now—again in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—because quite a lot of what is talked about on the tangential experience is based on poor evidence and soggy experience. Those of us who have offices in Millbank, as I do, see how very crowded the pavements and the areas outside are all the time—particularly in the summer, obviously, but nearly all the time. Obviously, there is a bus shelter for Transport for London. There are coach points where people come to hop on and hop off tourist buses, and where students are dropped for tours of Parliament, all of which are very worthy things. If you walk along there on an ordinary day, you will find that not only is the pavement crowded but, because of the black crash barrier, you have a choke point that makes it even more crowded before you can get to where you can turn right into the Victoria Tower Gardens or go straight on to Black Rod’s Garden entrance.
I raised this issue with the committee and I was ruled out of order. The committee said, in paragraph 56 of its report:
“These concerns do not confer an entitlement to be heard and … the Standing Orders do not confer on us any discretion to consider his petition”.
Of course, I accept the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House, but we are now moving from the rather dry area of Standing Orders to the real world. What is going to happen in this area over the many years ahead? If an activity or something inside the periphery of the area—that is, inside the gardens—causes trouble, difficulties, problems or inconvenience in the immediate environment outside, that at least demands to be considered and weighed in the scale. I would therefore like to tackle that briefly now.
In his reply in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said:
“We estimate that there will be 11 coaches per day, using a proposed coach bay on a quieter section of Millbank”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1225.]
I have done a bit of research, because I have been popping into coaches for the last few days to ask, “How many passengers do you carry?” The truth is that I have not found one that carries fewer than 55 or more than 70, so we have an average of probably around 60 or 65. Eleven coaches a day is 660 people. Are we going to do all this for 660 people? Surely not. The idea is that this should be much bigger than that. If we then ask what estimates are being given for the number of people, it comes out usually as between 3,000 and 4,000. That number means that you are going to need about 58 coaches a day. If you are open between 9 am and 4 pm with a line for a 45-minute tour of the building—that is, for seven hours—that will be eight coaches per hour: one every seven minutes. Those are the numbers that we are likely to have to face.
I am sure the Minister does not know anything about the 11 coaches per hour; he was given a speaking note by his official. I am not suggesting he made this up at all. However, we need to think more carefully about this, because at present, the footfall and the impact on the area is absolutely clearly underestimated. If I may just quote from his speaking note one more time, he suggested using a proposed coach bay on a “quieter section of Millbank”. I invite him to get his officials to take him to a quieter section of Millbank. There is no quieter section of Millbank—it is a main thoroughfare where traffic passes all the time. I hope we can get more clarity on what the tangential impact is likely to be in the areas around what is proposed.
I share the view that the learning centre is not in a good place. In my view, it is going to be born in the spirit of rancour, whereas it surely should be born in the spirit of remembrance and healing. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that the Government are listening to all the points being made, and we do not just have a situation of “Put the pedal to the metal and get this thing done as quickly as possible”.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend mentioned the Jewish Museum in Camden, which has closed down. Is he aware that it says that it has 28,000 items and artefacts—including Jewish art, and examples showing the Jewish way of life going back centuries—in storage? Can he understand why, on the one hand, we have plans for this learning centre in Victoria gardens that will have no artefacts while, on the other, we have a closed-down museum with 28,000 artefacts looking for a home? Can the Government explain why on earth they are unable to marry them up and put the two together in a big, proper museum and learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Well, my Lords, that just shows that you should never speak after my noble friend Lord Blencathra, because of course he is right. I hope I made it clear that I thought the consideration of alternative sites should include the idea that we should have a national Jewish museum, which would pick up the 28,000 items, the number of which I was not aware.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, had there been time yesterday, we would have disaggregated this group because it covers three enormous topics that are very different, and I will not have time to say everything that I wanted to. I will start with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which is perhaps the most obvious and sensible of all of them. I call them over and under. If we stick to over and avoid under, nearly all the problems are solved—in other words, a memorial overground, and a learning centre somewhere else. That would avoid all the complications and costs of excavating Victoria Tower Gardens and the disruption and damage. Moreover, apparently the learning centre will have only digital and audio material in it, so why not just send us round the country, in whatever way can be done technologically these days, rather than bringing people to London?
I turn to the issue of endowment—what is in the learning centre and what it is supposed to do. The inadequacy of Holocaust education, which is well known, can be seen on the streets of London every week and on our campuses. Young people who have had some education about the Holocaust at school cannot make the connection between that and the vicious hatred of Israel today, the attacks on the survival of Jewish people, the resurgence of Nazi language and images, and the violence we find against Jewish people as they go about their businesses or go to synagogue. That is because of the failing of Holocaust education in two respects. First, it places the hatred of Jews in a box, something that was the exclusive province of the Nazis 90 years ago and ended at the end of the Second World War. The planned learning centre will compound that.
The other failing is the presentation of many genocides as if they had anything in common. The messages coming from the learning centre, as far as one can tell, will be “Do not be a bystander” and “Hatred is what brought on the Holocaust and other genocides”. That serves as an obfuscation and diversion of blame. It misses the point entirely: it was 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. The civilised world has said “Never again”, but that is overoptimistic. Anti-Semitism remains alive and well, not only among the denizens of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran but of course, since 7 October, in countries hitherto thought immune, such as the Western world.
Holocaust education has failed, but it should include the place of Israel in the world and in Jewish life and history. Scholars say that the Holocaust found Jews defenceless. After 7 October, sadly, a Jewish state was able to hit back and may eliminate its enemies, but certainly Israel provides a haven for Jews elsewhere who find themselves threatened by this new anti-Semitism. That fairly obvious statement shows what is so wrong about the theme and location of the memorial planned for VTG. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has said, his intent is that seeing the Palace of Westminster and being reminded of the power of democracy means that there is protection for Jewish people under British values, but that is historically and contemporaneously wrong. Democracy here, now and in the past, has not protected Jewish minorities. We can see that even today there are plenty of people in our democratic Government who wish Israel ill and who have failed to protect the Jewish community from the pressure that it faces right now.
What saves people from genocide? It is having a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence. Take, for example, the Uighurs, Armenians and Tutsis. What they have in common is that they were minorities in a state that had power over them. As the late Lord Sacks of blessed memory pointed out, today’s anti-Semitism is directed at the world’s only Jewish state, which should be a haven for a persecuted minority. He called for Holocaust education to be in context—the context of Jewish history over the millennia, and Jewish culture. In regard to the Holocaust, it is wrong for people to learn only about that and nothing else. The ill-educated person in the street often associates Jews only with the images of concentration camps and knows nothing other than that—nothing about Jewish history and practices.
That is made worse by the films, some of them ghoulish, that deal with that period. This concentration on the Holocaust, taken out of context and history, turns it into just a word for describing something dreadful, which is casually used, as is the word “genocide”. It even results in those accusations being turned against the Jewish people. Holocaust education needs a complete overhaul, rather than being frozen into the same inadequate frame that we will find in the learning centre. That is why there needs to be an endowment fund and a professor, as suggested in Amendment 32, because those awkward topics of anti-Semitism today and Israel need to be faced up to and explained. We want to know why the Government have abandoned the suggested endowment fund.
I turn briefly to alternatives. No effort was made to find a suitable location when Victoria Tower Gardens was announced, but the supporters have clung stubbornly to that site, though they must know in their hearts that it is no good and that the choice has provoked litigation, disharmony, delay, expense and discord in the Jewish community and elsewhere. Indeed, the choice of site has provoked adverse comment around the world. In 2015, the call was only for a central London site of up to 10,000 square metres, with room for conferences, offices and all the appurtenance of a campus, and only near at hand to the memorial given that proponents also recommended that the site incorporate the Imperial War Museum exhibition. So they could not have had in mind an underground construction somewhere else. The choice of VTG was reached without consultation, given that the consultants came up with the London Museum, Millbank Tower and other sites.
I imagine that VTG was chosen because it was free, whereas Imperial War Museum co-operation over the use of its green space was ignored. My own ideal compromise would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and a suitably sized learning centre somewhere nearby, maybe along Millbank. Buildings on Millbank have been offered. They are available to rent or buy. What about College Green, whose underground is not being used, the education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens or Victoria Tower itself, as the archives have been removed? My favourite is Richmond House, which it seems will not now be used for decant during R&R and which has a forecourt suitable for a memorial and is right by the Cenotaph. No position is more visible and important. Others have suggested the former Museum of London, the Barbican and underneath Carlton House Terrace. There has never been any meeting with the department to consider these suggestions. Michael Gove offered a round table but did not pursue it. The only other meeting with him was a formality, with no intent other than to head off my repeated complaints that there was no discussion. My offers to talk to supporters have been ignored or worse.
We know about the drawbacks of VTG—the cramped nature, the deprivation of local residents, the breach of trust, the environmental damage, the flooding risk, the fire risk, the crowding and the security. The cost is bound to rise. Climate protesters and the public will not be sympathetic to a project that flies in the face of all the government pledges to be green and economical. The Jewish community is sharply divided, with establishment figures and donors on one side and those who study the situation—scholars and most ordinary members, whether of the reform, Orthodox or mainstream persuasion—on the other. Once they know what it looks like and what it will contain, which is carefully hidden from most of us, they are against it.
Advances in technology lessen the case for the exhibition hall. There are already six memorials in this country and 21 learning centres. No one has stopped to think what effect they have or what they achieve. Is anything lacking? Why do we need another one? What is it for? Of course, people outside London will find it hard to get to. I have said before that this is not a memorial, it is not about the Holocaust and it is not a learning centre. The choice of VTG is to make a political point which is naive and misleading: that putting a memorial close to Parliament will make the point that democracy protects Jews and protects against genocide. This is the British values narrative, a project led by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and Mr Ed Balls, who also leads the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. The placement of memorials makes no difference if you look around the world—nor are they a reminder to parliamentarians of the dangers. If parliamentarians have to have a memorial next door, at a cost of £200 million, they must be in even bigger trouble than we thought.
There is no evidence that a visit to this will make any difference. There are 300 memorials around the world, from New Zealand to China, and nobody measures the effect. In fact, anti-Semitism is growing. The memorial will provide a nice political backdrop for politicians who want to pose against it and say, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, but it will not help prevent anti-Semitism today. I support the movement to create a wonderful new Jewish museum like the fabulous one in Warsaw, which is placed where the Warsaw ghetto used to be and has made that into a sacred site.
I support all these amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I particularly support Amendments 13, 29 and 30. Their effect would be that there was a sculpture but not a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. In doing so, I urge the Minister to consider the difference between your Lordships’ House and the other place. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are very modest about their achievements, other than possibly us lawyers.
However, we have heard in this debate two Members of your Lordships’ House with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. One is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who has a long history in education. She was master of Birkbeck College, the paradigm of education to a large external audience. That is an example of what we are trying to achieve, at least in part, with the learning centre. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, who made a superb speech, is a person with real experience of cultural arenas and the like—of how cultural issues are delivered to a much larger public right across the cultural spectrum. It would be useful for the Minister to focus particularly on their expertise before any final decisions are made about what should go in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I am very much in favour of a memorial and a Holocaust learning centre, but not in Victoria Tower Gardens. A memorial there could be one of the most magnificent sculptures in the world. To give one example, Anish Kapoor, the great British sculptor, has already done a small Holocaust sculpture in London. Someone such as Anish Kapoor might produce one of those sculptures that lives for the centuries, maybe rather like how the Burghers of Calais, which has lived for well over one century, anyway. Putting a sculpture in Victoria Tower Gardens but nothing else would remove many of the security concerns, which I will address later, that will arise if a so-called learning centre is built in the gardens.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord mentioned the shoebox. Is he aware that, if I remember correctly, the Holocaust Commission wanted a campus of between 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square metres, but in an Answer from my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on 12 April to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the department said that the Adjaye bunker would be just 3,258 square metres? The Answer went on to reveal that 48% of it will be completely unusable, made out of risers, ducts and unusable space, leaving a mere 1,722 square metres for the learning centre. That is about four or five times the size of this Room—some campus, is it not?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I absolutely agree and I will try to finish within the 10 minutes, and I believe that there is going to be a vote in a moment anyway. I believe that if the Minister were to listen to the witnesses available in your Lordships’ House, we would have a different conclusion. I promise the Minister, not because I know it but because I know it in my bones, that if we were allowed to build a Holocaust learning centre elsewhere, with the subvention that is already promised by the Government, we would have no difficulty in raising the money for an establishment that would rival the great POLIN museum that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned.
I finish by saying that if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, and she knows that I love her dearly, I thought she was a little unkind to some members of the Committee. I do not believe that anybody is ill motivated about this in any way. I believe that, unfortunately, they are just wrong and should recognise it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, that is my cue. I was going to take the noble Lord up. He quoted me earlier as saying something I had not said, but I realised that it is the kind of thing I would have said, so I did not object to being misquoted.
Lord Pickles (Con)
On the improvements to the park, the grass is not of very high quality, but it will be returfed. The paths will be redone. Those paths are important because, as they stand right now, they are strangling the roots of the trees and causing long-term problems. It will be possible to get water to the existing trees, there will be access to the Embankment for wheelchairs for the very first time and there will be extensive tree planting.
Some very interesting points were made about fire, flood, transport and, of course, planning matters. We will discuss any new planning application. I just want to address the questions of whether it is too small and what new things have been found. In terms of its size, it is by no means unusual among Holocaust museums. I talked about the Berlin museum, which is subterranean and roughly that size. Jasenovac is roughly that size. If we talk about museums in Warsaw, a short walk from the POLIN museum is a museum dedicated to the uprising, which is roughly the same size.
As for new things, we have discovered, hidden for 80 years, some tapes by Patrick Gordon Walker, who many here will remember. He went in the week after Dimbleby did his famous interviews and interviewed inmates of the camp as well as perpetrators. We also have the first recording of the singing of Hatikvah after liberation. As the Government took the decision to release all the documents relating to the Holocaust, we have lots of new material that has simply not been seen. It will certainly address what we knew and when we knew it.
In terms of getting an idea of what it would look like, if Members have visited Hut 27 at Auschwitz, which is an audio-visual experience of the book burning and the effect that it had on Jewish life and young people, they will know that that gives you an idea. You cannot say, “We need to embrace new technologies”, then criticise us for doing precisely that. It is not as though we are in a position where we are waiting for this to happen; the United Kingdom has already created a portal of evidence. Everyone here can now see the testimonies of Holocaust survivors going down the years, no matter where they were given. It is a big leap forward. Other countries are following suit because, to ensure that our stuff is worth while, it must be accessible.
My noble friend is right about TikTok and other social media, which is why we produced—it was just a tentative idea—80 Objects/80 Lives in which Holocaust survivors describe a particular object that kept them going through the Holocaust. That was repeated in 35 countries. It is not an answer in itself, but it is a fact that we are trying to lean out and to make a difference.
There will be natural light. There is going to be light; it is going to be used extraordinarily well with regard to a staircase.
I am very pleased that Members have gone to see the Imperial War Museum. It is a magnificent new exhibition, particularly about the use of the V-2 rocket, because it manages to bring the whole of the Second World War galleries together and demonstrates—better than the previous exhibition, I think—that the Second World War was a war of annihilation. I am pleased to say that that the past chairman of the Imperial War Museum is on the foundation’s board and that the Imperial War Museum is a key partner. I am also pleased to say that the former director of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, which is apparently well disposed to here, is also on the board. In order to ensure that we never lose sight of the Jewish nature of the Holocaust, our director of the exhibition is a former deputy director of Yad Vashem. We work regularly with Yad Vashem on this, and there is a lot of interest.
I want to say something about numbers. I was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. If she is going to quote me, let it be right. I do not take credit for that; it was from the widow of the great historian Martin Gilbert, who, in talking to her before his death, said that it should be about coming out of a building and recognising that democracy is there as a bastion against tyranny. It is not about the Jews to say that; it is a bastion against tyranny. However, it is also for the people in this building to look the other way and understand what happens when a compliant legislature passes various things.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can I just ask the noble Lord why he thinks that being a tourist attraction that attracts millions is compatible with commemoration, grief, prayer, remembrance and all the other things that the commission called for and that are normally associated with a Holocaust memorial? There is a little plaque to one of my grandmothers in Manchester; that brings me more solace than any number of millions of people tramping through the gardens then heading off to have an ice cream.
Lord Pickles (Con)
It is important not to conflate the solemn nature of the memorial with the learning centre; they are two distinct but integrated matters. The Committee will always go to museums and Holocaust sites. What we want are the uncommitted: we want people who go to the learning centre and come away having learned something. They will use it as a doorway to wider knowledge. It will not be in isolation. We are going to work closely with our American friends, our friends at Auschwitz and our friends in Yad Vashem because the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and distortion do not recognise national boundaries. We have a common purpose, and part of that common purpose will be to spread it out in different languages.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as someone who is not Jewish, as I mentioned earlier, I have been very moved by the debate I have just heard about the learning centre. I subscribe to the perspective of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. As I was sitting there, I thought to myself, “Actually, there’s something that has not been mentioned”. It is—speaking as a non-Jew—the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens is a remarkable park as it stands now; that is a relevant consideration in our consideration in this place of what the future should be.
I am reminded of a story that I was told about the time when T Dan Smith redeveloped Eldon Square in Newcastle. He called in, as one of his expert advisers, Arne Jacobsen, the famous Danish architect. After the competition for the redesign of Eldon Square had been completed, he turned to Jacobsen and said, “If you had been putting in for this competition, what would you have done?” Jacobsen replied, “I would have left it just as it was before”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that was an extremely interesting debate from both sides of what I will call a discussion, not an argument. I thank noble Lords for it; I have learned a lot.
This is a large group covering three themes that have been discussed throughout the years of work that have been done on the Holocaust memorial. First, Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13 relate to the design of the memorial and the learning centre, seeking to prevent it involving an underground element and to separate the learning centre from the memorial. These issues have been debated at length. I do not feel that this Bill is the right place for us to debate issues relating to the planning and design of the building. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in detail. We urge him to listen to her concerns, but we cannot support her amendments.
Amendment 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans, is one I do support. I do not think he spoke to it, but it has been such a long debate that I have forgotten what happened at the beginning. At a time when we are seeing growing anti-Semitism while marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we need to recommit ourselves to the memory of the Holocaust, as I said earlier this year when we debated Holocaust Memorial Day. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, was right to highlight the need for proper Holocaust education as we work to counter anti-Semitism.
I take this opportunity, a bit cheekily, to ask the Minister to update me on what steps his department is taking to counter rising anti-Semitism in this country. I am very happy to have a letter. Also, can he confirm that the Government will, at the very least, maintain the level of support for Holocaust education provided by the previous Conservative Government? I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for all the evidence that he provided showing the need for this continued education.
Finally, Amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, all seek to re-open the question of an alternative site for the memorial or learning centre. While I understand the arguments made by many noble Lords on the question of where the memorial and learning centre should be located, I cannot agree that re-opening this issue, when in the past we have looked at more than 50 sites, would be a constructive step forward and would deliver that centre in anything like a timely manner.
I said in my opening remarks that it has been 11 years since my noble friend Lord Cameron made that solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust. I feel very strongly that we should not take steps that will hinder the delivery of that commitment any longer.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I will just elucidate for the noble Baroness that 50 sites were not looked at. The foundation just plumped for Victoria Tower Gardens. The thing about haste is that we are not building for the handful of survivors who are left. They do not need a memorial. If we build, we are building for the future. There is not a hurry. Survivors have said to me that they would rather it was got right; that is more important than hurrying. Even if everything went smoothly now, which I hope that it will not, there is no chance of getting it up in the lifetime of people who are in their late 90s. You have to get it right for the future, not for the handful who are left.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments. This group concerns the need for a learning centre, what its focus should be and how it should be funded. I believe there is a great deal of common ground on these matters. The need for a learning centre was set out clearly in the 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, published by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission and accepted by all major political parties.
The commission proposed
“that the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class Learning Centre. This would be a must-see destination using the latest technology to engage and inspire vast numbers of visitors”.
That remains the Government’s intention. We want to put in place a learning centre that will set the memorial in context and will be a moving and inspiring experience for visitors. Work towards this aim has begun. We are confident that our proposed scheme provides the space needed for an enthralling exhibition; I will come on to the issue of its size later. It is certain that the experience of entering the underground exhibition space through the bronze fins of the memorial will be a powerful introduction for all visitors.
Our proposal for a learning centre integrated with the Holocaust memorial is a tangible demonstration of the importance that we attach to education, which has been at the heart of this programme from the outset. The creation of the memorial and learning centre will be a further development of the significant efforts already taking place to deepen understanding of the Holocaust. Already, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the national curriculum for history at key stage 3, for pupils aged 11 to 14. The Prime Minister has made a strong personal commitment that this Government will seek to give every young person the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony. The Government fund the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme and Holocaust Memorial Day. It is right that we should also build this Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre as a focal point for national commemoration to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten.
Taken together, my noble friend Lady Blackstone’s amendments—this amendment, Amendment 2, and Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13—would mean that no learning centre could be constructed at the Victoria Tower Gardens; and, indeed, that the Government could not allocate any funding to the construction and operation of any learning centre in any location. The Holocaust Commission recommended that a new world-class learning centre should physically accompany the new national memorial. The learning centre will provide an opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial and will therefore provide necessary context to the memorial. It is essential that the learning centre should be co-located with the memorial.
Having chosen Victoria Tower Gardens as the site uniquely capable of meeting the commission’s vision, the architectural design competition for the memorial tested the feasibility of a below-ground learning centre. The judges panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre because of its sensitivity to the gardens. The potential impact of our proposed learning centre was captured effectively by Professor Stuart Foster, the executive director of Holocaust education at UCL, who told the planning inquiry of his belief that
“the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will make a profound and positive impact on teaching and learning about the Holocaust in this country and, potentially, beyond”.
I ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw Amendment 2 and not move Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13.
Amendment 23 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke, would similarly interfere with our objectives of establishing a world-class learning centre and strengthening Holocaust education. Taking £50 million away from the construction budget will mean no learning centre and no programme of education. The right approach is to create a powerful Holocaust memorial and learning centre that can then be a foundation for enhanced educational efforts, drawing together the wide range of impressive organisations already working in the field. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, not to move Amendment 23.
Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, call for new site searches for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Adopting these amendments would take us all the way back to 2015. An independent, cross-party foundation appointed by the then Prime Minister, following cross-party commitment to the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, mentioned. The outcome is, of course, well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which will give the memorial the prominence that it deserves and will uniquely allow the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. There is nothing to be gained by further site searches but there is, of course, a great deal to be lost. This Government and their predecessors believe that Victoria Tower Gardens is the right site for the memorial and learning centre.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government looked at 50 sites before deciding on Victoria Tower Gardens? Is it not the case that Victoria Tower Gardens was selected first and a search then went on to look for unsuitable sites?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly reject that assertion. That was not the case. It was a competition; 50 sites were considered and after all those considerations, it was decided.
I must make progress. I will answer the points that have been raised in the debate. There is a lot to get through as this is a big group, but turning the clock back 10 years to conduct further searches in the belief that some greater consensus will be found is simply not realistic. Moreover, one implication of these amendments is that the learning centre might be located separately from the memorial. The clear recommendation of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in its 2015 report was that
“the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre”.
That recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister, with cross-party support.
The reasons why co-location matters are clear. We want the Holocaust to be understood. We cannot assume that visitors, however powerfully they may be affected by the memorial, will have even a basic understanding of the facts of the Holocaust. We cannot assume that they will recognise the relevance of the Holocaust to us, here in Great Britain, now and in the years to come. A co-located learning centre provides the opportunity to give facts, setting the memorial in context and prompting visitors to reflect.
I have no doubt that visitors will be motivated to learn more, as I was when I visited the Washington memorial. For many, the learning centre will be a starting point. I am confident that many visitors will want to explore the subject further at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, at the Holocaust Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire, at Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield and at many other excellent institutions in the UK and abroad. If the memorial were not accompanied by a learning centre, how many opportunities would be missed? Is it realistic to expect that thousands of visitors would see the memorial and decide then to make a journey of some miles across London to search out further information? Perhaps some would; I am certain that a great many would not.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making a comparison with the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries and the size of this learning centre, the learning centre will have around 1,300 square metres of exhibition space, which is about the same as the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries. I want to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. To be clear, the great majority of visitors will come via public transport, not by coach. Our plans for vehicle access are included within a construction logistics plan which we previously shared with Westminster City Council and which we expect will need to be agreed with it as a planning condition. Visitors will have access to the gardens using the existing entrances, with the site entrance permanently manned with security and construction banksmen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that her offer to meet supporters has been ignored. I must politely disagree. Officials and I have met with her and I will continue to meet her whenever she wants, my diary permitting. I am always happy to meet any noble Lord who strongly wants to raise anything. I can see the passion today. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I am happy to meet at any time in relation to expertise.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have to say to the Minister that I have met him and his predecessors but not once have they entertained any compromise. They listen, sometimes they shout, and that is the end of it. There has never been an offer to compromise or change anything, no matter what we have written or what plans we have shown.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I have to politely disagree, with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness. I have always listened. We have to understand that I have two main goals with the Bill. The first, in Clause 1, is to allow the Secretary of State to have expenditure to build the project. Secondly, my job in bringing the Bill forward and promoting it is to look at the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 to disapply the condition for this project to be built. Noble Lords are passionate and the strength of feeling is clear, but there is a planning process. Planning permission is still to be granted, and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Will the Minister therefore guarantee that a new full planning permission application will go back to Westminster City Council and through all the layers of planning that are normally required, and that it will not be cut short?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot give that guarantee. I want to be clear because noble Lords must understand this: that is in the hands of the designated Minister. It is the role of the designated Minister to see how he takes that forward.
I repeat that the proposals put forward include more than 300 square metres of exhibition space, comparable to the International War Museum’s Holocaust galleries and capable of accommodating a world-class exhibition. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 29 and 30.
Amendment 31 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I thank for his kind words earlier, which I thought were most respectful. The amendment calls for a review of the feasibility of including the Holocaust learning centre within a Jewish museum. I want to affirm straight away that the learning centre must and will set the Holocaust in the context of Jewish history. It is simply impossible to provide an accurate account of the Holocaust without addressing the long history of anti-Semitism. For a British Holocaust memorial, that will include addressing the history of British anti-Semitism, working with an experienced curator with the advice of eminent and respected academics. That is what our learning centre will do. I know that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am troubled by the Minister repeatedly using the term “world-class”. Could he give us some comparators that enable him to say that what is offered in this centre is world-class? In what respect is it in the same class as the POLIN centre in Warsaw or Yad Vashem? Those centres set the standard for world-class. How can he make that claim for a small centre that will have only computerised images?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will affirm the point. The noble Lord talked about Yad Vashem. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The ambition and vision is to have a quality curator with a strong academic advisory board.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I am sorry to keep interrupting, but Sir Richard Evans, who is our greatest historian of Germany, and who has been outstanding in combating Holocaust denial, said at the public inquiry that the learning centre will be a national and international embarrassment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee can understand that I do not agree with that point. That is a matter of opinion for Sir Richard Evans. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as we have seen in the passionate debate today.
I was making the point that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone, the historical adviser to the programme, in which he provides a small insight to the work under way. For those noble Lords who have not seen it, we can arrange for Martin Winstone to come in and give them that presentation. I had a drop-in session yesterday; unfortunately it was just me and officials, but I enjoyed it.
The overall focus of the learning centre must of course remain clearly on the Holocaust, and it must be wholly integrated with the national memorial to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We want to be sure that visitors are left in no doubt about the nature of the Holocaust. Having seen the memorial, they should clearly understand what it represents. For those reasons, it simply does not make sense to envisage a learning centre located elsewhere and carrying a much broader set of messages.
The history of the Jewish people is rich and deep. Jewish communities have a long history in Britain that needs to be understood, including of course the history of anti-Semitism, extending for many centuries. Telling such a story requires expertise, creativity and space. The Jewish Museum London told this story well, making excellent use of the tens of thousands of artefacts in its collection. I wish the museum well in its search for a new home. I believe also that there will be important opportunities in future for joint work between the learning centre and the Jewish Museum. We aim to work in partnership with institutions across the UK and overseas as we develop education programmes, and as we encourage greater awareness of the Holocaust and its deep roots. But I am sure that we should recognise the differences between the purpose of a Jewish museum in London and the aims of a learning centre located with a Holocaust museum. Each has a distinct and hugely important aim. Placing the Holocaust learning centre wholly within the Jewish Museum could easily mean a loss of focus and would certainly require breaking the essential link between the learning centre and the memorial.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Who is the “we” who will work with these other institutions? Because, as noble Lords will know, as we come on to the next group, if we do, there is no management. Therefore, I do not understand who is going to work with these other institutions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I mean “we” as in the Government. Can I continue my final point? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made the very important point about rising anti-Semitism. Let me be clear. Anti-Semitism is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society, which is why we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Government are particularly concerned about the sharp rise in anti-Semitism and will not tolerate this. We have allocated £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work until 2028, providing security to schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. We have been actively exploring a more integrated and cohesive approach to tackling all forms of racial and religious hatred. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, in his important work of IHRA. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, continues his work as an anti-Semitism adviser to the Government. On that note, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw her amendment and not move her other amendments in this group.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to this group of amendments and I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed. I did not hear any spirit of compromise whatever in what he said, and no attempt to reach out on the many points that were made by Members of the Committee.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am so sorry to stop my noble friend in her tracks but I said very clearly that I am happy to sit down with anybody, post-Committee, to look at any particular issues. I reminded her that I sat down with noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and had a drop-in session available for noble Lords to visit and see the presentation. My only focus, if we look at the Bill, are these two clauses, which I am trying to promote and make sure we can work through. However, I understand there are a lot of issues and concerns, which I think are for a planning stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to sit down with various Members of the Committee, but that is not compromising today, which is what I was asking for and expecting. I tried to set out as clearly as I could why what is being proposed for this learning centre is inadequate. There is not enough space for it; the proposals for a computerised exhibition are deeply disappointing; and what I hoped the Minister might say is that he would take this away, have a look at it and discuss it with his officials and others who have expertise in the provision of learning centres on this subject. There was none of that.
I can only say that I am disappointed, as other Members of the Committee will be. The Minister said at the beginning that he attached importance to education as far as this project is concerned, and I am grateful for that. But it is not about attaching importance just to education but to high-quality education that we can be proud of and that many people will want to experience. I do not believe that that is what is being proposed here, so I ask again that before we reach the next stage of the Bill, he will come back with something more positive about how to improve it.
My last point is that I was really surprised that my noble friend would be so dismissive about Sir Richard Evans’s comments. He happens to have been the vice-master of Birkbeck throughout my time there, so we were very close colleagues. He is the most eminent historian in this country of German history of this period. I do not want to sound patronising, but the Minister should not be so dismissive of somebody of that kind of commitment and expertise. I hope he will look again at that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just before my noble friend concludes and, I hope, withdraws her amendment, clearly, a lot of these matters are for planning. The Committee will understand that I might not be able to satisfy the very detailed and passionate contributions made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I did not address his point about security because we will have a whole group on security arrangements. I was not ignoring it but wanted to make sure that I brought up that point.
On the point about Richard Evans, as we see today, everyone has a different view. I respect everyone’s opinion but we see in this debate that everyone has a different perspective. As I understand it, we are all well intentioned and want to make sure that we put our case across.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I am delighted to hear that there is to be a proper planning process. He would not give a final commitment to that happening and said it was another Minister’s responsibility. I believe that that Minister said earlier, as a shadow Minister before the election, that there should be a proper planning procedure. Meanwhile, I will withdraw my amendment, but I indicate to the Minister that I will want to come back at the next stage to discuss having a better place for a learning centre than is currently proposed.
Relationship, Sex and Health Education
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for publishing revised guidance on relationship, sex and health education in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the subjects of relationship, sex and health education are vital to support children and young people to thrive in the world in which they are growing up. Children’s well-being must be at the heart of this guidance and, as such, we are analysing consultation responses, talking to stakeholders and reviewing relevant evidence to ensure we get it right. We will publish the guidance when this important process is complete.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I have been contacted by a number of parents and teachers who are increasingly concerned by what feels to them like a lack of urgency from the DfE. They also make the point that the teaching and content of RSHE are not covered by Ofsted inspections, and anyone can set themselves up to provide and deliver courses to schools with no qualifications. This has led to contested ideologies being taught as fact, and age-inappropriate material being shown to children. Many parents are still reporting that schools are unwilling to share the content of the lessons with them. Why are parents being kept in the dark about what their children are being exposed to in schools? Does the Minister consider this to be a satisfactory way for RSHE to be delivered?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I would certainly share concerns if parents did not feel that they were being properly engaged with on what their children were being taught, both on the overall policy and in being able to look at the specific materials that are being taught. It is precisely in order to ensure that children’s well-being and the confidence of parents are achieved that we are taking our time on this work.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, relationship and sex education must be inclusive if it is to achieve its aims of sustaining and protecting the young person or child. There must be no return to the days of Section 28 and the promotion of prejudice and ignorance. Therefore, does the Minister agree that education must be about allowing young people the space to become themselves and not who others would wish them to become?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly agree that we do not want to go back to the days of Section 28 and intolerance throughout society. It is important that children get the opportunity at the appropriate time to learn, from trusted teachers and with the support of their parents, the precise skills and knowledge that will enable them to grow up safe and, as the noble Lord says, in a way that will give them a fulfilled life.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the 2019 RSHE guidance was praised for its robust, evidence-based, cross-party and cross-sector support. Will my noble friend the Minister take note of concerns that revised guidance could undermine children’s access to protective and preventive education if teachers are not supported to engage with the questions that pupils seek answers to when looking to understand the real world around them? If children are forced to turn to the internet for their education, does my noble friend agree that this carries real risks?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that one of the important decisions that schools need to be supported in making is delivering the right content at the right time for students to gain, from trusted sources, the information that they need to grow up properly and to keep themselves safe. That is of course our key aim in reviewing the guidance, ensuring that children’s well-being is at the heart of it. That includes ensuring that they have the knowledge they need at the right time to help them to be safe.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have taught more PSHE days than I care to remember. The fact that in secondary schools they are a stand-alone day once a term enables some parents to keep their children at home to avoid the uncomfortable truth that homosexuality, religious tolerance and contraception are part of a normal society. I too get the impression that relationship, sex and health education in schools is down the list of priorities. Can the Government urgently find a way for us to teach these vital topics, plus citizenship, in a more effective way?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that it certainly is not down the list of priorities. It is precisely because we need to provide guidance that identifies children’s best interests and the well-being of children, having drawn on a considerable process of engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, that we are taking our time to get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Church of England’s National Society for Education is proud to be part of the White Ribbon project, whose aim is to prevent men’s violence against women and girls by addressing its root causes. In our Church schools, we support the ability to explore these themes in collective worship, RSHE curricula and class time. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to address the root causes of violence against women and girls in their revised guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point about one of the areas where relationship, sex and health education can make an important difference. Education has a key role to play in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and it is therefore essential to the Government’s safer streets mission. We want to ensure that the revised guidance enables schools to tackle harmful behaviour and helps to ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate in schools. I commend the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues in supporting us to do that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that relationship and sex education in all schools includes medically accurate and evidence-based information about contraception and reproductive health?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is fundamentally important that what our schools teach is based both on the best interests of children and on factually accurate information. Ensuring that that is the case is part of the reason for making sure that we take our time on this guidance, and for ensuring that schools are supported to find the right sources of that information.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the Government taking their time, but the review of the RSHE statutory guidance consultation closed in July last year, so we are nearly nine months on. Can she give a date for the publication of the results of that and the revised guidance? The Minister is right that these are very sensitive subjects, but that is why the previous Government had a very respected independent panel to advise them on this. Can she say whether its report will be published?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Precisely as I suggested, it is particularly because of the stakeholder engagement that commenced in December 2024 that we have not got to the point of publishing this guidance yet. That stakeholder engagement is still ongoing; it has included LGBT round tables, a round table for parents and events both online and in person for key stakeholders, teachers and local authorities. There are also plans to convene a round table for children and young people. The broadest range of voices will help us to come to the right place on this. In relation to the advisory panel that the noble Baroness mentioned, I will perhaps come back to her in writing.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear first from my noble friend and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, we know that pornography is poisoning the minds of our young women and men. It is so important to teach men and women at a young age what healthy relationships look like, as they are often not seen at home. They are seeing the most violent, misogynistic and dangerous images. We know this hurts women, but it also hurts men who are drawn to people such as Andrew Tate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will make this education a priority?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, which is why healthy relationships are a key part of RSHE and contribute to the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. That is why yesterday, or earlier this week, the Government also responded positively to the important work in the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on online pornography.
Tariffs: Canada and Mexico
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what communications they have had with the governments of Canada, Mexico and other countries about the decision of the President of the United States to impose tariffs on certain of their exports.
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, we have noted President Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Canada and Mexico and the subsequent 30-day suspension agreement. That is a matter for the US Administration, and it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships. We respect other countries’ dialogue with the US and we will not intervene. However, the UK Government are prepared to take action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and consumers. We will continue to monitor developments across the Atlantic.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome the fact that, in his talks with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister managed to obtain at least a grudging hint that the UK might be exempt from proposed tariffs. Will she not agree, if there is a fully fledged trade war that affects our trading partners, that it will have an impact on the world economy and on our economy and growth rate, and make it more difficult to do what we want to do on defence spending? Secondly, if, as our newly appointed ambassador to the United States has said, there is a prospect of a UK-US technology deal, is it not extremely important that we take advantage of the extra flexibility that we have outside the EU to have a regulatory regime that is not hostile to the industries of the future but actually sees them as an opportunity for innovation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord raised several questions there. On the question of the UK and US, we have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. As noble Lords know, the Prime Minister and President Trump discussed that on 27 February, when they agreed that we would deepen our relationship and have tasked teams to work together on a trade deal focused on tech. This is absolutely fundamental to us; the Prime Minister has been clear that he will not make any false choices between our allies—it is about our national interests. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Prime Minister has said that we are going further and we will work on an economic deal with advanced technology at its core—but these are early days to comment any further on this. Obviously, we will set out more details as discussions evolve.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Minister’s first reply, which, as I understood it, was that while of course we will confer with colleagues and allies across the world, we will not intervene—it is a matter for them to deal with the United States. I also very much commend the noble Lord’s second comment when he recommended that we use, to off-set some of the damaging effects of Brexit, the opportunities of Brexit to manifest an acceptance of our point of view on the high-tech industries, because those are the industries of the future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Advanced technology is one of the key industries in our industrial strategy, and certainly one of the important areas for our future prosperity. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority is the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to its delivery.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
But, my Lords, our trade is so integrated with that of the European Union, and our trade policy is based on WTO rules. The Trump Administration imposing tariffs based not on trade policy but on other policy areas means that we will have to be a party to any WTO disputes if we are to protect our interests. One consequence of Brexit is that we have not followed suit with having an anti-coercion instrument, which would allow us to respond quickly if tariffs are put in place on non-trade policy areas. Does the Minister not agree that, for the resilience of the British economy and our trade, it would be better to co-ordinate with our European trading allies to have a common anti-coercion trade policy?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. It is obviously very early days, and we will continue to take a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs. We remain prepared to defend the UK’s national interest where it is right to do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is very welcome to hear the Minister talk about the national interest, because the importance of a trade deal with the US obviously cannot be overstated. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce estimates that if a deal could be reached it would provide business with a stable basis for up to £1.5 trillion of bilateral investment between the two countries. The Prime Minister has said, very wisely, that he is neither with the EU nor the USA, but the EU would seem to be taking a different view. A spokesman said that we need to make up our mind who we are with. Given the regulatory differences between the two entities, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that closer alignment with the EU does not hinder progress towards a comprehensive trade agreement with the US?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the US is one of our largest trading partners, with trade worth around £300 billion in September 2024, representing 18% of total UK trade. We have a long and deep relationship with the US, and we will obviously want to enhance that as the trade discussions continue.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
If President Trump imposes tariffs on the European Union and not, we hope, on the United Kingdom, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to protect the part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—that has been left in the EU for some hundreds of trading areas? How will we be affected and what will His Majesty’s Government do to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we will always consider businesses across the country and their particular interests. However, it is difficult to comment on specific tariffs when there are few facts and speculation is taking place. Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, and goods moving into Northern Ireland do not subsequently enter the EU. We are considering what action would be in the best interests of all UK businesses and will make sure that the implications for Northern Ireland are considered in those discussions.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, the imposition of tariffs can have effects beyond trade. For example, this morning the New York Times reported that the Chinese foreign ministry is considering relaxing its co-operation with America on the import of the products necessary to make fentanyl. Fentanyl, along with other synthetic opioids, has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in America. Are the Government ready for the reduction in China’s co-operation in this area and what might happen as a result, even in this country?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we are aware that the US has imposed a tariff on all Chinese goods. I reiterate that it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships—that is a matter for the US—but we are of course aware of China’s retaliatory response. We respect China’s dialogue with the US and will not intervene. However, the Government are prepared to take any necessary action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and will continue to monitor the situation.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, to return to the Minister’s first Answer, of course I am sensible that there are things that you do not say in public, but I hope that in private His Majesty’s Government are making it clear that we have an interest in free trade within North America. We are the largest investor in the US and we will be affected by US tariffs on every component part that will be hit by them. We also have an enduring interest in the prosperity of Canada. How can anyone in this country think of Canada without thinking of Vimy Ridge, Juno beach and a hundred other battlefields where it has stood alongside us? I hope we will make it very clear that free trade between the United States and Canada is a British national interest.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Canada is a valued partner for the UK, including as a Commonwealth member state, and our shared ties are deep and historic, as noted by our respective Prime Ministers when they spoke on 5 February. Our trade relationship, which was worth more than £26 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3 in 2024, supports jobs and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. This is underpinned by our trade continuity agreement. These relationships are important and ongoing. We will continue these discussions and hope to further and deepen our ties with Canada in due course.
Theft of Mobile Telephones
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in addressing the theft of mobile telephones.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for this Government. The Home Secretary has brought together law enforcement agencies and the mobile phone industry to see what can be done to break the business model of mobile phone thieves, and the Government have included measures in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill. The Home Office will ensure that all parties work together so that technical innovations, policing and government efforts reduce this crime.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It appears that the resale value of a stolen mobile phone is in the order of £400, depending on the model stolen. Clearly, something is not working if that resale market is so great. First, can my noble friend indicate whether arrangements have been made with mobile phone operators and companies to ensure that, once a mobile phone is identified as stolen, not just the account but the phone itself can be locked, using the IMEI number? Secondly, what does he think the lessons are for other local authorities of the initiative taken by the Labour Westminster City Council, reversing the policy of its Conservative predecessors, of increasing by 100 the number of CCTV cameras monitoring central London, which it has just announced?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly congratulate Westminster City Council on its initiative on CCTV funding and the additional cameras in place. CCTV provides a deterrent and critical evidence in the event of criminal acts such as mobile phone theft. On the first point, when the Home Secretary met mobile phone companies recently, she charged them with reporting back on what measures can be taken. Phone companies such as Apple, Google and others are currently looking at what they can do to ensure that mobile phones are not used again and can be blocked, or that their parts are not compatible for the future. The key issue, which we are working with mobile phone companies on, is to determine whether phones that are broken up and used for parts are resold in the United Kingdom or, as is increasingly the case, are sold to a number of foreign countries, where they are used with impunity. We have set mobile phone companies the task of looking at how we can work together to tackle all those issues.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, a few Saturdays ago I took Lady Evans to theatreland. Between Shaftesbury Avenue and Leicester Square, she had her mobile phone stolen. We very quickly saw that she did not have her phone and managed to track it on an app called Find My iPhone. I tracked Lady Evans’s phone as it disappeared down Whitehall, through the Embankment, over Westminster Bridge and ended up at a premises in Brixton. We notified the police and were given a police incident report number. When we inquired about getting the phone back, they said—very much as the Minister just said—that it will be have probably been broken up and exported, and that the organised crime groups that take these mobile phones are very difficult to prosecute.
Can the Minister, notwithstanding Labour-run Westminster City Council, track these vehicles that go down over Westminster Bridge? It would be very easy to ascertain them. Would it also be possible to look into what the police are saying to members of the public, that this is very difficult to stop?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First, I am very extremely sorry for that incident. It is an awful, threatening crime that worries people, and which can also access personal data, so it needs to be reduced and stopped wherever possible. One of the measures that we have in the Crime and Policing Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons recently, ensures that police can take action quickly and speedily on the very point the noble Lord mentions.
At the moment, if a phone is tracked to a property, let us say, in south London, a warrant has to be issued for the police to enter that property. The proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that, on the authority of an inspector, the police can enter those premises immediately. So in the case that the noble Lord mentions of his own family, if that were reported, a crime number logged and the phone tracked to a property in Lambeth, the inspector in Lambeth could immediately authorise a police visit and potentially either recovery or arrest. I hope the Opposition will support that when it comes before this House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, mobile phone thefts are almost out of control and are taking up a huge amount of police resources, but these could be dramatically reduced if smartphones were fitted with advanced device locking technology. This technology—unlike kill-switch technology, which is used by some of the companies that the Minister has mentioned—is integrated at the operating level, resistant to factory resets and, crucially, is activated automatically without user setup, which is a major breakthrough. Will the Government consider mandating its implementation in all new smartphones?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very interesting suggestion. As I have already said, we are working with mobile phone companies to look at what is in the interests of preventing crime, while at the same time ensuring that users and consumers can use their phones in an appropriate way. I will look at that suggestion. We have a further meeting with the phone companies in around three months to report back on what action they have taken to date in relation to those issues, and we will certainly examine that for her.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is right, that design is the way to prevent the thing, once stolen, being valuable, so that there is therefore no point in stealing it. This morning, I was out with the excellent cycling enforcement team in the City of London, who were enforcing cycling legislation. More importantly, they told me about having recently arrested a mobile phone thief who had 24 phones with him. Given that the thieves are getting rid of them very quickly, either abroad or because they do not want to be caught with them, I wonder whether the statistics that show how many phones are getting stolen are accurate.
In the City, there are probably two phones stolen per day, according to the crime stats. This is one indication—but there are many—that the crime stats are not representative, because people are not reporting it, perhaps because they are not sure they are going to get a reaction from the cops, but sometimes because they just do not need to. However, how much of this crime is out there, and that we are not able to stop it, is a worry.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the first things that anybody who is a victim of crime should do is report that crime, because we cannot act unless we know the level of crime and the impact of it in the first place. That is important. The noble Lord is also right that designing out the potential for this activity in the building of resilient phones that cannot be used post crime is the best way forward. There have been innovations by a number of phone companies on that, but certainly there is more that can be done.
We want to help to support CCTV, and to take measures such as the incident warrant and on neighbourhood policing. In the long term, we will work with companies to ensure that we design out crime, and we will look at the market for broken-up, exported or resold phones in the United Kingdom. That intelligence-led policing will help to have a great impact on the current 146,000 thefts from a person last year, up 22%, of which mobile phone thefts were approximately half that figure.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Is there not a lesson to be learned from what the Israeli intelligence service did with pagers? I am not suggesting that we should do that, but the principle is most appropriate. I cannot understand why the companies producing mobiles are not prepared to move quickly so that when their owners lose them they can disable them. That will stop the stealers.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I note what my noble friend thinks about the Israeli example, but if that happened, it might mean that half of south London did not have access to a phone on any given day. The key thing is that I, and the Government, welcome innovation in mobile phone protection. The mobile phone companies are looking into that, and we have to work with them in tandem. The idea of a kill switch or a stop in any way, shape or form is certainly welcome, but it is in technology that that is developed. It is in everybody’s interests, including those of the mobile phone companies, to develop that technology speedily.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, we have heard a lot about technological solutions and issues after the theft, but is there not a more analogue issue about the prevention of theft? Of course it can happen to any of us, but what focus are the Government putting on messaging and communications, perhaps even in schools, about simple tips on how to avoid mobile phone theft where possible, by being more careful about when and where phones are used?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very salient point. I have heard this from my own family, who have said to me, “Don’t walk down the street in London with your phone out, Dad”. To be honest, I had never thought about that—but I do now. That level of public awareness is extremely important. But, actually, citizens should be able to walk down the street on their phone, so we need to tackle the perpetrators. That means people riding fast on a bike—CCTV can help with that —and it means tracking the phone when it has been stolen, in which the measures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, can help. It also means giving people proper penalties when they are caught—and in the first part of this year the Metropolitan Police has made 200 arrests and recovered 1,000 phones, by focusing on street-level policing, in which the extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are funding over the next three or four years will certainly assist.
Official Development Assistance
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion to the Cabinet. She has inherited her very own personal black hole in the finances along with the job, but we wish her well none the less—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will be on hand to advise. We support the Government’s decision, given the overwhelming importance of increasing the defence budget, but it will obviously require a very difficult exercise in the prioritisation of ODA programmes. Which ones will she cut?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will embark on a process. The Prime Minister very clearly told me that he wants a line-by-line analysis of our spend, most of which we inherited from the previous Government. We will look very closely at that and make sure that, on behalf of the British taxpayer, every pound we spend is spent as well as we possibly can. I emphasise again that it is our intention—because we are the Labour Party and we believe in international development—that, when we can, we will increase the spending back up to 0.7%. We are committed to our international obligations, multilaterally and bilaterally. This is a task that I do not think any of us in government enter into light-heartedly or glibly; we take it incredibly seriously. As soon as we have made decisions, we will of course make announcements in the usual way.
Baroness Amos (Lab)
My Lords, this is a particularly challenging and difficult time for fragile countries, countries caught in conflict and some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her new role, can I ask: first, how will we protect the gains we have already made on poverty reduction across the world? Secondly, how will we protect what we have been able to do on the sustainability of some of the most fragile countries? Finally, how can we increase the impact of the money we spend through working through multilateral organisations?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. While this undoubtedly will be a difficult process and choices will need to be made, there is also an opportunity here to rethink how we approach international development and how we work more in partnership with other nations. We need to get away from some of the paternalism and the ways that may have been cutting edge in the 1990s; we need to have a fresh look now, and there is an opportunity to do that. She is also right to point to the successes and gains that have been made through the work that the United Kingdom has done over the years. We need to have a fresh conversation with the British public about why we do international development—what the point of it is and what the benefits are to the United Kingdom —and that is something that we have not put sufficient focus on in the recent past.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the Minister on what criteria are being employed to reduce development assistance. Which projects will be targeted? Can I also ask her whether existing commitments, especially to those smaller NGOs, will be honoured? Otherwise, so many of these smaller NGOs will simply cease working and may not be revived.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an important point. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were very clear with me that they wish to avoid cliff edges, which is why we will maintain the 0.5% that we currently have for the next financial year. We need to work closely with our partner countries and organisations and make sure that this is done in a responsible way that avoids some of the dramatic changes that have such a devastating impact, which we know can happen in these circumstances.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, while I fully support the increase in defence spending, I am afraid I deeply regret where the money has been found. I genuinely wish the noble Baroness well in what are going to be incredibly difficult decisions on deciding where to spend the remainder of the money. The Minister will know that, historically, women and girls have been disproportionately impacted by cuts. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that that is not the case this time? Will she also commit to carrying out and publishing an impact assessment in relation to women and girls?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I commend the noble Baroness for her own work and her track record of being a champion for women and girls globally and for the work she did as part of government—we should all thank her for that. Ordinarily, yes, we would conduct an impact assessment; that is part of making sure that we make sensible decisions and that we understand the impact of the choices that we make. She made that point very well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister. Will she agree with me that a key part of our national security and defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments for technical resilience against interference from both state and non-state actors? This is a large part of ODA funding, which the Government have now signalled will be cut by more than three-quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the Government indicated they were going to remove our technical and security support almost entirely for the very nations on which we rely for our national security?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is complete nonsense; we are not going to do that. When we talk about prioritisation, that is about making choices. The idea that the Government, who have just reallocated the money into defence, are then going to be blasé or relaxed about reducing spending that contributes towards our security is, frankly, ridiculous.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Amos, to make sure that every pound we spend is as effective as possible, particularly on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, would my noble friend the Minister consider setting up an advisory group consisting of non-governmental organisations and experts—such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and others—to advise on where the priority for spending should be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can assure my noble friend that I have not been short of advice in the last few days, but he makes a good point. We do not want to make these important decisions, which have such far-reaching consequences, in an office in Whitehall. That would be the wrong way to go about it. I do not know if an advisory group is the right or wrong way to do that, but it is important to think about how we make sure that people with expertise, experience and knowledge of how these decisions will impact operations on the ground are included, and that they are part of the decision-making process.
Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL]
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Socially Recruited.
Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.
Gaza: BBC Coverage
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is an incredibly serious matter. Public money may have ended up in the hands of supporters of a proscribed terrorist organisation. With the police and Ofcom both saying that they are willing to investigate this matter, and reports today that other broadcasters have used the same boy without making clear his parentage, would the Minister agree that a properly independent inquiry is needed and that the signatories to a letter urging the reinstatement of this contested programme—some of whom have been very well remunerated by the licence fee payer in the past—should not be heeded?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, it is right that the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I will not prejudge the outcome of the BBC’s investigation. As the noble Lord is aware, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government, but we expect it to continue to follow robust procedures to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the high standards the public and this Government rightly expect. The noble Lord will be aware of the letter that Ofcom sent the BBC, and the Secretary of State spoke to both the chair and the director-general of the BBC last week. She expects a clear response from them on a number of points.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I fully share the noble Lord’s criticism of the particular programme, but we should recognise that that in no way describes the BBC’s general coverage of Gaza. Speaking as a former journalist who covered a Middle East war, I was struck by the way BBC journalists strived for impartiality in all their reporting. As far as I can see, that is the same today.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
First, this incident is clearly very serious and, secondly, we expect that high standard of journalism. It is why the BBC has traditionally been a trusted source of news, both in this country and overseas. That is one of the reasons why this incident is so serious.
While we are talking about journalism in the context of Gaza, the House should also be aware that a considerable number of journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began. So there is a wider context as well, but, on the specifics, it is right that this issue be investigated.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was a journalist, but I worked for an independent production company and made documentaries for the BBC. One was about Osama bin Laden, and I was almost driven to a nervous breakdown by the scrutiny the BBC put the programme under, so I am surprised and saddened by what has occurred. The reputation of the BBC is central. However, picking up on what my noble friend Lord Fowler said, does the Minister not agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of those in Gaza, particularly the children? Therefore, it is essential that BBC coverage continues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The unfortunate matter at stake here is that the whole issue of shining a light has been muddied by really unacceptable failures in this instance. Clearly, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information. The voices of people affected in war zones are particularly powerful, but the public really have a right to be able to trust that BBC content is accurate. In this instance, there have been questions over governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough in the first place and whether the oversight has been sufficient.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, as with every major organisation, people working for the BBC make mistakes, and mistakes must be exposed when they happen, and the lessons learned. But does the Minister agree that the reason why the BBC, as she mentioned already, is the single most respected news organisation in the whole world, from Scunthorpe to Sudan, is that almost everyone who works for it is wholly committed and is doing their best to be fair, accurate and impartial?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes the really important point that, when we get these incidents, it can be hugely demoralising for people who are working hard to get that accurate, impartial information. There are two issues. We have to make sure that we understand exactly what went wrong, and the BBC is undertaking a thorough investigation into that. As I mentioned previously, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are very cognisant of the issues and want answers, as I know your Lordships’ House will. But that does not and should not detract, and we need to make sure that we find out the answers and move on, because that accuracy and impartial voice of the BBC in relation to news is critical, not least at this really uncertain time.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the very serious allegations of systemic anti-Semitism and bias, does the Minister agree with me that there is a need to look at the BBC’s complaints process? When I have had to use it in a Northern Ireland context, I have found it opaque, vague and overly complicated. Does she accept that there is a need to look at that?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The BBC’s complaints process, in the sense that it is BBC first, is intended to make sure that there is an element of independence from the parts of the organisation that are being investigated. Clearly, if Ofcom has concerns after that happens, that would be looked at. I think the process was set out at the point of the last charter review, and we do not have immediate plans to change that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I understand that one of the particular worries was to do with the way certain phrases were translated, and therefore may have unwittingly biased people or been misleading. Will the BBC publish the principles and guidelines that are used for translation in these difficult situations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate highlights the point that the Secretary of State herself has asked for clarity on: the BBC policy on translations and how a decision over translation of a particular word or phrase might be made. It is one of many questions we in this House and the public need clear answers on. We are clear that no stone should be left unturned by the BBC, or in its response to those who scrutinise its work.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lord Katz next, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am a long-term supporter of the BBC and the impartiality of its news output. While it pains me to agree with the BBC chair, Samir Shah, who just this morning in a Select Committee of the other place called the latest controversy over this documentary a dagger to the heart of BBC impartiality, sadly, noble Lords will understand—and I am sure my noble friend would agree—that this is not the BBC’s first misstep in this area as far as the Jewish community perceives it, especially since 7 October 2023. Does my noble friend agree with Mr Shah and me that a proper independent review of the corporation’s Middle East conflict coverage—not just this documentary but its wider coverage—is essential if it is to retain our confidence and, importantly, the confidence of the Jewish community in this country?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. I go back to the point about needing clarity on whether the issues in this instance, and wider issues, are a failure of governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough and rigorously enforced, or whether the oversight itself is an issue.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
I listened very carefully to the Select Committee discussion this morning with the BBC on the showing of the appalling documentary on Gaza. According to Tim Davie, apparently, the board is now very exercised—it appears to have taken it about 18 months to be exercised about anything. In August 2024, over 200 members of the film and television industry signed a letter calling for an investigation into problems of systemic anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC. This follows a series of editorial failures and the employment of individuals who have openly glorified terrorism, particularly since the 7 October attack. Given these deeply troubling happenings, will the Minister support an independent inquiry, as my noble friend on the Front Bench asked for, into anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I should like to be clear that there is absolutely no place for and should be no tolerance of anti-Semitism, whether in the BBC or elsewhere in society: it is a stain on our country. On the documentary, I think it right that in the first instance, the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I am not detracting from previous incidents the noble Baroness referred to, and when the Secretary of State says and I stand here saying that no stone should be left unturned, no stone should be left unturned in addressing this issue.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Bill be now read a third time.
Clause 1: Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions
Amendment 1
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
“(aa) a person providing a service who is regulated under section 47(1)(a) or 47(1)(b) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
In my speech on Report on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Barker, I expressed support for the amendment but flagged up that I had only recently been alerted to the possible glitch in it as it related to Scotland. Specifically, the difficulty stems from the fact that the term “domiciliary support service” is not defined in Scottish legislation, and therefore the provisions of the amendment would not apply to parallel services in Scotland. I flagged that up and that I might seek to address this at Third Reading.
I must confess that it was not easy to find wording that met the tidying-up criteria stipulated for Third Reading amendments. Some possible wording could well have extended the services in Scotland beyond those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I am very grateful to Rachel Cackett and Chris Small from the Coalition for Care and Support Providers in Scotland for their help in trying to address this issue and to the Public Bill Office, especially Donna Davidson, for assistance in framing an amendment which satisfied the tidying-up rule.
This is a modest amendment. It is intended to achieve consistency of treatment for certain care providers right across the United Kingdom. I hope my comments will commend themselves to my noble friend Lady Kramer, whose name is on the first amendment, and I hope the Minister can accept this tidying-up provision. I acknowledge that it would be without prejudice to how the Government intend to proceed in the other place with this clause as amended, but at least it would mean that it went to the other place with a degree of consistency across these islands.
Before I sit down, I apologise that, in my contribution on Report, I inadvertently said that CrossReach, the social care arm of the Church of Scotland, employed 16,000 people whereas it is 1,600. When I got my handwritten notes back from Hansard, I noted that I had actually written down the correct figure, so my error was either due to my handwriting or my eyesight. I have corrected that in the Official Report. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that I regard this amendment, although obviously achieving consistency with treatment in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as just another of the irresponsible measures we have seen from Opposition Benches. One will have noticed very clearly that there are no proposals whatever on how the expenditure should be funded. As a way of managing public expenditure, this is not the way to do it.
Public expenditure should be taken seriously as a means of deciding the structure, composition and scale of expenditure. Simply scattering money by proposing amendments such as this to the national insurance Bill is not a responsible way of going about this fiscal process.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it seems to have fallen to me to again follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and it falls to me to again disagree with his comments. I am delighted to support this amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, which I see as just being a fair and administrative tidying up to ensure that, in whatever state the Bill ends up as it goes through our House and the other place, it treats all services across the United Kingdom as fairly as possible.
I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would wish there to be a gaping hole in what applies to Scotland compared with what might apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Given that the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, was passed by your Lordships’ House with a majority of 130, the sentiment of this place is clear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has done a lot of background work to try to get the wording within the specifics of a Third Reading amendment. The Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 is not a simple and clear definition, but we are trying to ensure that support services are included in Scotland as well as England. Therefore, it is my great pleasure to support this amendment and I hope that the Government will ensure there is parity across the UK for the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has given. It is, obviously, quite important to bring the Scottish position into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
It also gives me an opportunity to make two points that I ask the Minister to bear in mind. The first is the extent to which the public services in Scotland are dependent on the third sector. They depend to a major extent on the work done by charities and other third sector organisations. There is, of course, an imbalance between the way in which public sectors react to the changes in the Bill and the third sector is left with very little support at the moment to enable it to do that. Perhaps the Minister might bear in mind, as time goes on, that it is necessary to keep an eye on the extent to which the Bill has that deleterious effect.
There are other ways—I know the Minister understands this—in which these bodies can be assisted. It may be, if the position is as people are saying and they will be so disadvantaged, that the Government might be able to support them in some way to enable them to continue to provide their vital support. In the end, the people who suffer are not those who provide the services but those for whom the services are provided, for which the public services in Scotland are not fully equipped.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.
I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.
When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to make a minor adjustment to the Bill to more accurately define care workers in Scotland. While the amendment does not change the fundamental principles or objectives of the Bill, it enhances the clarity and precision of the text. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have participated in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for accepting the spirit of the amendment to what was originally her and my noble friend Lady Barker’s amendment. I also thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has accepted the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has been very consistent; he said much the same last week. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made the point that, if the increase in national insurance contributions from bodies in the charitable sector should lead to diminution of services, it will be the people in receipt of the services who will suffer. That, in turn, could put a burden on government, possibly greater than the cost of being consistent with this amendment.
With that, and with thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I am pleased to move this amendment.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in October last year to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. The Government did, however, need to take some very difficult decisions, including some of the measures contained in this Bill. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability and enabling us to make significant additional investment in the NHS.
I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Specifically, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their constructive engagement and scrutiny.
While I acknowledge the commitment of your Lordships’ House to the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government have not found themselves in agreement with the amendments proposed. We believe that the Bill in its original form provides the right way in difficult circumstances of raising the revenue needed to repair the public finances and rebuild public services.
I thank my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Chandos for their supportive contributions and thank my officials who worked hard to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House, including Joe Oakes, Isabelle Urban, Alex Nevitte, Henry Lodge, Hannah Bewley and Will Smith. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I am sorry to disrupt the House, but it is common to use do now pass to say thank you and I certainly have thank yous to say.
I thank the House for passing a number of amendments that will substantially reduce the damage and harm being done by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, took the lead on small businesses, the Conservative Benches took the lead on charities and transport for special needs children, and my own party took the lead on community health and social care. Those are all exceedingly important and I hope the Government will take the issues very seriously. I do not think we have ever heard better debates, frankly, than those in this House that talked about real-life experience to convey the significance of the impact of the original Bill.
I thank the Minister. He and his team were unable to give us any concessions but they said no in the nicest of ways. I thank all the other Benches. We worked closely together—Cross Benches, Conservatives and our party—because we all felt in an almost non-political way that it was really necessary to try to come to the rescue of the damage that we could see was going to occur.
There is one amendment that I did not mention and which I think is important because it may survive some of this process and that is from the Conservatives on an impact assessment. That is becoming a recognised vehicle for important assessment of Bills such as this and has historically not been adequate. Perhaps we could now change that for the future.
Lastly, I thank my own Benches. I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Scriven and the others who led on various areas within this. I also thank Elizabeth Plummer of our Whips’ Office who did so much of the heavy lifting. She will have my eternal thanks. It is so good to have somebody covering one’s back when trying to deal with complex issues. I thank the House in general for taking this issue so seriously and recognising its significance to so many people.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I too have some thanks to give. I thank all noble Lords from across the House who voted for my exemption amendment on the 45% reduction in Clause 2’s secondary threshold for all organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. I particularly thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I was delighted to have the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the majority of Cross-Benchers who were able to vote at that late hour.
I also thank the Public Bill Office for helping to draft an amendment that turned out to require five consequential amendments, the staff of the Whips’ Offices, and the Minister for at least listening and for his patient approach. I appreciate that he has a lot on his plate, but I hope that he and the Treasury appreciate that my amendment sits right behind their number one priority, which is to generate sustainable economic growth. That is why I tabled the amendment and I trust it will be given the full consideration and scrutiny it merits.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in concluding for the Opposition, I thank the many Peers on my Benches who have made valuable contributions during the Bill’s passage. I cannot thank them all today as the list is too long but I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Altrincham—my comrade in arms—and our opposition research team.
I also thank noble Lords from across the House, because this has been a cross-party effort, reflecting the widespread damage this Bill will cause. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for his amendments to protect small business, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her amendments on health and social care, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support across the board, including for the amendment calling for a review of the impact of the Bill.
I will say a couple of things. We have consistently heard that this is a job tax, plain and simple. It is the most important economic measure the Government have introduced so far, and it will have wide-reaching damaging impacts across the whole economy. It is being brought in on a tight timescale, creating a cliff edge on 6 April with no staggering for those who may be hurt. It has not been accompanied by an adequate impact note. It has led to businesses losing confidence in the Government, and that, I believe, is very bad for growth, of which I am very supportive. Despite the Minister’s protests, Peers from all Benches have agreed that the short document the Government call an impact note is an affront to the House, and that the Government have failed to provide sufficient sectoral information to allow for the effective scrutiny we try to bring. That is why we must have the review of the impact on affected sectors.
Despite the importance of these measures, the Government have made no effort to engage constructively. This House therefore voted to exempt small charities, transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities, early years providers and, as I have already said, small businesses and health and social care providers that provide public services in the private sector.
Of course we understand that taxes should be simple, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has explained, but when the Government fail to recognise the egregious impact this Bill will have on real people, we believe that some rethinking is necessary. Some of our changes would be modest in cost terms, but I know they would earn the thanks of many right across society.
I end by encouraging the noble Lord to use all his charms to persuade the Chancellor to think again.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their efforts on this Bill. I beg to move.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“Territorial seabed
After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—
“3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc
(1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of—
(a) any part of the territorial seabed, or
(b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed,
which forms part of the Crown Estate.
(2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void.
(3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.””
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 2, 2A and 3. It is a pleasure to present the amended Crown Estate Bill to your Lordships’ House following its passage through the other place. As noble Lords will recall, this Bill focuses on removing existing limitations that hamper the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest as a commercial business, ensuring it has a sustainable financial future for years to come. In doing so, the Bill supports the Crown Estate to build on its strong track record of creating long-term shared prosperity for the nation.
Two main changes were made to this Bill in the other place. The first was the addition of a clause on the territorial seabed. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for bringing this important issue to the Government’s attention. As noble Lords may remember, this issue relates to the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of the seabed, given that it is a unique national asset.
As I noted on Report, the law on the seabed is complex. I committed to explore the matter further and, if required, bring forward a legislative provision to restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to permanently sell the seabed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support for proceeding in this way.
Clause 5, as inserted in the other place, delivers on this commitment and seeks to address the legitimate concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It puts special protections in place for the seabed by requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.
To be clear, this does not mean that the Crown Estate could never be permitted to dispose of seabed. It may be that national or local interests would be best served by such a sale—including, for example, by the sale to another part of the public sector to enable local infrastructure development—but any such sale could take place only with the agreement of Ministers, and it is right that they are the decision-makers on such sales.
This clause would not fetter the Crown Estate’s existing right to agree licences or leases in relation to the seabed that, by definition, do not represent a permanent disposal of the asset. The ability to agree long-term licences and leases for use of the seabed will continue to be an important feature for the Crown Estate to attract the significant investment needed for offshore clean energy developments. I believe this fulfils my commitments to your Lordships’ House and addresses the important points raised.
The second change made to the Bill in the other place was, I am afraid, the removal of Clause 5, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Report, which would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important issue during the passage of the Bill, and for our constructive engagement on the subject since. As I said on Report, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind his amendment, but I regret that the Government are still unable to support it. It remains the Government’s position that this amendment would duplicate protections that already exist in legislation or that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture.
As I also noted on Report, fisheries policy is the responsibility of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All fish farming in England is regulated to ensure it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, where the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter.
However, as this House has previously heard from my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on 12 September 2024, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red-list criteria, Atlantic salmon are now endangered in Great Britain and near threatened globally. To provide further reassurance to noble Lords, I have spoken to the Crown Estate and the Government are now prepared to go further. I can make two commitments to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, should he choose not to push his amendment to a vote.
First, on auditing standards, the noble Lord’s amendment on Report provided for Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. Today, I can say to the noble Lord that the Crown Estate will undertake an audit to ensure that all salmon farms leasing land on the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland comply with all relevant regulations on salmon farming in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The outcome of this audit would be set out in its 2024-25 annual report, which will be published in June. If this audit were to find that salmon farms are not complying with their legal obligations and regulatory requirements, the Crown Estate will ensure these practices are corrected. In extreme cases this may involve exercising forfeiture rights, in the event of non-compliance of covenants.
Secondly, the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is governed by the framework document. The Government will amend this document to ensure that the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms is considered at all times. The updated framework document will be amended to read: “The Crown Estate will continue to keep under review the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on its estate”. This amended framework document will be published on Royal Assent. I trust that these two commitments go some way to resolving the noble Lord’s concerns on this matter, and I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
In addition to these substantive amendments, a procedural amendment was made in the other place. In line with existing convention, every Bill that begins in your Lordships’ House that requires a money resolution in the other place has an additional clause added to it that indicates that nothing in the Bill shall impose any charge on public funds. Once the Bill has been considered by the other place and authorised by a money resolution, this redundant clause is then removed.
I reassure noble Lords that the removal of the privilege amendment does not alter the position I previously set out on borrowing controls. To be clear, the Crown Estate will be able to borrow only with the consent of the Treasury and in line with the parameters set out in the memorandum of understanding that I have previously made available in draft. This includes that borrowing is not to exceed more than 25% of a net debt to asset value ratio.
Pre-appointment scrutiny was another important issue raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. In Committee, I committed to work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that pre-appointment scrutiny applied to the role of chair of the Crown Estate. I take this opportunity to confirm that the role of chair has now been formally designated as a public appointment for which parliamentary pre-appointment scrutiny now applies. The Government announced on 23 December that their preferred candidate would face pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Committee in the other place. This hearing is set to take place on 19 March, with the committee’s report expected to follow shortly after. I am grateful for the opportunity to update your Lordships’ House on all these issues, and I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 2A. I made a speech yesterday about how important it was that this House got back to normal, listened to debates and responded in a constructive way. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for the generous way in which he has responded to the amendment. I certainly would not wish to press it, having had the assurances he has given, which are very much appreciated.
This is not the occasion to make a long speech on the dangers of fish farming, but I draw attention to a report produced in recent weeks by a charity called WildFish, on the uncomfortable reality of farmed salmon. Rather than going through the content of it, I will email it to a number of colleagues who may be interested to read it. It really is quite shocking to see the damage that has been done to wild fish and the food we eat in prodigious quantities, in the form of smoked salmon and other salmon products.
I was grateful to the Minister for underlining the fact that, with wild salmon, we are dealing with an endangered species, one that is essential to the life of the river as a whole and that is an indicator of the quality of our rivers. Freshwater mussels, for example, are unable to breed because they are carried in the gills of wild salmon. This is an important part of the ecology of our rivers.
This was not given much consideration in the other place: there were about two paragraphs on something that is utterly vital to the health and well-being of our people, as well as of the Atlantic salmon, that wonderful fish. But I very much welcome what the Minister said. I hope that the Crown Estate commissioners in England will be able to lean on their colleagues north of the border and suggest to them that they might follow the excellent advice given today by the Minister. I have been puzzling about why the Minister has been so helpful and so accommodating but unable to accept this amendment. I have a feeling that somebody got on the phone from Edinburgh and talked to somebody in the Government—but I have no evidence to support that. I hope that somebody in the Crown Estate commissions south of the border will get on the phone to somebody in Edinburgh.
Some people have said, “Surely this is just about Scotland, because most of the fish farms are in Scotland”. I just point out that the salmon from English rivers have to make their way up north past these salmon farms, which infect those fish with disease and lice as a result of the way in which they are managed. This is killing and removing that beautiful wild Atlantic salmon, which used to be plentiful in English rivers as well as in Scotland.
Without taking more of the House’s time, I am most grateful to the Minister and I hope that the initiatives he has taken will help to prolong the wild Atlantic salmon for years to come.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment with regard to the salmon and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the stand that he has made and the excellent contributions he made at earlier stages on the Bill.
I too welcome the steps that the Minister is taking, but can he explain how the mechanics would work in relation to Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved—but also in Wales, where we still have salmon, mercifully, though in small quantities, in rivers such as the Dyfi? In Wales there is always a danger of the salmon suffering, though not as great a danger as there is in relation to fish farms in Scotland. How will the mechanics work with regard to the devolved responsibilities for wildlife and waterways but the non-devolved responsibilities when it comes to the Crown Estate? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that—but otherwise I certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question on this. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He pursued this amendment with great vigour, and we have some form of concession from the Government. Is there going to be a reporting back mechanism in place? How do we review it in maybe two or three years?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we always supported the amendment on the territorial seabed when it was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, on Report. We did not feel that it was particularly likely to happen but, in a belt-and-braces approach, as the Crown Estate gets more powers to invest in offshore wind and develops, we always felt that it was sensible to have this measure in the Bill. The Minister in this place was clear that the amendment would probably need more time and consideration, particularly with the complexities of the law surrounding these matters. I thank the Minister that giving it more time has resulted in an amendment in the other place. We welcome that amendment and think that it is useful, as it provides security to our undersea assets.
We now have a situation in which the Crown Estate is unable to sell land without ministerial approval, but can the Minister confirm that we do not have a situation in which the Crown Estate could, for instance, do an indefinite lease that would not need ministerial approval? These are important matters. I do not think that is the situation, but I would be pleased if I could clarify that with the Minister.
Turning to Amendments 2 and 2A, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising these issues. We support him wholeheartedly on the need to protect wild salmon. These are important issues to raise. Our issue with the amendment was not what he sought to do—it was the vehicle of using this Bill, which was an inappropriate method for doing it. These are devolved matters, and there is only one salmon farm under the control of the Crown Estate. I wish him luck in continuing to fight for wild salmon.
It is good that the Government have listened and responded, and we welcome the two elements of that response. Adding standards and making sure that they are upheld and reported on is important. It is also important that those standards are written into the framework agreement—so we welcome that, and we think that it is a useful and constructive result of the dialogue that has taken place in this House.
On Amendment 3, I thank the Minister for his explanation. It may be just because I am the new boy here but I was very confused by it, and I am pleased with the explanation. Before I sit down, I also thank him for having listened to the House on the importance of pre-appointment scrutiny. The fact that the Minister has taken that away and it is being enacted is welcomed on these Benches and, I am sure, across the House. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for how they have conducted the business.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his work on salmon, highlighted in Amendments 2 and 2A, and the Minister for the response he set out at the beginning of these proceedings. As we know, genetically modified escapees infect wild migratory fish with sea lice and disease and interbreed with wild populations. Worldwide, salmon farms have led to significant environmental damage and pose a real risk to other species. We increasingly see recognition of this. Various standards for fish farming have been introduced, and countries such as Australia and Denmark have banned the practice.
We support the sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or other fish species. However, that must not come at the expense of wild populations. We acknowledge that the Bill is relevant to only one existing salmon farm, and that the main problem is in Scotland, which is devolved. Given the comments of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether the audit envisaged by the Government will also be relevant to improving things in Scotland, which have been highlighted in our discussions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Forgive me if this point has already been made, but, on this idea that this is only about Scottish salmon, it is crucial that people understand that all the salmon migrate to the Arctic waters in the far-north North Sea. Therefore, English salmon are having to go past this environmental disaster in Scotland. It is very pertinent to England, and to suggest that there is only one salmon farm in these territorial waters is to miss the point about the most threatened example of the Atlantic salmon, which are those that come from English and Welsh rivers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I very much take my noble friend’s point. I was thinking, in clarification, that problems in Scotland would be addressed by the measure that the Minister has very helpfully brought forward today, so that this is looked at in the round wherever the salmon may be. I think that my noble friend and I are at one about this.
Government Amendment 1 seeks to restrict the permanent disposal of interest in the seabed. It would ensure that the commissioners may not dispose of the seabed without the consent of the Treasury. In Committee and on Report, noble Lords across the House, including, as has been said, my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Vere of Norbiton, raised concerns about the disposal of the Crown Estate’s assets and emphasised the duty of the commissioners to protect the seabed. As stewards of our seabed, the Crown Estate and its commissioners bear a profound and unique responsibility to ensure its protection. It is not merely an asset; it is actually the foundation of our oceans and a vital natural resource that supports marine life and holds cultural and ecological significance. In a spirit of compromise, we can accept the Government’s amendment and reformulation.
In conclusion, I warmly thank the Minister for his efforts to meet our concerns on the Bill. That includes what he has not mentioned, the important 25% cap on borrowing that will be in the framework document, and it includes the agreement on pre-appointment scrutiny. I thank all noble Lords across the House—it has been a cross-party effort—who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean again for his persistence in this matter, and success. Above all, I thank my predecessor and noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, and my noble friend Lord Roborough, for their work on the Bill.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for what he said and his agreement on the way forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, knows, the Crown Estate is devolved to Scotland, so the measures I have set out will not apply to Scotland and I cannot ensure that they will.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as the Crown Estate is not devolved to Wales, the audit that the Crown Estate will conduct will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that there is a salmon farm in Wales, so I do not know whether the audit will apply, but, clearly, all salmon farms on Crown Estate land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be looked at.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, the outcome of the audit will be set out in the Crown Estate’s annual report, which will be published in June, giving an opportunity for scrutiny. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in terms of the seabed, the Crown Estate is limited to 150-year leases.
I am glad that we have been able to agree to the changes made by the other place to this Bill. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill since last July.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:14 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 248 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
17:34 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to open this first group of amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today.
Although we do not wish to divide on Amendments 1 and 4, we have tabled them to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of the legislation. These amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, replace the vague phrase “from time to time” with the more precise
“not less than once a month”.
This change is more specific and tightens up some of the language in the Bill. If, say, a venue has 200 people once a year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the year, under this amendment that venue would not be covered.
The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA is given a clear benchmark by which it can measure venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity, and I hope the Minister will agree that it improves the quality of the legislation. I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Udny-Lister. I am sure that this will be a constructive and positive debate.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.
We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.
Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.
I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.
I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.
On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat.
While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues.
While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted.
The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.
I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes.
Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note:
“Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”—
the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only
“four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … Around half ... reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards ... Six in ten ... were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.
However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility.
Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I rise to ask for a clarification, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said that he proposes to divide the House unless he gets a satisfactory response from the Minister. What would be the combined effect of Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister? If the premises have 500 people in them at least once a month, would that mean that this is otiose and they do not need a security assessment? Or does the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, accept that, if there were 500, which is the limit, at any one time during the year—not at least once a month—mean that the security provisions would be required?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill.
I am drawn to the important reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we must not let the terrorists change the way we live our lives —I have said that myself on past occasions—so this is all about proportionality. I am drawn to his more subtle balance between 200 and 300 people, but I fear that, if we were to raise the threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group propose, it would take out many premises. We know that terrorists do not go for only very large events; they go for medium-sized events and buildings, as we have seen, sadly, with mosques and churches, not necessarily in this country but around the world. On the whole, the Bill as it has arrived to us is in the right shape, but there is considerable merit in the noble Lord’s proposal to have some flexibility in that 200 to 300 people range, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely welcome that the House is now in the mood of trying to build consensus on the Bill. Despite the occasionally scratchy discussions we had in Committee, it is clear that people are accepting the main principles of the Bill. What we are now talking about is the quantum and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. I am very conscious that the Bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises; it is about setting the tone with which all premises will respond and consider the threats they face.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued.
When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples.
The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate.
We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.
Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.
I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is
“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.
It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.
Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.
For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, back in his place at an early opportunity to continue these debates in future.
There are, in essence, three sets of amendments before us in this first group. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, look at stipulating that the threshold is met monthly rather than “from time to time”. There are other amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray, relating to the threshold and, at the end of the group, there are some small, technical government amendments that I will move in due course. I will speak to each in turn.
First, I will address the main point that was very well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned. The Bill is not about preventing terrorism. There are mechanisms for the Government to look at policing, intelligence-led activity and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill—a whole range of measures to prevent terrorism. This Bill, as has been mentioned, looks at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all that we can to put public protection measures in place.
I said this in Committee, but it is important to refer noble Lords again to the measures in Clause 5 on public protection. For the areas that we are looking at, they include
“evacuating individuals from the premises or event … moving individuals to a place on the premises … where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
All of those are good practice and potentially have no or limited cost.
Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to change how attendance is measured at premises by stipulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises at once within a fixed, regular time period. As I set out in Committee, the Government disagree with that principle—although I know and understand why it has been brought forward—because we want to make sure that, if we do that, the benchmark we are examining for the premises is consistent.
Changing “from time to time” to a standard of the number of individuals expected at a premises at least once a month, or any other form of benchmark, would alter the scope of the Bill. It would exclude many of the premises from qualifying, whether due to seasonal or irregular attendance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give us the percentage figure? If it is 4% for the 500 threshold, what is the figure for 300?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.
Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the percentage of premises is not the same as the percentage of audiences, and it is the audiences that we should really be concerned about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government have made a judgment on the 800 figure, which we have estimated is just over £5,000 in cost, but this figure of 800, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, would change to 1,000, is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley Stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues. A £5,000 cost for that, which is what we have estimated in the impact assessment, would be a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training for staff, because most of those arenas hold full-time staffed events. For the 200 to 800 threshold, again, we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. I think that 200 is a reasonable figure to assess on that.
However, we are going to disagree and, if we disagree and if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we will test the will of the House. That is what this place is about. I will see him in the Lobbies—reluctantly —if need be but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on the 200 figure to date.
Before I sit down, I must speak to government amendments 6 to 11, which make small technical amendments to the Bill and which follow reflection we have had at official level and ministerial level. The amendments further clarify how the Bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the Bill but simply increase certainty about the premises in scope of the Bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by relations and friends, or office parties attended by employees or customers, are deemed private events that are not attended by the public. The amendments make it clear, even more so than they did previously, that they should be out of scope.
I hope the noble Lord will not test the will of the House. But if he does, I urge my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join us to vote him down.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a relatively short but very good debate, and I thank my noble friends for their amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 3 address the threshold for qualifying premises. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment proposes raising the threshold from 200 to 500, while my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment strikes a balance by setting it at 300, with flexibility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases.
These amendments recognise the practical implications of compliance while ensuring that the duty to protect the public is both proportionate and effective. It is essential that this legislation targets venues most at risk while avoiding undue burdens on smaller establishments, and if my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would adjust the threshold for enhanced duty premises from 800 to 1,000. This refinement aligns with the broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately. Larger venues naturally pose greater security challenges. Amendment 5A, which similarly adjusts the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, also makes sense to me.
The cost of compliance for events will be large and thus slightly raising the threshold will allow for greater focus and precision in what the Bill intends to remedy. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
On Amendments 6 to 11, tabled by the Minister, I acknowledge the suggested improvements, replacing “invitations” with “tickets”, and substituting “other” with “similar”. These amendments means that the public protection procedures will apply only when members of the public are in attendance and not at private events such as weddings. I am supportive of these amendments and thank the Minister for tabling them.
In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, proportionality and practical application of the Bill. In the face of ever- present security threats, our legislation must be both robust and precise.
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 500.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I have not heard anything that makes me believe I should do anything other than divide the House on this matter.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(ca) the premises have a capacity of more than 300 people or, if smaller, the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at heightened risk of a terrorist threat, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to protect small businesses from disproportionately burdensome security requirements while maintaining adequate protection against terrorism threats.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In the light of the opinion expressed in the Division, I will not be moving Amendment 3.
Lord De Mauley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be an “enhanced duty premises” from 800 to 1000.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I prevail upon the patience of your Lordships, if I may, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 5A. These seek to increase the threshold for enhanced duty premises for qualifying events from 800 people to 1,000 people. The matter of thresholds was discussed at some length in Committee, but discussion focused, as it did a moment ago, on the lower threshold for qualifying premises in Clause 2—that is, 200 people.
My concern, which is similar to that which was expressed in Committee and earlier today by those proposing the relevant amendments, is analogous. However, the consequences for those organising small, ticketed, charitable events, with attendees exceeding 800 people, are considerably greater, because the costs of implementing the necessary measures to comply with the Bill’s requirements are that much larger. The Minister gave a suggestion as to what those would be in the debate earlier.
It became clear from the Minister’s response to amendments in Committee proposing to increase the lower threshold that there was little science behind the Government’s choice of 800 for the upper threshold. In fact, he admitted that the numbers are arbitrary, saying:
“Ultimately, we have to land on a figure, and the Government have determined that that figure should be 200”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 545.]
This is, of course, in the case of the lower threshold, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Government’s approach to the higher threshold is the same, and I have heard nothing today to change that view.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events.
I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff.
The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I respectfully point out that a threshold of 1,000 would catch events at the Wembley arena. His position on 800 will catch the event we discussed in Committee and that I talked to him about, which cannot possibly afford a figure of £5,000. It does not make £5,000.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the figure of £5,000 is an opportunity cost. It may well be that it is in time given by volunteers. There is no cash payment up front by any organisation to any outside organisation to provide that level of assurance.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
It is impossible to know the answer. I think the Minister knows that and I do. Let us not waste any more time. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that, in this case, the Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee calling for further constraints on the powers in Clauses 5, 6 and 32. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for pressing the Government in Committee on these matters. This issue was also raised by a number of other noble Lords, and I have certainly reflected upon it. As we know—particularly on this Bill—collaboration and cross-party consensus have underpinned much of the Bill’s development and progress, for which I have been grateful. In this spirit, having reflected on the points raised in Committee, the Government have tabled amendments to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has done me the great honour of signing the amendments, post my tabling those. He cannot be with us today for other reasons, but I know that the House will note that he has added his name to these amendments and has taken a constructive approach accordingly.
The government amendments are very clear. First, they consolidate in Clause 32 the powers previously found in Clauses 5 and 6, which would allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend public protection measures or procedures in the Bill. Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy, as well as the powers in Clause 32 to change the qualifying thresholds for the standard and enhanced tiers. These government amendments limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds, or to add new procedures or measures, to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection—I put that phraseology before the House.
Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted, or have their descriptions amended —only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not “necessary for public protection”. Necessity sets a higher bar than the previous drafting did, and how the regime is functioning and the nature of the threat from terrorism at the time will be among the factors most relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration, as will the availability of other means of public protection.
The House will know that the nature of terrorism is very often unpredictable, and methodologies may change over time. In tandem, so will the ways in which society can effectively respond. How certain businesses operate may also evolve over time, such as in the way that customers engage with them. The Government consider that this approach now strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Bill can be kept up to date, and providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.
Furthermore, government Amendment 28 will require the Secretary of State to formally consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in Clause 32. This includes the powers previously contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which are now consolidated under Clause 32. One of the main demands of a number of colleagues in the House was that we undertook further consultation. Consulting relevant stakeholders is now integral to the development of the Bill, and it has been the Government’s clear intention that this will continue. In the light of the points made in Committee when we debated these clauses, the Government are content to put that wider consultation in the Bill, which I hope assists noble Lords in their deliberation on these issues.
So the Government have listened, and I hope that helps. I hope to have the support of the House for the amendments we have tabled. I will obviously respond later, if the House will allow me, to any points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in respect of their amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move government Amendment 12.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.
We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements.
This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances.
The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection.
In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would
“consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”.
His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said:
“What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.]
Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about.
I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation.
Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with.
On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds.
The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, it is really gratifying to hear from the Minister at the start that the Government are listening, have listened and have acted accordingly. I really do welcome the reining in of Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on.
Some of the arguments that have already been made and which will be made in this group and others are about whether the Government are still considering the points about ensuring that the Bill does not have the unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout Committee, I was struck that the Government stressed that the Bill was not a one-size-fits-all measure, and they did not feel that that was appropriate. Earlier, the Minister made the point that there are exemptions for this Bill and that this House itself is not under the same requirements as other venues—and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship. That is appropriate, because we do not want it to be one size fits all.
I have put my name to Amendments 13 and 25, which respond positively to the ministerial commitment to flexibility and agility. As we have already heard, there is a constant theme and genuine worry about the unintended consequences of the Bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities by taking an unnecessary regulatory toll on events. As I have said, it can feel as though the discussions we have here are far removed from the material threats that society faces from terrorism. I appreciate what was said earlier: if the Bill passes, nobody is claiming that it will stop terrorism. None the less, we are constantly told that lives will be saved if we pass the Bill so there is a moral onus on us to pass it. However, we need to take a broader approach.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for another chance to address these amendments and support those brought forward by the Government. I am struggling a little with Amendments 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of the joy of their annual jubilee. Some of us thought that jubilees came round rather less frequently, but it is good that Buckley has them so often. I am not quite sure of the premises that would be covered by this legislation.
On Amendment 13, it would cost more in time, energy and effort to get an exemption for small premises than the fairly modest requirements for such premises would entail. It would not be much use for a small church hall to appeal for an exemption under Amendment 13. The risk for a large and wealthy organisation might be that they spend years in litigation and judicial review as to whether their premises should be exempt. I am not convinced.
As for Amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the terrorism threat is low or moderate, but I do not see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. We have to work on the basis that we will suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time. Given that the level is substantial one day and might be severe another, I would rather have the certainty of knowing what my premises had to do today and tomorrow and when planning an event in six weeks or 12 months, if it is a large event with a long lead-up time, rather than the rules changing depending on the terrorist threat having gone up or down a notch. Amendment 25 would create potential confusion, and I would rather that we kept things as simple as possible.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome the government amendments to Clause 32, in particular Amendment 28 on consultation, which we were very keen to see written into the Bill when we debated it at previous stages.
Amendment 13 starts from the point of view that the measures in the Bill are inappropriately burdensome, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 13 would be burdensome on applicants and the Secretary of State. It uses the words “demonstrated” and “materially”; these things all require some judgment and work. In particular, the Bill does not seek to
“materially reduce the threat of terrorism”,
as we have discussed. The public protection procedures in Clause 5 are more than a single measure.
As I understand the way that the Bill will work, with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the owner or operator and the SIA in assessing whether they are compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it will be a box-ticking exercise, at any rate to the extent that has been suggested. The process will get people to think—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox —when they are planning the procedures. I hope she will invite noble Lords to come and see the Buckley procession, but the problem there sounds to me more like a problem with local authority funding than anything which arises from this Bill. The words “flexibility” and “agility” really worry me; this will create a lot of work for people. So our main objection to Amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor, frankly, workable and we cannot support it if the noble Lord decides to divide.
Amendment 25 is on the national threat level. I do not want to say that it goes up and down like a yo-yo, because clearly it does not, but it does go up and down and so, again, I think it would be unworkable given the criterion. The right reverend Prelate used the word “confusion”, which was the first word I wrote down against this amendment. We know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty, so, again, we cannot support this amendment. I really cannot see how it could work because, when the national threat level changes, it happens quite immediately, so to change arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just cannot see how it could operate.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have said about Amendment 25. This needs consistency. The danger, as well as the fact that these things can change quite quickly, is that the SIA would struggle to respond to a potential wave of applications, when the certainty that people require is probably on whether they are safe in a venue and whether there is an invacuation plan or an evacuation plan. These things can be predictable and consistent, so it would not be helpful to tie them to the thresholds. These thresholds move predictably in the sense that we can see the threat rising and events happening, but sometimes they are based on intelligence that is not always open to the public, and therefore a rapid change could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the operation of premises. That is not wise, either, so I cannot support Amendment 25.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 25, both tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which introduce much-needed flexibility and proportionality into the Bill. They recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor desirable when it comes to public protection measures.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always grateful for amendments because they generate debate, which is what this House is about, and because they create an opportunity to test the provisions in the Bill. I have tried to listen and I have moved on the government amendments in this group, but I cannot support Amendments 13 and 25 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Let me explain why.
Amendment 13 proposes to allow those responsible for qualifying premises and events to apply for an exemption. All the way through the Bill, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have talked about reducing both bureaucracy and the ability to put pressure on. Applying for exemptions and setting up the bureaucracy to manage those exemptions would be a major task. I remind the House that the potential exemptions are from the issues in Clause 5, and I am not sure which of them the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wishes to remove. Is it the evacuating individuals from premises and events guidance? Is it the guidance on moving individuals to a place on the premises or at an event where there is less risk of physical harm? Is it preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises of an event and giving guidance on that? Is it providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event so that they can manage, in the event of a terrorist attack, the evacuation, invacuation or activity around that? I am not quite sure which of the public protection procedures in Clause 5 the noble Lord feels it is not appropriate to put in place.
I remind the House that, as set out in Clause 5, the sole objective of public protection procedures is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals present at premises or an event if an attack occurs. It is not about reducing the risk of an attack occurring; we will do that through many other means. Even with the public protection measures in Clause 6, the objectives are not to stop an attack or the threat that terrorism poses but to reduce vulnerability in the event of an attack.
Of those specific procedures—invacuation, lockdown, communication—which ones does the noble Lord think we should put to one side? I am genuinely interested, because I do not see the benefit of that. If premises number one in a high street applied for an exemption and premises number two—exactly the same type of premises—did not, this would create confusion and a patchwork. This does not achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to provide immediate responses in the event of an attack and to ensure that volunteers or paid staff understand what to do when that attack is occurring, as at London Bridge and the Manchester Arena. That is the important thing. We will issue and put in place guidance, and the SIA will be there to provide support and advice, but Clause 5 meets the objectives, and I therefore cannot support the amendment.
I cannot support Amendment 25 either, for the very sound reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I may be the only other person in this Chamber who has visited Buckley recently—it is five or six miles from where I live and is next door to my former constituency. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the problems with the Buckley jubilee parade. None of those problems relates to the legislation before the House. If there are challenges being put down by the local authority about the range of issues she mentioned, they are not because of this Bill; nor would the measures in Clause 5 incur additional expense of a significant nature to examine variations in the threat level and the provision of evacuating, invacuating, moving or information.
I respect both the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, but the revision of the threat level would add another tier to the things we are trying to encourage, which in Clauses 5 and 6 are good practice and information about what to do in the moment of an attack. The national threat levels may change, but the acts of terrorists remain unpredictable. Attacks may happen any time, anywhere. We have seen attacks at a number of smaller locations in recent years. Changes to the national threat level are not directly aligned with the objectives of the Bill.
As for the premises and events that will be in scope, as we have seen from the recent past, those threat levels may change quickly but the level of a potential attack is still present for any of the areas in scope of the Bill. To have the threat level determined by whether something is in scope would make it a very blunt instrument, which would potentially create the very confusion and bureaucracy that many noble Lords have been keen to avoid with the Bill.
The Government have listened on this group of amendments, including to the serious points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and we have made changes to the Henry VIII powers which I hope—and know—are welcome in this House. However, I cannot continue to listen to all representations. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 are that line for the Government—as was the case, dare I say, for the previous Government. In that case, I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Lord De Mauley
“Exemption from public protection procedures(1) The person responsible for qualifying premises or events may apply to the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, for exemption from one or all of the public protection procedures.(2) Exemption from the public protection procedures must be granted if the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the public protection procedures in question would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority to alleviate rules if the applicant can prove that the implementation of such procedures would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, but I go back to what I said earlier, which is to quote him, actually. He exhorted us to rely on the
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
wording. The problem with that is that the wording is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so there are wide variations in the possible interpretation of it. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the document prepared under this clause to be provided to the Security Industry Authority within six months of it being prepared.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
Amendment 15 seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to the SIA. It was debated in Committee and offers a small but practical improvement to the Bill. I hope that I can be brief.
The amendment would introduce a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared, rather than
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
It would help to ensure timely and structured reporting and to prevent unnecessary delays in the implementation of security measures. A six-month time limit would simply provide a definitive timescale and an end date, which would bring clarity and certainty and be a helpful addition.
I will also briefly introduce Amendments 18 and 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—without, of course, stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA. Amendment 18 seeks to establish an advisory board to support and guide its work, and Amendment 32 proposes an independent review panel to assess its performance. Both measures would help to ensure that the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope that the Minister accepts that all the amendments in this group seek to improve the quality of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for moving his amendment, and I welcome him to the Front Bench. This is the first time we have had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister, and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can, given the Government’s position and his own position on these issues.
Amendment 15 is important, as it looks at the question of the timeframe by which the compliance document must be submitted to the Security Industry Authority. As we have had previous debates on this issue, there are a number of points for me to make to the noble Lord. The document being provided to the Security Industry Authority will detail, among other things, the procedures and measures in place, under the provisions of the Bill, to comply with the Bill’s requirements. It is an important document, as it will enable the SIA to make any initial evaluation of the security approach at the premises or event in question, to engage with the person responsible and to assess compliance with the Bill’s requirements. As such, the document should be sent to the regulator at an early stage, as the noble Lord mentioned.
However, we have not stipulated in the Bill a single deadline for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events in scope, because the Bill applies to a wide variety of such premises and events, from long-established department stores to potential pop-up events. Some will require little change to their security approach, whereas others might need to make a substantive change, or, in the case of certain events, may have long or short lead-in times. The Government therefore determined that the document should be provided as soon as is reasonably practical.
If we accept the noble Lord’s amendment and have an imposed blanket deadline of six months, following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the SIA’s ability to monitor compliance and provide advice. It may result in out-of-date or inaccurate documents being provided. Depending on the circumstances, the SIA submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline, which is not necessarily the best way to do business. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from—he wants to give that certainty—but I cannot accept the amendment today.
We had an extensive discussion about Amendment 18 in Committee. I refer back to the two public consultations on this legislation, the engagement that both the previous Government and the current Government have had with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, and the work with relevant stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government. That was all about how we can put this legislation in place effectively.
In its current role, the SIA already works with industry, local authorities and civil society. Those working relationships will not end with Royal Assent; the Home Office will build on its existing work to ensure that the SIA is fit for purpose. As I have said before, Royal Assent is the start of a process, of potentially two years or more, of implementation. The amendment would place the burden of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and, for that reason, I cannot support it, although I again understand where the noble Lord is coming from.
On Amendment 32, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure that regulation is being delivered as the Home Office intends. The SIA produces annual reports, which will, following Royal Assent, both encompass its regulatory function and provide transparency.
The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members when required and will be held accountable, in this House and the other place, for those board members. The Secretary of State will make sure that there is significant expertise in the SIA to ensure effective regulation and organisational change, and that it will work closely with business. The Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA when necessary if they so wish. The Government will therefore be able to ensure that the legislation is being implemented as intended. I know that both the noble Lord and shadow Ministers in the House of Commons will question the SIA and hold it to account, and potentially have debates about the progress of this legislation.
If we were to have, as is proposed, an independent review panel, it would add an extra level of bureaucracy. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has robust powers and oversight to ensure that the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that, yet again, I reject the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and ask the House, if he presses them, to reject them accordingly. If the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, wishes me to give way, I certainly will.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. I will make a connected but slightly separate point. After Committee, the Minister very kindly wrote to me on the reviews, particularly the post-implementation reviews. A copy of the letter is in the House of Lords Library. For the benefit of noble Lords, he said:
“I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken”—
which is what we sought—
“and this will assess whether the legislation delivers the Government’s policy objectives … this will include analysis of the costs and impacts on qualifying premises and events … this will naturally include smaller businesses and community-run premises where they fall in scope. The Government’s intention is that the review will be conducted, at most, within five years of commencement … This will incorporate … microbusinesses and small community premises”.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the indication in his letter. Can he let us know, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government intend to publish the outcome of those reviews?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews. I give the noble Lord an assurance that this Government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of them taking place in the timescale he mentioned for the SIA. With that, I hope that he can respond positively and that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him—and, occasionally, against him—in future. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I do not intend to take Amendment 15 further. However, it remains my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved. I make it clear that I do not plan to press Amendment 15, so I respectfully beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Suttie
“Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures(1) The Secretary of State must take such steps as they consider appropriate to ensure that—(a) adequate accredited training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events,(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event,(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises,(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event, and(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I will also speak to Amendments 17 and 24A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendments 16 and 17 are, as we debated in Committee, about the importance of training and guidance and ensuring the quality of that training. It is worth repeating that all the organisations we have spoken to about this Bill have stressed the importance of ensuring good-quality training; it was the one issue they all raised with us. This is perhaps particularly true for smaller events and premises, which have not necessarily previously had experience of drawing up plans for what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. As we discussed previously during the passage of the Bill, many larger venues have already put such training in place.
In Committee, the Minister gave some reassurances about training, but we have retabled the amendments to push him a little further on these matters. The previous draft Bill from the previous Conservative Government had a much more prescriptive approach to training. This has been removed, but it is vital that guidance on training is produced as soon as is practically possible, following consultation with the sector.
In Committee there was much discussion about the risks of expensive consultants—“snake oil salesmen”, as noble Lords referred to them. The sooner guidance is published, the less able such consultants will be to promote unnecessary or “gold-plated” training. Consultation with the industry affected by the provisions of the Bill will be key.
This brings me on to Amendment 24A. Consultation with those to be impacted will be the very best way to ensure that training is user-friendly, of a high standard and comprehensive, but not unnecessarily complex, and that guidance is written in plain, easy-to-understand English. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us further reassurances—he has already given some this evening—on full consultation with the sector to be impacted, including with small rural village halls, and the voluntary sector, as well as with big venues and the night-time and creative industries. Will he also commit, following that consultation exercise, to publishing guidance on training as soon as possible, and certainly well before the end of the rollout period of the Bill, which I believe is going to be two years? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address this group of amendments, which touches on critical aspects of training, funding, economic impact and consultation within the framework of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Although I cannot support Amendments 16 and 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, I express my strong support for Amendments 30 and 34 and will speak to Amendment 31.
Amendments 16 and 17 propose requirements for training in public protection procedures and would ensure that training providers meet high and competent standards. The importance of proper training in counterterrorism preparedness is self-evident. However, there are practical considerations regarding how such training is implemented, who bears the cost and how providers are accredited. Although these amendments highlight an important issue, further clarity may be needed to ensure that they are applied in a way that is both effective and feasible for those affected.
I fully support Amendments 30, 31 and 34 as they introduce essential provisions to ensure that implementation of the Bill is both fair and practical. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, calls for additional funding for local authorities. This is absolutely necessary. Local authorities will play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the new security measures, yet they are already under considerable financial pressure. Without adequate funding, we risk imposing responsibilities on local government without the means to fulfil them effectively. Security cannot be done on a shoestring budget. If we are serious about protecting the public, we must ensure that local authorities have the resources to do so.
Amendment 31, in my name, seeks to review the impact of the Bill on the night-time economy. This is a crucial safeguard: bars, clubs and entertainment venues are vital to the economic and cultural life of our towns and cities. Although security is of course paramount, we must ensure that the measures imposed by this legislation do not have unintended negative consequences, leading to excessive costs, closures and job losses. A structured review would allow us to monitor these effects and make adjustments if necessary.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, proposes that businesses be properly consulted. This is a matter of both practicality and fairness. Businesses, particularly those in hospitality and events, will be directly affected by the Bill, and it is only right that they have a voice in shaping how its provisions are implemented. Engaging with businesses will not only improve compliance but will ensure that security measures are designed in a way that works for all stake- holders.
In conclusion, I urge the House to support Amendments 30, 31 and 34, which would provide essential financial support, ensure careful economic consideration and guarantee meaningful engagement for those most affected. A well-crafted security framework must not only protect the public but be practical, proportionate and sustainable.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the amendments before us today. I hope I can give some comfort on at least one of the amendments during the course of our discussion.
Training is extremely important. I have been supportive of the need to make sure that those who have to have a role in the legislation—and the premises and events within scope of the legislation—are given sufficient training and guidance, so they understand how to follow the procedures and measures in the event of an attack. Such training will be imperative to ensure that procedures and measures are adequately implemented and that the Bill’s public protection objectives are met. However, the Government assesses that a one-size-fits-all approach to training would be inappropriate, due to the different types and wide variety of premises and events that fall within scope. The most important factor is that the public protection procedures are effective and that they will be able to be carried out at any particular event.
We have tried to ensure that the public protection procedures are suitably in place and that the responsible person ensures that relevant workers, or volunteers, are adequately instructed as to how to carry out a procedure. The procedures in Clauses 5 and 6 are relatively straightforward. We have been through them in a number of stages, in Committee and on Report. I do not wish to repeat them today. They are designed to be simple and low cost. It is about putting in place appropriate procedures that could help protect people from harm and ensuring that staff or volunteers are properly trained in those procedures and how to follow them.
For the overwhelming majority of venues, this should not require specialist training. As I mentioned previously, free guidance will be available. Given that the procedures and measures will need to be tailored to the relevant premises, the content of any staff training will also be very much venue-specific. A generalised scheme for certifying training providers, as proposed in Amendment 17, is unlikely to be helpful in the circumstances. Premises and events should not have to pay for any specific training and the relevant legislation should be easily understood and put in place without detailed training. The Government will ensure that free, digestible guidance, advice and training will be provided. I hope that helps with the first set of amendments.
On Amendment 24A, in the name of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, much of the debate throughout the Bill has rightly focused on ensuring that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for, and ultimately implement, what is reasonably appropriate for them under the Bill. I put on the record today that the Government will publish guidance well in advance of commencement the new regime. The Government will determine the exact timescale for this in due course, ensuring that we strike the right balance between publication and making the guidance as robust as it can be through a period of proper consideration and engagement. I would expect that to last for a few months prior to implementation.
The Government are therefore happy—I hope this helps the noble Baroness—to support Amendment 24A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which will place a statutory duty to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under Clause 27. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we get the guidance right, by having a consultation, which will be well in advance of the implementation date and give an opportunity for colleagues across the sector to comment on the guidance that, potentially, is being published. I hope that is of further reassurance to the House.
Further amendments have been tabled. Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, was spoken to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we are mindful of cost. We have discussed the cost issue on several occasions. Because of the Bill, there will be pressures on local authorities. It is not the Government’s intention for the Bill to frustrate the vital work they undertake. Our intention is to keep the public safe. I would like to reassure the House that the requirements for appropriate procedures and measures to be in place, as far as is reasonably practical, are designed to ensure that the relevant factors, including costs, are considered. Throughout our debates, “reasonable”, “practical”, “relevant” and “considered” are words I have used from this Dispatch Box and wish to re-emphasise today.
As we have discussed on a number of amendments today, it is envisaged that the requirements will be simple and low cost. Those in the enhanced tier will tailor the procedures and measures they implement to their particular circumstances. This includes consideration of the resources available to them. As a result, I do not believe that the Government should be looking at financial assistance.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment 24A on consultation, as well as for putting on the record his clarifications and reassurances on training. We have all come a long way on these matters since we started debating the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I think we all agree that training and guidance are key elements of the Bill and that it is extremely important to avoid smaller organisations paying out unnecessary sums of money to receive training that is above and beyond what is helpful or necessary.
I accept the Minister’s reassurances in good faith, particularly on the timescale and his assurance that he will publish the guidance well in advance of implementation. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“(8) Where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time the Tribunal must—(a) consider ordering that the notice or variation (as the case may be) is of no effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn, and(b) notify the applicant of the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.
The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?
Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.
I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.
Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.
As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.
As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:
“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.
I could not have put it better myself.
In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.
It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions.
The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties.
Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.
Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill.
I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has just spoken to, for largely the same reasons that he does: we have many volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country.
In addition to what he says, I know in practice that it is very unusual for a charity trustee, for example, to be held personally liable for something unless they have behaved egregiously. In many cases, organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kinds of risks. But perception really matters here: the perception that one might end up going to prison, or be made personally liable, as a church warden or parish clerk, for excessively heavy fines compared with your own personal income.
Given the deterrent effect of that—when we find it so hard, and in an age when there are fewer volunteers, to keep the voluntary structures of this country running —if the noble Lord wishes to bring these matters to a Division, he will certainly have my support and, I hope, that of other Members of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page.
Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment.
On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum.
The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue.
With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.
The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments.
With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Murray.
I turn briefly to the amendments. My noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability. He made the point that volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings, often stepping forward to help in times of crisis. To penalise those who act voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counterproductive. If the Bill is to encourage a culture of shared responsibility for public protection, it must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort, and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with ill intent are held responsible.
On Amendment 19, respectfully, I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this creates an additional court process. The Bill already contains a mechanism in Clause 16(6) and (7) for rendering a notice as having no effect, and Amendment 19 would simply add another scenario to that. Taken together, I suggest these amendments improve the Bill and I urge the Government to accept them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the amendments. I will try to run through them and do them justice in as short order as I can.
On Amendment 19, first, I do not consider it necessary to require in the Bill that the tribunal consider suspending a notice where it has been unable to determine an appeal within a reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant tribunal procedures. The Bill makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice of variation should, in effect, be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal. The Bill gives the right of appeal to such a notice, which, while not automatic, allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeal’s determination. I hope that addresses the issues in Amendment 19.
Amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being within 28 days from the date of a penalty notice being issued. I reassure the House that the period of 28 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a is minimum period that the SIA may specify, and it may therefore specify any number of days post that 28-day period. I hope, on that basis, that the flexibility for the SIA on the 28-day period is acceptable.
I fully understand why we have had this debate on a number of occasions: we have been round this at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. It is because it is a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities, and I understand that there are concerns, which have been expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The Government are mindful of the pressures that voluntary and community-run organisations face. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures, and I understand, having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, where noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate are coming from. Again, I go back to the requirements of Clause 5. The requirements are there to achieve public protection outcomes; they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or, indeed, organisations.
As to the consultation, the Government have increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies. An estimated 13% of village halls and 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change to the threshold. We are trying to ensure that these are voluntary, simple measures that will require no specific expertise. I understand and accept that in some cases, that could put people off, but would it do so more than any other legislation? Health and safety legislation, for example, could put people off. This is meant to be a simple measure in Clause 5 that allows individuals to undertake, and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but does not discourage volunteering.
Turning to Amendments 21 and 22, under the Bill, penalties can only be issued for non-compliance with the requirement, and daily penalties can be issued only where a penalty notice for a contravention has been issued. Again, I would hope that, in the first instance, if there is any contravention, the SIA will be there to provide guidance, support and help for individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities, which, I reiterate, are relatively low under the provisions of Clause 5.
Turning to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are limited circumstances in the Bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement. That will happen and apply only to certain persons in control, and again, it is an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices only in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention, as it has been all the way through the Bill—and I reiterate that in respect of Amendment 26—that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought against an individual. I hope the House will accept those reassurances.
There are limited proposals in Clause 5. There are responsibilities for a responsible person, but they are not ones on which we do not seek guidance and advice from the SIA in the event of non-compliance. Prosecution would be the very last resort in any particular instance. That applies equally, as I mentioned, to other amendments, including Amendment 23. I hope those reassurances will allow noble Lords not to press the amendments.
The implementation period of, potentially, two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, and the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the last set of amendments—that any review of implementation would be published and open to scrutiny—will, I hope, give noble Lords the reassurances they sought in tabling the amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
Having been prematurely enthusiastic, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(7A) A voluntary unpaid office holder or unpaid trustee must not be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under this section, provided that they acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that financial penalties do not apply to volunteers serving in good faith.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Although I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, I at least take some heart from the fact that a review will be conducted and I am very grateful for the support expressed for these amendments by the right reverend Prelate. I have also been, frankly, disappointed by the approach from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who could have chosen this moment to make a real mark on this legislation to help volunteering. But with that, and the fact that there would appear to be little prospect of this amendment succeeding, I will not move Amendment 21.
Baroness Suttie
“(2A) Before publishing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ba) amendsection 5(3)(public protection procedures) so as to—(i) specify a further procedure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a procedure for the time being specified;(bb) amendsection 6(3)(public protection measures) so as to— (i) specify a further measure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a measure for the time being specified;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment moves to clause 32 of the Bill the powers left out of clauses 5 and 6 by my amendments to those clauses.
“(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before exercising the powers in clause 32 to amend Part 1 of the Bill.
“(2) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to lower a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(i), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(i),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that doing so is necessary for public protection.(3) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to increase a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(ii), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(ii),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary for public protection to retain the figure, procedure or measure (as the case may be) for the time being specified.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes conditions on the exercise of certain powers to amend Part 1 of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
Amendment 32A is a manuscript amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It is quite long, so I do not propose to read it out unless any noble Lord wishes that to be done. I invite the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Amendment 32A
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment was tabled as Amendment 43 at Committee stage.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move the manuscript amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will be quite brief and I do not intend to push it to a vote. My reason for bringing the amendment forward—it is a repeat of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, in Committee—is because it is fundamental to the aim of the Bill, which will become an Act. It is about the design of new premises.
One of the most strategic things that can happen is to ensure that premises are designed to mitigate the effects of a terrorist attack or, ideally, to prevent it altogether. To be fair, the Minister reassured us in Committee that some action would be taken. It is not that I was not reassured by the Minister, but I was not reassured by the Government’s response in two respects: first, when that change would happen and, secondly, the method by which the advice to planners would be effective. I thought the best way to change that might be in this Bill, not some future one.
It is so important that we design places to enable evacuation and invacuation, and to reduce the risk of a rampant gunman running around a building—all of which is entirely possible by design, particularly in new venues. I would not propose this for every venue but certainly for our major venues—perhaps the 1% of our venues that account for a very high percentage of the people who attend public events and, frankly, will be the priority targets for terrorists, as that is where they will achieve, in their warped view, the most impact by creating public outrage.
For those reasons, I would like to hear how the Government intend to implement this type of design change in a way that, I hope, can be more reassuring than I heard in Committee. This is nothing to do with the Minister but entirely to do with the Government’s response.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will speak, briefly, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not want to repeat everything I said previously, but it is important. I know the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate Bill, but the trouble is that there is never an appropriate one, and therefore we keep on missing the opportunities of starting to design out terrorism and crime from the very start. So I would hope that, after this, the Minister will at least take this on board with his colleagues and try to push hard for people to start thinking seriously about doing this for new developments, particularly larger ones.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are actually debating this or not, because I do not think the chair has put it to us. However, I will say in one sentence that both the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, have a point that this is an important provision. We should be building into planning legislation —into licensing legislation—arrangements to design out terrorism and, I would go further, to design out crime.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say in reply that that is something the Government will bring forward in another way, at another time.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The noble Lord has correctly picked up on my error. The matter is before the House and the amendment has been moved.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We on these Benches agree that this is an extremely important matter. Perhaps this is not the appropriate piece of legislation to put it in but, as we said in Committee, it is an extremely important measure that in the longer term will save both time and money.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, for raising this matter both in Committee and on Report. The amendment today is a late addition but it is welcome none the less, because it allows me to put on the record a couple of very key points.
I will not revisit the debate we had in Committee, but I did say then that the national policy framework for England and its equivalent in the devolved Governments already contains provision on the need to promote public safety and take account of wider security arrangements during the planning process. That requires local planning authorities to take information from the police and other agencies and to consider steps that could be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security.
There is also associated planning practice guidance providing greater detail. But I get the sense, and I understand where both noble Lords are coming from, that it is far better to design out that challenge in future new build than it is to put in place other measures downstream. As was mentioned in Committee, there is the National Protective Security Authority, and counterterrorism police will continue to serve as valuable advisers on these issues. But since Committee, and this is where I hope I can help both noble Lords, we have reflected on this as an important issue. My officials have discussed the matter further with their counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we want to consider how we can reinforce planning authorities with the existing arrangements and requirements to consider security and its importance as part of planning regimes.
It might be helpful for me to say very quickly that the Government are updating their National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, which provide guidance on the very issues that the noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned on safety and security in public spaces. The plan is that they will be published later in the spring.
The Government intend to consult on changes to the national planning policy guidance, to make it clearer and to introduce a more rules-based approach, in spring 2025. The consultations will specifically include policies for addressing security—the very points that both noble Lords have brought to the attention of the House in this amendment, and on which we had a full debate in Committee.
To conclude, I will say what the noble Lord said I would say, which is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for this legislation. That is what Ministers say occasionally at Dispatch Boxes and it is the right thing to do in this instance. But I hope the reassurance that I have given to both noble Lords, that this is on the Government’s agenda and that there will be a consultation that noble Lords can feed into, addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and by the two noble Lords who spoke on this matter in Committee and today. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank noble Lords for such a generous response to such a late amendment. I appreciate it, and I am reassured by what the Minister has said. I heard the timeline, and I can see why these things need to be considered carefully. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clauses 5 and 6.
Ukraine
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement on Ukraine made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:
“It is less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors. We see before us clearly the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.
It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security; because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.
The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, using our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of our country. That is why, last night, I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.
My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something that nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are, and always will be, indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that idea to be totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace that we all want to see in Ukraine.
I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for Article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.
I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
Then, on Sunday, I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.
It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the UK, France and our allies will now work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Secondly, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating its future—that is absolutely vital. Thirdly, we agreed that, in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourthly, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.
After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does require, urgently, a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe must do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.
I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. They have launched cyberattacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts on our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse, and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.
A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and, in its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The United Kingdom has long been a bastion of freedom and a steadfast defender of democracy. Ukraine has been fighting bravely and bitterly to maintain its sovereignty, its freedom and its democracy, for over three years. We salute its courage and its sacrifice, which has been immense in the face of the horrendous Russian aggression described by the Minister so eloquently. As I stated in your Lordships’ House last week, we on this side are fully committed to supporting the Government as they attempt now to forge a path towards peace.
This weekend reminded us of the influence of our nation. The welcome that President Zelensky received from His Majesty the King at Sandringham and the united front of European leaders convened by the Prime Minister demonstrated the best of British diplomacy. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative and wish him well in his push for a coalition of the willing, led by the United Kingdom and France, to produce a plan to end the fighting in Ukraine. It is at times like this, when our country comes together in unity, that it makes us all in this House proud to be British.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that we must not choose between either side of the Atlantic. The United States is our longest-standing and most important ally—as was said in the Statement—and that fact was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister’s visit to the White House last week. We are pleased that the Prime Minister and President Trump had such a successful and cordial meeting. This is important, and his continuing contacts with President Trump are equally important. I hope they will continue to demonstrate together the strength of the Anglo-American alliance.
The noble Baroness knows that we on these Benches support the uplift in defence spending announced last week and the difficult decisions associated with it. We welcome the further commitment to reach 3% in the next Parliament. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition said in the other place, we will support the Government in taking tough decisions where they are in the national interest. That is why we support the difficult decision—and it was difficult—to make the cut in the foreign aid budget to help bolster the defence budget.
In my response to the Statement in your Lordships’ House last week, I asked the noble Baroness a question to which she did not then respond—I understand, having been there, the exigencies and difficulties of those circumstances. Can she confirm that, if the deal to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius does indeed go ahead, no payments in connection with that deal will come out of the defence budget? The new money for defence will be beneficial only if every penny is invested in our Armed Forces. It would be an indefensible position for money to be cut from the aid budget and moved to the defence budget to then be simply funnelled into the deal and paid to Mauritius. Can I have her assurance that this will not happen in respect of the defence budget?
I join my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement of the use of the profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Yesterday, my right honourable friend asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty’s Government have any plans to use the frozen assets themselves. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said to the House on this subject. Is she able to give the House any further outlook on how the frozen assets themselves will in future be used?
We awoke this morning to the news that the United States is pausing its military aid to Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness update the House on this? Has the Prime Minister had discussions, or will he be having discussions, with President Trump in the light of this announcement?
I reiterate the positive overall response that my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition gave to the Prime Minister’s Statement in another place. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue channelling this constructive and inclusive spirit, and demonstrating the significance of British leadership on the world stage, as he navigates the long road to peace and faces what will be many difficult decisions ahead. He will have our full consideration and support.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated than over the past seven days. In that time, we have seen the brutal treatment of the Ukrainian President by the President of the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine, and the beginnings of a co-ordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation.
In all of this, the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role, and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the King to Trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued. It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome.
Nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine but undermines Europe’s assumption that the US would in all circumstances be a strong and dependable ally. Today’s comments by JD Vance, which disrespect UK forces and their contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just the latest evidence of an arrogance and an ignorance that are chilling.
The response which the Prime Minister is adopting—to try to broker a re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine—is to be strongly welcomed. But I think it is a mistake to believe, as the Statement does, that under this presidency our relationship with America, at least in terms of security, can be strengthened to any significant extent.
Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but also provides opportunities for the UK to regain a leading position in Europe and for our defence industries.
In the short term, we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast. But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed.
One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank, which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this?
Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships’ House is for the seizure of Russian assets—the capital, not just the interest. In yesterday’s questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at but that it was very difficult. At the moment, this proposal seems to be being taken only half-seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament would fast-track such a measure. Can the noble Baroness give us any indication of the timescale for further work on this proposal and whether the Government are prepared to legislate to implement it?
For the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, we have suggested that the Government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded. Do the Government have any plans to do this?
Every passing day demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step-change increase in responsibilities for our own defence. The Prime Minister clearly accepts this also, and he has our firm support in moving to achieve it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the role of the Prime Minister. I know that the pride in how the Prime Minister has acted has not been confined to this side of the House and I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have sought out me and my colleagues to make that point. It is when things are at their most challenging that we see the best in those who step up to take the action that is needed. Even when that can be very difficult, it is always better to make those attempts to make things work better than to walk away or, as the Prime Minister said, to take sides on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord True, made a similar comment and spoke of his pride in the Prime Minister and our Government. I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelensky on both Friday night and Saturday night. Both noble Lords are right that witnessing the—I do not know quite how to describe it—meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was uncomfortable for everyone. But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is: how do we mend this breach and how do we take things forward from here? I think that is the only response that a Prime Minister should have to something like that.
On the frozen assets, which both noble Lords raised, the Prime Minister spoke about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was, uncharacteristically, a bit churlish about it. It is very difficult: it is not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country; other countries have to be involved as well. Indeed, there have been discussions, as you would imagine, this week, but there is ongoing work on that that will continue at pace.
On the Chagos Islands, there is no deal at present. This would be brought to your Lordships’ House as a treaty in the normal way. There is nothing to comment on regarding finances for that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me to say something more about the pause. To be honest, this is so fast-moving at the moment—he will have seen President Zelensky’s statement that he made tonight, and we do not know yet if that has had an impact. We have not got any information about what that pause may engage and what it may mean at this stage. When we do, we will be happy to share that information, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, from when the Prime Minister made his Statement yesterday, I have been getting updates during the course of the day, because things are moving quite quickly, and I would not want to say anything that was wrong.
I thought the description from noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Prime Minister’s invitation from the King to the President as “cringeworthy” was not appropriate. The Prime Minister and the King have been very clear in their support for President Zelensky, and I thought the meeting of the King with President Zelensky was one everybody welcomed. The Prime Minister said yesterday—and I have spoken to him about this as well—that, when President Zelensky came to Downing Street, the spontaneous response from the public was quite emotional. Zelensky was very moved by it, but I think the Prime Minister was as well. It is an emotional time for President Zelensky; his country and his people have been through a lot. We have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion. It is challenging, but I think all efforts must be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about the rearmament bank. That was raised in the House of Commons yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s response then was very positive. It is one of the issues that the European leaders discussed, along with issues around what comes next. He is right: this is not the end of it; this is the start of it. It is going to be difficult. The idea that Europe has to step up and take a greater responsibility for our defence is something that everybody now recognises, and that is what we will continue to do.
I am not aware of any plans for cross-party discussions on government budgets at present, but we are aware of the impact and implications of this. We have been clear that we are seeking to move to 3% of GDP on defence spending in the next Parliament, and that commitment remains. At the moment, we are very determined that we give Ukraine all the support it needs. Key to that support is the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any deal on its future must involve Ukraine around the table.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has shown himself, by general acclaim, to be a superlative diplomat over the past few days, but he is dealing with a moving target. Since that Statement, we have had both the pause in the supply of military equipment from President Trump and the conciliatory response from President Zelensky. The lawyers will say that one’s intention is shown by the consequences of one’s actions. Clearly, one consequence of the pause of the supply of US matériel has been a major tilt in favour of Russia in the battlefield as Russia tries to gain more territory before an eventual ceasefire. Surely this cannot be the intention of President Trump.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure I got the last part of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Essentially, if the intention is shown by the natural consequences of one’s action then it is clear that the natural consequence of the pause is to give a major advantage on the battlefield to the Russians. Surely that cannot be the intention of President Trump.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would hesitate to guess what President Trump’s intention is. We have been clear that our support for Ukraine is unwavering, but we do not know yet what is involved in the pause, or indeed whether the pause will take place. We have seen the same reports, but if I get more information, I will be happy to come back. Whether President Zelensky’s response has had an impact, we are not yet sure.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Prime Minister for the stance that he has taken and the work he has been doing with European and other allies; this is extremely important. The proposal to bring together a plan for a just and lasting peace, which is acceptable to Ukraine and which denies Putin a victory, is essential work. However, as we have seen from the announcement by the White House about the pause in military support to Ukraine, that work is ever more urgent. Can the Minister reassure this House that the Government are redoubling their efforts with their allies to come forward with a proposal that can be put to the United States of America? Can she indicate whether the Prime Minister has received any suggestion or indication from the Trump White House that it is willing to consider seriously any proposal that comes forward?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: we have to redouble our efforts. President Macron and the Prime Minister in particular are working on a plan at some pace. I do not know the details of all the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Trump; I know they are frequent at present. At every stage, the Prime Minister has said that we will present this to President Trump and the American Administration, and we will urge them to support a plan. President Trump has made it clear that Europe has to stand up and that is what Europe is doing. Countries are working together. That is the start of a process and there will be further meetings of those European leaders represented there. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is very important that we get a plan and then take it to President Trump to seek to get agreement for that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I join in the praise of the Prime Minister’s performance in the last few days, which has drawn a great deal of admiration. It is clear that he is operating in very difficult circumstances, and one understands some of what he feels he has to say. Of course the transatlantic relationship is very important, not least in security, but the Prime Minister referred to President Trump’s “clear support” for Article 5 of NATO. Unfortunately, that is not something that many of us perceive. Can the Minister tell us whether the current circumstances are giving a real boost to the attempt to have a reset with the EU, including on security and defence co-operation? What news can she give us on that front, not just on the very welcome intergovernmental co-operation with our European allies but on us plugging into some of the EU defence-industrial co-operation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness’s description of the Prime Minister’s “performance” and of him feeling that he has to say things do not do justice to the gravity of the situation. It is not a performance; the Prime Minister holds strong views that we will work with our American allies, because the most important thing here is that we work with President Zelensky to seek peace. We want a stable and enduring peace, with Ukrainian sovereignty. Yes, the President did commit to Article 5 of NATO. and yes, one of the Government’s early commitments was defence and security co-operation with the EU.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and echo other comments in your Lordships’ House about the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in recent days. In Norfolk last week, I spent time with some of the brave Ukrainian men and women who are being trained, over a very short five-week period, by the Irish Guards and instructors from a range of international allies under Operation Interflex, learning the vital skills that they need to defend their nation in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. Will the Minister give assurances that this commitment to Operation Interflex and to train Ukrainian men and women remains absolutely ironclad and will continue for as long as it is needed?
Although support for the uplift of the defence budget has been shown on this Bench, we are disappointed that it has been achieved, after little debate, by taking from the overseas development budget. Building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will the Minister accept that, if and when we go further and spend 3% of GDP on defence, we will need to have a wider public conversation about how that will be funded?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that most people are not aware of the depth and breadth of the support for Ukraine. He made a powerful point on training and Interflex. The answer to his question is yes, that does continue and we are committed to it. I understand the disappointment around the cut to the ODA budget. It was a great disappointment to us as well; it was done with no pleasure or glee. The right reverend Prelate may be aware of the comments made by the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday that he wants to
“work with others … across the House … on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/25; col. 29.]
He has already met with the president of the World Bank to look at some of the options. We have a deeper commitment to returning to 0.7% as we are able to do so.
I think that the public are becoming more aware of the need for defence spending. It has been taken for granted for many years. We had the dividends of peace post the Cold War. The world is changing. We have to be part of that discussion and that awareness by doing our bit to explain to the public and engage with them on why this is necessary.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, on that very point, is it not the case, if we do increase defence expenditure substantially to replace the withdrawal of American expenditure to some extent and for other reasons, as it seems we have to, that this represents a totally different situation from that which existed last July, at the time of the general election? Is it not the case that pledges given not to increase taxation in those circumstances have less relevance today? Surely it would be fairer all the way around if the cost of defence expenditure fell on the broadest shoulders that can bear it, not on the poorest people of the world.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there are two points there. First, the strategic defence review is coming up, and we will have the response of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is not here at the moment. He has spoken already about the strategic defence review that he is leading, and the Government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor’s toes before the next Budget. The Government are taking all these issues into account to look at how we can best do this, but we have also had quite stagnant growth in this country for some time. Increasing the growth of our economy will be crucial to looking at how we fund all our commitments overseas and public services here.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I join the unanimous support that the House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has sought to do in the past few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not yet met with success—and it is clear, is it not, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to a Statement in the other place on this issue that the crisis has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this President. I quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot say that and why the Prime Minister cannot say that, but it is, sadly, the truth. Is it not clear that, given what has happened even in these last few days, however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget, greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated last week?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in commending the Government for their Statement and their actions in recent days. It is perhaps symbolic that Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support in the aid that we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that support from Ukraine is not just from all quarters of this House but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the Government that we want to see peace, and a just and lasting peace, but the Government are also right in saying that the best opportunity for that is through strength and deterrence. In the light of the pause in support from the United States, which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances can the noble Baroness give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing will be able to ensure that there is sufficient aid going to Ukraine and, vitally, that it flows quickly enough to ensure that a gap is not created that Putin’s regime can try to exploit, leaving Ukraine vulnerable?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right—and I do not want to say anything more about the pause at this stage, because we simply do not know enough, and we do not know the impact of President Zelensky’s response. But we are well aware of those challenges. I mentioned the strategic defence review, and a national armaments director will be in place soon to look at those issues as well. But the security of Ukraine is not just about aid to Ukraine; it is also about the security and protection of this country. We need to be aware of that at all times. If we ignore the security of Ukraine issues, we have seen on our own shores before—as we saw in Salisbury, for example—that Russian aggression is an issue for this country, not just for other countries overseas. So we will work with Ukraine.
The point was made, which I reiterate, that the Prime Minister has brought together the coalition of the willing across Europe. One thing that has been a problem in the past is that we tend to move as slowly as the most reluctant member, and the Prime Minister is saying that we have to lead from the front and ask, “Where are the willing?” So we have the coalition of the willing so that we do not delay in any way at all and do as much as we can as quickly as we can.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending £3 billion in military aid until 2030, but my plea is that we are smart in how we spend it: first, that we ensure that we use it to re-energise the land industrial base in the UK, which we have allowed to atrophy over many years; and, secondly, that we recognise that the nature of warfare has changed. Historically, in the land domain, the depth of the battlefield was 80 kilometres; it is now 800 kilometres, and capabilities need to change to adapt for that. Can we ensure that we use this money as a catalyst to develop our own capabilities so we can then use those capabilities to ensure that we meet the Chief of the General Staff’s aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army by 2027?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. It is the purpose of the strategic defence review to look at all those issues and bring them to government. There is also an issue around defence procurement and always ensuring that we get the best value. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry and I am well aware of the problems that have existed with procurement. By reviewing procurement and being informed by the strategic defence review, we will do our best to get these issues right.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I warmly welcome the tone of the Leader of the Opposition Benches tonight, and what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said. The Prime Minister’s measured public tone deserves applause; I join those who say that he is handling this crisis very well. The measured public tone entitles him to send private messages, and the bit of his statement that I most liked, I think, was that the Ukrainians must be at the table when their future is negotiated.
Thirty years ago, American peacekeepers negotiated at Dayton, very successfully, a solution to the Bosnian war. Richard Holbrooke was brilliant. All parties were there in Dayton, Ohio. We were there—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who is not here tonight, was there. The warring parties accepted US mediation: there was an understanding among them that the US and its allies would be there to enforce the deal and ensure that all parties respected it. That was what enabled parties to come to an agreement. It would be very good if the Prime Minister would encourage the President of the United States to maintain open channels of communication with Kyiv. That is rather important. We should not criticise the President for talking to Moscow. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. What he said to Moscow, of course, I do not know.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his experience of these issues; we would all do well to heed him. He is right: a peace negotiated without Ukraine at the table will not endure and be sustained. He is also right to refer to a security guarantee, which has been part of the issue in negotiations. The important thing is that everybody strives for peace. It is clear that there are different ways and different views on how that can be achieved. The two crucial points that the noble Lord mentioned—Ukraine at the table and a security guarantee—are the only way to have something that will endure.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on President Putin’s appetite for chaos. I assume that the Government believe that he should not be rewarded for that. I should like to ask the Leader two questions. First, there are other countries in the near neighbourhood of Russia which are very anxious because the UK has been a critical supporter in resilience to the interference of Russia, whether it is in Moldova or the Baltics. That has been under UK’s ODA. Can the Leader ensure that the UK’s ODA support, which is up to £500 million under the integrated security fund, will be protected from the cuts to ODA that are proposed to fund defence expenditure?
Secondly, on the assets that we are seeking to use the interest of, I am assuming that the Government believe that Russia and the Kremlin’s apparatchiks should not have that money back. In that case, we should be receiving, as my noble friend Lord Newby said, the capital interest, with the capital itself going towards funding the Ukrainian recovery.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. The security of the Baltics and Moldova is extremely important, which is why the Prime Minister has had long conversations with those countries recently. He has also spoken to them about how they can be better engaged and we can ensure that we have wider engagement when we talk about Europe as a whole. That will be very important. He has assured them in these conversations that we will look again at the configuration of meetings with those states and other allies to ensure that they are properly represented and their views can be heard, particularly because of their vulnerable position.
The noble Lord will understand that I will not make commitments on particular areas of ODA. My noble friend Lady Chapman talked today about how important the ongoing work is; it is not just a case of pulling the rug out from under people—there has to be a proper discussion and we must look at the impact. It will take some time to work this through carefully. I will draw his comments to her attention.
On Russian assets, we are using the interest now and there are ongoing discussions about that. If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is not through reluctance that it is not being done. It is being actively pursued.