Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
The emergency alert system is a vital tool for warning and informing in a case of a serious incident where there is a threat to life. This Government have used the tool five times, including the largest ever deployment for Storm Arwen. We are incorporating the lessons identified, including on improved targeting, into alert mechanisms.
Paulette Hamilton
A secret phone can be a lifeline for survivors of domestic abuse. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that when emergency alerts are sent, survivors of domestic abuse are not put in any additional danger?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The whole purpose of the emergency alert is to make people safer, so we are mindful of the potential risks to people with secret phones, such as victims of domestic abuse. We are continuing to work with domestic abuse charities and organisations that support victims to mitigate the risk, including by producing guidance on disabling emergency alerts.
Ms Minns
The threat of flooding is ever present in Carlisle, and although I and other local residents regularly receive flood alerts, they do not necessarily distinguish between a threat to life and a regular flood alert. Could the Minister please explain at what point flood alerts are updated to reflect the seriousness of an emergency alert?
Ms Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The Environment Agency is responsible for issuing flood warnings. For locations covered by severe flood warnings, the Environment Agency may ask for an emergency alert to be activated where there is an immediate threat to life, in order to support the response in the local area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. It is good that we have this system right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that all our constituents can respond to it. It has a very clear role. First, how quickly can there be a response to things such as domestic abuse, flood warnings or whatever? Secondly, my understanding is that councils have a role to play. If so, perhaps the Minister could remind us of their role.
Ms Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We work very closely with local authorities and local resilience forums when considering issuing an emergency alert, to ensure that the response is as adequate as possible.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government are working hard to improve the cyber resilience of the public sector, because cyber-attacks can be against central Government institutions, local authorities and, of course, individuals and businesses. With regard to local authorities, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has launched a cyber assessment framework for local government. It sets a clear cyber-security standard for the sector, and the Department also provides monthly cyber clinics to support local authorities in improving collaboration, sharing intelligence and tackling vulnerabilities in this area.
Ian Lavery
Local councils manage mountains of sensitive data, deliver essential services and lead on emergency responses to critical incidents, among much more, yet 15 years of Tory underfunding has left outdated digital infrastructure, leaving them particularly vulnerable to cyber-attack. Does the Minister agree that improving cyber resilience in local authorities is of paramount importance if we are to protect our citizens� data and continue to deliver essential services without interruption from hostile actors?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: not all the systems used across central or local government are as up to date as they should be. This is a constant battle and a constant challenge. It is really important that we put every effort into ensuring that we are as well protected as possible against hostile acts from both state and non-state actors.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has this week announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia. This incredibly concerning decision by the Americans threatens not only their cyber-security, but our own. The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. In 2020, the UK Parliament�s Intelligence and Security Committee stated that the Government had underestimated the response required to the Russian threat. Can the Minister tell us what further measures the Government are taking to protect British democracy, and will he commit to publishing the full, unredacted Russia report?
Pat McFadden
We are fully alive to the threat posed by Russian cyber-attacks. I mentioned in my previous answer the threat from state and non-state actors, and there is sometimes a threat from state-backed actors against our public infrastructure. We will work as hard as possible to protect our institutions against such attacks, and our intelligence co-operation with the United States remains a very important part of our defences.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government are taking action to strengthen our cyber-security and protect our digital economy. The Home Office has launched a public consultation on proposals to tackle ransomware�one of the most malicious types of attack�to protect UK businesses, improve reporting and strike a blow against those who use this model of organised crime. However, this is a major challenge, as I have said, and it is an ongoing battle against those who seek to us do harm, to extort money and to undermine the delivery of crucial public services.
Johanna Baxter
I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Last week I spoke to businesses and officials working on Ukraine�s critical national infrastructure, who are on the frontline of Russian cyber-attacks. They told me that, since the invasion, there have been cyber-attacks on virtually every aspect of Ukrainian life, and highlighted the scope of the damage they have done to civilian and military operations. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about how we are learning the lessons from this conflict and what we are doing to protect our own national infrastructure from Russian cyber-attacks?
Pat McFadden
The Government are helping Ukraine�s cyber-defenders to detect, disrupt and deter Russian cyber-attacks. The programme is back by �16 million of UK funding, using world-leading expertise from both the private and the public sectors to protect Ukraine�s critical national infrastructure. We understand that the protection of cyber-assets is part of modern warfare, and we are providing this help for Ukraine, just as we have supplied it with a large number of weapons over the past three years.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, is required as a Chinese company to have an in-house Chinese Communist party committee. We all know that attacks from China on our national infrastructure as well as on our cyber-networks are becoming increasingly common, and it is clear that elements of the Chinese Government are behind them. Yet, astonishingly, the Government are still failing to fully declare ministerial meetings with TikTok representatives. Will the Minister ensure that meetings with TikTok executives are declared by Government Ministers alongside other senior media executive registrations, given TikTok�s huge presence in the media space, the massive public influence it has and the known cyber-risks posed by this Chinese platform?
Pat McFadden
There is a well-established process for transparency about meetings between Government Ministers and outside organisations, and TikTok will be treated in the same way as anyone else.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 20 together�while the rest of the ministerial team go and have a cup of tea.
The wide-ranging interest in this topic shows just how much the �400 billion spent on procurement in the public sector matters for growth and for communities across the UK. I was recently in Grimsby, where small businesses are delivering local growth, innovating and providing more than half of local employment. MPs know that SMEs are vital for providing local employment in their communities. Under the previous Government, however, we became overly reliant on large consultants and a small number of big companies. We have too often ended up locked into expensive, poor performing contracts, with companies able to drive up prices in closed markets. That has to change. The new national procurement policy statement asks the public sector to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises, and the Government are leading the way by setting ambitious public targets for Departments on spending on SMEs.
Dave Robertson
I am glad that I am at the front of this particular queue, Mr Speaker.
Right across the country we have amazing, cutting-edge businesses, such as Great Wave AI, a start-up in my constituency that is already helping the Government to take advantage of AI. It wants to grow faster and do more work with Government Departments. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that small British start-ups can play their part in the AI revolution in government, not just mega companies such as Meta, Microsoft and Google?
Georgia Gould
We have been absolutely clear that there are huge opportunities for AI to support the public sector to better personalise services and save money, but we have to keep up with the speed of innovation in how we buy. I have heard from SMEs specialising in AI and digital transformation that the way we are doing procurement is too slow and too inflexible to keep up with that pace. That is why I am working with the Minister for AI and Digital Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), to set up a new digital commercial centre for excellence to make sure that that changes, and that we have the best innovation from my hon. Friend�s constituency and across the country in Government.
Sarah Owen
Last year, Luton airport invested �110 million in local businesses. It knows the value of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, in places like Luton. Every weekend, I do a small business Saturday shout-out. What can we do to ensure that small businesses in Luton get a fair crack of the whip when it comes to public sector procurement?
Georgia Gould
It is brilliant to hear about my hon. Friend�s leadership in supporting small businesses and the work they are doing in her constituency. We are absolutely determined that SMEs should have that fair crack. The new national procurement policy statement asks us to maximise spend with small businesses. It also sets stretching and transparent targets for each Department, which will be brought to the House. We will be held to account for delivering on them.
Euan Stainbank
The targets in the national procurement policy statement for Government Departments to buy from British SMEs are to be strongly welcomed. The benefit will be long term, with broad and essential sources of investment, and we will improve our economy�s domestic resilience. Bus manufacturing is an area that needs domestic resilience, with over 100 jobs recently lost in the Falkirk area because the previous Government failed to support British buses. At the bus expert panel next week, does the Minister expect a general increase in domestic procurement following the updated national procurement policy statement?
Georgia Gould
As soon as I saw my hon. Friend�s name on the Order Paper, I knew that he would mention buses, because he has never missed an opportunity to raise this critical issue with me. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting the UK�s domestic bus manufacturing industry and ensuring that the procurement system recognises the high standards and quality of UK manufacturers. The new national procurement policy statement aligns with our industrial strategy and pushes us to maximise spend with SMEs. As a result, contracting authorities across the country must now consider how their procurement strategies can support the industrial strategy, including the bus manufacturing strategy.
Jack Abbott
Recent figures show that hundreds of small businesses have been opening up across Ipswich, and I am proud that we are now ranked in the top 10 of areas in the country where the number of SMEs is growing. However, I am ambitious for my town and want to go further. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that, as part of our skills agenda, young people in towns such as Ipswich have the chance to find skilled, long-term, well-paid employment with SMEs, and, in doing so, boost public procurement and our local economy?
Georgia Gould
There is so much young talent in Ipswich and in communities across the country, but too many young people are struggling to get on to the employment ladder, and we know the scarring impact that that can have on their lives. We need to ensure that the �400 billion spent on public procurement means something in communities such as Ipswich. We are streamlining how we measure social and economic value so that there is a very clear ask that is linked to our missions, including the opportunity mission, to deliver jobs and skills to young people out of work. We are asking those who win Government contracts to advertise in local jobcentres so that people in Ipswich and communities across the UK can benefit from Government contracts.
Debbie Abrahams
In January it was reported that nearly 7,000 construction firms were on the brink of insolvency�that is on top of the 4,000 that folded last year. A major cause of this is payment delays by large contractors. Given that project bank accounts, which protect against payment delays, are used by only some Departments, will the Minister act where the previous Government failed to do so and introduce these accounts across all Departments?
Georgia Gould
I really welcome this question. It is so important to small businesses that they are paid on time�I have heard time and again that late payments threaten their very existence. The construction playbook states that project bank accounts
�should be used unless there are compelling reasons not to.�
We are determined to crack down on late payments. We have announced regular spot checks on prompt payments throughout our supply chains, and in the Budget the Chancellor said that the Government will be required to exclude suppliers from bidding for major contracts if they cannot demonstrate that they pay within an average of 45 days. I welcome my hon. Friend�s work on this matter, and I very much enjoyed meeting her to discuss it. I know that she has built a wide coalition, and I hope we can continue to work together on these important issues.
Jess Asato
Pathways Care Farm is an amazing charity in Lowestoft that supports people with disabilities, those with mental health issues and ex-offenders to get back on their feet by working with animals and growing food. The charity has excellent outcomes, particularly with helping people to get work-ready and improve their health, but it finds it hard to access opportunities for public contracts, such as social prescribing, because it is so small. Does the Minister agree that organisations in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors and charities such as Pathways have an important role to play in providing solutions for the public sector?
Georgia Gould
I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) took me to a similar farm in her constituency that had been set up by an ex-prison officer. I have to say that it was one of the most enjoyable visits I have had�it was great for my mental health to feed some alpacas and goats. I have heard powerful stories about how social prescribing has changed lives, from ending chronic loneliness to helping individuals such as a man I met recently, who had found his first stable home in his 50s.
The new NPPS specifically asks contracting authorities to maximise spend with voluntary sector organisations, and we will be introducing targets for Government on spend with voluntary sector organisations and social enterprises. The Government have listened to concerns from local authorities and are working to implement changes to allow them to reserve competitions for low-value contracts for local organisations.
Jo Platt
Last but not least, Mr Speaker. The mass grouping of these questions on this subject proves the failure of the previous Government to get a grip on this particular issue. Can the Minister reassure me, and SMEs such as WJ Structures and Rothwells Paper in my constituency, that this Government will take steps to simplify the process, thereby keeping the pound local instead of contracts going to multinationals?
Georgia Gould
I very much welcome these questions� I could happily speak about procurement all day, because it is absolutely critical for delivering the Government�s missions. The Procurement Act 2023 removes some of these challenges, but we need to do more. That is why we are setting ambitious and stretching targets for direct spend on SMEs and have asked officials to review our framework contracts, in particular, to ensure that they are more accessible to SMEs. The challenges raised by businesses in my hon. Friend�s constituency are the same as those I have heard described by SMEs across the country�our procurement is too complex and too slow, and it needs to change. We need to get that �400 billion into real jobs and SMEs in our communities.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I congratulate the Government Whips� Office�[Laughter.] What discussions have been had with the Crown Commercial Service regarding Romeo Mike 6277 network�RM6277?
Georgia Gould
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I look forward to spending another day with him in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill Committee later. I have regular discussions with the Crown Commercial Service on a range of issues.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that public sector procurement accounts for a third of all public sector spending, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that it is less siloed, more joined up, and as efficient as the private sector?
Georgia Gould
That is such an important question. We need to deliver value for money in how we do procurement. One change that we made in the new national procurement policy statement is ensuring that contracting authorities procure collaboratively, crack down on some of the excessive costs of private frameworks and ensure that they are transparent. We are using AI to streamline procurement, and have set up a new commercial innovation challenge at the heart of government to ensure buying supports innovation and growth.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Last month, I laid regulations, which, subject to parliamentary approval, will give the Infected Blood Compensation Authority the powers that it needs to pay compensation to all eligible people by all routes. My aim is for the regulations to be enforced by 31 March to enable IBCA to begin payments to all eligible groups this year.
Andrew Cooper
Last year, I was contacted by a constituent who tragically lost her husband to infected blood and I am continuing to support her. There is an understandable lack of trust between victims and the authorities after such a long wait for justice, and my constituent is concerned about the urgency in compensating affected families. When he spoke in the House last month, the Minister committed to producing an easy-read version of the regulations. Can he say when that is likely to be published and will he commit to full transparency on the progress of settling claims?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will publish a simplified version of the document explaining the infected blood compensation scheme by the end of the month. Transparency is vital. IBCA, although an independent body, is committed to being open with the community and publishes monthly figures showing progress on compensation claims.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Minister�s progress in this area. I visited IBCA on 30 January and was impressed by the professionalism of the team. Since then the Minister has made himself accessible so that I can give him feedback. One issue that has come up is the need for recipients of payments to sign non-disclosure agreements or terms. I am anxious that misunderstandings do not arise as a consequence of that. Can the Minister use his good offices to implore IBCA to explain why that happens? If IBCA cannot do that, perhaps he can explain to the House why such agreements might be necessary.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his work as Paymaster General. Indeed, I was pleased to facilitate his recent visit to IBCA and am grateful to him for the constructive approach that he continues to take. On the specific issue that he raises around the contracts that IBCA has entered into, I can say that I entirely agree with him about the need for transparency, and that is something that I am re-emphasising to IBCA.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Since entering government, we have reset working relations with the devolved Governments and I am now working to support those efforts. All three tiers of the intergovernmental structures are in operation. Several of the portfolio-level inter-ministerial groups have met, while the middle tier inter-ministerial Standing Committee and finance inter-ministerial Standing Committee both met last Thursday. The top-tier meeting between the Prime Minister and the Heads of the devolved Governments also met alongside the Council of the Nations and Regions in October. Of course those formal structures are not the sum total of our engagement, as we continue to collaborate closely on issues affecting citizens in all parts of the country.
Andrew Ranger
Although much of public service delivery is devolved, all four nations face a shared challenge of reforming these services in a tight fiscal environment. What can the nations learn from one another about reforming these services, and does the Minister agree that it is important that they do learn from one another?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend raises a key and important challenge. In every part of these islands, public services need both resources and reform given the Government�s inheritance back in July. The UK Health Secretary has set out ambitious plans to roll out new AI technologies, upgrade the NHS app and reform the healthcare system to bring down waiting lists. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met devolved Government Ministers to discuss public service reform, data sharing and harnessing work on public service reform across these islands.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
A closer, more co-operative relationship with the EU is in the UK�s national interests as it will grow the economy, boost living standards, protect our borders and keep the UK safe. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart Commissioner Maro� �ef?ovi?. The UK-EU leaders summit on 19 May will be an important opportunity to drive forward this agenda.
Peter Prinsley
Palmerston said that this country has no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interests which are eternal and perpetual. Does the Minister agree that it is in our eternal interests for there to be security in Europe and a sovereign Ukraine? Will he congratulate the Prime Minister on his statesmanship and leadership at this dangerous moment?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Prime Minister on the careful and considered leadership he is showing at a time when we face a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our country and our continent. We remain absolutely committed to securing a lasting peace in Ukraine. On 2 March, the Prime Minister hosted international leaders in London to discuss support for Ukraine. As he said,
�we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic�the past week has shown that that idea is totally unserious.��[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 25.]
We are stepping up on defence and security, and we know that Europe is stepping up, too.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last week, I was in Ukraine, where, following Trump�s betrayal, the need for European solidarity to defend our democracy has never been more evident. The unintended consequences of Brexit for our economy and our security are certainly very real. It is increasingly obvious that the UK cannot afford the luxury of splendid isolation. In the spirit of nothing being off the table, will the Minister�s Department start a discussion in government about the UK moving to customs union and single market membership? The closer and the quicker we align with our European partners, the safer we will all be.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I always thought the SNP�s policy was one of splendid isolation, but that is certainly not the UK Government�s policy. Indeed, we are working very closely with our European partners. That is precisely the leadership that the Prime Minister has been showing in the past week.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
We appear, regrettably, to be witnessing the start of a global trade war. Over the past week, the United States has placed tariffs on some of its major trading partners, and they have retaliated in kind. The President has said that he intends to place tariffs of 25% on EU goods soon. Should that happen, it is highly likely that the EU will respond.
Even if the United Kingdom were to avoid tariffs, the consequences for Northern Ireland could be particularly complex. What conversations has the Paymaster General had with his European counterparts to ensure that Northern Ireland is not caught in the crossfire of a trade war?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, we have a strong and proud tradition over centuries of free trade here in the United Kingdom, and we will continue to make the case for that. With regard to our specific trading relationship with the United States, the hon. Gentleman will have seen that, after conversations between the Prime Minister and the President in the Oval Office last Thursday, we wish to deepen our trading relationship with the United States. Specifically on Northern Ireland, I completely understand his point, and we will continue to monitor the impact of any such policy on Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Paymaster General for his response, but it sounds as though he has not yet had any conversations with his EU counterparts on the issue. I appreciate that he has a meeting on 19 May, but I am sure he will understand that tariffs may come much sooner than that. That being the case, will he undertake, first, to talk to his European counterparts and secondly, to come and give a statement to this House as soon as he has done so, so that we can understand that the Government are preparing for such an eventuality? Can he also make it clear to our friends in Europe that should trade and manufacturing be disrupted in Northern Ireland, we will not hesitate to use our powers under article 16 of the Windsor framework to protect businesses there?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the Windsor framework taskforce is based in the Cabinet Office and I regularly discuss issues on Northern Ireland with my European counterparts. I can assure him that I will speak to Maro� �ef?ovi? on a number of occasions prior to 19 May. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that reassurance. He should also be reassured that we will, of course, always act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Two weeks ago, I was glad to read reports in The Times that the Government intend to introduce a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU. That would be good for our economy, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. That is what the British public want, with new polling showing that more than two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme, but last week the Home Secretary ruled it out. Will the Minister do the right thing, remove the unnecessary barriers facing young people in the UK and commit to negotiations on an EU-UK youth mobility scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The position of the Government is unchanged; we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. We will, of course, always listen to sensible proposals from the EU, but they have to be within our red lines of no return to freedom of movement, no return to the single market and no return to the customs union.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress in delivering our plan for change. After years of rising NHS waiting lists under the Conservatives, those waiting lists are now falling and last month we announced that we had met our first step pledge to deliver 2 million additional NHS appointments seven months early. In addition to that, the first 750 breakfast clubs will open in April to help children get the best start to their learning day, and our new criminal justice legislation is being introduced to protect the public from crime and antisocial behaviour, including the introduction of respect orders targeted at known troublemakers in our local communities.
Mark Sewards
I thank the Minister for that answer. I was proud to vote for the �22.6 billion increase in NHS spending, which means that we are getting 2 million more appointments seven months early and that waiting lists are coming down. Of course, there is still a long way to go and the British public deserve to know that every penny of that extra investment is being spent as efficiently as possible. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government�s plans are to reform the NHS to ensure that every single penny is spent wisely?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the additional resources for the NHS were only made possible by the Budget proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor back in October. My hon. Friend is also right to say that as more money goes into the NHS, there is a duty to ensure that that is matched by reform. The 10-year health plan will set out how we will deliver an NHS by creating a reformed and modern health service to ensure that the extra investment results in faster and more convenient treatment for patients, because that is what we all want to see.
Perran Moon
Over the last 14 years, my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency has seen child poverty rise. A third of secondary school children are now persistently absent from school, educational attainment is below the national average and life expectancy has actually fallen. Those were 14 years of abject failure, for which my constituents will never forgive the Conservative party. Does the Minister agree that the true test of success of our plan for change and a decade of renewal should be measured in the positive changes to the lives of our poorest communities?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend puts it well. The missions that we have set out are focused on delivering long-term and ambitious outcomes that will make a meaningful difference to people�s lives. Specifically on the issue he raised on child poverty and the best start in life, the plan for change has a specific target to close the development gap between children who are starting school, and to ensure that more children are ready to start school and to learn and to give them the opportunities that education can bring. Our aim is that people from all backgrounds can benefit from those policies, and that is why the plan for change will make a real difference to people�s lives in all parts of the country.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The Cabinet Secretary may be asked by the Prime Minister to advise on any matter supporting the smooth running of government, including ministerial appointments. There is no written or published guidance on such matters.
Gregory Stafford
Since July, three Ministers have had to resign for everything from fraud through to unwise entanglements in foreign affairs. What steps will the Minister take to strengthen the ministerial code so that the public can have confidence in the Ministers that this Prime Minister appoints?
Georgia Gould
We have strengthened the ministerial code, but we do not need to take any advice from the Conservatives. What we have seen from this Prime Minister is decisive action to uphold ministerial standards. Compare that with the record of the previous Government where the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was found guilty of bullying but was allowed to keep her post; where the Government whipped their MPs to block the suspension of former Minister Owen Paterson, who broke lobbying rules; and where the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson lied about being told of allegations of sexual misconduct by his Deputy Chief Whip.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Despite the complacent response from the Minister, fewer than 250 days in, we have already had a Transport Secretary resign over her criminal record, an anti-corruption Minister resign over corruption, questions raised over the checks on the new Investment Minister, and at least three Cabinet Ministers accused of peddling dodgy CVs. The Prime Minister either cannot or will not say whether the necessary questions were not asked on appointment, whether relevant information was not disclosed on appointment, or whether he knew perfectly well about it but only took action when they were caught? Will the independent adviser conduct an urgent review of ministerial vetting?
Georgia Gould
The Prime Minister is determined to uphold high standards of conduct in public office, unlike the previous Government. That is why decisive action has been taken. This is a Government in the service of working people, and we will not hesitate to take action against any Minister who fails to meet those high standards.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
We are taking action to strengthen the UK�s resilience. Next month, the UK Resilience Academy will formally launch with the capacity to train over 4,000 people a year. Later this year, we will undertake a full national pandemic response exercise�the first of its kind in nearly a decade. Of course, resilience has to protect the most vulnerable, so we are mapping vulnerability around the country to ensure that in our resilience strategy we can protect people from all backgrounds and of all incomes.
Kevin Bonavia
The covid inquiry found that years of under-investment under the Conservatives meant that our health services were already struggling to cope even before covid struck, with waiting lists rising years before the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investing in our NHS and tackling the terrible delays that patients, including many of my constituents in Stevenage, experience in receiving treatment are vital to improving our country�s resilience?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point not just to specific resilience measures but the most fundamental thing for national resilience: the underlying strength of the country and its services. Nowhere is that more true that in the national health service. We are investing in the national health service and are already seeing the early results of that, with the first fall in NHS waiting lists for years. It is a good start; it is not enough, and we want to build on that progress to treat patients more quickly and, indeed, build our resilience in the process.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
The Government regularly evaluate the effectiveness of all communication channels, including social media, to ensure that they are delivering and providing value for money for taxpayers, and that Government messaging appears in appropriate environments.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Since Elon Musk purchased X three years ago, Departments have continued to spend money on subscriptions and ads on the site, and one Department has recorded a spend of more than �400,000 since 2022. Given the lack of adequate content moderation, and an increase in the peddling of conspiracy theories, misogyny and racism on the site, often actively encouraged by its owner, does the Minister think it right to review Government spending on X?
Ellie Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters. In 2023, the previous Government suspended paid advertising on X while reviewing alignment with our safe guidelines. That suspension remains in place. We continue to post content, without paid promotion, to communicate important Government information.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
It is an absolute priority to protect the UK�s democratic processes from foreign interference. The defending democracy taskforce has been set up to protect the democratic integrity of the UK from such interference. The Prime Minister recently reconfirmed its mandate, and the Security Minister chaired a meeting of the taskforce last week.
Wera Hobhouse
As well as addressing foreign interference, will the Minister update us on how we can protect our own election infrastructure to safeguard against misinformation, voter suppression and cyber-attacks?
Pat McFadden
We had some earlier exchanges about cyber-attacks. It is important that our democratic processes uphold their integrity and that people who take part in our elections exercise their choice freely and without external interference in the process. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that that happens.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since the last Cabinet Office questions, new procurement rules have come into force, which will help to deliver growth, drive value for money and, crucially, give small businesses greater access to the nearly �400 billion of Government procurement. They also include stronger new powers to exclude and debar suppliers on national security and performance grounds. We are also seeking out and reducing wasteful spending, including by using artificial intelligence to go through departmental spending line by line, because it is important that taxpayer funds are used for good public service outcomes. We are seeing the initial fruits of that in the first reduction in NHS waiting lists for years.
Sarah Dyke
Women in rural areas often face additional barriers to their engagement in politics, at both local government and national Government levels. The reasons can vary: they may be social, cultural, structural, institutional, or often a perceived lack of knowledge. As we celebrate International Women�s Day, what steps is the Minister taking to address those barriers and encourage women in rural areas to access and engage with politics?
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. She is absolutely right to highlight the barriers to politics that women in rural areas can face. We want more women in rural areas and around the country to be elected to local government and to Parliament. We should be proud that this House now has its highest ever number of elected women, including many outstanding women representing rural areas, but we know that there is much more we can do.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Ellie Reeves
I am delighted to hear about the falling waiting lists in my hon. Friend�s constituency. Waiting lists are indeed falling. Last month we announced that we had met our first step pledge to deliver 2 million additional NHS appointments seven months early. We are determined to keep up the pace of delivering our plan for change, for which the public voted.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Why are the Government scared of allowing the National Security Adviser to give evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy?
Pat McFadden
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be aware that accountability to Parliament is through Ministers. The Prime Minister is regularly accountable to Parliament, and I am very happy to appear before the Committee at any convenient time.
Alex Burghart
I am sure the Committee will be delighted to hear that. However, there is a precedent in this area: David Frost, now Lord Frost, was an adviser when he gave evidence to the Committee in May 2020. The Committee is unanimous: the new adviser must appear. The Government�s own Osmotherly rules say that Ministers should agree to a request for evidence from any
�named official, including special advisers�.
This Government promised greater transparency. Why are they breaking another promise?
Pat McFadden
Special advisers are appointed by the Minister whom they advise, and the line of accountability is through Ministers to Parliament. That is why the Prime Minister takes questions every week at this Dispatch Box. The National Security Adviser is an adviser to the Prime Minister, and as I said, I am also very happy�as are other Ministers, I imagine�to appear before the Committee at a convenient time.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The Government take the security of critical national infrastructure extremely seriously. The UK�s national technical authorities, including the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the UK National Authority for Counter-Eavesdropping, already provide expert guidance and best practice to owners and operators of UK critical national infrastructure, including on risk assessments and supply chains. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman has great experience in this area, and I respect his judgment very much. He will also have seen the world rapidly change before our eyes in recent weeks. The leadership task when the world is changing so fast is to understand the change, respond to it and explain it. I believe that in the decisions the Prime Minister has taken in this area in recent weeks he has fulfilled those obligations in full and in a way that this House is proud of.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I know how hard my hon. Friend works for his constituency, and I very much understand his concerns. My understanding is that there are no changes expected at the Smedley Hydro site in the first instance. The Government Property Agency is actively working with the Home Office and NHS Digital to understand the future workforce requirements, but I would welcome a conversation to discuss that further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is absolutely right: the people who are attacking us are trying constantly to probe our defences, and as I have said a few times in the past hour, this is therefore a constant challenge. It is a combination of hardware, software and good practice, and that applies to central Government, local government, public bodies and�crucially�businesses. It is a national effort to protect the business that we do and the processes that we take for granted every day.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this critical issue. The Employment Rights Bill will introduce new measures that will give staff and their chosen trade union a meaningful shot at gaining statutory recognition. I hope those provisions will ensure that GMB Union members across the country can have their voices heard in their workplaces.
Lincoln?Jopp?(Spelthorne) (Con)
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reading my speeches so closely, but what he has misunderstood is that the teams are on the ground, and the process is to learn every week. I am glad to report that I have already visited a couple of those areas, and good work is under way. The whole point is that this will develop, it will adapt, and perhaps it will be different from the record of the Conservative party, which saw a growth of 131,000 public officials over the last�
Mr Speaker
Order. I know we have mentioned Thursday and Friday, but I think we are on Sunday already.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The York Central development site is pivotal in driving forward York and North Yorkshire�s economy, and at the heart of that site will be a Government hub. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that that hub is not separate from the rest of the site, but integrated in the economic vision that we have for York?
Georgia Gould
It is critical that Government property and Government assets support economic growth in constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
To great fanfare the Government cancelled the previous Government�s contract for ministerial travel by helicopter, describing �40 million as �grossly wasteful�. We now learn that the Government have signed their own contract for ministerial helicopter travel, but it is a secret contract�so secret that we do not know how much it will cost. Will the Minister confirm whether it will cost more or less than �40 million?
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Local people across my constituency have said how much they value and welcome the vast investment that we have seen in our public services, from our NHS to our schools and beyond. Will the Minister please set out what steps are also being taken to reform our public services, working with other Cabinet colleagues?
Pat McFadden
As I have said a few times this morning, reform is important, particularly when the taxpayer is being asked to put in extra investment. That is true in schools as well as in the NHS, because we want to ensure that teachers can do what they want to do, which is teach children in the classroom. That is also why the best start in life is one of the targets in the Government�s plan for change, which was published in December.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
During their eight months in government, what assessment have the ministerial team made of the productivity of the civil service? What measures are they putting in place to improve it, and will the Minister report back to the House?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work that he did on public sector productivity. It was probably essential given that in the eight years between 2016 and 2024 the previous Government employed an extra 131,000 civil servants, so it is quite right that we look at the productivity for the extra employment sanctioned by the last Government.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the Minister have an appetite for a policy of like-for-like retaliation when a cyber-attack by a hostile state is confirmed?
Pat McFadden
I have both appetite and full faith in our excellent intelligence and security services, who protect us every day.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The best is always last.
What assessment has the Minister made of the volume of apprenticeships offered within the cyber-security industry, specifically in relation to digital software and hacking prevention online?
Pat McFadden
We want to see more apprenticeships. The numbers have come down, compared with where they should be. The area that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be a very good and fruitful one for people to learn more about and get the skills they need.
Speaker�s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to business questions I am sorry to have to pass on the sad news that a long-standing colleague, Peter Hipkins, passed away at the weekend after a short illness. Peter devoted 52 years of service to the House of Commons, latterly working in service delivery in the Palace, ensuring the papers were always delivered correctly and on time. He previously worked as an attendant in Norman Shaw North and 3 Dean�s Yard. During his working life, he was known and well thought of at all levels of Parliament, from the colleagues he worked with to the thousands of Members he ensured could go about their duties and all the public and visitors to Parliament. He will be missed.
Business of the House
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 10 March includes:
Monday 10 March�Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 11 March�Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill, day one.
Wednesday 12 March�Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill, day two.
Thursday 13 March�General debate on the future of farming, followed by a general debate on mental health support in educational settings. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 14 March�Private Members� Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 17 March will include:
Monday 17 March�Remaining stages of the Children�s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, day one.
Tuesday 18 March�Remaining stages of the Children�s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, day two.
Wednesday 19 March�Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, followed by Opposition day, first allotted day, second part: debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 20 March�General debate on knife crime among children and young people, followed by a general debate on coastal communities. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 21 March�The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, may I first associate myself very strongly with your kind remarks about Peter Hipkins and his service to this House?
We join all colleagues in celebration of International Women�s Day this Saturday. I am sure the whole House will also share my deep concern at the latest news in relation to Ukraine and will wish to send all of our best wishes to the Prime Minister and other European leaders in doing everything they can to support that country.
It is now three months or so since I became shadow Leader of the House, and I am sad to say that these joyous Thursday morning sessions seem to have fallen into a little bit of a rut. [Interruption.] �No, no!�, I hear you cry, �Business questions are still as fresh, lively and engaging as they ever were, if not more so,� but sadly I fear that is not true. It is our function on the�Opposition Benches to press public concerns and raise questions about the Government�indeed, as His Majesty�s loyal Opposition, it is not only our function, but our constitutional duty to do so. It is the Government�s job to respond to those questions and concerns and, in so doing, to make the case publicly for the policy choices and decisions they have made and to say whether they have an underlying strategy.
Unfortunately, as you will have noticed, Mr Speaker, the Government are not doing that in our sessions. In fact, the Leader of the House rarely, if ever, responds to the important public questions and concerns that I raise. Instead, I am sorry to say that we get the same endlessly reheated mishmash of standard party political lines, personal jibes and irrelevant comment.
Hon. Members will recall that I first raised this issue at business questions on 5 December, when I highlighted a series of occasions on which the Leader had been unwilling to answer or even address some obvious examples of Government economic incompetence. As I pointed out:
�Many different responses were open to her. She could have said, �I agree with you.�� �[Official Report, 5 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 458.]
She could have said, �The shadow Leader is wrong for the following reasons,� or even, �I don�t know.� If she did not want to respond at that time, she could have said, as so many other Ministers do, �I will look into it,� �I will reply to you,� or, �I will ask a colleague to investigate and respond�. We just heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say those things.
In fact, on none of those occasions did the Leader of the House bother to give any kind of proper answer at all. Instead, her approach was to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than to defend the record of her own Government�which is, after all, the whole point of these exchanges. More troubling still is that she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and that a failure to be accountable�is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct.
I wish I could report that anything has changed since December. If anything, however, I am afraid that matters have got worse. A recent low point was at business questions on 13 February, when I raised five important issues relating to the Government�s approach to the rule of law, including the potential clash between domestic and international law, the level of risk that the Government sought to take and their attitude towards judicial review. I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House did not bother to respond to any of those questions: instead, we had yet another series of irrelevant political attacks.
We need a better way to track and monitor those evasions, so, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I propose a new approach, which we can call �Leader�s bingo�. Colleagues get a point every time the Leader of the House blames the previous Government, attacks Members of the Opposition, changes the subject or uses the words �gently remind�, �take no lectures� or similar in her response. I would not for one second suggest that colleagues shout �Bingo!� in the Chamber, but there may be other ways in which they can indicate when they have filled their card.
That is a light-hearted suggestion, but it has a serious purpose. I know how strongly you, Mr Speaker, feel about the importance of parliamentary accountability, transparency and the proper scrutiny of Government decisions. I ask the Leader of the House again if she will reaffirm her commitment to those values and engage properly with the questions I ask in the future.
Lucy Powell
I join you, Mr Speaker, in passing on our condolences to the family of Peter Hipkins, who gave long service in this House.
I also wish peace and blessings to those observing Ramadan and those marking Lent. Today is also World Book Day, a day to celebrate our favourite books and authors�and, I have to say, every working parent�s worst nightmare, because of having to find a last-minute costume. I see that the shadow Leader of the House has come as his favourite author: himself. For those who have not read the thrilling historical novel, �The Winding Stair�, it is still available in all good bookshops. He can give me some royalties later.
Saturday marks International Women�s Day. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing us to come together in this Chamber and take a historic photograph to mark the most female MPs ever being elected to this House. It is a reminder that the gender pay gap in this country is still 13.1%, and women work for free on average seven weeks a year�although perhaps the shadow Leader of the House is working for free most of the time.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments on Ukraine. It has been really important to this country�s international role and in supporting the Prime Minister that the House of Commons has once again shown such unity, and such backing for Ukraine and for the Prime Minister�s leadership in recent weeks. As the shadow Leader of the House knows, we are focused on making sure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position to achieve long-term, lasting peace through strength. As we have done in recent weeks, we will make sure that the House is kept constantly updated on these matters.
That was kind of where it ended today, Mr Speaker. The shadow Leader of the House has again used his slot to ask me not a single question. He says that I have not given him any answers in any of the weeks that we have been standing at the Dispatch Box, but if he really wants me to tell him again today where he has gone wrong, I am happy to give him some advice. I am happy to tell him that yes, his Government did get many things wrong, and we are getting many things right. If the shadow Leader of the House wants to play business questions bingo, perhaps we can start by saying �Bingo!� every time he actually asks me a question, because we did not hear much of that today.
There are lots of people in the Chamber for business questions today, so I will not detain the House for much longer, but I notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask me about some of the really good things that the Government have been doing here at home, as well as abroad. As there are a lot of people here today, I remind the House that we have confirmed the first 750 schools that will receive free breakfast clubs, because we do not want any child to start school hungry. We are ending the 8 am scramble in our GP surgeries, with more appointments and better access. We have launched our fantastic commonhold White Paper, which is another step towards finally ending the feudal leasehold system, and we are dealing with the courts backlog that the shadow Leader of the House�s Government left us with�another shameful reminder of their shocking record on criminal justice. We have also announced our plan for neighbourhoods, with another �1.5 billion to help restore pride in our communities. That is on top of the additional amendments to our Employment Rights Bill.
Unlike the shadow Leader of the House�s vacuous contribution today, this Government are getting on with delivering for the country, whether at home or abroad.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Flooding has caused heartache for families and communities in my constituency. In order to be protected from extreme flooding, they desperately need Sheffield city council�s excellent proposals for the upper Don flood alleviation scheme, including work on the Clough Dike culvert and Whitley Brook improvements. Despite widespread local support and the importance of that scheme, the Conservatives never actually allocated funding to it. Will the Leader of the House allow time to debate flood alleviation schemes, to ensure that the appropriate funding is allocated in the forthcoming spending review?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the flood assets we inherited were in the poorest condition on record after many years of under-investment. That is why we are putting more money into flood assets and have launched the floods resilience taskforce. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept updated on how those things will affect her constituency.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
As the Leader of the House has already noted, today is World Book Day, and I would like to say a big thank you to Barnes Farm primary school in my constituency for inviting me in yesterday to open its brand new library. One in seven state primary schools in the UK do not have a dedicated library or reading space, and almost 1 million children in the UK do not have a book of their own. As such, it was wonderful to meet year 5 students and representatives of Barnes Farm student council, who were very enthusiastic about their new library. It is fantastic to know that those students will have access to such a facility for a long time to come.
At Prime Minister�s questions on 8 January, I raised the plight of community pharmacies. They are struggling to stay afloat due to the unfair terms of their NHS contracts, which often mean that they have to buy drugs that they dispense for more than the NHS reimburses them. The Prime Minister asked me to follow up with more details, which I did that afternoon. Despite chasing, I am yet to receive a reply from the Department of Health and Social Care, to which my inquiry was passed.
Community pharmacies cannot wait. The National Pharmacy Association projects that nearly 1,000 pharmacies will close by the end of 2027. There is no guaranteed funding for Pharmacy First beyond the end of this month. This is a critical issue that the Government need to address urgently. I know that the Leader of the House takes seriously the timeliness of replies from Ministers and Departments, so will she let the House know what further steps she is taking to ensure that issues such as protecting our vital community pharmacies are given the swift and full attention they deserve?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for raising these matters with me. First, I concur with what she says on World Book Day and school libraries. I am sure that, as Members of Parliament, we have opened a library in a school. I recently opened a library at a school in one of the poorest parts of my constituency, and the young children, many of whom were not even wearing proper footwear, were queuing outside to get their hands on their first book�it was such a fantastic achievement. I am sorry to hear that she has not had the responses and replies she has asked for from Ministers, and I do take these matters incredibly seriously. I will ensure that she does get a reply.
The hon. Member has raised the issue of community pharmacies with me on a number of occasions, and rightly so. They are a vital part of our national health service, and they have been left on their knees, with many closing in recent years. We are turning that around, because getting services back into communities via pharmacies and other means is critical to delivering our health mission. I will ensure she gets a reply.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
This is on flooding again, I am afraid. My constituency has suffered greatly from flooding in recent years. Our steep valleys and wide moorland catchments make us particularly vulnerable. I massively welcome the Government�s commitment to a record �2.65 billion of funding for flood defences. We have a number of key schemes in Rossendale and Darwen that urgently need that funding, and I am in communication with the Department about that. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on flood resilience and support for communities affected so badly by flooding?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituency on this and other matters. Flooding affects his area, as it does many others. As I have said, this Government are finally turning the oil tanker around when it comes to our flood resilience. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears his call today. We have had regular statements and debates on flooding, but I will ensure that we continue to have them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I thank you and your Deputies for facilitating the estimates day debates yesterday and allowing the maximum number of people to contribute. When we come to the full estimates�in May, we believe�if we can be advised of the dates so that we can do the processing of the applications, that would be appreciated.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, if we are given Thursday 27 March, there will be a debate on St Patrick�s day and Northern Irish affairs, followed by a debate on the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We now have a queue of debates for the Chamber that will last until the summer recess. We will be grateful for every Thursday and any time that can be given, particularly if the House is going to rise early on Government business.
In addition, the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 11 March will include a debate on the governance of English rugby union. On Thursday 13 March, there will be a debate on educational opportunities for young carers. On Tuesday 18 March�with your agreement, Mr Speaker�there will be a debate on free school meals. On Thursday 20 March, there will be a debate on British Sign Language Week and Government support for the tourism industry. On Tuesday 25 March, there will be a debate on the retrospective accountability of the construction industry. On Thursday 27 March, there will be a debate on the prevention of drugs deaths, followed by a debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh.
Yesterday, the External Affairs Minister from India, Shri Jaishankar, was attacked when he was leaving a public venue where he had been addressing an audience of Indian people in this country. He was attacked by Khalistani thugs. That is against the Geneva convention, and it appears that the police and the security forces failed to ensure that he was made safe. That is an affront to democracy, and an affront to our friends and allies in India. We need to make sure that does not happen again. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Home Secretary or an appropriate Minister makes a statement to the House about what protection we will have to ensure that visitors to this country are safe?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for organising the estimates days this week, and all the other debates. I am sure he will appreciate that I have been generous, much more than my predecessors on some occasions, in giving him notice both of estimates debates and of slots for Backbench Business. I have heard his plea today for as many of those as possible, and I will look kindly on it, as I have done previously.
I am very sorry to hear about what sounded like a serious attack on a visitor to this country from the Indian Parliament. That is unacceptable and not the way in which we want our visitors to be treated, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a full response from the Home Secretary.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
May I first wish the Leader of the House a happy International Women�s Day for Saturday?
My constituent Chris is among many people affected by the loan charge, which applies to �disguised remuneration� schemes. While everyone should pay their fair share of tax, many, like Chris, used these schemes in good faith when they were legal and now face retrospective penalties. The Government�s long-awaited review is a welcome step, but Chris and many others who have been affected feel that its scope is too limited. They believe that it fails to examine how we got here, its implementation, or those who promoted and mis-sold these schemes. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a full debate on the loan charge and its consequences?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this serious matter. I recognise the concern about the loan charge scheme, as do the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that there is a fair resolution for those affected. We do not believe it is right for them to face years of uncertainty, which is why, as my hon. Friend said, we have established an independent review. It is tightly focused so that we can get the report out before the summer, with a Government response, and I will ensure that the House is kept fully up to date on that.
Several hon. Members rose�
Mr Speaker
Order. Many Members are here for the International Women�s Day debate, so I expect to run business questions until about midday.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Budget turned the world, or at least the future of family farms, upside down. Ever since then, we have seen mounting evidence of the impact that the changes to inheritance tax, business property relief and agricultural property relief will have on family farms. That evidence has come from the industry, from industry experts and from tax experts. There is also mounting concern among Government Back Benchers about the impact that the changes will have on farmers in their constituencies up and down the country, and that concern is reflected on our own Benches. Given the impact on family farms and the future of food security in the country, will the Leader of the House please consider granting a debate in the Chamber on the family farm tax and what we can do to mitigate its impacts?
Lucy Powell
This Government back British farmers, which is why we have increased the farming budget to �5 billion over two years, much more than was provided by the last Government. We have set out a deal for farmers, and we are investing in flood defences and extending the seasonal workers scheme, as well as dealing with many other issues. We have already had a debate in Government time on farming, and I noted that the Opposition did not choose to make this matter the subject of one of their recent Opposition day debates, but they have another Opposition day coming up, and they could use it for this purpose.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I wish to raise a case that has been highlighted by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister).
In 2017, Jagtar Singh Johal, a British national from Dumbarton, was arrested in India just weeks after his wedding. He has been tortured, threatened to be burnt alive, and in arbitrary detention for seven years and four months. This week Jagtar was acquitted in the first case to come to court, as there was no credible evidence, and his lawyer has asked for all charges to be dropped because there is no new evidence. Many in the Sikh community, including my constituents, welcome this development, as well as the Government�s commitment to securing Jagtar�s release and return. Given the Prime Minister�s and the Foreign Secretary�s meetings in the last 48 hours with the Indian Foreign Minister, will the Leader of the House provide time for an update on what steps are being taken to bring this British national�one of our own�home?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, which I know is of great importance to many Members of this House. We recognise that it is a very difficult case. He will know that the Prime Minister has raised it with Prime Minister Modi, and Ministers continue to raise it on an ongoing basis, making it clear that we want to see faster progress and a full resolution to this case. As part of that, we must see a full and independent investigation into allegations of torture. I will ensure that my hon. Friend and the House are kept updated on this important case.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It has been drawn to my attention this week that there is a continuing problem in this country with a reserved matter: the supply of drugs. A 22-year-old constituent of mine, who is an elite athlete and unfortunately has inoperable brain tumours, came to me to say that drug inhibitors that would help him are currently on open access trial in this country. Unfortunately, the health board in my constituency is not taking part, so drugs that could save his life and allow him to continue with his ambitions are available, but he cannot access them. Would the Leader of the House either consider having a debate on how we make access to drugs on trial universal across the UK, or set up a meeting for me with the relevant Minister to discuss this issue?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Lady�s constituent, and I am very familiar with these issues. Unfortunately, my gorgeous cousin recently died of a brain tumour, and it is a terrible illness. It is something that I have personally spoken to the Health Secretary about. There are drugs that could be made more available, and there are trials. The Health Secretary is committed to doing that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has been campaigning on these issues for a number of years. I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I have received an email from my constituent that says:
�On April 1 last year I had a fall on Highgate Golf Course which resulted in a complex break of my right leg. Friends phoned for an ambulance but were told that an ambulance would not come for this type of emergency�On a cold spring day, I was left lying in an isolated spot on the wet ground, unable to move and in great pain, with very limited options about getting to hospital.�
Could we have a debate about the response of ambulances in such serious situations, so that my constituents do not have to go through something like that again?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of that case. Ambulance wait times, and the availability of ambulances, are still absolutely unacceptable. They are a symptom of an NHS that is still in crisis. Ambulances find themselves waiting outside A&Es with patients on board, unable to get them inside, which means that they are unable to go on to the next case. We are taking action, and I will ensure that the House is kept updated and that my hon. Friend�s case is looked into.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This week, I received a copy of the national priority infrastructure Bill from the �Looking for Growth� campaign. The campaign�s proposals rightly highlight the complexity in our energy and planning systems. We urgently need more nuclear power and data centres to drive forward the artificial intelligence and robotics revolution here in Britain, but with the highest industrial energy prices in Europe, we risk falling behind. Can we have a debate about how planning can best be reformed to provide reliable, affordable and abundant energy?
Lucy Powell
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are very important matters. We are speeding up our planning and infrastructure decision making so that we can get more nuclear, more data centres, and more onshore and offshore wind, and deliver the energy security that the country so desperately needs. I am sure that he will delight in reading the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, probably in a matter of days.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Zoe Dunklin, from Thrapston in my constituency, is a former Paralympian who represented our country on the global stage. Recently, the publicly funded Motability scheme refused her request for a six-way driver�s seat, which would have meant that she could use a car independently. Instead, the scheme only offered a vehicle that would force her to rely on carers to get her in and out, thereby preventing her from working and volunteering, and taking away her independence. She has even offered to pay the difference in price in order to get what she needs to live independently. Will the Leader of the House join me in fighting for the independence that Zoe and others deserve?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend highlights how important it is to give people independence and mobility so they can go about their lives and work as well. He will be aware that the Motability Foundation is an independent charity, but the Government continue to work with it to ensure that its policies are open and inclusive, as they should be.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
As the Green party representative on the cross-party commission on social care, I was deeply disappointed at the cancellation, with only a day�s notice, of last week�s planned initial talks. Since social care is in crisis, surely it should be a matter of urgency to get these talks rescheduled, but I have as yet had no response to my request for a new date. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to urgently prioritise setting a new date for the talks as soon as possible?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely will do so, because these talks are essential. We are determined to take forward cross-party talks on the future of social care, which is so important.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
If the comments from across the Atlantic this week have reminded us of anything, it is that we should always keep at the forefront of our minds the bravery of our service personnel, not least in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan when serving alongside the US and other allies. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to find time on the Floor of the House for us to debate the bravery and sacrifices of our service personnel.
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend can hear from the cheers across the House that this would make a very popular and important debate. It would be a reminder that our armed services have gone to many countries around the world in support of our allies over many years and sacrificed their lives, and we should always remember their bravery and their contribution.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I assume that the Leader of the House shares my constituents� alarm that a court found that a convicted drug dealer who was here illegally could not be deported because he was too �Westernised�; that prolific offenders, including domestic abusers, are, as I understand it, going to be offered anger management courses, rather than being incarcerated; and, most of all, that the new sentencing guidelines suggest that judges should look at felons� ethnicity and religion before sentencing. Will she allow a debate on criminal justice to enable us to expose the huge gulf between the liberal bourgeoisie�s prejudices and those of our constituents, who want people caught, captured, convicted and punished, regardless of whether they are black, brown, white or any other colour?
Lucy Powell
I think the right hon. Member is talking about deporting criminals when they should be deported. He will be aware, or should be aware, that nearly 3,000 foreign criminals have been deported since the election, which is an increase of more than 20% compared with situation under the last Government. However, he is right to point out that there are still gaps in that system, which is why we have brought in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The Bill will strengthen powers to tackle illegal migration and the small boats, and enable the Government to pick up the pace even further on returning those who have no right to be here.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
In a series of hard-hitting articles in The Herald and the Evening Times recently, the current condition of my home city of Glasgow was reviewed, and issues as diverse as potholes in Partick and poverty in Drumchapel, as well as the state of the public realm, were raised. After 14 years of the Tories in Westminster, 18 of the SNP at Holyrood and eight of an SNP-Green administration in Glasgow, the city is in need of a new vision. Does the Leader of the House agree that joining a five-city pact, as suggested by Andy Burnham, is a sensible suggestion, and how does she think the Government could support that ambition and the ambition of all of us who have the best interests of Glaswegians and Glasgow at heart?
Lucy Powell
I am sure my hon. Friend can appreciate that I, as a Mancunian, agree with all of Andy Burnham�s suggestions�nearly all of the time, anyway�and this sounds like a very good one. However, she makes the bigger point that the Scottish Government, along with the previous Conservative Government here in Westminster, have failed the Scottish people. That is why people voted overwhelmingly for a fresh start with Labour at the general election, and I am sure that will continue.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
Women are being forced to face significant risk in order to be inclusive. Men must not be allowed access to women-only spaces, regardless of whether they believe themselves to be a woman�they are not. We must prioritise safety over inclusivity, dignity over wokery, reality over ideology. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on protecting women-only spaces and women-only services?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Equality Act 2010, which was brought in by a Labour Government, is absolutely clear on the provision of women-only spaces and that they are to be protected, especially where they are needed. We are proud to have brought in the Act and we stand by it. I am sure he would have wanted to say in his question that the Labour party has done more to support women� to close the gender gap, to reduce inequalities, and to tackle violence against women and girls�than perhaps his party or the Conservative party.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The B23 postcode in my constituency has experienced a troubling surge in knife-related offences. The west midlands violence reduction unit has been instrumental in addressing the issue, engaging with over 8,000 young people and contributing to a 18% reduction in youth violence involving knives between April and September 2024. However, the violence reduction unit depends on short-term annual funding, which restricts its capacity for long-term strategic planning. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in this Chamber to discuss the incredible work of violence reduction units and explore the long-term funding arrangements for these organisations?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. The Government are determined to tackle knife crime. She is right that this is a long-term strategy. It is about prevention and supporting organisations like the one she mentions, and establishing organisations such as Young Futures and the coalition to tackle knife crime, which the Prime Minister brought together, as well as taking the steps we are already taking to ban the sale of knives and to pass other measures that are in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill. She will note that there is a debate on this matter in two weeks� time in the Chamber.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, I attended the Thrive youth caf� held at All Saints church in Huntingdon. The caf� runs on Mondays and Fridays after school. Richard and Ruth, who run the space, said that it provides a safe space and a listening ear, as well as pool, table tennis and a PlayStation. Crucially, it provides opportunities for young people to access support from local youth workers. Funding for the Thrive youth caf� is precarious, with grants allowing the project to exist only in six-monthly cycles, and it desperately needs longer-term funding guarantees. Will the Leader of the House make time in the schedule to celebrate the value that such provision brings to teenagers and young people? And can I invite her to the youth caf� to try one of its now infamous Oreo milkshakes?
Lucy Powell
My children are very fond of Oreo milkshakes and all the calories that are usually in them. I will take the hon. Gentleman up on that offer when I am next in Huntingdon in his constituency. He raises what sounds like a fantastic volunteer-run service in his local community. Many such services face funding uncertainty, which is one reason why the Government want multi-year funding settlements for local government, as that is where many of those types of organisations get their funding from. We need to do more to ensure that these important services can thrive and survive.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Blyth town in my constituency is definitely on the up and up, but the first impression for new visitors using the main gateway into the town is of a huge derelict garage in desperate need of demolition. Northumberland county council has been approached to address the situation, but here is the issue: the council says quite simply that, while it agrees it is in a complete and utter mess, it does not bring the overall amenity of the area down. What a slap in the face for the people in the local community! Does the Leader of the House agree that certain areas have been abandoned over 14 years of Tory rule? Can we have a discussion in Government time on the accountability of local authorities to determine what they can and should be doing with properties like this in different constituencies right across the country?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of the blight on my hon. Friend�s community and constituency caused by this derelict garage. He is absolutely right that this is an opportunity for investment and transformation and for showcasing the area, and I am sorry that his council has not seen that opportunity for what it is. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is committed to addressing these issues, which is why we are bringing forward the plan for neighbourhoods, which we announced this week, as well as forthcoming legislation on the community right to buy, compulsory purchase orders and other matters, which will give local authorities the powers and resources they need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When the law favours identity over principle, it ceases to be justice at all�Magna Carta taught us that. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Justice Secretary comes to the Chamber to explain why, under this Government, sentencing is going to become about who someone is, and not what they have done?
Lucy Powell
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sentencing guidelines were developed and consulted on under his Government last year, and they were not ruled out. The current Justice Secretary�the remarkable and formidable Justice Secretary�has made her position absolutely clear, and she has today written to the Sentencing Council on that. The hon. Gentleman might do better to reflect on the actions of his own Government, rather than attacking this one.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Weston Museum, in the heart of Weston-super-Mare, is a joyful community hub famous for Clara�s cottage, fantastic cake and, now, Banksy�s famous pinwheel. The museum is also hosting a beautiful exhibition curated by some of the wonderful women of Weston-super-Mare for International Women�s Day. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the women who put this exhibition together so thoughtfully, encouraging everyone to visit the exhibition and thanking the dedicated volunteers who contribute so much to the life of Weston Museum and our town?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in supporting his constituents�what a great job he does as the MP for Weston-super-Mare in standing up for all the women in his constituency, as well as everybody else.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I draw the House�s attention to the fact that I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the western gateway. The Government have so far refused to allocate further funding for the western gateway partnership, which has brought together businesses, academia and local leaders to produce some impressive work, including the soon-to-be-published report on tidal energy opportunities along the River Severn. When will the Government bring forward a statement on the future of the western gateway, and will the Leader of the House ensure that it is before the spring statement?
Lucy Powell
I will ensure that the hon. Lady is given an update on the western gateway partnership. Tidal is one of a number of energy resources that we are taking action on, and I will ensure that she and the House are updated.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Last week, Suffolk county council announced that it is ending its contract with Suffolk Libraries and taking the service in-house. This is an appalling plan. Suffolk Libraries saved Suffolk from experiencing library closures under Tory austerity, opening up libraries and expanding services when others across the country were closing down. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should be celebrating Suffolk Libraries� success and not talking it down and running it down?
Lucy Powell
I strongly support any organisation that boosts and supports local libraries, because they are vital to our communities and to the young people in those communities; on World Book Day in particular, we should mark the contribution of our local libraries. I know that Government officials have met officers from Suffolk county council on this matter, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend is updated. She has made her point strongly here today.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
On Tuesday, I took part in the Westminster Hall debate on market towns, which was heavily oversubscribed. Although Members across the House did their best to canter around their constituencies and highlight places such as, in my case, Brigg and Barton-upon-Humber, time was very limited. Our market towns face a host of challenges, among them the future of the retail sector and the availability of public services, and it was clear that an opportunity to discuss those challenges in more detail would be appreciated. Could the Government provide time for a full half-day debate on our market towns?
Lucy Powell
Market towns are one of our great British assets, so I am not surprised that the debate was so well subscribed�as, indeed, have been many debates in Westminster Hall. We do consider how well subscribed debates have been when deciding which to bring to the Floor of the House. I know that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who is present, already has a full list of debates, but I am sure that he would be open to this proposal, which would allow the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to celebrate our market towns.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
This Tuesday, organisations and companies based in the north-east visited Parliament to celebrate their role in growing our local and national economy, including The Sage, the Port of Tyne and the North East chamber of commerce. I was especially pleased to see Firebrick Brewery, based near my Blaydon office, celebrating the launch of its new stottie beer�Members who do not know what a stottie is need to look it up. May we have a debate in Government time on the part that north-east businesses can play in delivering Labour�s plan for change?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely will look up what stottie beer is. I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because this Government are committed not just to growth, but to ensuring that growth in living standards is felt in every part of the country, especially in places such as Blaydon and Consett in the north-east. I am pleased to hear that so many businesses from her region came to Parliament this week.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Seven years ago this week, on the orders of Putin in the Kremlin, my constituents faced the Novichok incident, which had an enormous impact on their lives for several months. In the end, Dawn Sturgess died. Please may we have a debate on the position of Russia in the world at a time of changing geopolitics? It is absolutely clear to the people of Salisbury, as it is to the people of this country, that an enduring peace can be achieved only if we resist appeasement and ensure that we have a secure arrangement with Europe, and with the US hopefully engaged. We need to discuss that urgently, along with the role of Russia in the world.
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Member for that important reminder that, in this country, we have seen what a tyrant and a terror the Russian regime is on our soil. This is not some separate or foreign incident affecting only Ukraine; Russia has directly affected this country, with direct consequences for us. That is why the whole House remains steadfast in our support for Ukraine. We, as a Government, are working night and day to build those global alliances to ensure that there is long-lasting security and peace, and not just in Ukraine but across Europe and elsewhere in the world. We have seen at first hand what Russia does when not kept in check.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
My constituent Chloe is trying to sell her leasehold flat, but in order to do so she needs a landlord�s certificate, which protects leaseholders from the cost of remedial work. Riverside, the company managing her property, is refusing to provide it, meaning that she is trapped in an unsaleable flat that has become unaffordable. Can the Leader of the House update us on the legislative action the Government are taking to support people such as Chloe, and everyone in our country suffering from the leasehold scandal?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. As a near neighbour of his, I am familiar with Riverside and many of the issues he raises. I hope that Riverside has heard the case he mentioned. He is absolutely right that some leaseholders find themselves trapped in homes that are unsaleable or unaffordable, with high and rising insurance costs. They often find that they are voiceless in the future of their building, with costs going up and up. That is why, first and foremost, we are implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. Just this week we published our commonhold White Paper, which is the beginning of the end of leasehold for good, and later this year we will introduce a draft Bill on leasehold reform.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
This week the BBC uncovered the shocking case of how a man convicted of a horrific murder in Bradford went on to spend almost two years working with vulnerable children and schools after he was wrongly cleared by the Disclosure and Barring Service in 2021. In response to that major safeguarding failure, the DBS now claims that although serious offences committed after 2006 may lead to someone being automatically barred from working with children, offences committed before 2006 may not. That is clearly wrong, and I suspect that this case in Bradford is not a lone one. May we have a debate in Government time on the wider system of DBS checks, particularly for individuals seeking to work with vulnerable children, so that we can get to the bottom of this?
Lucy Powell
This is a shocking case. The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be able to have confidence in the DBS checking system, which underpins the safeguarding of children in this country. If we cannot have confidence in it, that throws up a whole number of questions, as this shocking case has done. I therefore thank him for raising it. I will ensure that he gets a Government response about that case and what steps are being taken to ensure that this never happens again.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, rugby league fans like you and others in the Chamber will know and love my most famous constituent, Billy Boston. Before I came into the Chamber, I was informed that Billy is not well. Local councillors in my constituency have started a petition to ensure that he receives a knighthood while that is still possible. It is a scandal�and one that we must recognise�that for over a century no rugby football league hero has received a knighthood. Does the Leader of the House agree that Billy Boston should be Sir Billy Boston while that is still possible?
Lucy Powell
I know that you have strong views on these matters, Mr Speaker, as president of the Rugby Football League�views that I share. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on particular nomination applications, but I share his concern, as I know you do, Mr Speaker�you often take the opportunity to share it with us�that rugby league, which is a great northern sport, should get better recognition in our honours system.
Mr Speaker
We must wish Billy well. He is the greatest convert from rugby union who came to rugby league. Nobody has ever scored tries like Billy Boston.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
May we have a debate on access to banking services in small towns and rural communities? For years, big banks have treated loyal customers very badly�they have shut branches and reduced services, especially in more rural and remote areas, such as my constituency in the Scottish Borders�and last weekend I had to contact cash machine providers because Selkirk and Eyemouth ran out of cash. Will the Leader of the House back my call so that the residents of small towns and rural communities can get access to the cash and banking services they need?
Lucy Powell
Access to cash and banking services is probably the single biggest issue that is raised with me in business questions, so I know that it is of great interest to the House and to the hon. Member�s constituents, and it is vital that we take it seriously. That is why we are bringing in banking hubs�we are committed to opening 350 of them, and we are along the way to do that�but this is not something that the Government alone can deal with; we all need to take more action to ensure that our rural communities can access banking services.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week I held a meeting with local residents impacted by leasehold, which is an acute problem in my constituency, compounded at times by pretty unscrupulous behaviour by developers. They are trapped in short leases with unaffordable buy-outs, eye-watering extension costs and mortgage lenders unwilling to lend. May we have a debate in Government time to update the House on the action the Government are taking to end the feudal leasehold system?
Lucy Powell
This matter is also raised with me a lot, both in business questions and by my constituents. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to end the feudal leasehold system, which is trapping innocent homeowners in properties that they are unable to get mortgages on or to sell, which is shocking�we have called it �fleecehold� many times before. We are taking a number of steps, including implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. We are moving forward on commonhold with the White Paper, and later this year we will introduce draft legislation for a fundamental root-and-branch reform of leasehold. However, I will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning comes to the House regularly to update us.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited the beautiful village of Burton Leonard in my constituency for the 100th anniversary of its women�s institute branch. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fact that it has made it to 100 and hope that it has many more years to come? Will she also consider whether there is time for a Government debate on the importance of local community organisations and how we can ensure that they have funding support?
Lucy Powell
As we celebrate International Women�s Day, it is a good day to recognise the valuable work of women�s institutes across the country, including in Burton Leonard. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that those sorts of voluntary organisations provide a huge service to our communities and deserve a long-term future.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
This week, a youth strategy review was announced, which could not be more welcome in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. According to Unison�s local government report, between 2010 and 2023, Staffordshire county council closed 32 youth centres, which is the third-highest rate in the country. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the work to help youth centres across the country?
While we are talking about young people, Emily Rizk from Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group was recently honoured with the project excellence award at the Association of Colleges� student of the year awards. Will the Leader of the House join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) in celebrating Emily�s amazing work?
Lucy Powell
I will absolutely join my hon. Friends in celebrating Emily Rizk�s fantastic work and her achievement. I will also join my hon. Friend in agreeing that youth services and centres, which have been completely hollowed out in recent years, play a vital role in supporting young people, keeping them out of other activities that we might not want them to do. That is why we are committed to the Young Futures programme and many other initiatives.
Mr Speaker
May I remind Members to speed up, so that we can get everyone in?
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I declare my interest as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary media group and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of speech.
Last month I found myself in somewhat rare agreement with the Chancellor when she challenged Britain�s regulators to create a regulatory environment that unlocks innovation and investment. Our media is one the sectors in which we have seen really good growth over the past few years, with huge diversification right across the sector, but there is a concern about the attitude of regulators, which might undermine that growth potential.
I think specifically of cases highlighted recently in an opinion piece by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), in which Ofcom fined GB News 10 times more for doing a question time event with the Conservative party leader than it fined another channel for broadcasting antisemitic tropes. I worry that that attitude towards policing the media, which seems to focus more on politics than prejudice, may act as a barrier to others coming into the sector. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on the media sector, the role of regulation and freedom in our sector?
Lucy Powell
I think the right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he found himself in the unusual position of agreeing with the Chancellor. Fear not; I do not think he and I will find ourselves in the unusual position of agreeing on much any time soon, but I respect his views on many things. Our regulators play an important role. We absolutely support free speech, but we also ensure that there is fairness and balance in our media and that we protect people from disinformation and misinformation and from some of the problems we have seen.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Tomorrow night, Natasha Jonas and Lauren Price will make history, headlining the first ever all-women�s championship boxing card at the famous Royal Albert Hall, with Boxxer and Sky Sports. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing both fighters and the entire undercard the best of luck? Will she also confirm this Government�s commitment, ahead of International Women�s Day, to increasing participation in sport for women and girls in Blackpool and across the UK?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely, I join my hon. Friend in celebrating this historic occasion as Natasha and Lauren take to the ring in that first all-women�s boxing championship. This Government are committed to supporting and developing women�s sport, and not just in Blackpool but across the country.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Sentencing Council has issued guidelines saying that a pre-sentence report will normally be considered before sentencing a criminal from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, or if the criminal is a woman or a transsexual, but not, apparently, if someone is a straight, white, Christian man. That evidence of two-tier justice is corrosive to public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system.
Given that Ministry of Justice officials attend the Sentencing Council, either the Lord Chancellor knew of the policy or she was asleep at the wheel. For the record, the Lord Chancellor�s predecessor, Alex Chalk, has described this as ridiculous. The Leader of the House failed to give a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), so will she find time for a debate on the Sentencing Council?
Lucy Powell
As I made clear to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) earlier, the Government have made it absolutely clear that we disagree with the guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The hon. Member will know that the process and consultation for developing that guidance happened on his Government�s watch�it absolutely did. The Lord Chancellor has made her position and that of the Government absolutely clear today, and that is why she has written to the Sentencing Council.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The creative services sector in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle and in Cornwall more generally is one of the most important to our local economy. The work produced is exhibited and sold all over the world, but many of those active in our creative industries are concerned about the intellectual property risk from artificial intelligence. Following the end of the consultation last week, will the Leader of the House assure those working in the creative industries that the Government will take full advantage of what AI can provide, but will also protect our precious creative industries?
Lucy Powell
This Government absolutely support our valued creative industries. It is a long-standing, prevalent principle of our copyright rules in this country that creatives get payment and have control over the creative content of their work. I will absolutely ensure that the House is kept updated.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I recently wrote to all Departments about the total cost of employee settlement agreements. Although there were some astronomical figures, most Departments have provided me with a response, but the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have refused to answer that basic question, even rejecting freedom of information requests from my office. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can obtain that information, particularly since the two Departments have frustrated my efforts to scrutinise them thus far?
Lucy Powell
I will look into why the hon. Member has not had a proper reply and ensure that he gets one.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last year, York Rescue Boat spent 6,500 hours patrolling the rivers in York and trained 1,500 people on river safety. However, the rivers saw 25 people in, and this week we saw the latest tragedy. Will she have a discussion with colleagues in Cabinet about having a joint departmental working group to create a strategy around river safety, so that we can prevent these tragic events?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the tragic event in my hon. Friend�s constituency, and water safety is of real importance. We have to educate people on regular occasions and ensure that the rescue services are there. I will certainly ensure that her suggestion is looked at carefully and that she gets a response.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I am sure you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, the importance of the cider industry to my constituency, which is home to many fantastic traditional cider makers: Burrow Hill cider, Bere cider, Hecks cider, Harry�s cider and Tricky cider, to name just a few. However, as we enter the spring blossom season, many independent cider makers are worried about the impact of the forthcoming extended producer responsibility regulations. Can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of EPR regulations on independent traditional cider makers?
Lucy Powell
As a regular attender of Glastonbury festival, I have partaken in a bit of Glastonbury cider over the years, and I can confirm that it is excellent cider�although perhaps I could not remember that towards the end of having it. I am not actually aware of the new regulations that she mentions, but I will absolutely ensure that she gets a full response about them.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Today I have joined over 100 Labour parliamentarians in calling for environmental, social and governance rules to be reformed to support investment in defence. At this historic moment, can we have a debate on how the financial sector could step up by helping shore up defence on our continent?
Lucy Powell
That is an important matter to do with the frameworks and how that type of investment should be allocated. I will ensure that the House continues to discuss it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Business questions are a must-watch every week, but I understand that the people of Parachinar in Pakistan are watching this week in particular because of this question. For the past 150 days in Parachinar, Shi�a Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and Hindus have been under siege. Despite the signing of a peace agreement in January, the humanitarian situation remains dire, with continued reports of mob attacks and widespread internal displacement. Some 800,000 individuals, including the elderly, pregnant women, infants and the sick, are facing severe food and medicinal shortages because of the blockade of the road. They need food, petrol and medicines to keep them going. Some 128 children have tragically died because of the lack of essential resources. Will the Government engage in discussions with their Pakistan counterparts to address the ongoing siege and ensure the restoration of humanitarian access via the road to Parachinar, to protect that vulnerable community?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman yet again for raising an important matter. He will know that the Government are committed to promoting the rights and safety of religious minorities in Pakistan and elsewhere. The British high commission continues to raise the situation in Parachinar with the Pakistan authorities at the very highest levels.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Recent reports published by The Manchester Mill about racism, financial misconduct and bullying at the University of Greater Manchester in Bolton have significantly damaged the reputation of that institution over the past few weeks. Those reports have also led to a significant number of whistleblowers contacting me with further allegations highlighting concerning practices at the university. Given that the university is a key institution in Bolton and receives significant public funding, it must be transparent and accountable�as must the Office for Students. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on this gravely concerning matter?
Lucy Powell
I know that this issue is of huge importance to my hon. Friend�s constituents in Bolton. He will be aware that the Office for Students is looking into those serious allegations and engaging with the provider, and that the police are involved as well. He will know that the Office for Students has a number of sanctions available to it when allegations of such failures are found to be true. I will ensure that he is kept updated.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Questions must be short as we have only 25 minutes to go. I call Adam Jogee to show us how it is done.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I shall try, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Last Friday, the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme received the news that the cowboy operators of Walleys quarry landfill had gone into liquidation. That is an attempt to cut and run from cleaning up the disgraceful mess that they have caused for far too long. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to unpick the crisis facing the waste sector in England, to identify how we can ensure that those who cause harm are held to account and made to pay for their failures, and to discuss how we can deliver justice and answers for the good people of Newcastle-under-Lyme?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership on the issue of Walleys quarry, which he has raised with me a number of times in business questions. I know that he has had meetings with Ministers, the Environment Agency and others, and I am sure that his leadership on sorting out that terrible situation will be of great comfort to his constituents.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Footage released yesterday appears to show 200 horrific hours of repeated animal abuse at an abattoir in my constituency. I have been working with residents and a multitude of agencies to try to ensure safety and compliance since well before my election to this place. Many now feel outraged that the regulatory systems have failed even to notice, let alone address, the repeated breaches. Will the Leader of the House work with me to establish why it took an activist to highlight those issues while my constituents in Old Arley and those animals continue to suffer, and to find ways of ensuring that there is tighter scrutiny and swifter action, and that businesses are closed when standards are not met?
Lucy Powell
We take a zero-tolerance approach to breaches of animal welfare, such as those that my hon. Friend describes. The Food Standards Agency has already taken action, but if that has not been sufficient, I will ensure that it does more.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Today is, as the Leader of the House mentioned, World Book Day. It is also the day when I announce the winner of my World Book Day competition for the children of Rochdale. Will she join me in congratulating 10-year-old Harry Hodgkiss of Milnrow parish Church of England primary school on his brilliant review of David Walliams�s �The World�s Worst Monsters�, and in thanking local businesses Alf Recruit, I-Branded and Office Supplies Now for providing the prize of �375-worth of books for Harry�s school and personalised stationery for all the winners?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Harry Hodgkiss on winning his World Book Day competition and the businesses and others who supported it and provided funds. Today and on many occasions in this House, we can say that it is a bit of �A Squash and a Squeeze�.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
On Tuesday, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, arbitrarily detained in India for over seven years now, was acquitted of all charges by the judge at the district and sessions court in Moga in Punjab, yet he remains imprisoned, facing the possibility of eight further court cases lacking in any credible evidence and of languishing in confinement for decades. This is the breakthrough we have all been waiting for. The time for my Government to act is now. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent Government statement confirming that every effort will be made to secure his immediate release and bring him home to Dunbarton?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, which has been raised a number of times in the House. He will know that the Prime Minister has raised this with Prime Minister Modi, and I assure him that we will continue to support Mr Johal through his detention until he is released, which needs to happen urgently. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and will ensure the House is kept updated.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Two hundred years ago this September, the modern passenger railways were born when locomotion No. 1 was put on the tracks at Heighington station in my constituency. Can the Leader of the House tell us how the Government will support the global anniversary of the Darlington-Stockton railway, and will Ministers meet me to discuss how we can bring back to its former glory the dilapidated original station, which is so key to our heritage?
Lucy Powell
We support the Darlington-Stockton railway, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that as we mark 200 years of its existence. We will support him in every way we can.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
One reason that parts of my rural north Cumbria constituency are not served by fixed broadband is that the per-metre charge to access Openreach�s ducts and poles makes it prohibitively expensive to roll out broadband by other providers. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the costs of rolling out rural broadband, in particular the charges for physical infrastructure access?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right that access to digital broadband is vital�it is now the fourth utility for many people�but in rural communities it remains patchy. Despite the previous Government making money available, digital broadband has been too slow to roll out and to get to her constituents, and this Government are taking steps to speed that up.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Last Friday in this Chamber, Members of the UK Youth Parliament discussed and agreed the priorities for this year, which were votes at 16 and period dignity. The MYPs conducted themselves with honour and respect. I would like to pay tribute to and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker, the Speaker�s Office, the Table Office and the Doorkeepers for everything they did. Will the Leader of the House congratulate the MYPs on their amazing day?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the amazing Youth Parliament. It is a reminder of how brilliant the young people of this country are and how young people can be responsible for casting their votes at the age of 16. I thank Mr Speaker and his office for facilitating it.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Bracknell indoor indie market celebrated its first birthday last week. It is run by two fantastic businesswomen, Jem and Rachel, and gives opportunities to many more women-owned businesses in Bracknell. Ahead of the International Women�s Day debate, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing BIIM a very happy birthday?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I congratulate Jem and Rachel on the work they do. We should be supporting women in business more than ever, because they play a valuable role in our economy.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
We all know of one famous US citizen who has close family ties to Scotland, but there are 25 million Scots Americans who want to trace their lineage�it is a big market. That is why organisations in my constituency such as Hebrides People in Harris and historical societies in Ness and North Uist invest in family histories and oral histories, which are a treasure trove to connect people to their roots. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging investment in heritage tourism, so that we can connect the children of Scots emigrants, even those who strain our friendship, to find their way home?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely, and I know how important tourism is to my hon. Friend�s constituency. He has been a great advert for it here today, which I am sure will attract many more people.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In recent weeks I have been contacted by many constituents who are frightened by the decision of Buckinghamshire council to close its housing register temporarily. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people facing homelessness deserve our full support, and that we must address the underlying causes of homelessness, such as the lack of affordable and social housing? Will she make time for a debate on that issue?
Lucy Powell
We have an acute housing crisis in this country, and the long waiting lists, or even closed lists such as the one my hon. Friend describes, are a symptom of that crisis. That is why the Government are committed to 1.5 million extra homes, of which a huge proportion will be social and affordable homes.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
May I draw the House�s attention to my position as chair of the all-party groups on long covid and on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)? In recognition of International Women�s Day, I wish to draw attention to the significant gender disparity in the impact of chronic illnesses. Given the gravity of the issue, will the Leader of the House commit to holding a debate on women�s health inequalities, with particular focus on those living with ME, long covid, and other chronic illnesses?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We are committed to supporting those with chronic illnesses and those with ME, and we will publish a delivery plan in the coming months. She highlights the important matter of gender disparity. We recently had a debate on women�s health, and I am sure gender disparity in chronic illness would be a popular subject.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Across the House this week we have heard about the vital contribution that our armed forces make, and the dedication they show to this country. However, sometimes the experiences of women in the armed forces can be challenging. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on how the Government can support women who are currently serving in or have previously served in our armed forces?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and recent cases have highlighted some of the difficulties she raises. We want women not only to join the armed forces, but to feel that they can completely and fully contribute and have a long career in the armed forces. Any barrier to that is wrong and needs to be rooted out, and I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend is updated.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have 19 people standing and just 13 minutes, so I ask Members please to keep it short.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the all-party group on political and media literacy. We live in increasingly uncertain times, and we are seeing a real change as the threats we are facing move from the traditional to the digital, with things such as misinformation and disinformation on the rise. Given that, will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the importance of media literacy in preventing such misinformation, giving people the tools they need to fight against it themselves?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises the important matter of online misinformation and disinformation. Provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 are starting to come through, but she is right to say that educating our young people is vital to ensuring that they have the literacy they need to navigate the social media world of the future in which they will all live.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Mail Solutions, an employee-owned company in my constituency led by Karl Lee. That company exports envelopes and printing around the world, including for elections across Africa, but it told me that it faces red tape and barriers in doing so. Can we back British business, reduce red tape, and allow businesses such as Mail Solutions to grow?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; the Government are committed to growing the economy and ensuring that businesses such as Mail Solutions can grow and flourish and that red tape and barriers to growth are broken down as best we can.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I am proud to represent historic Shrewsbury, with our grade II listed building, but it is currently not being used to its full potential as the gateway to our magnificent town. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about ensuring that the transition to Great British Railways allows for unlocking our beautiful railway assets for public and commercial use, which would transform our station quarter?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I am familiar with Shrewsbury station, which is beautiful but could perhaps be better used as the interchange of important rail connectivity that it is for my hon. Friend�s constituents. That is why the Government and the Secretary of State are looking at how we can ensure that land use and station development are at the core of our plan for boosting the railways, as well as infrastructure and housing.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Last week, I kicked off the annual Hillbilly 10k in my home town of Dalmellington in my constituency. Hundreds braved the weather to race and to support Cancer Research UK. By organising events such as that for more than 20 years, my constituent, Lorna Dempsey, has helped to raise �500,000 and more. Like many other fundraisers, she was inspired by the loss of a friend, who died of breast cancer at the age of 32. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking fundraisers such as Lorna, and make time for a debate in Government time on how we fund research into saving lives from that cruel disease?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on kicking off the Hillbilly 10k�I hope there was not the traditional Scottish weather when she was doing that�and I congratulate Lorna on her immense fundraising efforts. My hon. Friend is right that we need to continue to do more to fight cancer, promote research and provide support so that we can stop people unnecessarily dying of cancer so young.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has already mentioned the Equality Act 2010. Back in 2013, Parliament legislated to require a Minister of the Crown to
�amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race�.
However, five years later the Government announced that they would not implement that legislation, arguing that caste discrimination can be discrimination based on ethnic origins. Does the Leader of the House agree that caste discrimination is as bad as discrimination based on colour, nationality, or ethnic or national origins, and will she agree to a debate in the House on the implementation of section 9(5) of the Equality Act, so that caste discrimination is specified as a form of race discrimination?
Lucy Powell
I appreciate that caste discrimination can be incredibly damaging and pernicious. We take our obligations under the Equality Act very seriously indeed, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets an update on that.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
A week ago today, Basingstoke sadly lost Graham Robins, a long-serving governor at St Mark�s primary school in my constituency. Graham dedicated over 25 years to supporting the school, Immanuel church and St Mark�s church, playing a pivotal role in the lives of countless pupils and families. Even in his final days, he spoke of his deep love for the school and its community, and he leaves behind a remarkable legacy of kindness, wisdom and service. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Graham, and to the vital role of school governors and the invaluable voluntary service they provide?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear about the passing of Graham Robins, and I understand that that will have a devastating impact on the school, his family and the whole community. I join my hon. Friend in paying my full respects to the work that Graham did, and to the contribution that he and many others make to our society.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am delighted that residents in Park End and Ormesby will soon see the state-of-the-art new Southlands Centre sports facility coming to east Middlesbrough. Its delivery has been a team effort from our Labour council, the Middlesbrough Football Club Foundation and Sky Bet English Football League, and has been signed off by the Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a winning performance from a strong Labour team?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; it is a winning performance from a strong Labour team and it is a winning effort in puns. They are normally my speciality, but I cannot beat my hon. Friend on that one.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Residents in Ovingham, in my constituency, are desperate for adequate glass recycling facilities that they can walk to, as they are currently having to drive to Prudhoe or Wylam, yet Conservative-led Northumberland county council is simply not listening to them. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling for the Tories leading Northumberland county council to get a grip and allow my constituents to recycle their glass properly?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased that my hon. Friend�s constituents are so keen on recycling. I join him in calling for the Conservative-run council to do more to ensure that his constituents who want to recycle can recycle.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Seven-year-old Skye has been bringing joy to the lives of residents at the award-winning Brookfields nursing home in my constituency, whether playing bingo, watching a film or chatting over dinner. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that everyone needs to be a bit more like Skye, and could we have a debate on the physical and mental benefits, to both the young and the elderly, of being together?
Lucy Powell
I love to hear of those intergenerational schemes in which young people such as Skye go into care homes and really lift the lives of those at the end of their life. I absolutely join my hon. Friend in saying that we should all be a bit more like Skye.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
As we have heard, today is World Book Day. Like many in this House, I have fond childhood memories of dressing up as a character from my favourite book, but research from the National Literacy Trust shows that the number of children reading in their spare time has fallen to its lowest in almost two decades. That comes at the same time as soaring smartphone usage among children, which is causing concern to parents in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how we can reinvigorate a love of reading in young people and tackle smartphone harms?
Lucy Powell
I am glad that my hon. Friend enjoyed dressing up. As I said at the beginning, scrabbling together an outfit is a bit of a stressful thing for working parents. He is absolutely right: we have to get our young people enjoying the love of reading and actual, physical books and libraries, and Bookstart and the National Literacy Trust, which my hon. Friend raised, are crucial parts of that. I was really pleased that my youngest understood what a contents page and an index page were when reading a book. I know that sounds remarkable, but these days, when they can google everything, they do not know how to use an index.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The date of 29 March is a seismic day in Redditch town centre, as, after a long hiatus, the outdoor market returns to Redditch town centre, thanks to the excellent leadership of our Labour council by Joe Baker and Sharon Harvey. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Redditch borough council on its commitment to regenerating our high street and our local businesses, and perhaps encourage residents to join us on 29 March to ensure that the market is a success?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that many people across Redditch will join my hon. Friend and the local council on 29 March. I congratulate him as a great new MP for Redditch and its local council on bringing back Redditch market.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Right across my schools, young people are concerned about the conspiracy theories and extremism that they encounter online. A really important report recently by the Pears Foundation and Public First highlighted the need to do more to empower schools to tackle those issues in the classroom. Can we have a statement from the Education Secretary on how we can ensure that the upcoming review of the curriculum delivers on exactly that issue?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. A number of Members have already raised digital literacy with me today and how we can do more to tackle misinformation and disinformation online, especially for our young people. That would make for a very popular topic for a debate, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets an update.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the longest serving leader and second-ever chair of Harlow council, Tom Farr, who passed away on Tuesday? Tom devoted so much of his life to serving the community of Harlow as both a councillor and a secondary school teacher, and also as the chair of Harlow primary health trust.
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Tom Farr and his life of dedicated service to Harlow and to Harlow council. I also take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for joining the Modernisation Committee.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Ogwen Valley mountain rescue in my constituency is being stretched to the limit by an increase in call-outs. It has gone out 23 times already this year, including for two tragic incidents that resulted in fatalities. Will the Leader join me in saying a huge thank you to all the volunteers who dedicate their time, especially as the group celebrates its 60th birthday this weekend?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating and thanking all those from the Ogwen Valley mountain rescue team for the fantastic work they do. It is a shame that they need to do it, because we really need people to take more seriously a common-sense approach to enjoying our beauty and not to put themselves at risk.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Residents of the Upper Braes villages in Falkirk have been campaigning for five years following the failure of not-fit-for-purpose heating systems that has led to poorly heated homes and extraordinarily high household bills. A gentleman I spoke to in Slamannan is spending �300 to �400 a month on energy for his two-bedroom house simply, as he put it, to �keep the frost off� his nose. Does the Leader of the House agree that those involved in that failure should be held to account and that those who have suffered deserve a fair solution?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; that is why this Government are taking our clean energy mission so seriously. It will not only give us energy security, but lead to lower bills for people such as my hon. Friend�s constituents. In the meantime, we are ensuring that we extend the warm home discount to another 2 million people next year, so that his constituents and many others can keep themselves warm at home.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Last week, I had the privilege of opening the new block at Sir John Deane�s sixth-form college in Northwich. It was revealed at the event that the Sixth Form Colleges Association has confirmed that, once again, Johnny Deane�s is one of the country�s leading sixth-form colleges, having both the highest attainment and the highest value added of all large mainstream sixth-form colleges. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sir John Deane�s on that incredible achievement, and will she allow time for a debate on the vital role that sixth-form colleges play?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in giving my heartfelt congratulations to Sir John Deane�s sixth-form college for its outstanding contribution and all the great standards it delivers.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It was great to visit Hertfordshire and Essex high school to kick off this week�s National Careers Week. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on how this Labour Government are breaking down barriers to opportunity for young people in semi-rural communities such as mine?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for organising and being so involved in the careers fair in his constituency. He is absolutely right�we have huge opportunities in this country, and we need to better link young people and the skills they have with the job opportunities of the future.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Recently, I met Dr Shamsee and Dr Ward at Oaklands health centre in my constituency, and we discussed social prescribing. Social prescribing addresses social, emotional and practical needs, promoting holistic health, and local GPs play a crucial role in it. Can we have a debate on the importance of social prescribing?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important work done by Oaklands health centre. This Government support social prescribing to address wider health determinants and improve people�s wellbeing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That might be a record. I thank the Leader of the House for being so fast in her responses�we got everybody in.
North Sea Energy
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about this Government�s plans to unleash the North sea�s clean energy future.
For almost half a century, the workers, businesses and communities of the North sea have powered our country and the world. We believe that they can and will continue to do so for the next half a century and beyond, which is why yesterday, we launched a consultation on the steps we are taking to seize the opportunities of the clean energy transition in the North sea. This is about working with businesses, workers and communities to strengthen north-east Scotland�s status as the energy capital of the UK, and it is about showing global leadership as we deliver a well-managed, orderly and prosperous transition.
We know that the North sea is a maturing basin. Oil and gas production has seen a natural decline of 72% between 1999 and 2023, and as a result, the industry has lost around a third of its direct workforce over the past decade. The truth is that sprinting to clean energy is the only way to deliver energy security and good, long-term jobs for the workforce and for communities. At the same time, we know that we need to listen to the science on what is required to keep global warming to 1.5�C. A science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production is the only way to deliver climate security for future generations, so we owe it to the North sea�s workers and communities�who have done so much for our country�to come up with a proper plan for the future. That is what this Government are doing.
First, we are consulting on our manifesto commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields. While we have always been clear that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for decades to come, the reality is that new licences for oil and gas awarded in the past decade have made only a marginal difference to overall production. To continue granting them would not help our energy security, would not be compatible with our climate commitments, and would not take one penny off bills. As such, we will not award new licences, but we will continue working with the sector to manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan. We will also provide the long-term certainty on its fiscal landscape that the sector needs. Yesterday, the Treasury set out plans for a new regime to respond to future spikes in oil and gas prices once the energy profits levy ends in 2030.
The second part of the consultation is about harnessing the North sea�s unique strengths, including its offshore infrastructure, highly skilled engineers and deep supply chains, to make it a global clean energy powerhouse. In just eight months, we have already made significant progress. We have established Great British Energy in Aberdeen, so that it is in the perfect position to drive the roll-out of clean energy projects. We have improved the offshore wind auction, so that later this year there will for the first time be a new clean industry bonus to reward investment in good manufacturing jobs and clean supply chains. We have overseen a record-breaking renewables auction. We have kick-started the UK�s carbon capture and hydrogen industries�the energy sectors of the future�with strong, early investments. Just yesterday, we awarded more than �55 million to the port of Cromarty Firth for upgrades that will support the development of floating offshore wind, creating hundreds of jobs as we ensure Scotland and the UK remain world leaders in this next-generation technology. But that is just the start.
Our clean power action plan will drive �40 billion a year of investment to meet our goal of clean power by 2030. Research shows that jobs in offshore renewable sectors could increase by tens of thousands in that time. We will also make sure workers have the tools they need to take up these new opportunities. Already, we have worked with the Scottish Government and trade bodies to launch a skills passport, making it easier and quicker for oil and gas workers to bring their skills and experience into clean energy jobs. That idea has been stuck in the mud for years. Thankfully, we have made more progress in the past eight months than was made in the previous 14 years combined. At the same time, we are putting clean energy at the heart of our upcoming modern industrial strategy.
We are incredibly fortunate to have the North sea on our doorstep. For decades, the oil and gas buried there have fuelled development and charged our economy, but the North sea�s long-term future lies in its incredible clean energy potential. We know that its stable winds and shallow shelves make it one of the best locations in the world for offshore wind farms. We know that the UK continental shelf alone has enough capacity to store up to 78 billion tonnes of carbon, which is roughly the amount this country has produced since the industrial revolution. With our skilled offshore industry and workforce, we are perfectly placed to seize this natural advantage and get ahead in the global race for new jobs in new industries.
Instead of sticking our head in the sand and avoiding the big decisions, we have set out a plan to deliver the future that the North sea�s workers and communities deserve. It is a plan to co-ordinate the scale-up of clean energy industries, from offshore wind and hydrogen to carbon capture and storage; a plan to give the oil and gas sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for decades to come; a plan for energy security and sustainable economic growth; and a plan to keep working with the people who matter most�the North sea�s businesses, workers, communities and trade unions� to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities of the years ahead together. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
Another day, another demonstration of this Government�s total ignorance of our oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in our North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security. No other country in the world, especially at a time of heightened global instability and volatility, would actively choose to aggressively and at pace shut down its domestic oil and gas industry, but that is exactly what this Government and in particular this Department, led by the eco-warrior in chief, are doing.
The consultation, announced yesterday, was trumpeted by Government spinners as the beginning of the end of the energy profits levy and a brave new dawn for the North sea. It is complete and utter rubbish. It is a total joke. The energy profits levy is higher now than it was before, because of the decisions of this Labour Government. The investment allowances have almost all been scrapped by this Labour Government. Crucially, the windfall tax is now in place for far longer�until 2030�because of this Labour Government. That is five years away, but the oil and gas industry does not have five years. Investment is drying up, and work is being put on pause. Companies are literally shutting up shop.
The truth is that the high-paid, good, long-term jobs that the Minister speaks of do not yet exist in renewables in the north-east of Scotland. People are leaving in their droves for other countries, such as the USA, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Norway, where the industry does have a future. She says we owe it to the North sea�s workers and communities to come up with a proper plan for their future, but this Government�s plan for the North sea is simply to shut it down. This Government�s plan is a betrayal of those workers. This Government�s plan will devastate the communities of the north-east of Scotland.
It is said that in every oil-producing country in the world you will find an Aberdonian. It turns out that the only country in which you will not find an Aberdonian working in oil in the near future is Scotland, driven by this mad rush to clean power 2030 and the Government�s obsession with renewables at the expense of everything and everyone else. It may be �Drill, baby, drill� in the United States, but it is �Dole, baby, dole� under Labour in the United Kingdom. The Government�s decisions will cost our economy some �12 billion in lost tax revenue to the Treasury, on top of the �12 billion in lost capital investment. This makes a complete mockery of their claim to be anything like pro-growth.
It is insanity to be doing all this to our own industry while becoming increasingly reliant on imports from abroad and causing more carbon to be released into the atmosphere: more imports of liquefied natural gas, fracked in the USA, frozen and then shipped across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships; or more imports from Norway, a net exporter, which is drilling from the very same sea from which we could drill ourselves. It is completely nonsensical. This Government are a complete joke, overseeing the wilful deindustrialisation of our nation. If the Minister will not take my word for it, perhaps she will take the word of the GMB leader, who said:
�In the new geopolitical reality�it�s madness. If the North Sea is being prematurely closed down and we are increasing import dependence�that�s bad for jobs, economic growth and national security.�
Or perhaps she will take the word of the general secretary of Unite, who said:
�we need to resist any calls that amount to offshoring our carbon responsibilities for the sake of virtue signalling.�
May I ask the Minister whether she has personally met any oil and gas workers since taking office, in order to understand what her Government�s policy means for them and their families, and whether the Secretary of State has done so? Will the industry receive an answer on the uncertainty surrounding the calculation of scope 3 emissions and environmental impact assessments? Given the announcement of �200 million to support the 400 workers affected by the closure of Grangemouth, how much does the Minister think the Treasury might need to find to support the 200,000 workers currently supported by the oil and gas industry? Does she agree with the Climate Change Committee that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, and has she accounted for the higher carbon emissions associated with importing liquefied natural gas instead? Finally, let me ask whether she still sees the Department as a sponsor and a champion for the industry�because the industry certainly does not trust that to be the case.
Sarah Jones
The shadow Minister quoted trade union representatives, having not met them or supported them in government. That is always rich. [Interruption.] He says that he did; I stand corrected, although I suspect that he did not do it often. He quoted the general secretary of the GMB, so let me quote him back. The general secretary said:
�Tory ideology has left the UK vulnerable and exposed. Our Government stood by and exported the bulk of the jobs, closed gas storage and failed to invest in new nuclear and skills.�
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions, and I will come to them shortly, but I have to say that this is a fairly familiar story from the Conservative party: no acknowledgment of their failed record on the North sea, no acknowledgment of their having presided over the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, and no answers to the future challenges that our country faces. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that lost 70,000 North sea jobs in less than a decade. His Government were content for those workers to have to go around the world to find jobs, but this Government want to keep those talents here in the UK, which is why, unlike the last Government, we have a plan.
In my statement, I said that everyone accepts that the North sea is a declining basin. I do not know whether the shadow Minister understands the basic geology, but this is a super-mature basin, and the harder it becomes to drill for oil and gas, the less likely it is that people will be successful. Only one in 10 of the licences that have been offered and granted in recent years have ultimately led to any work.
The hon. Gentleman needs to establish what his party�s view of this agenda is. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who is sitting next to him, had some very peculiar things to say in Westminster Hall yesterday, and it is unclear exactly what their position is. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) was a Minister for the grid who opposed grid infrastructure, he was a Minister for solar who opposed solar power, and here he is now, the Minister for Aberdeen, campaigning against jobs and investment in his own community.
We are getting on with a plan for the future. First, we will invest in clean power. It is ludicrous that at this time when our bills depend on what Putin chooses to do and we have to respond, the shadow Minister is suggesting that we should do more of that. Even if there were no climate change, even if there were no push to clean power, if we drilled as much oil and gas from the North sea as we possibly could, it would amount to less than 1% of the global market and would have no impact on bills whatsoever.
We will give immediate support to workers�we have explained how we will do that�and we will support Scotland more widely. We will support Great British Energy in Aberdeen. We will support Grangemouth with �200 million from the national wealth fund. Harland and Wolff in Arnish and Methil has been saved from closure. Yesterday, the Port of Cromarty Firth received �55 million through the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. Twenty per cent. of the contracts in allocation round 6 of the contracts for difference auction are going to Scotland. We have hydrogen investment in Cromarty and Ayrshire. We have the biggest budget for the Scottish Government that we have seen. This is a party that is committed to supporting the people of Scotland, not overseeing managed decline.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister was right to remind us that the North sea is a mature basin, she was right to remind us that 70,000 jobs have been lost there in the last 10 years, and she was right to praise the highly skilled engineers who have made such a contribution in the North sea and to the country. She mentioned the skills passport, and said that the Government were making progress with the industry in finding alternatives in the jobs transition. The Select Committee has heard, a number of times, evidence that one of the challenges is the fact that pay in the North sea is significantly higher than pay in equivalent jobs in the renewable sector, and offshore wind in particular. What, at this stage, are the Minister�s thoughts on how we can make pay more attractive for workers moving from oil and gas into renewables?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Select Committee, which is very important. As he knows, for a long time we have been a bit stuck in trying to set up a passport system because of the slightly different skills and qualifications in each industry and the need to bring them together. The Government became involved to try to ensure that we could bridge that gap and enable people to make the transition. Oil and gas workers are highly skilled and greatly in demand, and, as my hon. Friend says, they are paid a good wage. We need to work with the new offshore wind companies; we like to see union recognition, and we like to see good salaries for people doing those jobs as well. There will be other jobs that people can go into. The plan is to help people make the transition rather than leaving them adrift as the last Government did.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, much of which we can agree with.
The North sea gives the UK the opportunity to become a powerhouse in renewable energy generation, and it is time that we seized it. We urge the Government to make good their commitment to consult on a new regime to boost investment in jobs. We want to ensure that the oil and gas industry is wound down in a way that supports the redeployment of skills and jobs, and provides the right incentives to encourage fossil fuel industries to invest in green technologies. What details can the Minister give us of the support that the Government will provide to upskill and redeploy those who were formerly working in the fossil fuel industry?
We believe that much bolder action is urgently needed to ensure energy security, to cut bills and, with Donald Trump threatening to pull the United States out of the Paris agreement once again, to resume the UK�s global leadership role on climate action, which was abandoned by the previous Conservative Government. We urge this Government to introduce an emergency 10-year plan to insulate homes, starting with free insulation for the most vulnerable residents, and to introduce an energy social tariff to tackle fuel poverty and health inequalities caused by cold, damp homes.
We are deeply concerned about the cost of heating bills following Ofgem�s decision to increase the energy price cap by 6.4% this April�the third increase since October 2024. The Government must decouple electricity prices from the wholesale gas price and toughen up their windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas giants, including by increasing the tax by another two percentage points to a headline rate of 80%. Time and again, we have been disappointed by the decisions that the Government have taken this winter to delay energy bills support for households. For example, the Government�s warm homes scheme, designed to insulate homes, will not benefit households until�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is always a maximum of two minutes, and you have exceeded it. Please be seated.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. On upskilling and redeploying workers, as I said previously, we are introducing the passporting scheme and making sure that we can break down the barriers that exist in different industries, because the skills and talents of people working in oil and gas can be transferred to renewable energy. We want to make sure that we do that.
The hon. Lady talks about vulnerable residents and the cost of heating, and she is absolutely right to do so. We have all suffered from the huge cost of living crisis caused by Putin�s invasion of Ukraine. We are doing what we can, and 6 million people will now get the �150 warm homes discount this winter, which will help with their energy bills.
The hon. Lady asks about the windfall tax. The clue is in the name: it is a tax on windfall profits. While the oil and gas industry is making windfall profits, there will be a windfall tax; when it is not, there will not be. That is the way the scheme works, but her points on the need to insulate homes�we are working at pace on that�and to support vulnerable people are absolutely right. The basic principle is that we have an energy bill rise driven by fossil fuels, so we must move to home-grown power for our energy security and for long-term bill reductions.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If questions are not kept short, Members will prevent their colleagues from getting in.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on setting out a plan that supports jobs, skills and communities in the face of technological change�unlike the Conservative party, which abandoned wholesale our industrial base in the 1980s. Like the north-east of Scotland, the north-east of England has jobs, skills and opportunities that depend on the energy of the North sea. Kinewell Energy, in my constituency, leads in wind farm design optimisation. Can the Minister confirm that she will work with the Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuiness, to ensure that the north-east of England benefits from the jobs and opportunities of the North sea?
Sarah Jones
I meet industry representatives all the time, and their response to Kim McGuiness is great. She is such a force of enthusiasm, knowledge and power for her communities, and people engage with her. They like what she says about investing in the north-east, and they are responding to her. She is making a real difference in her community. We are doing all we can, through all kinds of levers that the Government can use, to make sure that the investment in clean energy supports all our communities. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we need to take advantage of the particular skills of people in the north-east.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When I climb the hill behind my home in the Lincolnshire wolds, I can see, 20 miles away, a wonderful array of wind turbines in the North sea. We love it locally�we love it for our economy�but nothing in that precludes oil and gas exploration. If we in Lincolnshire are doing so much for green energy, why are we allowing the bread basket of England to be covered with solar farms? We have 10,000 acres of them around Gainsborough, and there is another application for 3,900 acres at North Clifton. Will the Minister and her boss please look at such mass applications in the round so that there is not overdevelopment in the break basket of England?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman paints a lovely picture of walking up the hill in his constituency� I am sure we would all enjoy doing that. He makes an important point about solar. We need to make sure that we are taking people with us and doing the right things, which is what we are trying to do. We know that even if we pushed as far as we could on solar, it would still account for less than 1% of the overall land and the same proportion of our agricultural land�it is a small amount. He is right to want to make sure that his constituents have an environment that they like and enjoy. It is equally right to say that we will need infrastructure in our communities, and that people should see a benefit where we ask them to have infrastructure. There is the solar taskforce, which is looking at all these issues.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see the Government taking a very sensible approach in the consultation to working with our European partners on how we develop renewable energy and get energy costs down. As with so many other areas, our constituents have paid higher bills because the previous Government refused to work with our European counterparts. Can the Minister give us a bit more detail? As we look to expand our capacity to create renewable energy, she will be very aware that there is a risk of an �800 million charge because of the variation between our emissions trading schemes. Can she also tell us a bit more about what working with the North Seas Energy Co-operation might entail, and whether we might rejoin that organisation to help drive down bills further for our constituents?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises a number of thorny issues relating to ETS, for which I am responsible in the Department. We have been having lots of conversations about how we progress, what the EU does, what we do and what we need to do moving forward. These things are enormously complicated, because pulling a lever here will have an unintended consequence over there, so we are treading carefully, as she would expect.
On the EU partnerships and the new relationships that we have with our partners, they are incredibly important. Today the Prime Minister is with the Taoiseach in Ireland, and we are agreeing an energy partnership. We will be working together in the Celtic sea and the Irish sea to speed up progress on wind turbines by using data and our resources to look at our marine landscape and get to a point where private investors can invest quicker. These things are worth doing, and we will certainly carry on doing them.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am in favour of net zero, and this country has achieved a great deal in working towards that, but what planet is the Minister�s Department on? Is she unaware that there is now a national security crisis that demands much higher defence expenditure? Is she aware that the costs of net zero are inflicting untold harm on our industry and have done for some years? It is now time to prioritise economic growth, to target cheap energy instead of net zero, and to generate growth and energy exports in order that we can afford the defence we need. The Department is living on another planet, and the Minister should listen to her Chancellor and her Business Secretary, who are trying to give her this advice.
Sarah Jones
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am on planet Earth and that we are well aware of what we are doing. We look at the world around us and see the enormous hike in energy prices, which is linked to our being attached to the global market for oil and gas. The previous Government spent tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers� money in order to protect people against the price hike, and we cannot allow that to happen again. It is absolutely right that we push for cheaper renewable energy, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that I sit in two Departments: the Business Secretary is my boss, and the Energy Secretary is my boss. They both agree with this policy, as does the Chancellor, because it is the right thing to do.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Through support for jobs, support for skills, the prominence of the industrial strategy and support for a clean transition, the Minister has demonstrated what is possible when there is political will. To quote her words back to her, when will we be able to give the sector the support and clarity it needs to continue operating for some decades? The ceramics sector would love a package like this�or is the ceramics sector not sufficiently important enough?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask the Minister to keep her responses short.
Sarah Jones
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am over-enthusiastic and have so many things to say.
I always worry when my hon. Friends quote my words back to me. My hon. Friend and I have talked often about ceramics, and I am well aware of the issues. We had a great debate in Westminster Hall this week on the ceramics industry�s challenges with the transition and with energy prices. We are well aware of all of them, and we are working to fix them. I give as much time to ceramics as I do to any other industry, and I will continue to do so.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister has previously said that energy security is national security. Why, then, is she cutting energy jobs in the North sea, yet imposing and buying from energy technology companies in China�at best one of our competitors, at worst our enemy�instead of investing in this country for high-paid, high-skilled jobs in the North sea?
Sarah Jones
I am not sure how many times I will have to go through this, but we are not cutting energy jobs. The North sea is declining because there is less and less oil and gas there. The work the previous Government did on renewable energies secured no supply chains for this country, so we were reliant on other countries, as the hon. Member points out. We are putting in place incentives for supply chains to be in this country, so that we make more. I am delivering a steel strategy to make sure that we use steel from this country for our clean energy future. These are the policies we are putting in place to make sure we have a managed transition, clean energy, lower bills and energy security.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for the role she played in securing a future for the Methil and Arnish yards in my constituency under the new ownership of Navantia, with new and secure jobs for the future. I am glad she is taking no lessons from the shadow Minister, given that under his Government�s watch, 70,000 jobs were lost from the North sea. What we have today is an industrial strategy that looks after jobs, secures a future for the North sea and ensures that we will be there for another two generations. Can she explain how things such as a skills passport, our investment in GB Energy and our investment in the Cromarty firth�and, I hope, in ports such as Stornoway�will ensure that future?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it has been a pleasure to work with him and to see the way he has championed his community during the conversations we have had about Navantia and Harland & Wolff. The industrial strategy is there for a reason. The previous Government were ideologically opposed to one, for reasons that nobody quite understands. We are setting up a British energy company, which the Conservatives oppose for reasons we do not quite understand. Whether it is Grangemouth, Harland & Wolff, the FLOWMIS money for the port of Cromarty firth, our auction rounds for offshore wind, or hydrogen, we are putting in place the support to make sure that we build an industry we can all be proud of.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Energy bills are up �300 on Labour�s watch, while our industry cries out for certainty from this Labour Government, who have offered little more than confusion, hostility and prevarication. The Minister talks about clarity and certainty, but what she has given us is another consultation. However, she does not need another consultation to give us certainty on the Acorn carbon capture project at St Fergus, which is a no-brainer if she is serious about economic growth. Will the Minister confirm today that Scotland will finally receive this long overdue investment for the Acorn project in the spring statement later this month?
Sarah Jones
If only I was able to confirm what will be in the spring statement, but clearly I cannot do that. We are hugely supportive of the Acorn project, which is an exciting opportunity. We will be investing �21.7 billion in carbon capture, after years of failure and prevarication by the previous Government. That is obviously subject to the spending review, and I cannot give the hon. Member the answer he is after, but I think this is a really exciting opportunity for Scotland. I have met representatives of many of the businesses involved and talked to them about what the potential could be.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, particularly the Minister�s commitment that oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. Was she as surprised as I was to hear the announcement from Reform UK of a renewables investment tax that would destroy jobs in the North sea and in places such as Hartlepool, which I represent, as well as expose us to Vladimir Putin, and does she suspect that that is what Reform UK actually wants?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right to expose Reform�s arguments for the nonsense they are. The CBI brought out a report a week or so ago showing that the net zero economy grew by 10%, which is much faster than the wider economy. This is delivering jobs already, as well as investment from around the world, in part because we are the second most attractive country in the world in which to invest, as PwC has told us. The reality is that we can bring down bills, secure good jobs and make ourselves more energy secure, and Reform is living in the past.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the Minister knows, the North sea renewables sector has been very beneficial to my Brigg and Immingham constituency, and I support proposals that will enhance and speed up the development of that sector. However, many businesses in the constituency are struggling because of energy costs, as my hon. Friends have mentioned. Can the Minister give an assurance that, particularly where energy-intensive industries are involved, the Government will bear in mind the consumer, be they business or domestic?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and indeed for the good relationship we have built up from his speaking on behalf of his constituents in relation to steel and other sectors that we have talked about. Of course, energy-intensive industries talk to us about energy prices, and we are looking to see what we can do. I held a roundtable last week with the energy-intensive industries�steel, chemicals, ceramics of course, and others�and we are looking at what we can do to make sure they can be profitable and grow.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Conservative-led North East Lincolnshire council has embraced the green industries that are helping to reshape our identity in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and it is playing a critical role in decarbonising our energy estuary. Does the Minister agree that the Opposition�s new anti-renewables position undermines the ambition of young people in my constituency, who are excited by this sector? They are keen to work with these companies, which do good, pay well, provide training and benefit the community.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is standing up for the jobs and the young people in her community, and it is a shame that the national Conservative party Opposition do not seem clear on what their policy is. Where people can see the jobs and the benefits, councils such as her Conservative-led council support renewables, but for some reason Conservative Front Benchers do not. I do not understand that, but we will keep backing this agenda because we know it will deliver jobs.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
A really interesting line in the Minister�s statement shows, in my opinion, the Labour Government�s complete misunderstanding of the role of the North sea. She said that
�the reality is that new licences�awarded in the past decade have made only a marginal difference to overall production.�
However, that does not take into account the jobs they have supported, the tax intake that comes with them, and the skills, investment and expertise they have preserved and that will help in the transition to renewable energies. Is the Minister saying in her statement that she is actually willing to sacrifice all that to ideologically stop new licences in the North sea?
Sarah Jones
The previous Government oversaw a loss of 70,000 jobs that they cared not one jot about. They had no plan of support and no transition plan, and they allowed that managed decline without any commitment. This Government are doing exactly the opposite. We are supporting that transition, we are supporting those workers and we are making sure we can transition people, grow the economy and deliver energy security at the same time.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend�s statement, and indeed the fact that there is a plan. Although the Tories now accept that they did not have a plan, which is at least an important admission, the result of that lack of a plan is that have been left with uncertainty for both workers and consumers. In East Thanet, we need better jobs and lower bills, and surely she will agree with me that the overall security of our energy is also vital. There is one solution, which is to get off fossil fuels and shift to renewable energy as soon as possible.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She was of course referring to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who said yesterday that
�one of the things our party did not get right in government was setting ambitious goals on�energy policy without having a clear�plan to deliver them.��[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 171WH.]
I entirely agree with him.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Government�s commitment to no new oil and gas licences, and to putting workers and communities at the heart of the transition to a climate-safe economy. It is a bit disappointing to hear that so many Conservative Members still live on planet flat earth, with an ostrich approach to our energy future when what we need is a phoenix approach. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question. Can she confirm that the 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent currently in the North sea will not be pumped? If it is, it would be the equivalent of running 15 coal-fired power stations from now until 2050. She will know the climate implications. Will she confirm that the Government will stop consent for new production?
Sarah Jones
Our manifesto was clear that we would not issue new licences, we would not revoke existing licences, we would manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan, and we would ban fracking. The consultation is about the detail behind that. There are some complicated issues that we need to unpick, which is why we are having the consultation, why we welcome everybody�s views, and why I hope the hon. Lady will add her voice to it.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
We are in the midst of yet another fossil fuel price spike, caused by our overreliance on international gas markets. Despite my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages being landlocked and quite far from the North sea, I am very proud to have GE Vernova�s largest UK base there, supporting over 1,700 jobs and providing some of the technology for over 30% of UK electricity. Does the Minister agree that there is only one solution to the price spike: to get off fossil fuels and move on to clean home-grown power here in the UK?
Sarah Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend�s question. What GE Vernova is doing and the jobs it is providing are incredibly important for her community. We will continue to encourage growth in that sector and beyond through our industrial strategy with its eight sector plans, one of which is clean energy. These things are all connected. We can grow the economy and deliver clean energy, and we can do it together.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
BP�s global headquarters are in my constituency. As the Minister meets industry �all the time�, to use her words, she will be fully aware that it announced a major reset last month, whereby it is increasing its investment in upstream oil and gas to the tune of $10 billion a year from next year. That is investors� money, not taxpayers� money. Is the Minister not concerned that by making Britain a hostile environment for oil and gas extraction, we are simply kissing away that investment to overseas?
Sarah Jones
I met BP yesterday to talk about that. If we look at somewhere like the US, there are massive supplies of oil and gas. BP has made its decision. We are working with it very closely on carbon capture and hydrogen in particular. If we drilled as much as we possibly could in the North sea, we would only find less than 1% of the global market. This is a declining basin �that is a fact. It has declined significantly over the past decade and it will continue to do so. We need to manage that process and support people. BP is working very closely with the Government on our renewables agenda, and on carbon capture and hydrogen.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The usual luddite tendencies are on display on the Opposition Benches after 14 years of abject failure. This Government are embracing the golden triangle: energy security to reduce bills, transitioning to net zero, and hundreds of thousands of secure British jobs in Scotland and across the UK. Does the Minister agree that if the shadow Minister, who has a great track record of losing jobs, does not want jobs in Scotland, we will have them in Cornwall?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point to the golden triangle of energy security, jobs and climate, and how we can bring them together. I am working hard�not as hard as him; he is working incredibly hard�on bringing as many jobs as possible to his constituency. I look forward to continuing to do that.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I keep repeating myself: short questions please.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As someone with two generations of their family who have depended on the North sea oil and gas industry, I know that we have to move away from fossil fuels and that we have to drive forward to the just transition, but we must also recognise that we are not there yet and that this is not the moment to push the industry off a cliff. It is declining naturally. We are leaving ourselves in a position where we will still need oil, so will we import it? We will need gas for hydrogen production, plastics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. All of that is necessary. We also face a threat from the Chinese trying to infiltrate our renewables, so what are the Government going to do about that?
Sarah Jones
As I hope I made clear, we are not revoking existing licences and we will manage the existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan. As I also made clear, this is a declining basin and we need to manage the transition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the challenges, and I have great respect for her family history and for all those who work in oil and gas. She is right that we will need oil and gas for decades to come. We are trying to have a sensible plan to manage that process and I hope she will take part in the consultation, too.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister has already alluded to last week�s CBI report, which set out some of the huge opportunities that net zero offers for job creation, investment and growth. Will she outline to the House what steps her Department is taking to ensure we benefit from all that opportunity through Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund?
Sarah Jones
The National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will be incredibly important in this space. Most countries have a sovereign wealth fund like the National Wealth Fund. We have set that up. Most countries have their state energy companies. We have loads of state energy companies�just other countries�. It is absolutely right that we set up our own. We also have the clean energy bonus, which will mean that we are encouraging supply chains and jobs here in the UK, so we can move away from reliance on other countries.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
With due deference to the newly appointed Minister for Aberdeen on the Conservative Benches, the question of these jobs is not a matter purely for the north-east or purely for Scotland. Those 200,000 jobs are spread across every constituency in this country and they are all at risk. As we heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), they are being pushed off a cliff edge. The Minister talked about our energy bills being in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Does she not agree with me that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place? We have Vladimir Putin on one side driving up energy bills and her dogmatic Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the other.
Sarah Jones
I do not agree with that framing whatsoever. We have Putin who invaded Ukraine, leading to the massive global shock for energy prices, and we have a Secretary of State who is very pragmatically taking forward plans to, as the triangle tells us, protect and grow jobs, and give us energy security. I think most people in the country understand that. They get that we need energy security and to tackle the climate at the same time.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Scandalously, the workers of the Grangemouth refinery are to be the victims of a very unjust transition. The folly of a foreign state and private capital being in charge of such a key vital piece of energy infrastructure is laid bare, especially with no UK Government involvement. I am curious as to what ownership role the UK Government will take in the new energy industries that will be at Grangemouth.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend will know about the announcements that were made recently about support for Grangemouth. In the last couple of weeks, I met INEOS to talk about its chemical factory and the huge contribution it brings in terms of jobs and the provision of chemicals. The �200 million investment from the National Wealth Fund is really important in this space. The work that the Government have done to look at possible businesses and industries for Grangemouth in the future is really important and I am very happy to have a conversation with him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I very much welcome the move towards clean energy, my concern is that we cannot allow energy prices to rise any further, especially when we take into account the loss of the winter fuel payment for many pensioners on the poverty line. How will the Minister ensure that clean energy and heat will not be out of reach for those who are already struggling: the elderly, the vulnerable, those in poor health and those in poverty?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We know that energy bills have been rising because of the oil and gas we rely on and the impact of the war in Ukraine. We have massively increased the warm home discount so that 6 million households will get �150 to help towards their energy bills, but he is right to champion people who are going through a cost of living crisis. We will do what we can to support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That marks the end of the statement. I could not get all colleagues in because questions were so long, and answers were occasionally just as lengthy.
Point of Order
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill on 12 February, I raised concerns over the accuracy and reliability of data with the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), particularly in relation to verification of sex. He undertook to write to me, which indeed he has:
�Digital verification services can be used to prove sex or gender in the same way that individuals can already prove their sex using their passport for example.�
That is a direct quote from the letter.
In fact, a passport does no such thing; it says what sex someone likely is. For example, if it says someone is female, it means they are likely female, but they could be male with a gender recognition certificate, or a male person who has a letter from their doctor saying that they are likely to continue living as though a female for the rest of their lives. This has been the case for many years.
I am worried that this letter, which has been put in both Libraries, may mislead the House, or indeed any constituent who may need to read it. How can I correct the record in this regard?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that she has notified the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore that she intended to raise the matter in the Chamber. The Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial correspondence. However, the hon. Lady has put her point on the record, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will indeed take note.
SUPPLY AND APPROPRIATION (ANTICIPATION AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
International Women�s Day
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Women�s Day.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and draw the House�s attention to my entry in the Register of Members� Financial Interests. I am an ambassador for Ask for Angela, a great scheme whereby someone feeling unsafe in a club can go to the bar and talk to somebody, and they will help in any way they can. I am also an ambassador for fair pay with the global fair pay charter, which aims to improve the living conditions and pay for more than 25 million tea plantation workers worldwide, many of whom are women. As we know, financial independence is a route out of an abusive relationship.
I congratulate this Parliament on being the most diverse Parliament, with 41% female Members. We all know our number, Madam Deputy Speaker: I was the 286th woman to be elected to this House, and the first elected black female Minister in the UK, under Gordon Brown�s Government. As shadow Minister, I was instrumental in getting the International Women�s Day flag flown over the House and in getting the first IWD debate on the Floor of the House. I remember asking the Speaker at the time whether my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, could read out the names of the women who had been killed by men to start the debate�just that, without a speech. I think it still took about seven or eight minutes. Ten years later, that list is still just as long; it still takes that amount of time. How can that be? How can it be that a woman is still killed every three days by a partner or former partner? There are still women who are not counted, such as women who commit suicide because of domestic abuse and trans women and girls.
I have been thinking about this a lot. I have been told that heterosexual or straight white men and boys feel that there is no longer a place for them in society, and that is why they are turning to the far right. That really saddens me, because there is a place for everyone in society. There is, of course, a place for straight white men and boys; there is a very important role for them to play in society. We will hear a lot today about the fact that one woman is killed every three days, and that 97% of them are killed by men, the majority of whom are white. If we want to protect women, we need to reach out to men�the ones who are informed, kind and loving�and we need to say, �We need you now, more than ever before.� Right now, there are some serious, toxic, misogynistic men�some of whom are straight�and they are harming women, society, gay people and black people. This is the very foundation on which we live. We need to say no.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glynd?r) (Lab)
In the UK, a woman is murdered by a current or former partner every week. According to research from Women�s Aid, 46% of women have faced some form of abuse in an intimate relationship during their lifetime. Given these harrowing statistics, we must confront domestic abuse for what it truly is: a national emergency. Does she agree that lifesaving specialist domestic abuse services, which have been chronically underfunded, must receive the investment that they so desperately need?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend hits on an important point. We absolutely need that investment. If we are serious about saving lives, we need to do whatever it takes. If we want to see a reduction in the number of women being killed, we need to invest in making that happen.
We also need to have those uncomfortable conversations. It is not tough to hit women, as is spouted by Andrew Tate, or to rape women, or to ridicule women or girls because they have said no. We have to have those conversations. We have to say, �This is wrong.� We have to talk to all the men feeling like that. I am wearing a male shirt and tie today, but it does not mean that the world is going to run out of male shirts and ties. There is enough to go around for everybody, and we have to have that conversation.
We have to show men loving women. We have to educate boys and girls. It is interesting that some fathers treat their daughters like princesses, and think that by treating them that way, their daughter will learn how to be treated, but the reality is that they will learn by how their father treats his partner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I cannot stay for the debate, unfortunately, but I wanted to have this on the record. The statistics on the murders of women in Northern Ireland are the highest in the United Kingdom. The Minister knows that. Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to addressing the murders of women across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we need a strategy that starts here in Westminster and sweeps out to the rest of the regions? We have to better manage and respond to this issue and protect our women and ladies and young girls, both in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom.
Dawn Butler
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure he will be forgiven for missing half of a debate today.
Women are being killed�that is a fact. We have got too used to talking about the statistics without thinking about who is at the end of it, and that we are losing a woman every three days to murder. It starts somewhere. At the end of the day, the way that women are demonised and attacked, and the way that we attack trans women�it starts somewhere. It is a deliberate act and action.
I also want to thank organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Centenary Action�whose all-party parliamentary group I co-chair with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)�and the Asian Women's Resource Centre in Brent. It is important that we start to celebrate women, as the Mayor did in renaming the Overground lines. The line that I get on was renamed the Lioness line. At first, I was a little confused�I thought, �Am I on the right train?� Now, though, I smile, because I know that when people ask why it is called the Lioness line, the response will always be, �Because a really great female football team brought the cup home.� Those are the little things that we can do that will make a big difference. Many men feel insecure about that, so we need to tell them not to worry and to just chill.
There are men who say that we should not talk about firsts�women who are first to do this, or first to do that. I say that we should celebrate those women, because they show that we have made a bit of progress. For example, we have the first female Deputy Speaker of colour in the Chair�congratulations on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!�] We have the first female metro mayor, Tracy Brabin and the first registered blind MP for Battersea, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). I could spend my whole time talking about all those firsts, but we do still have a way to go.
There are more good people in the world than bad. I see men in power saying, �Don�t celebrate women. Don�t talk about women.� Some even say, �Erase women�, which is really quite scary. They are literally trying to erase women and our achievements, but I know that there are men who can and must speak out. The reality is that we have some aggressive, white supremacist males who are saying that women should not exist, or that we belong in the kitchen and that is it. We cannot go backwards. We have come too far, so that just ain�t going to happen.
If I were to ban steps�I ask Members to bear with me for a moment�and replace them with a slope, would that stop people from getting to their destination? No, it would not, but would it help people who have problems with walking or who are in a wheelchair to get to their destinations? Yes, it would. This is not necessarily about taking something away. It can be about changing something to help other people also get to their destination. To all those boys and men who feel that they have to turn to the far right or to become incels, I say, �Is it time to change? Is it time for you to change how you talk, how you act, and the attitude that you take? Would you like your mother, your sister, your girlfriend or your partner to be talked about or treated in the way that you treat women?�
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I am sure that all those young women in Brent and north London who are watching her will be very proud.
One topic that often comes up in our local mothers� WhatsApp chats is social media. My hon. Friend is talking a lot about change. Statistics show that, after spending time online and on social media, 40% of young women and girls feel lonely and depressed because of all the online abuse. Does she think that social media platforms need to take some responsibility for the content that is amplified through their platforms?
Dawn Butler
Social media platforms have a vital role to play. They understand that negativity spreads faster than positivity. In the old days of legacy media, it was often said, �If it bleeds, it leads�. Those platforms are absolutely aware of the damage that they do. They will not voluntarily make the changes that they need to make and, as a Government, we need to legislate for those changes to be made.
When I watched the story of the Women�s Army Corps unit of colour, which stars Kerry Washington as Captain Charity Adams, I actually cried. The 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion contributed to the war effort in a unique way. They sorted through 17 million pieces of mail and delivered it to American soldiers on the frontline. Those 855 black women improved morale and brought hope to the frontline, yet after going through all of that, they were discriminated against and history tried to erase them. We have to wonder why that is. Why do people continually try to erase women and people of colour from history?
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. As we mark International Women�s Day, I have to say that I am proud�absolutely honoured� to stand here not only as a black woman, but as a former nurse. However, black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Does she agree that we can only truly say that we have honoured International Women�s Day when this glaring disparity is addressed?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is also a first, so I congratulate her on that�and, yes, I absolutely agree with her on that point.
On average, we will all live to see 80 Christmases. The thing is, what are we going to do with them? Some people in the world are acting like they will live forever�God, I hope we do not, and I know that that will not be the case�but some pass through the world, leaving it just as they found it. Our job in Parliament is to change the world for the better. We need to leave an indelible footprint by ensuring that the world protects all women, not just straight, white women. We should start with the gay women, the black women and the disabled women. If we protect those, we will protect all women and the world will be a better place.
I often say that I cannot get my rights until everybody has their rights, because our rights and our lives are very much intertwined�whether we believe it or not. And just because I am pro-women, pro-LGBTQI+ and pro-black, it does not mean, as has been said online, that I am anti-white; far from it. I am pro-jerk chicken and rice and peas and I still love a bit of pie and mash and fish and chips. We can love more than one thing and be pro many things.
I want to end with a cold reality check. In Malcolm Gladwell�s brilliant book, �The Tipping Point� and in his follow-up book �Revenge of the Tipping Point�, he talks about the law of the very few, the overstory and the counterfactual line �what would have happened if�. We were slowly winning the war on highlighting violence against women and girls, highlighting injustices and highlighting discrimination, but we did not appreciate the honest conversations that we needed to have around how epidemics work, or appreciate the power of group proportions.
We are fooling ourselves if we think that we bear no responsibility for this epidemic of violence against women and girls. Epidemics have rules and they have boundaries. They are subjected to overstories, and we in society are in a position of power to create those overstories. These overstories change in size and shape when they reach a tipping point and it is possible to know when we are reaching that tipping point. We are currently at that tipping point when it comes to violence against women and girls.
The opioid crisis in the US is a lesson for us all. Most of the medical profession acted professionally, but a tiny fraction�just a few�did not, and that was enough to fuel an opioid epidemic in the US. That tiny fraction was driven by a certain class of people, and those people can be identified. The tools needed to control an epidemic are right in front of us. They are sitting on the table, and we can either grab those tools or let the unscrupulous people grab them. If we grab them, we can build a better world.
We need to take action and have an honest conversation. We need to ensure that organisations that believe in fair pay get the procurement contracts. We need to be mindful about the social media platforms that we use, and we need to elect people who care for many people, not just the 1%. By doing that, we will accelerate action, which is the theme of International Women�s Day this year.
I end with a message to the straight white boys and men in the middle of the table: �We need your protection, we need your love, we need your care and we need your kindness.� We know, as I have said, that daughters and young girls learn how to be treated by their partners by watching how men treat women in their lives, and young boys learn how to be men from the men in their lives, so we need all men, regardless of colour, class and economic status, to lead by example. Women are literally fighting for their lives. I want every single man in the world watching this debate to join us in that struggle. We should all believe in fairness. We should all believe in ending discrimination and homophobia.
In the time that it has taken me to make this speech, one woman globally will have been killed by her partner or a family member. May her soul rest in peace.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in today�s International Women�s Day debate. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing it. I want to use the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Scottish women, and particularly those from my constituency and the wider north-east Scotland.
When we are speaking about women breaking barriers, I need look no further than Methlick in Aberdeenshire, the birthplace of Dame Evelyn Glennie. Profoundly deaf from the age of 12, Dame Evelyn did not just overcome that challenge but revolutionised our understanding of how music can be experienced, feeling vibrations all through her body to become the world�s first full-time solo percussionist. With over 100 performances worldwide each year and having commissioned more than 200 new works, she has shown how determination can transform what many would see as a limitation into a unique strength.
In Inverurie, the largest town in my constituency, we have Hannah Miley, who trained at the Garioch amateur swimming club before representing Great Britain at the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Olympics. What many do not know about her remarkable story, however, is that she spent her life training in a 25-metre pool rather than the Olympic-standard 50-metre facilities of her competitors, often sharing lanes with the public. She went on to become a Commonwealth gold medallist and now inspires the next generation of swimmers across Scotland.
In the realm of science, Aberdeen�s Professor Dame Anne Glover stands as a testament to Scottish women�s intellectual prowess. Not only did she serve as the first chief scientific adviser in Scotland but she became the first chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission. Her pioneering work in microbial biosensors at the University of Aberdeen has placed our region at the forefront of scientific innovation.
In agriculture, which is so important to my constituency, we see women taking ever more prominent roles. Jane Craigie from Aberdeenshire exemplifies that leadership as a co-founder of the Rural Youth Project, which connects young people with opportunities in agriculture. The skills and determination of women farmers are essential to our local economy and the future of Scotland�s agricultural sector.
It would be remiss of me not also to mention Professor Lorna Dawson CBE, who is based in Aberdeen at the James Hutton Institute. As of 2025, she has continued her pioneering work in soil forensics and has helped to solve numerous criminal cases, advising police investigations across the UK. Professor Dawson was recently awarded the Royal Society of Edinburgh�s James Hutton medal for her exceptional contribution to earth and environmental sciences. Her work connecting soil science to justice demonstrates how expertise from our region is making a difference both nationally and internationally.
Of course, it would be wrong for anyone on the Conservative Benches not to acknowledge the ground- breaking legacy of Margaret Thatcher, the UK�s first female Prime Minister whose determination to succeed in a male-dominated political world opened doors for women across the political spectrum. Her legacy continues to inspire women in politics every day.
Finally, and most important to me, there is my mum, who was, as far as has been reported, the first woman mechanic on an all-weather lifeboat when she joined the crew of a station in Ireland in 1998. There really is nothing more inspiring�if not a bit scary�for an eight-year-old to watch their mum pull on her drysuit and head out to sea in gale force conditions. She would not forgive me if I did not emphasise the open-mindedness of the men on the crew who, almost 30 years ago, were willing and able to see her potential, not her gender. Just this morning, my mum told me:
�I only became a mechanic because the crew were willing to give me a chance. Decades of tradition with fishermen took me to sea and allowed me to achieve it�particularly Tony the coxswain. If the crew hadn�t been so open-minded, I wouldn�t have become one.�
Let us use this International Women's Day to reaffirm our commitment to empowering women and creating a more equitable future for all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for introducing this incredibly important International Women�s Day debate. The debate is always well attended, but it is also one of the most informative and heartfelt debates we have in Parliament. I am incredibly proud to take part as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
It has been said that the Committee has had quite a flying start. We have done a lot, but I answer that with the fact that there is a lot to do. This year�s International Women�s Day theme, as has already been said, is �Accelerate Action�, and we know that we cannot slow down; we do have to accelerate, and not just with words but with action. On behalf of the whole Committee, I am proud to say that we will not be slowing down any time soon.
In less than a year, we have focused our work very much on key areas�we have also continued the fantastic work of the previous Committee�and particularly on health. Last year, we produced a report on women�s reproductive health, which we called �Medical Misogyny�. Some people said, �That�s quite strong,� but frankly we could not describe the evidence that we had seen in the inquiry as anything other than medical misogyny.
Diagnosis for adenomyosis and endometriosis takes on average eight years. That is the average, so there are people waiting much longer than eight years just for diagnosis, not treatment. That is women being ignored and being left in pain. I know women who have been eventually diagnosed with adenomyosis or endometriosis but were fobbed off time and again by medical practitioners and doctors. They were told, �Have some paracetamol, a hot water bottle and a lie down and you�ll be fine.� That, again, is an example of where women are ignored to the detriment of their health as well as our country�s health and our economy�s health.
Painful procedures such as hysteroscopies and intrauterine device fittings are still taking place for women without any offer of pain relief. A sharp pinch? No, not on my nelly is that a sharp pinch. Again, I am grateful that men do not have to endure that pain, but why is it that women still do? Even though the guidelines have changed, women are still having to go through incredibly painful procedures without the relief that they deserve.
One recommendation in our report made clear the need to educate our young people better about what to expect for women�s reproductive health�that goes for boys as well as girls. We need to end the stigma of periods, and period poverty in particular. Young people also need to know what is normal. We were often told, �It�s normal that your period will hurt. You�ll bleed and you�re going to be uncomfortable,� but it is not normal to be curled up in bed for seven days. It is not normal for periods or menstrual cycles to be so painful that they stop us from going to school, taking part in PE or going to work. All those things are not normal, yet it has been ingrained in us that it is normal for us to be in pain and that it is normal for our lives to be disrupted by our hormones and everything that is happening with our bodies. Frankly, it is not. That is why one of the recommendations made it clear that we need to do better to educate ourselves and our young people and enable our educators to have the tools and the resources they need so that the next generation of women�and young men�know exactly what happens to a woman�s body.
When it comes to research�this stuck in my mind when we were doing the report�far too much has been tailored towards men and men�s medical needs. We know that the average paracetamol dose, for example, is the correct dosage for a western male, not for a woman. It is the same with seatbelts and everything else. But here is something: five times more research goes into erectile dysfunction, which affects 19% of men, than premenstrual syndrome, which affects 90% of women. When we talk about action, we need to see it across the board, particularly in health.
There is progress�absolutely, there is�and I am so proud that we will see the Employment Rights Bill come forward next week. But there are always ways to improve�always. The Committee produced a report in January that looked specifically at miscarriage bereavement leave. That issue is very close to my heart, and I know that many inside and outside this Chamber have long campaigned for the right to grieve the loss of a pregnancy following miscarriage. We have seen some movement, and that is incredibly welcome. Now is the time for action.
There are thousands of employers out there that already offer bereavement leave for workers who miscarry. Many are private sector employers and, let us be honest, they are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They are doing it because it is financially rewarding, it is reputationally good and it is good for their workers. They include massive companies such as TUI, which I went to visit last week at the hangar in Luton airport. I did not contain my inner child when I sat in a cockpit, I will tell you that, but once I gathered myself, I asked, �Where are all the women engineers?� They said that they were really struggling, as they want to have more women engineers. I also asked, �Where are your women apprentices?� because they have fantastic apprenticeships there. They are so ripe and they are ready. I asked, �What are your workplace policies for miscarriage?� They said, �Do you know what? I wish more people knew.� TUI offers time off for grief, with miscarriage bereavement leave. There are companies out there�the Co-operative Group is another�doing the right thing and trying to make sure that the workplace is right for women.
In the case of public sector employers, the NHS offers miscarriage bereavement leave for its workers. The largest public sector employer of women in our country offers bereavement leave for those who miscarry. I have had representatives sat in front of me in two different Committees�the Public Accounts Committee pre-election and now the Women and Equalities Committee �and I asked them twice how much that cost. The chief finance officer for the NHS said it was de minimis. Translation: basically nothing. It is not costing them anything to offer that; if anything, it is saving them in terms of staff retention and length of time off sick. When we do not grieve well and do not have the space and time to grieve, we store up problems in the longer term. I think society has caught up with that; it is time the law did too.
We heard in Committee about the difference that a change in law could make, from women who were brave enough to give testimony of their experiences of multiple miscarriages, and of having to drive themselves to hospital because their partner or their husband could not take time off and nearly bleeding to death along the way. I know the difference a change in law could make and how angry I was when I had to take sick pay. When I had my three miscarriages, people were really lovely and I was very open about it, but not one single person said to me, �Get better soon.� They said, �I am sorry for your loss.� If society has moved on and realises that miscarriage and pregnancy loss is a loss and not a sickness, it is time our law did as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) mentioned maternal health in her intervention, and I know that we will hear more about the need to close the gap on maternal death rates for black mothers. Clo and Tinuke at Five X More are doing fantastic work on that, and I praise everybody who is working to close that gap, because it is much needed.
Yesterday, at the Select Committee, we heard evidence on female genital mutilation. There are an estimated 137,000 victims of FGM in our country, and I fear that number is much higher from the evidence we heard yesterday on the levels of under-reporting. There was much noise and much movement and progress made 10 years ago, but that progress has stalled. Some of the training manuals for doctors and midwives are 10 years out of date. They are well past time for review, and in the last 10 years, we have seen about three prosecutions for FGM. I know that prosecution is perhaps not where we need to be, and I do not want to predetermine the outcome of the report, but prevention is a huge part of the answer. We will present our report accordingly.
Another area on which we have produced a report is technology, which has already been touched upon. We produced a very chunky report on non-consensual intimate image abuse, which is a deeply personal crime that can have life-changing and life-threatening consequences, as the lived experience of inquiry witness Georgia Harrison demonstrates. The Committee heard shocking evidence about the scale and impact of NCII abuse, with a tenfold increase in just four years and more than 22,000 reported cases in 2024.
Every victim of a sexual offence deserves to be treated with respect and have their case investigated promptly and effectively by the police; however, that is not what we heard. In many cases, police treatment of victims of intimate image abuse has been characterised by a lack of understanding and in some cases misogyny, with officers choosing to patronise victims rather than support them. That is totally unacceptable and must change.
We welcome the Government�s proposals to make creating NCIIs an offence, but a legal gap remains. NCIIs can continue to circulate online years after the image was posted. Even though many sites will eventually remove the content when prompted, around 10% do not. There is not yet enough in the Government�s proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill to address that concern. We would love to see the Government bring forward amendments to the Bill to make possession of NCIIs, in addition to their creation, an offence. That will put NCIIs on the same footing as child sexual abuse material in how they are treated online and, we hope, provide the necessary encouragement to block or disrupt access to such content, particularly that which has been hosted overseas.
We are also doing work on community cohesion, gendered Islamophobia, shared parental leave and women in business and entrepreneurs, which is incredibly important because the Government are focused on growth. Women must play a significant part in that.
There is a lot that I could talk about; there is far too much in this speech already, and I am sure that there will be loads in this debate. But we live in an increasingly divisive world, and women are at the sharp end of it. Why do we even need an International Women�s Day debate? To be honest, I really wish we did not, but we need it because progress is not inevitable. We are seeing in countries such as Iraq the lowering of the age of consent to nine. �Nine� and �consent�: those two words do not go together; a child cannot give consent. Women�s bodies are being used as weapons of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Kashmir, in the middle east and in Xinjiang�the list goes on. It is harder to be a woman than it should be.
One day, I really hope that we will need International Women�s Day not to highlight the problems or ask for action but to celebrate the progress. There has been progress made, and I want to end on a high note, which is sport. Women�s sport: I love it�absolutely adore it�and I know that there are some big fans here. From the Lionesses to Luton Town Ladies, there are fantastic successes. I was all excited when the Lionesses were on television, but I am so glad that when I said to my five-year-old girl, �Look at this! Look at women�s football! It�s on the television!�, she looked at me and went, �Yeah,� and shrugged her shoulders. For her, that is the norm; it is not something special. For me, it is something special to see that, but for her, it is the norm. I want it to be the norm for every little girl in our country.
I will now do something that is a little bit left-field for me. I went to a Sky Sports event and it was fantastic. Sporty Spice was there, so the 16-year-old me was even more excited than in the cockpit of a plane. There were fantastic sportswomen but also the people who support and show the sport and show that there is money and progress to be had from it and that people want to watch and consume it and cheer sportswomen on from the stands. At the start of the event, there was an incredible spoken word piece�there was also a song, but do not worry, I will not sing�by a fantastic and beautiful artist called Sophia Thakur. We all know that famous Barbie monologue; we have all heard it, haven�t we? For me, this just goes one step further, and I will end by reading just a little bit of what she said.
It is called �Gladiators�:
They say you�re strong for a girl. Or fast for a woman.
How can she be a girl? How can gold be a woman?
They call you a butterfly because they see those wings.
I know you�re the eagle type, high above these things.
They say to act like a girl, but the whole world wouldn�t be
if we deceived our power.
The land trembles as we rise from the dust came our towers.
But we meet these mountains that we are expected to climb.
But with no sweat, no muscles, no grind.
But with makeup and gentleness,
and the kind of competitiveness that�s comfortable for them and kind.
They�re like, �Would you mind maintaining your shape? Your figure 8.
Don�t get too strong. Practise a soft voice and some grace.
But still win. Still first place but like a lady might.�
Funny there. It�s when I�m my strongest, I feel most like the lady type.
When these legs activate and I can jump to crazy heights.
When these shoulders broaden and I can carry both the world and its opinions straight to the finish.
God bless the strength in these arms. Ah, how they have held me over the years.
And God bless the sisters I have found sat across from my fears.
This table is laid before us in the presence of our frenemies.
We�re celebrated for our wins. Whilst they berate our anatomy.
To be a woman is to live twice. To live firstly for the thing that you love
and then a second life for the fight.
One mind for the game and then this other for the might
that it might take to still choose this day after day.
Give the girls two gold medals.
Give the women double the pay.
Give them triple their portion.
Let your applause reverberate.
Sing her song when you sing of the greats and strike for a woman from after her name
because if she has changed the face of the whole game, she is victorious over history.
Would you like to be as you grow? Who would you like to become as you age?
Would you like to be pretty, have your face across pages, or would you like to be demure?
Known for your softness and your patience or a girl.
Tell me how would you like to become a gladiator.
To all the women gladiators in this place, past and present, and outside it�thank you. One day, International Women�s Day will be about the realisation of all our hopes and ambitions. Until that day, I am proud to be gladiators with you.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. We start with an immediate four-minute time limit.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am honoured to speak in this debate in advance of International Women�s Day on Saturday 8 March, which I will be celebrating with the all-women steam train crew at Rheilffordd Talyllyn railway in Tywyn.
International Women�s Day remains as relevant now as ever. We, and the generations of women who have come before us, have achieved so much since the first International Women�s Day in 1911, but we still have a long way to go. When we talk about a gender-equal society, let us be clear about where we mean: in the home, in public spaces, in the workplace.
Here in Westminster, we celebrate that 40% of this Parliament are now women. Indeed, we were taking a photograph just yesterday morning to that effect. In the Senedd, the cross-party women�s caucus has been re-established �a bold show of force between women across the political divide. Those are positive steps towards a gender balance but not necessarily towards gender equality, including equally safe workplaces, which I will speak about now.
Members will know that a 2023 TUC poll found that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse in the workplace. Reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control from colleagues make up around 50% of calls made to the Rights of Women sexual harassment at work advice line, but as it stands, protections are limited.
The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 created a preventive duty for employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, but an automatic investigation into a breach of that duty only takes place after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment, and many other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace are excluded.
Meanwhile, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which is so familiar to employers, places a duty on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work. Why not use the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace to tackle workplace gender-based harassment and violence too? That is exactly what my Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Amendment) Bill, developed with the brilliant Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Rights of Women seeks to do, alongside new clauses 39 and 40 to the Employment Rights Bill, which would have the same effect. I hope that hon. Members will consider supporting those new clauses.
My Bill would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments, policy development and the provision of recognition and prevention training to all employees. Those boring-sounding things would make a difference in the workplace and to people�s lives. The Bill would mandate the Health and Safety Executive, which does not currently consider gender-based violence a workplace hazard and is not viewed as the primary authority for bullying, harassment or domestic abuse in the workplace, to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and to issue guidance for employers. Leveraging health and safety legal frameworks that are already in place would require employers to actively work towards eliminating gender-based violence, while establishing a systematic and publicly enforceable approach to the prevention of, and safeguarding from, the spectrum of gender-based violence in the workplace.
If these are the differences we wish to make�differences to women�s lives in the workplace�let us use all the powers we have at our disposal and make them work for women more effectively than they presently do. Let�s use all our powers. I hope everyone enjoys International Women�s Day on Saturday.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is an honour to be here today as the first MP to represent Bolsover who is a woman. [Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!�] Thank you. I am surrounded by fantastic women not only here, but in Bolsover�women who run businesses and nurture our next generation, such as foster carer Sonja Dayson in Creswell, women who inspire us as community leaders, such as Helen Marriott of Pinxton scouts, with nearly four decades of dedication, and women who support charities to thrive and fight to make a difference with tenacity, like Edwina Cant of Bolsover Woodlands Enterprise. I will spend this week celebrating them all and more.
Today I want to talk about the hidden issues that affect us women�too often our private burden. If we look at the last Parliament, the BBC was discussed more often than childcare. Fishing was five times more likely to be mentioned than menopause. This historic House, which women died to get us into, spent more time discussing football than rape.
My daughter�she is brave and wonderful�tells me, �Mum, every time you talk about rape, every time you say the word, I bristle. Please do not stop.� My baby�my little baby�is about to start big school. The data tells me that while she is there, she will witness sexual harassment and potentially be sent dick pics, and there is nothing that I can do to protect her from that.
This is not a class or age thing; it does not matter how far we go back. It is an accepted part of the story of Mary Queen of Scots that the nobles chose among themselves who was going to rape her with the intention of impregnating her. Yet we still do not accept that that happens in the UK. Ten births happen every day from rape. There is no charity to support those women and no advice on the NHS website. The men can access those children at any time they like. Every single one of us has either been raped or knows someone who has been raped. Rape is a part of our story as women, yet it is a part that we do not tell.
I want to tell you about rape and being an MP. Rape threats are an accepted part of the job. I thank the Minister for speaking up about this disgusting truth. I am the 690th woman MP. Rape Crisis estimates that a quarter of women have been raped or sexually assaulted. If we apply that data to MPs, that means that 172 of us have been raped, and half of them�86 woman MPs�will have been raped more than once. Statistically, 28 of them will have reported it. Given a miracle, or on an optimistic day, one could have led to a conviction�at the very best.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way during her extremely powerful speech. Will she remind everybody of the importance not only of the fact of rape, but of prosecuting and convicting the perpetrators of those rapes, so that we remember that this is not simply about a passive violence against women and girls, but about identifying the causes and the people who do those crimes?
Natalie Fleet
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
I am proud to be part of a Government who have set out an unprecedented ambition to halve violence against women and girls, but what I want us to think about on this day is how we tell our story. I have spoken publicly about giving birth after being the victim of statutory rape, and I am sick of being told I am brave. I do not want to be brave; I want it to be expected that we tell our truth. Courage calls to courage everywhere. Let us make it normal to talk about rape�in workplaces, in kitchens, with friends. Instead of bristling, let us talk about it like we talk about football; let us talk to our boys about consent and celebrate the men who are our allies. Most importantly, listen to her, support her and, for God�s sake, believe her. If you are one of the colleagues, friends or constituents who have told me about your rape, I ask you to tell each other. You will be surprised how many people believe you and then share their story with you, too.
I am the very proud nana of a beautiful granddaughter. She is four weeks old and named after one of the suffragettes who helped me to get here today. I genuinely believe that if we are brave now and make speaking out the norm, we can have a world in which she tells her grandchildren about the fact that they did it and we hid it. I want that to be the part that her grandchildren do not believe. There is a lot to do and it can feel overwhelming, but let us put our arms around each other and use our power to force that shame to change sides.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I think that International Women�s Day is fantastic because it gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to someone whose birthday would have been on International Women�s Day had she not been born in 1909. I hope that she passes the �gladiator� bar to which the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) referred.
Beatrice Shilling is one of the most consequential people of the 20th century that people have never heard of. She was born in Waterlooville, Hampshire, and soon became one of those children who loves taking things to bits�she won a Meccano prize. She saved up her pocket money and bought her first motorbike at the age of 14. By 1936, she was only the second woman ever to record an average speed of 100 mph around the Brooklands circuit just over the River Thames from my Spelthorne constituency.
By 1939, Beatrice Shilling was at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. Obviously, the second world war was upon us. Crucially, the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine used in the Hurricanes and Spitfires had a fatal flaw: once pilots went into a negative G-force dive, the engine had a propensity to flood and cut out. The Germans did not have that problem because they had a fuel injector, and they soon worked out that the British pilots faced the dilemma of whether or not to follow them. That could have been catastrophic, so people turned to Tilly Shilling, as she was universally known, to come up with a solution. She invented a small thing�the size of a thimble�with a little hole in it, which could, crucially, be fitted to the fuel line of the Merlin engine without taking the plane to bits, meaning that the much-needed air power of the second world war could remain in the fight.
Beatrice Shilling faced a certain amount of male condescension. The device she had designed was referred to as �Miss Shilling�s orifice�. However, no one minded the fact that, when fitted to the planes, the devices kept them in the fight. She contributed an extraordinary amount to the winning of the second world war. I welcome International Women�s Day because it gives me the chance to tell that story. At a time when clouds are again darkening around the world and the nation has to re-arm, and, as we have heard, we must encourage the Tilly Shillings of tomorrow to come forward to contribute to our defence and aerospace industry, I hope that her story will inspire many people across the country to see that they can make a huge contribution to our national defence.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
In my almost 10 years in this place, I have become somewhat vocal on women�s issues. Some would call me a �ferocious campaigner�, others a �challenging mouthpiece�, but I will take both. My passion for ensuring that women get access to the support and services they need is what drives me�from women struggling through the menopause to women in prison, and women who are victims of domestic violence, human trafficking or modern slavery. It has been my mission to use this platform to be their voice.
Today, I will speak about an industry that is powered by women but is all too often overlooked and undervalued. As a former co-chair�alongside you, Madam Deputy Speaker�of the previous Parliament�s all-party parliamentary group on beauty and wellbeing, which we are reconvening, I have often spoken about the personal care sector. We championed such businesses during the pandemic, when they were belittled by those in power and were among the last businesses to reopen. Since then, we have continued to promote the contribution that they make to our economy, as well as the physical health and mental wellbeing benefits that they bring to society.
More than 80% of those working in the personal care industry are women, and the industry has one of the highest rates of business ownership compared with other sectors�especially for women. In fact, women are four times more likely to own a personal care business than a business in any other sector. �The Future of the High Street�, a report published by the Federation of Small Businesses last year, recognised that women owners of small and medium-sized enterprises were more likely to engage with their communities, but also highlighted the difficulties women faced, such as excessively high rental costs, when women typically earn less than their male counterparts and bear the brunt of the time and cost demands of raising a family.
It is especially encouraging therefore to see that beauty and wellbeing businesses, which are predominately owned and staffed by women, continue to open and thrive�and they really are thriving. In 2023, there was an 11% year- on-year growth in the GDP contribution of the industry to �27.2 billion. The same year saw a 10% increase in the industry�s workforce, with businesses employing 418,000 people. Professional services, such as salons, directly employed 224,000 people, of which 180,000 were women.
Every day, the industry plays a role in our lives�from the products we buy to the services we use. It keeps us clean, enhances our appearance and helps us to protect our physical and mental health. Will the House join me in wishing every woman who works in the personal care sector or owns a business�let us face it, they will probably be working all day Saturday�a very happy International Women�s Day? [Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!�]
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Seamus Logan.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a true privilege to speak in this year�s debate. I will start by acknowledging just some of the women in Scottish politics who are inspiring and paving the way for future generations of women in Scotland, especially the next generation of female politicians. There is our Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who would have loved to be here today but sadly could not make it; Karen Adam, our MSP for Banffshire and Buchan Coast; and two�only two�of our local councillors in Aberdeenshire: Gwyneth Petrie, our opposition group leader, and Louise McAllister, our group chair.
I pay tribute to the tireless work done by Sally Donald, a member of staff for my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter). As co-chair of ParliGender, the workplace equality network advocating for gender equality in Parliament, she has introduced a mentorship scheme for female members of staff, which has been very popular, showing the demand for such schemes in this place.
While I stand here and thank the women who have committed their time, energy and lives to the people of Scotland, I want to take a second to note that at our current pace, a girl born today will be nearly 40 years old before women in this place hold as many seats in Parliament as men. That is a devastating statistic in the face of this year�s theme: rights, equality and empowerment. Although we are honoured to be in a Parliament that has the highest number of female MPs in history, let us not forget that women were only able to stand in elections as late as 1918. Up until 1997, women had never held more than 10% of the seats in Parliament.
On this day dedicated to the rights, equality and empowerment of all women, I want to acknowledge the additional challenges that exist for women in today�s society, the obstacles they face to enter the world of politics and those that persist once they are here. I want to acknowledge how much stronger and more diverse this House would be with more female colleagues sitting on these Benches.
I pay tribute to the great women of our independence movement in Scotland. There are too many to mention, but I will name two: the late, great Winnie Ewing, who was an MP here, and the late president of the Fraserburgh SNP branch, Nancy Duffy. I am endlessly inspired by my female colleagues and the female Members on these Benches. I ask the Minister what initiatives the Government are taking to encourage more women and girls to access a career in politics, so that they may follow in the footsteps of all my female colleagues and ensure that the equal rights of all women are at the core of everything this Parliament is working towards.
Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate and on the powerful speech she made. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about the need for us to speak out about rape cases. In the debate on SLAPPs�strategic lawsuits against public participation�in November, I brought to the Minister�s notice a rape case. I was promised a ministerial meeting, and I am still waiting on that meeting. That was five months ago, so perhaps the Minister here today could respond to that.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate. It is with huge pride that I stand here today as the first woman MP for Huddersfield�[Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!]�but hopefully not the last. Female leadership continues in my local area, with a female leader of the council and our fantastic West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, and deputy Mayor, Alison Lowe. Of course, I have to mention you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a proud Yorkshire woman �that is fantastic.
International Women�s Day is a fantastic opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women, but it also marks a call to action to accelerate women�s equality. Around the world, we are witnessing a growing push- back against women�s rights�advances that were made painstakingly over decades. As parliamentarians, we have a particular responsibility to ensure that we do everything we can to progress women and girls� equality and fight back against the culture wars from those who try to give easy and angry responses to complex problems, which too often pit us against each other when many of us are fighting for the same goals.
I recently attended a Reclaim the Night march in Huddersfield, the first of which took place in Leeds back in 1977. As with those first powerful marches in the 1970s, we were there to renew our commitment to building a future free from violence against women and girls and to assert our right to go out without fear, whatever time of day or night it is. Recent data shows that 2 million women are estimated to be victims of violence perpetrated by men each year. That is one in 12 women. Police chiefs have warned of young men being radicalised online by so-called influencers. As the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said,
�The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and the Government will treat it as a national emergency.��[Official Report, 25 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 492.]
I am very glad that she is in that role, doing this work.
I am proud that we have more women in this Parliament than we have ever had, but we are only at 40%, so there is still more to do. I am glad that a women�s caucus has been established to look at issues on a cross-party basis, but the onus cannot just be on women; we must all act together and say, �Enough is enough.�
I want to note a couple of local organisations in Huddersfield that work really hard to support women, including the Pennine Domestic Abuse Partnership, Kirklees Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, WomenCentre and the Lipstick Project, among many others.
When it comes to the responsibility of social media giants to curtail behaviour online, we must simply ask, are they doing enough? If the answer is no, we have to demand more. It cannot be right that at times, algorithms are driving this destructive and divisive behaviour.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
As the 649th woman to be elected to this House, it is an honour to contribute to this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for her contribution and for securing the debate.
I am struck that, with 650 Members of this House, we are only now in this Parliament reaching the threshold where the number of female MPs matches that. I am particularly proud to be one of only eight newly elected Conservative female MPs, standing alongside 18 distinguished incumbent Conservative female colleagues who have set the bar high. Their dedication, resilience and leadership continues to inspire me and countless women across the country.
My journey to this place has been a long one, and it began 15 years ago when I first joined the Conservative candidates list. However, like many, my journey actually started far earlier, as I spent far too many years thinking of running without ever putting my name forward or making it known that this was what I might want to do.
As Conservatives, we champion equal opportunities for everyone across the United Kingdom, ensuring that individuals, regardless of their sex, race or background, can achieve their full potential. We are the only political party to have elected a female Prime Minister, not once, not twice, but three times. We made history with Margaret Thatcher�s election in 1979, and we continue to make history today under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), our fourth female leader.
In government, we took action to support women at work, ensuring that over 2 million more women entered paid employment between 2010 and 2023, boosting our economy and securing financial independence for many. We launched the women�s health strategy, ensuring better healthcare outcomes for women, and we restored sex-specific language to the NHS, to protect female-only medical care. We introduced 30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents, easing the burden on families and supporting mothers who want to return to work. However, there is still more work to do, and there always will be. As Conservatives, we will always fight to ensure that every woman, no matter her background, can reach her full potential.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). International Women�s Day, observed every year on 8 March, is a day dedicated to recognising the invaluable contributions that women have made in every sphere of life�social, political, economic and cultural. It is a day to celebrate women�s successes, but it is also a day to look at the challenges that remain and to reinforce the resolve to dismantle the barriers that continue to impede the progress of women and girls everywhere.
In 1908, a group of women garment workers in New York city took to the streets to protest for better wages and working conditions. That same year, the Socialist party of America organised the first National Woman�s Day in honour of those women who were demanding their rights. It was not until 1975, however, that the United Nations formally began recognising 8 March as International Women�s Day.
What began as a call for social change in the early 20th century has evolved into a global celebration and recognition of women�s achievements and struggles. As we celebrate, we must remember that this day is not only about celebration; it is about progress. While so much has been achieved, we must also acknowledge the challenges and inequalities that persist. For example, women in many parts of the world still earn on average only 70% to 80% of what men make for the same work, and that gap widens in the corporate world where women are often under-represented in leadership and decision-making positions. Around 33% of women globally face physical or sexual violence, and rates are higher in conflict zones.
Educational opportunities for girls, especially in underprivileged regions, remain a challenge, and the list of issues continues. Moreover, women of colour, LGBT women and women with disabilities often experience multiple layers of discrimination which amplify the challenges they face. That intersectionality reminds us that gender equality is not a one-size-fits-all endeavour, and it is crucial that we consider the unique experiences of all women as we work towards more inclusivity. Throughout history, women have been leaders, innovators and change-makers, often in the face of immense adversity. From Marie Curie�s groundbreaking scientific discoveries to Malala Yousafzai�s advocacy for girls� education, women have demonstrated resilience and strength. In politics, leaders such as Angela Merkel, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and Jacinda Ardern have proved that women can lead nations with wisdom, compassion and strength.
Women have been the driving force in movements for social justice, environmental sustainability and human rights. The #MeToo movement, started by activist Tarana Burke, has empowered countless women to share their stories and demand an end to sexual harassment and violence. Those women, and countless others, remind us of the transformative power that women hold when they are given the opportunity, support, and resources to succeed. They have pushed boundaries, shattered glass ceilings, and paved the way for future generations of women to thrive. Their efforts demonstrate that when women are empowered, all of society benefits.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Many women in my constituency are doing incredible things, and I am pleased to speak in this debate on International Women�s Day. Judith Ballard, Moira Allen, Molly and Rachel Fitton, and Joy Russell are all leading members of the Save Pawlett Hams action group, who successfully convinced EDF that it should not destroy a beloved local area of natural beauty with an unwanted salt marsh. Rose Stacey is a successful local business owner, who I nominated for an MP HERoes award for her work in our community and the local people she employs.
Niki Miles visited me in Parliament to raise awareness about the dangers of gambling addiction, in memory of her brother Del. Amy Branson, along with her husband Ben, has campaigned on the injustice of sentencing guidelines, in memory of their daughter Bethany who was killed by a drunk driver in 2022. Emma-Elizabeth Murphy is a special constable who brought my attention to the fact that specials cannot request unpaid time off work like magistrates or councillors. She inspired me to table an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, and Labour Members can show their support by co-signing new clause 30.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the Nelson Trust Somerset women�s centre, based in Bridgwater. Celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, the Nelson Trust provides one-stop shop support to more than 5,000 women annually, from its network of women�s centres across the south-west and Wales. The centres are safe women-only spaces, provided for women who are experiencing multiple unmet needs, such as homelessness, addiction, mental ill health, domestic and sexual abuse, and familial separation. Having seen the huge difference that the centre makes to some of the most vulnerable women in my constituency, I pay tribute to Gemma Berry and Lorna Griffiths for their incredible work, and for their service not only to women but to our whole community.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on introducing this vital debate. She is a true champion of women�s issues and an inspiration to many.
Twenty-one fifty-eight�2,158 is not my number; we have a long way to go before we get to that�is the year when, at the current rate of progress, we will see full gender parity. That is 133 years away and five generations of girls who will continue to live under a system of gender inequality. Imagine if the leaders of the Suffragette movement had known that in spite of their heroic actions it would take another 10 generations before we achieved equality of the sexes. That is why this year�s theme, �Accelerate Action� is appropriate, because the current rate of action is unacceptable.
A number of areas will require focus if we are to accelerate progress, but I want to focus on women�s health. Members will have heard me speak often about racial disparities in maternity care and the disproportionate fatality rate for black mothers, and more must be done to address that. However, issues around maternity are now worsening for all women in this country. When I first raised the issue of black maternal health in the House, black women were four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That has now reduced to just over three times. Awareness has played a huge role in that, and I pay tribute to Five X More and other organisations that have done so much to raise awareness. Regrettably, most of that decrease is not because maternity services are improving, and the rate of women and babies of all ethnicities dying in pregnancy and childbirth in this country has increased in the past two decades.
The UK sits in the middle to low range of maternal mortality compared with the global standard, but we should not settle for that, just as we should not settle for racial disparities or poor maternal care, especially when our maternal mortality rate is far higher than that of other-high income countries such as Iceland, Norway, and Finland. It is not just in maternity care where women are being failed, because women�s health issues have long been overlooked, as men have historically been treated as the default.
For many men, as we have heard, there is just a physical exam and a few questions in order to be diagnosed with something such as erectile dysfunction, but it takes eight years for a woman to receive a diagnosis for endometriosis. Every seven and a half seconds a man is prescribed ED medication, but it takes eight years for a woman to be diagnosed with endometriosis. We still know next to nothing about the causes, symptoms and diagnosis for the management of conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome, despite that impacting one in eight women.
We know so little even about periods, yet almost every person who has experienced one understands the pain and discomfort involved. For any men who are still wondering, yes, a period cramp is typically at least more painful than testicular trauma, while at its worst it is as intense as a heart attack. Only 2.5% of publicly funded research is dedicated to reproductive health, although 90% of women suffer from such issues. Women feel gaslit by their GPs, they are told to go on painkillers, and there is so much more that they are not receiving when they ask for help with their healthcare.
We cannot fight for gender equality when the disparity in the treatment of women�s health conditions is so stark. I do not imagine that by next International Women�s Day we will have complete gender equality, but I hope we will see some concrete steps towards getting there on health.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
There is a saying that has always resonated with me: �When you get to the top, send the lift back down�, and those of us privileged to sit on these Green Benches bear a responsibility to speak up for and support women. I am proud to be an honorary vice-president of the Conservative Women�s Organisation�the oldest women�s political organisation in the world, which does so much to inspire, encourage and mentor women as they progress in roles in politics and public life.
Time is short, but I want to take a few moments to share with the House some examples of inspiring women in Chester South and Eddisbury. They are women such as Dianne Worby, an entrepreneur who owns and runs her company, Global Air Training, near Tattenhall, and an industry leader who is putting Chester South and Eddisbury on the aviation map; and women such as Helen Bebington, a dairy farmer near Tarvin, who gets up every morning at 4 am to attend to her stock, and who works from dawn till dusk to keep her farm going. According to a recent survey by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, women in farming, particularly young women, have the worst mental health scores. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this House about the importance of our family farms and mental health, and women are the backbone of the rural community and they deserve to be celebrated today. There are women such as Councillor Rachel Williams from Malpas, who every month cooks a community lunch, bringing people together, combating loneliness and isolation, and supporting others.
International Women�s Day is a chance not just to celebrate women, but to highlight where there is still vital work to be done. Too many women face domestic violence, and it is important that women know that we in this House are here for them. I very much welcome the Government�s commitment to halve violence against women and girls. I was pleased to support the Institute for Addressing Strangulation at the end of last year by writing to the Minister to emphasise the vital work that it is doing. Two thirds of cases of domestic violence will at some point include a woman being strangled, and it is a red line in the escalation of violence. If a woman has been subject to strangling, the probability that she will go to be murdered in the future increases sevenfold. I am grateful to the Minister who has committed to funding the Institute for Addressing Strangulation for another year, to ensure that the vital work it does can continue. Together, we must speak up and deliver change on behalf of all women on matters such as these.
It is the honour and privilege of my life to be the 575th female Member of Parliament to be elected to this House. I am committed to using the time I have here to do what I can to inspire, support, champion and speak up for women and girls. Together, we can accelerate action.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. My constituency has a proud history of electing only women since the seat was reintroduced in 1997, and I am honoured to continue that tradition today as the 680th female MP. Representation matters.
Stourbridge is home to many incredible women who provide much for our constituency, but I worry that, in a society that can move so fast at times, we may forget to take the time to make our appreciation truly known to one another as often as we should. In my role, I am fortunate to interact with many amazing women in my constituency, and this year I launched the Sisters of Stourbridge Awards as a chance to shine a light on some of the incredible women making a difference every single day. I would like to tell the House about them.
Chloe Cox is an English teacher at Ridgewood high school who bravely returned to the classroom after surviving a life-threatening brain tumour. Pupils and colleagues alike are so happy to see her back and her resilience is inspiring.
Mandy Hobbis campaigns tirelessly for road safety laws to protect cats, ensuring they are treated with the same respect as dogs. As a champion for animals and the owner of three cats myself, I believe the work that Mandy is doing is important in helping to raise awareness and deliver parity for our pets.
Kate Cooke overcame a stroke to become a human resources manager at one of our great local businesses in Brierley Hill, Emmiera, and has introduced programmes that support children and college students with opportunities for work experience and apprenticeships.
Judith Moreland is a leader in the arts, keeping her In Sound Company community choir alive since 2012, performing at prestigious events such as Community Spirit at Birmingham Symphony Hall and at the Commonwealth games. Her dedication has fostered growth, inclusivity and perseverance, and did so especially during lockdown.
I will also be celebrating Rosemary Taylor, who is in her 80s but still goes out every day, in all weathers, with her little trolley, litter picking all around the area. Heather Cruickshanks turns 80 this year, but she still runs a Rainbow unit and helps the Guides and Trefoil Guild. She was described as an amazing woman by constituents, who are so grateful for her.
Let me not forget Elsie Gayle, who is a driving force behind the all-party parliamentary group on Black maternal health and is fighting to improve maternal care in the UK. Another nominee, Emma Kilbride, is raising funds for Mary Stevens hospice through her Stourbridge jigsaw library. In just 15 months, she has raised more than �26,500.
Anji Burford works at Atlantic House supporting local people in recovery from drugs and alcohol. Last but not least is Samantha Billingham, who I have mentioned in the Chamber before. She is a fierce campaigner for domestic abuse survivors�
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This is not my first International Women�s Day debate, but each one presents a fantastic opportunity to learn about the exceptional women who have made our history and to be reminded, as though I need it, that many of those exceptional women are in the Chamber today.
My contribution for Norfolk is Elizabeth Fry. I am particularly proud of her, because she happens to be my five times great aunt�that is as close as I get to real commitment and fame, I am afraid. In the early 19th century, she was horrified by the conditions in prisons. She visited Newgate prison and instead of walking on by, she took action. She funded prison schools for the children who were incarcerated along with their mothers in those days; she taught employment skills; she promoted rehabilitation as a concept, which was new at that stage; and she developed a wider movement for reform.
In 1818, Elizabeth Fry was the first woman ever to give evidence to a House of Commons inquiry. Directly because of her campaigning work, we have the Gaols Act 1823 and the Prisons Act 1835, which were the beginning of the end of the truly terrible conditions of the 18th century. We talk now about violence against women and girls, but that is not new. In her personal diaries, she expressly discussed the need to protect female prisoners from rape and sexual exploitation.
I recognise that things have improved beyond recognition from those days, and we should celebrate that today and at other times, but too much remains the same. Under the last Government, new offences of stalking, non-fatal strangulation, coercive control and public sexual harassment were introduced. The fact that that new legislation was needed demonstrates our corporate failure to change attitudes. Those conditions would have been familiar to Elizabeth Fry back in the 1820s.
Our work is not about legislation, because that is not the solution. Legislation deals with and treats symptoms, but the problem is the generational transfer of attitudes, I am sorry to say, typically from father to son. It is our work to challenge those generational attitudes. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), but on this I stand shoulder to shoulder with her.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the previous chief executive officer of the Women�s Equality Network Wales, I have a long history of campaigning for women�s equality. I was really proud of the work we did on the Diverse5050 campaign to get more women into public and political life, and to make care fair, recognising the huge army of unpaid women carers out there.
The theme of IWD this year is �Accelerate Action�, and my goodness me, don�t we still need more action? Yes, a whopping 47% of all Welsh MPs are now women, which is brilliant, but there are only two women leaders of Welsh local authorities, one of whom, I am proud to say, is Mary Ann Brocklesby, our very own leader in Monmouthshire.
One of the most difficult issues that women face today is healthcare inequality, and my inbox is full of cases. For many years, women�s health has been underfunded and people have not wanted to talk about periods or the menopause. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has done a huge amount in that area. Thanks to her, this place has signed up to the menopause mandate, and it is thanks to her that I feel able to share today my own story, as she has given me the courage to do so.
My journey with the menopause was difficult. For me, it happened overnight. I had increasingly heavy and painful periods that stopped me going to work some days because of the heavy flow; I could not be more than one minute away from the loo. Eventually, the bleeding was so bad and unstoppable that I ended up in A&E, thinking I had a haemorrhage. It was fibroids, with one as big as an orange. Later, I finally got the hysterectomy I needed and the story ends happily�here I am�but with the hysterectomy came an immediate, overnight menopause. I stupidly thought I could get through it without the help of drugs, and I refused the patches offered to me in the hospital. Despite being the CEO of a Women�s Equality Network charity, I had not done my research. I am grateful to my incredible friends and the NHS for helping me to understand what was going on.
I am proud of our Government�s bold and important commitment to halve violence against women in a decade, but connected to that is an issue that fills my inbox: the inefficiency of the Child Maintenance Service, which creates an impossible situation. To my mind, it is unforgiveable that after a woman has made the difficult decision to leave her partner, she can continue to be abused by her husband financially as the CMS fails to prevent that.
I would like to take a moment to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who has inspired me over the years and done so much on violence against women. Finally, I highlight the talented, inspiring and wonderful women of Monmouthshire who came to my International Women�s Day event in Chepstow on Saturday. It was a pleasure to be joined by so many inspiring women, and we raised �500 for Cyfannol Women�s Aid.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
As other speakers have said, International Women�s Day was born out of struggles waged by past generations of women whose efforts and sacrifices will by and large not be recorded in the history books, but whose actions have enabled other women to walk an easier path through life than they perhaps did.
Unfortunately, the continuation of that struggle seems more pertinent now than at any other time in my adult life, as there is a concerted attempt to roll back the hard-won gains of the women�s movement. We see that in the toxic influence of a resurgent, reactionary politics, amplified via two loosely regulated social media platforms enabling misogyny literally to reach into the bedrooms of young teenage boys. I am referring to not just the Andrew Tates of the world, but the Donald Trumps of this world, who ridicule the very notion of there being an unequal playing field that hinders the lives of women�indeed, Trump and his supporters state the exact opposite. In their world, it is men, and white men in particular, who are the real victims of moves to tackle inequality.
Two things about that narrative worry me. First, it is getting traction in this country. A study conducted by the Global Institute for Women�s Leadership at King�s College London found that nearly one in two Britons�47%�say that when it comes to giving women equal rights with men, things have gone far enough in Great Britain. That is a notable increase on the 38% who said the same last year, and a stark increase on the proportion who felt that way as recently as 2019. That means that for the first time, Britons are now more likely than Americans to agree that women�s equality has gone far enough.
Secondly, those views normalise misogyny and encourage violence against women and girls. They literally put women�s lives in danger. It is therefore critical for MPs to reassert the reality of institutionalised misogyny and sexism, which more often than not is denied, whether in the House of Commons, the police force or the military, where instances of misogyny are put down to some bad apples and the institutions involved are let off the hook. We have to demonstrate more forcefully a zero-tolerance approach to hate and abuse against women. We also need more practical measures right now to make it safer for women to live their lives free of harassment and to go about their everyday lives without fear of attack. Two years after the murder of Sarah Everard, it should be the least that we can do in her memory, and in the memory of approximately 450 women murdered by�
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for allowing us to do what this House does at its best: speak as one and work together.
International Women�s Day is an opportunity for us all to celebrate the achievements of women, reflect on the progress we have made and, crucially, recommit to the work still to be done. As we have been rightly reminded throughout this debate, there are still many, many battles to be won, whether in our local communities, across the nation or globally. Women have always been at the forefront of change, often having to fight to have their voices heard, yet they have made significant contributions and led movements for justice and equality. The fight for women�s rights is a fight for economic justice, reproductive rights and freedom from violence and discrimination. It is a fight against exploitation, trafficking and the silencing of women�s voices.
The theme for International Women�s Day this year is �Accelerate Action�. While every single one of us in this place has a role to play in that, it is also necessary for our communities. Like other Members, I will take a moment to share the stories and celebrate the achievements of some really spectacular women in my constituency. However, not a single one of them would say that they were spectacular or that they are doing something above and beyond. They are women like Lavinia McElhinney, the ladies� president at Woodilee bowling club, whom I met at the club�s fundraising coffee morning last year. Women�s sports, such as bowling, are just as important at the sport on the telly.
There is Louise Carberry, a primary 7 pupil at Kilsyth primary school, whose app-designing skills saw her win the Make It Happen Club app design challenge. Her �save the whale� idea was not only recognised, but developed into reality�yet another woman going into science, technology, engineering and maths. There is also RSE, an engineering company in my constituency that is overwhelmingly recruiting graduate women engineers in the water industry. There are the inspiring women of Kilsyth and Stepps guiding. I must admit that I am biased�I was a Guide, a Brownie and an occasional adult volunteer�but the volunteers there are bringing young women forward.
Our fight is not finished. The battle for equality continues everywhere, so let us recommit ourselves to not only celebrating progress, but truly accelerating action.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
As I grow older, I find myself becoming more and more intensely aware of the injustices that confront women and girls every day in the UK. I will cover a few points, beginning with health. It is alarming to note that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recognises that up to nine out of 10 women suffer from period pain�three out of 10 of them severely�and that up to three in eight adolescent girls and women face heavy periods, with one in 20 women in their 30s and 40s taking the difficult step to consult their GP each year because of heavy periods or menstrual problems. Those issues are very common, but we should not accept them as normal�I really welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on them.
It is equally alarming to recognise the error bands in those statistics; they are huge, with the upper limits being five and 10 times the lower limit values for the two stats that I opened with. We simply do not know enough about these conditions. We have a deficit in research, knowledge and clinical solutions, and we need to do more. Those issues are the lived experiences of women, but they are the responsibility of us all.
I will talk about an issue that sits primarily with men. I have listened to the stories of men in my constituency of Worcester talking about the impact that pornography has had on their mental health, on their relationships and, by extension, on the women in their lives. Pornography is wildly addictive, harmful to men and hazardous to women. We are now in a world where it is industrially available and increasingly violent, and it is silently fuelling sexual violence and exploitation. I want us to move rapidly to implement regulation and enforcement that is fierce, fast and forceful to make our country safe.
I will also raise a local issue in my constituency of Worcester, which is very urgent and important. The DAWN project supports survivors of domestic violence in Worcestershire. I have heard at first hand the stories of survivors who have found their lives transformed by the service. It is saving lives and restoring futures, but it is at risk, as funding streams are drying up. Local people in Worcester are digging deep and trying to crowdfund money to support the charity in the meantime, but I would be very grateful if the Minister would meet with me to discuss ways in which we can secure the future of the DAWN project in Worcester.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important debate to the House.
It is vital that we honour International Women�s Day to not only recognise the remarkable achievements of women in my city of Gloucester and across the country, but accelerate the drive for equality that is still so desperately needed. Sadly, far too many women come to my surgeries with harrowing experiences of discrimination in the workplace, inequalities in the healthcare system and violence and domestic abuse at home. Many are deeply concerned about the alarming rise in violence, and last year, sadly, we saw sexual and domestic abuse and violence reach record levels in Gloucester.
On the latter point, I am proud to have presented my ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year, which seeks to provide victims and survivors of domestic abuse with the right to access 10 days of paid safe leave. I have had the privilege of working with employers and organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust, Women�s Aid, FearFree, SafeLives and the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service to develop that Bill. We know that one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, meaning that the Bill will help many women to rebuild their lives, and I encourage the Government to add that to their mission.
The theme for this year�s International Women�s Day is �Accelerate Action�, and I am encouraged by the Government�s commitment to do just that. We have committed to an ambitious plan to halve violence against women and girls by introducing Raneem�s law; protecting victims of stalking, domestic abuse and harassment; criminalising spiking; improving healthcare and maternity services, particularly for women of colour, and closing the racial mortality gap; tackling sex-based discrimination at work; supporting women during maternity and the menopause; and closing the gender pay gap.
I would like to take this moment to celebrate some of the inspirational women in my city, including the fantastic Gloucester-Hartpury women�s rugby team, who go for their third successive title next Sunday; my good friend Mary Smith, the only female leader of Gloucester city council in the past 30 years; Carol Francis, the first black female councillor in Gloucester, who continues to champion her community; Zafeera Karim, who as the Member of the Youth Parliament for Gloucester and the Forest of Dean gave a brilliant speech in this House just last week; and Julie Kent, who founded the charity Emily�s Gift and will soon become high sheriff.
Earlier this year, we lost Baroness Sally Oppenheim-Barnes, who died in January after years of service to our city. We also thank other inspirational women for their service to Gloucester and the wider county as they step down this year, including Sally Byng at the Barnwood Trust, Anne Whitworth at the Gloucester Law Centre, Sue Cunningham at GL Communities and Mary Hutton at the Gloucestershire integrated care board. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about the Nelson Trust, which does brilliant work in my constituency. I will continue to use my position in this House to celebrate the successes of women in Gloucester, but also to advocate for a brighter future for women, which I hope we can all agree will lead to a brighter future for Gloucester and for our country.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The first time I saw the Alison Lapper Pregnant sculpture in Trafalgar Square, it took my breath away. The swollen belly of Lapper spoke of a body that was loved and carried life. It said, �I exist�bodies like mine exist, and therein there is beauty. We shall no longer be invisible.�
However, unlike non-disabled women, our experiences of pregnancy have not been celebrated or discussed. When I found out in 2017 that I was pregnant, I was filled with joy and a deep connection to my body and unborn child. Growing up, the absence of disabled women�s representation in discussions of sexuality, relationships, menstruation, menopause and maternity left me feeling that my womanhood did not count�that it was vitiated by my visible physical disability. In contrast, when I was pregnant, my body was no longer just a topic of medical scrutiny; my womanhood was no longer invisible. I wanted my maternity to be embraced by a healthcare system that supported me in my journey, but that was not my reality. Instead, the system was unprepared for a body like mine.
Early on, I was triaged to a genetic counselling service. I was left feeling devastated. As my pregnancy progressed, there were no specialist midwifery teams, and the lack of awareness of the interaction between my disability and maternity continued. I had to be induced at 37 weeks, leading to a caesarean section. My core muscles were severely impacted and I was left debilitated. After birth, the en-suite room I was put in was inaccessible�the very space that was meant to aid my recovery became another barrier. Upon discharge, the occupational therapy team had no specialist advice on how I could breastfeed outside of my home or carry my baby. I became increasingly dependent on family members. I was exhausted and lost my confidence, not because of anything I had done, but because the structures that were meant to support me did not know how to do so.
My experience came eight years after the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities raised concerns that the UK had failed to mainstream disabled women�s rights into healthcare. This week, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine has published a report demonstrating that disabled women are more likely to experience stillbirth, have lower rates of breastfeeding, and endure longer post-natal hospital stays.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. Does she agree with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that health services for women of colour are also lagging very far behind?
Dr Tidball
I certainly do, and I want to ensure that our health services take a more intersectional approach. Indeed, UK maternity policy continues to overlook women�s needs. Now it is time for action.
Disabled women should experience high-quality, inclusive maternity care. We need joined-up, meaningful, inclusive maternity care pathways throughout pregnancy, birth and the post-natal period to improve access, experience and outcomes for disabled women. Crucially, there must be nothing about us without us. Disabled women must be central in improving maternity care services, and while I met some wonderful clinicians, we must increase their understanding through better training and update clinical guidelines to secure appropriate care. Finally, we must ensure that healthcare facilities, equipment and information are accessible, and that reasonable adjustments to maternity wards enable disabled women to recover from birth with dignity.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her incredibly powerful speech, all the women who I have heard speak today, and those who have formed such a supportive group as new MPs in this House.
However, the people I primarily want to thank today are the women who look after my children, and all the women who look after all of our children. Of course, childcare is not solely the provenance of women, but the overwhelming majority of the childcare workforce in this country are women. It is some of the most undervalued work in our society�it is often paid at minimum wage�and other parents cannot work without it. I know that nursery providers are currently deeply concerned. Labour is putting �1.8 billion into the early years, and we want 75% of children to be school-ready. That is an ambitious target, and I am proud of it, but the people who will deliver that work are our childminders and our nursery staff.
Childcare is key national infrastructure, for which we need a stable and well-trained workforce. If we do not fund early years and childcare well enough, the risk is that the only businesses that will survive in this sector will be major chain nurseries backed by private equity. Those are the businesses that can manage economies of scale, which will enable them to thrive in most environments. There is nothing wrong with those nurseries�I do not wish to suggest that the staff who work in them are anything other than committed, or that their owners are working for anything other than the greater good. However, I do not want to see small, passionate, women-owned businesses squeezed out of the sector, which might happen. That is partly because that is the kind of childcare I had for my children in the early years, so I want it to be an option for all children, but it is also partly because in Australia, when the ABC nursery chain went bust, 19,000 families lost their childcare overnight. I guarantee that it was predominantly women who did not go to work the next day, not those children�s fathers.
A consolidated sector is an inherently fragile one. As such, I hope that in the upcoming spending review, we will look at the rates that we pay for three and four-year-old childcare, as I understand that that is part of what is causing concern. I also hope we will make sure that our breakfast club places are kept for as long as we can possibly manage, and that they are well funded, so that their uptake is�as we all need it to be�100%.
I want to say thank you to all the women who have inspired me, both in this Chamber and beyond, and all those women who have helped me. Most of all, though, I want to say thank you to the women who looked after me and the women who look after my children.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who is an incredible activist for women. I cannot express what an honour it is to speak in today�s debate. My number is 567, and it is the honour of my life to have it.
This year�s theme, �Accelerate Action�, could not be more relevant. My constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages has a proud history of women taking action against misogyny and inequality, and today I want to honour that legacy while also shining a light on the challenges we still face. One of the most remarkable women from Stafford�s history is Alice Hawkins, a suffragette who worked in the Stafford shoe industry before moving to Leicester, where she became a key figure in the fight for women�s right to vote. Alice lived on Red Lion Street, and her activism reminds us that change happens when ordinary working-class women take extraordinary action. We owe it to Alice and the generations before us to continue that fight for equality today.
However, while there is much to be proud of, there are also areas in which we must act with urgency. The statistics on violence against women and girls are shocking �women are three times more likely to be killed by a partner than by not wearing a seatbelt. That is the reality we are dealing with, and in Staffordshire, the situation is dire. In the past five years, Staffordshire Women�s Aid, which is based in my constituency, has seen a 361% increase in referrals to its sexual violence services and an 851% increase in referrals to its specialist counselling services. Despite working in the women and girls sector for years, when I heard those figures, I was devastated. Violence against women and girls is happening in every corner of this country, and I firmly believe that it is a national emergency.
In my own casework, I continue to see women, many with children, who are forced to flee their homes and start over again because of domestic abuse. Time and again, it is the women and children who have to uproot their lives, while the perpetrators face far fewer consequences. When I stood for election last year, I was so proud to be a member of a party that has promised to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade, but we must go further. I thank the Minister, who notified me in advance that she will later be referring to my constituent, Rebecca Simkin, who was murdered in July last year. I will be following the debate closely, and I express how grateful I am to the Minister, both as a Member of Parliament and as a woman, for her tireless work in this space. Speaking as someone from this space, she is a very inspiring woman.
Whether it is Alice Hawkins�s fight for the vote or women in my constituency striving for equality today, our mission remains the same: to build a society where women can live free from fear and reach their full potential.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I rise today as the youngest woman in Parliament and the first woman to represent my constituency of Kettering. I was raised by women: my mum, my nan and my aunt Emma. I am proudly a gen Z woman. Like many others my age, I grew up on social media. I watched this series of �Love Island�. This weekend, I am going to see Sabrina Carpenter, and I am still shocked about Molly-Mae and Tommy Fury�s break-up. However, absolutely none of that takes away from my ability to serve my constituents.
Being a young woman in this place has its pitfalls, and I know that women MPs bear the brunt of online abuse, making ourselves read daily online comments that criticise our appearance, question our intelligence and threaten our safety. In a post when the election was called last year, more people asked me if I had an OnlyFans account than about our manifesto pledges. Online, I am called �Barbie�, I am a �stupid girl�, and a �child playing politics� and many more creative things that I cannot say in this House. I know many great women who have not stood for Parliament because of online abuse or worries about their safety, and this House is worse off because of it. My message for women who are thinking about getting into politics is that there is a place for you here, and we need you.
Dr Tidball
Does my hon. Friend agree that she is a phenomenal role model, as a woman with a great knowledge of business? She brings her special expertise to Business and Trade Committee, having worked in the fashion industry.
Rosie Wrighting
I thank my hon. Friend for those really kind comments. The things I see on my screen also translate to real life. When I walk back to my flat tonight, I will not have my headphones on, so I can hear if someone is following me. When I go out with my friends, I will not put my drink down, because I am worried I might be spiked. When a man asks for my number on the tube, all I am thinking is how I can let him down gently, because I am worried how he might take it if I say no.
Ms Billington
I would just like to remark, in support of my hon. Friend�s observations about the experience of being a female Member of Parliament, that as candidates we were advised by a bunch of white men about security by this place. We looked at each other, we female candidates, and observed that almost everything they were suggesting that we do��Walk in the light. Don�t have your headphones on. Be careful where you stand on a platform��was basically the advice we had been given by our mothers at the age of 12.
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, I absolutely agree. I am sad to say that that advice was not new to us. Those, sadly, are things that we have had to learn just through our own experiences. I also put on the record my admiration for colleagues across this House from ethnic minority backgrounds and the LGBTQ+ community and for female Members who have disabilities, because they fight a fight I cannot even imagine.
I am surrounded, though, by many great male colleagues in this place, and I know that we cannot accelerate action or uplift or empower young women without also engaging young men. We have to be clear that we cannot tackle violence against women and girls without supporting young men at this vital point. My constituency is not unique in having women who have been killed by a family member or partner, and I want to take a moment to mention a horrific case of Anju Asok, who was a well-loved nurse in Kettering. She was killed alongside her two children in December 2022 by her husband. Anju went to work every day to look after others and support our vital public services, but when she needed support the most, she was let down.
We have so much more to do to make women feel safe at work, walking down the street, and even in our own homes. I know that Members across this House will continue to work together to make sure that we can accelerate that action.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Every year more than 1.6 million women in this country experience domestic abuse, and my constituency of Knowsley has recently had the highest rate of femicide. I am determined to do everything in my power to keep women safe in my constituency.
Paula Leather was from Knowsley and in her family�s words, Paula was
�beautiful inside and out�so kind, so loving and she was the person that was there for everyone.�
She worked at Asda and was the mum of Jason, Jessica and Matthew and the proudest nanny to her first grandson, but Paula�s husband barbarically murdered her in their home, stabbing her up to 300 times. Behind each statistic we cite are real lives and people, such as Stephanie Owen, Sharon Hayter, Teresa Wishart, Valerie Turner, Magdalena Pacult, Lorraine Cullen, Karen Dempsey and Courtney Boorne�all women from Knowsley killed by male violence against women. Some were murdered by their own sons. One in 10 women killed by men are killed by their own son.
I turn to the urgent issue of funding for specialist domestic abuse services. They are a lifeline for many survivors, but the fact is that they are struggling financially. Services are stretched, underfunded and in some cases shutting their doors. We cannot accept that. Many survivors are more likely to turn to them and to have more trust in them than the state and the police, so these services must be at the heart of this Government�s mission to halve violence against women and girls. We have to put our money where our mouth is.
The First Step, the only independent specialist domestic abuse service in Knowsley, literally saves lives. I commend the chief executive, Caroline Grant, and her team, on what they do for Knowsley. She is up in the Gallery. They are being forced to turn women away, however, because the stability of funding just is not there. That is why I have written to the victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), to ask that sustainable, multi-year funding is committed to specialist domestic abuse services, including the First Step in Knowsley.
I welcome Raneem�s law and everything the Government are doing on this urgent matter. We have made incredible progress and have great ambition for women. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is on the Front Bench today, for all her work. No funding was pledged for domestic abuse in the last Budget, and I very much hope that that changes in the spring statement.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for moving the motion. We have just heard some extremely powerful testimony from my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), but, if the House will forgive me, I intend to shift the tone slightly and talk about a moment of joy that I experienced yesterday. First, however, I want to acknowledge the proud achievements of our Labour party in advancing the cause of women over the last century, and to pay particular tribute to the members of the women�s sections in our labour and trade union movement for the work that they do in their local communities.
Yesterday I paid a lovely visit to our marvellous education centre, where I met students from St Joseph�s Catholic primary school in Billingham, in my constituency. As always, I was asked the best and hardest questions by the students. One of those questions was, �What are MPs going to do to help women who play football receive the same pay as men who play football?� What a great question.
We have heard a bit about women�s sport today, and we are seeing the rapid growth and transformation of football for women and girls. We have heard about the Lioness effect. The England women�s team have been fantastic role models, and, on the main stage at Wembley under the floodlights, they have laid their critics to rest. However, we should not forget what they have been up against. The Football Association now has ambitious targets to grow the girls� game, but on 5 December 1921 the FA met at its headquarters in London and announced a ban on the women�s game, stating that
�the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.�
Before that, there were about 150 women�s football clubs, attracting 45,000 fans to their games. We have to wonder whether the FA was motivated by the fact that the women�s game was taking fans away from the men�s.
I think that if women had been asked about this before the ban, they would have said there was a bright future for the women�s game. There certainly is now, because since the ban was reversed in 1971 it has gone from strength to strength, and I commend the FA for the work that it has done to improve access and opportunities for women and girls. Tomorrow, to celebrate International Women�s Day, I shall be joining pupils at Bewley primary school, also in Billingham, to watch a training session and a football match run by the Hartlepool United Community Sports Foundation. The �Let Girls Play Biggest Ever Football Session� sends the strong message to girls growing up today that they can look forward to the same success and achievements in our national game as boys.
Let me end by saying that it is incredibly inspiring for me to work with such brave, talented, dedicated and hard-working women in Parliament, including everyone who is speaking in today�s debate. Our women Members are wonderful role models.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Ahead of International Women�s Day, we must remember that violence against women and girls is not inevitable. Men who kill, men who rape, and men who abuse and sexually harass do so in the context of an entrenched sex discrimination that normalises male predatory behaviour and quickly blames victims, but with sufficient will and a change in that context, it can and must be ended. That is why the most welcome change since last year�s International Women�s Day is that we now have a Labour Government.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation, I have a particular interest in prostitution. The reports from the Femicide Census�whose authors, Clarrie and Karen, are here today�are harrowing but none the less groundbreaking. The latest report, published yesterday, looks in detail at 2,000 completed cases of women killed by men that are on the database. That is 2,000 too many. Forty-five of the women who had been killed were identified as being involved, or having been involved, in prostitution, but as women were only included in this cohort if their involvement in prostitution had been explicitly mentioned in either official documents or the media, that is likely to be a huge undercount. The researchers found that of this cohort, women killed by men in the UK who had been involved in prostitution tended to be younger and were less likely to have been born in the UK than any other women killed by men, and the data shows that women involved in prostitution are also the most vulnerable in society.
A Home Office report noted that approximately 50% of women involved in prostitution in the UK started being paid for sex acts before they were 18 years old, while up to 95% of women involved in street prostitution are believed to be problematic drug users. They are indeed the most vulnerable�and this not a job; this is not work.
Women involved in prostitution are disproportionately victims of violence, including fatal violence. In their deaths they are more likely to be subjected to sexual violence, and after death their bodies are more likely to be desecrated. That is not a coincidence. Prostitution is the oldest form of sexual exploitation�a form of violence against women and girls. It is another manifestation of sexual inequality.
Dr Tidball
Is it not a positive development that our Government announced this week that young girls would no longer be placed in young offender institutions?
Tonia Antoniazzi
That is fantastic, and it is at the heart of what our Ministers are doing to support women and girls.
All in all, women and girls matter, including those who are exploited in the sex trade, to whom I wish to dedicate my speech.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make a contribution to this debate on International Women�s Day. I am proud to be the first woman to represent my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby.
In my acceptance speech, I pledged to play my part in ending the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to see the very first women�s refuge built in North Yorkshire. Today, I rise to pay tribute to a constituent who has spent a lifetime overcoming what happened to her as a young girl to become an outspoken survivor and an advocate for victims of child sexual abuse. When I say �a lifetime�, I mean a lifetime. Abused at 10, Suzzanne buried what had happened to her to build a successful career and raise a family. She told me that it was only once her children had grown up and left home that she felt able to deal with what had happened to her. At 48, she went to the police. When she was 50, and after a very traumatic and drawn-out investigation and trial, the perpetrator was sentenced to 13 years. Such perpetrators serve only half of their sentences in prison, and he is due to be released in the summer.
As a childminder and early years inspector, Suzzanne loves where she lives. Of course she does�it is her home. But as she waits for the decision of the Parole Board, she is planning to sell her home, because when her abuser is released, he will move back to his family home, which is a few streets away from her�a house that she has to walk past to reach her parents� home. The man who abused my constituent as a child will live literally two streets away from her, in a house that is a three-minute walk from her home, a mere 322 metres away, and visible from her upstairs rooms. Understandably, she cannot face the thought of coming face to face with her abuser.
Suzzanne told me that she was very fortunate to have been signposted to IDAS, a specialist charity supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. She says that without its support, she would have taken her own life. Why should a man who has abused a child in their close neighbourhood be allowed to return to live just a few streets away? It goes beyond whether perpetrators are seen as a risk, and it continues the suffering of women and girls who have suffered abuse.
I am sure there are no easy answers, but I pay tribute to Suzzanne for allowing me to share her story. I thank her for her courage. We want women to feel safe on the streets and in their homes, including survivors like Suzzanne.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that we will begin the Front-Bench speeches at 3.15 pm. We have six people left who are hoping to speak.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), I am the fifth woman in a row to represent Falmouth, which is part of my constituency. The first woman to represent Falmouth, in 1997, was selected through an all-woman shortlist.
It is more than 50 years since Barbara Castle introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970 to the House of Commons. She was obviously a pioneering woman�the first female Secretary of State for Employment. She supported the Ford factory workers� strike in Dagenham, which paved the way for equal pay legislation. However, it was not until 1984 that female workers at the Ford factory received full skills recognition in line with the men. Just last year, the Fawcett Society reported that the mean gender pay gap for full-time workers is still 11.3%.
Decades after the first equal pay legislation, we still have a long way to go. It is hard to get equally paid work before having children, and it is even harder afterwards, so I am pleased that this Labour Government are bringing in measures that will help us get there, such as flexible working and better childcare provision. Our expansion of free childcare and universal breakfast clubs for primary school children will relieve some of the pressure on working parents�let us be honest, we mean mothers, who still often carry far more of the mental load.
When my son was small and I became a single mum, my income dropped exponentially. I had left a job in a city to move to Cornwall and start a family. I found a job that fit in with school hours, but despite such jobs being vital, they are often low paid and less secure, so improving childcare in this country and making it more important is crucial to eliminating the gender pay gap.
The Employment Rights Bill, which was introduced in the House in October, has many provisions that will help. Flexible working will become the default where practical, and it will be harder for employers to refuse flexible working requests. This will allow women with caring responsibilities to balance them more easily with work. It will also benefit women suffering from health conditions such as endometriosis, who will be able to manage their symptoms and appointments. I have met a number of constituents with endometriosis who have shared stories of their chronic pain and multiple surgeries making it difficult for them to work. They also struggle to feel heard and supported by the medical profession, feeling that they have to fight for treatment and sometimes having to wait years for diagnosis, as has been pointed out.
Companies with more than 250 employees will be required to create action plans addressing gender inequality, including menopause. I know from bitter experience that migraines, sleeplessness and hot flushes can be debilitating, as can basic words dropping out of my head. Having arrangements and an understanding in place will enable more women to keep working.
Skilled social care workers are chronically underpaid for what they do. The job I found as a single mum and retrained for was as a teaching assistant, and working in a school in a supporting role is another sector where the pay is very low. I am very pleased that the Bill gives respect and recognition to social care workers and support staff in the school support staff negotiating body and�
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this debate to the House. I am especially proud to speak in this debate as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee. I am also the first woman to represent my constituency�frankly, far too many of us are. I hope that changes.
On Monday, I was proud to host a coffee morning in aid of Fortalice, which provides refuge accommodation, wraparound support and one-to-one sessions for women and children to work through their trauma. It also has an outstanding nursery on site to help kids smile, and it provides a lifeline for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I also hosted two events on Tuesday, and spoke proudly about Endeavour, which is the UK�s first domestic abuse service to provide pet fostering. It recognises that women facing domestic abuse may also feel trapped because they do not want to leave a pet behind, and it removes a huge barrier to finding help.
Today is a day for honesty, and as we have heard in so many wonderful contributions to this debate so far, it is a dangerous time. We are seeing women�s rights being rolled back across the globe. We face the stark reality that, while amazing work is being done by so many women�and having followed her career so closely, I am honoured be in this place with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and reassured that she is on our Front Bench�we have a long way to go in this country. Women must fight for everything in society, and we have to keep working together to fight for and protect women and girls.
We are still fighting for equal pay. We are still fighting for safety on our streets and in our homes, and now in the digital world we are seeing abuse of and violence against women and girls taking on new forms as technology evolves. We have seen the creation of deepfakes, non-consensual image-based abuse and online harassment. Let us not forget that social media platforms�those that shape our conversations, our culture and sometimes even our self-worth�are owned and controlled by men.
Yes it is true that women have more opportunities�we are able to work, to go out and earn our own wage and to have our independence�but the expectations placed on us remain. We still carry the mental load, we are still the primary caregivers and we are still in charge of household chores and of managing childcare, so we have to keep fighting for, working for and demanding better. We tell young girls that they can be anything and that they can have it all, but we do not tell young boys about making sure they take on their share of the housework, manage the household and become a good parent. This must change: we cannot create a safer and fairer world for women and girls without working with men and boys.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing forward this debate, and all the hon. Members who have spoken. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), whose experience of maternity services is shocking, but sadly not unique. I hope it is an experience that, together, we can eradicate.
On International Women�s Day, we celebrate the achievements, resilience and contribution of women and girls across our community, and what better way to honour this day than by shining a light on a place in my constituency that welcomes new life into the world and champions the health and wellbeing of mothers? I am talking about Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust maternity services, including the fantastic all-female team at Queen Alexandra hospital. In the past year alone, this remarkable unit has delivered 5,000 babies, and the dedication of the 24/7, 365 days a year midwives goes far beyond the delivery room. I would like to highlight some of the trailblazing initiatives that help make life for parents and babies easier and safer.
A new care pathway has been developed by the trust team and Portsmouth Down Syndrome Association to provide additional support and information for all families who are expecting a baby with Down syndrome. It includes appointments with specialist midwives and paediatricians, including feeding specialists, additional specialist scans and an offer of induction at 39 weeks. A new partnership also allows babies to be registered in the hospital. This service supports new parents through the registration process and takes only 10 to 15 minutes, enabling them to get a head start on applying for important documents such as a birth certificate, taking the pressure off and allowing all parents to get support and be treated equally as new parents whatever their background. Thanks to the introduction of lifesaving neonatal bedside resuscitation units, even the tiniest and most vulnerable newborn babies have the best chance of a healthy start. Babies born at 24 weeks have a fantastic 80% survival rate, while the national rate is 18%.
The trust�s dedication has earned it a place among the finalists in the NHS parliamentary awards, proving that its hard work is felt not just in Portsmouth but nationwide. I was proud to go along and meet the team at the ceremony, where it was shortlisted for the nursing and midwifery award, and the future NHS award. I am looking forward to going to the unit. Finally, the trust has been awarded the prestigious UNICEF baby-friendly award, the latest UK healthcare facility to be so awarded.
International Women�s Day is about celebrating progress, and the Queen Alexandra hospital maternity unit is a great example of that. I am proud to be woman MP No. 686 and to be able to celebrate the women in my constituency, of whom there are many. I am proud that the women of my constituency have such a dedicated team to support them through childbirth: 281 midwives, 101 maternity support workers and countless students. To them, I say thank you.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Last Saturday, women from across East Thanet came together for a conference on tackling violence against women and girls. They gave their testimony on what they most want to see improved: public services, in particular mental health provision; the quality of policing; the lack of reliable, affordable, safe public transport; and safety in the workplace and in the streets. Those issues were all brought up time and time again.
Natalie Fleet
Women are over-represented in informal and vulnerable employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the protections afforded in the Employment Rights Bill are really important for those women?
Ms Billington
It is indeed true. It was powerful to see people talking about the strength of increased representation in the workplace by trade unions, giving them greater protections.
Housing, housing and housing�my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that it is key for the kind of security and safety that people, women in particular, require.
We spend a lot of time on International Women�s Day talking about the importance of opportunity, because it has been restricted over centuries and we celebrate the smashing of glass ceilings every day. Whether it is because of legislation, a lack of rights, or culture, women�s access to opportunity has been limited. I will, however, give the House a particular example that was raised at the conference by Oasis, our local domestic abuse service. It pointed out that, because in Thanet we have a particularly high level of youth unemployment at about 10% and a high level of young people not in education, employment or training, young women are being �encouraged�, meaning forced, by their �boyfriends�, meaning soon-to-be pimps, to set up their own OnlyFans account to secure income.
We need to remember that that is why we need confidence in the law, to ensure we are all safe: security in the home; security in the community; and security for our country. The violence against women and girls conference I hosted brought those issues to the surface. Given the increasingly unsafe and unpredictable world in which we live, this is becoming only more important. It is in that context that I pay tribute to the Government and their commitment to increase spending on the defence of our country. Security and safety are not just personal, but based in the community and throughout our country.
However, we need to acknowledge the crucial role of aid in increasing security here and abroad, including for women in the UK and elsewhere. For women across the globe, international aid has been a lifeline, and has given them both the security and the access to opportunities that otherwise they were unlikely to have had. I understand that we are having to make difficult decisions, and I absolutely support increasing defence spending. I simply wish to remind the House of the role of international aid and its impact on women across the globe. We know that 30% of the people who come across the channel on small boats are women and children, and aid can reduce that number. If those women have security and opportunity at home, why would they undertake that dangerous journey?
I finish my remarks in my constituency again. Claire Knights would have been my constituent if she had lived, but she was killed while walking her dog on the beach in Minnis bay in August 2023. Last week, her killer was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison. However, it is important to note that he escaped arrest for upskirting the day before her attack.
We will hear the names of the women who have been killed at the hands of men this year from my hon. Friend the Minister. Making those women visible is important, and is part of the struggle to eradicate the violence against and hatred of women.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
There have been many powerful contributions by hon. Members across the House this afternoon. My contribution will not focus on abuse, violence, intimidation or even health issues. Instead, I would like to speak a little about domestic equality and fairness.
It is an incontrovertible fact that women have been discriminated against by men for centuries. The historical struggle for equality and fairness that women have had and continue to have is incredible. The fact that it took until 1928 for women to receive equal voting rights with men is astounding, and it is wrong that it took until the Equal Pay Act 1970 to make equal pay compulsory between male and female employees.
On the issue of pay, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing both this debate today and a Westminster Hall debate on pay gaps just a few weeks ago. In a Scottish context, pay gaps are a very current issue: the Scottish Trades Union Congress has shown that women in Scotland can expect to see themselves earn an incredible �3,000 a year less than men, and the gender pay gap in Scotland has risen from 6.4% in 2023 to 8.3% in 2024. This is unfairness in action and shows that the fight is very much ongoing, as workplace gender inequality is still tolerated in modern society.
Now we are in government, Labour would do well to heed the political power of women, especially those born in the 1950s, because their discontent at pension inequality has become a national movement�the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Now that we have the power that could correct the injustice suffered by the WASPI women, we really should deliver on what is right and deserved.
Credit to the WASPI women: they continue to fight against the injustice of which they are victims. They are not going away. Theirs is a movement based on the values of fighting against discrimination and inequality, a struggle women know so well. We on the Labour Benches, as socialists, and especially my female comrades, know that power concedes nothing without demand. It never has, and it never will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the final speaker from the Back Benches�with just a very short speech, Naushabah Khan.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this International Women�s Day debate as the first female MP for Gillingham and Rainham. I am surrounded by so many hard-working and driven women from across the House. Regardless of the party we represent, politics has always been a vehicle for smashing gender stereotypes, pulling down barriers to entry and forging trailblazers.
However, despite the progress made in our politics, there is still work to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) so eloquently outlined, and the under-representation of women in certain industries unfortunately extends beyond Westminster, with real implications for our society and our economic prosperity as a nation.
Let us take construction as an example. The ONS reported that, as of 2023, only 15% of the construction workforce were female. When I visit MidKent college, which serves my constituents, I am inspired by the young women who are passionate about entering the industry, but the reality is that they will be entering a sector with low female representation across the board and systemic barriers to career progress.
Our armed forces and the defence sector are vital components of the Government�s strategy to deliver economic growth and national security. It is therefore critical that women can look to the military feeling confident about their own careers, yet we still hear stories of those in the military facing misogyny, harassment and bullying. One woman who faced sexual harassment took her own life.
The need to recruit women and ensure that they stay in our forces is a challenge for our society and, indeed, our Government. Looking back at our history, we see lessons that we can learn from the important efforts of female service personnel who were pivotal in the British war efforts in world war one, world war two and many subsequent conflicts. Indeed, one of Medway�s key cultural assets is a reminder of such triumphs. HMS Cavalier was built solely by women in only nine months in 1944 �I do not what that says about nine months!
Our investment in our national security needs to ensure that we have accessible pathways for women to join our armed forces, but also, importantly, to stay there, fulfil their potential and keep Britain safe, as they always have done.
I recognise that, across all these sectors, significant work has been undertaken to address inequality, but there is a battle to fight on outdated gender stereotypes, which are imposed from a young age and go on to have lasting consequences. Britain has always been at its best when women are given the opportunity to excel in their chosen pursuits. On International Women�s Day, with its theme of accelerated action, I remind this House of its obligations to enable women across the UK to pursue the occupations they are passionate about and create new pathways so that they can realise their ambitions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Ahead of International Women�s Day this Saturday, I want to celebrate women�s achievements. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate today, on being a trailblazer for this Parliament�s diversity, and on speaking so passionately.
We have made the most amazing progress since the inaugural International Women�s Day following workers� rights protests in the early 20th century. Women in this country can now vote, start a business or undergo surgery on their own body without consulting a man. The absence of those rights might feel faintly ridiculous now, but they were hard won in our relatively recent past, and we must remember that they do not apply universally across the world. We must also recognise that, while so much progress has been made, given the current global political environment, this progress has never felt so precarious.
This year marks 250 years since Jane Austen�s birth, in our beautiful Hampshire countryside. Austen�s novels, despite high praise and popularity, were published anonymously, and it was her brother who often dealt with her publishing negotiations. One of her first books was simply written under the authorship: �By a Lady�. As we celebrate World Book Day today as well, it is a perfect opportunity to reflect on the enduring impact of authors such as Austen, who not only shaped our literary world but challenged the societal norms in their time.
Thankfully, women�s literature in the UK is no longer published anonymously, but we still live in a world where 122 million girls are out of school, 496 million adult women worldwide cannot read or write and women make up two thirds of the global illiterate population. Issues of education and illiteracy will be worsened by the recently announced cuts to international aid. That policy, as highlighted by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), will disproportionately harm women.
We need foreign policy with gender equality at its heart not just because it is the right thing to do, but because countries that educate girls do better economically for everyone. We must also increase international development funding initiatives that aim to eradicate sexual violence and abuse in areas of conflict. The UN confirmed a 50% rise in conflict-related sexual violence between 2022 and 2023. Women and girls made up 95% of the victims. It is not just sexual violence: 61% of preventable maternal mortality�that amounts to about 500 deaths a day�occurred in 35 crisis-affected countries, and the average incidence of child marriage was 14.4% higher in conflict-affected countries than in non-conflict settings.
Women continue to be abused across the world. Murder is still the leading cause of premature death in women, and as we have heard, every 10 minutes a woman or girl is murdered by her intimate partner or a family member. We heard powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on rape and sexual assault. We must develop our support mechanisms by embedding domestic abuse specialists in every police force, increasing protections for refugees and expanding our rape crisis centres to tackle these crises.
I am proud to be the first female Member of Parliament for North East Hampshire�the 658th female MP on the list�and a Member of the Women and Equalities Committee. I support the powerful personal and professional testimony of our Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who spoke on health inequalities, as did the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
Strides are being made in the House to improve the lives of women and achieve equality. The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, which was originally introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), criminalised upskirting.
It has been heartening to hear such powerful speeches across the House on a wide range of topics, but women must also be protected financially. Right now in the UK, women continue to be economically disadvantaged in the workplace. Median hourly pay for women is 7.7% less than for men, and in Hampshire that gap almost doubles. The gender pay gap also worsens with age: among full-time employees aged 40 and over, the gap widens considerably due to the motherhood penalty. That is not a fact that we should accept. Women deserve better from their workplaces and from the societal structures that enable that to continue. Policies such as increased paternity leave will help women to have a fair share of wages. Improving policy for women also improves it for men. As the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) said, equality benefits everyone.
Today, I speak proudly as a progressive, internationalist, cosmopolitan woman inspired by the strength of women leaders. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand impressed the world with her management of crises from terrorism to the pandemic while being the second-ever elected world leader to give birth in office. Kamala Harris was the first female, the first black and the first Asian-American Vice President of the USA. Sanna Marin, who became the world�s youngest Prime Minister in 2019, guided Finland to become the 31st member of NATO. In the face of sexism in political life, who can forget Julia Gillard�s 2012 speech on misogyny in which she powerfully addressed the sexism to which she had been subjected? It is that persistence, resilience and fortitude that women and girls must continue to have in political, public, professional and private spaces across the globe so that we continue moving in the right direction towards equality for all women. We are not there yet, but our progress must be celebrated.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to be part of this debate, and especially so today on behalf of His Majesty�s official Opposition. I am proud to be a shadow Cabinet member as the shadow Minister for Women. We have had a poignant, proud, challenging and sometimes joyful debate. It has been informative, as always.
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate. I thank all Members for their contributions; I will touch on their remarks as I go.
It is also Women�s History Month. I thank Mr Speaker for the event in the House last night where we celebrated women�s history. In fact, it was a particular pleasure to hear today from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) about Tilly Shilling.
International Women�s Day is important in allowing us to take stock and be realistic, but also to celebrate our progress, as women, towards equality. It is also, as we have heard today, a time to recognise that more can and should be done. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining the Nordic Council at the British and Nordic breakfast in Westminster with its secretary general, along with Helen Pankhurst, the convener of Centenary Action, and the co-ordinator of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. We exchanged views and experiences on women in democracy and civil society and the importance of inter-parliamentary co-operation and support. As we have heard in the Chamber today, that is vital.
I am especially pleased to welcome this year�s International Women�s Day on 8 March as we mark the half-century since the first woman was elected a party leader. She sat on the Conservative Benches and went on to be the first Head of Government in the western world who was a woman. I am, of course, talking about Margaret Thatcher. I could not help noticing that she did not get much of a mention from Government Members, so it was up to me to make sure to add some balance.
In Margaret Thatcher�s time in office, more women entered the workforce, were professionals and became trailblazers. We see her statue just outside the Chamber in the Members� Lobby and remember that they, like she, were iron ladies in their fields. She really challenged the status quo, allowing us all to do that. As women, we stand on the shoulders of the women who came here before us. I am the 380th woman elected to Parliament, and I must say to men and women in the Chamber that no one is ever here just to make up the numbers.
I say to the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who works with me on the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, that the power of young people really matters. We agree furiously on that. It was famously said that we were all the future once, so hon. Members should not worry. I am pleased to work with the hon. Lady on shaping that future, and it is vital that young women and men work together.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge should be praised for her work as a young woman in Parliament, taking on deepfake pornography�I cannot even think of the words I want to say about that, at least not at the Dispatch Box. It is really important that I remind the House, in keeping with our Conservative values, that a meritocracy is not a tick-box and is not tokenism. Our rise and our success as Conservative MPs is not about making up the numbers.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who shared her experience as a pregnant woman with her disablement, and showed her incredible strength in talking about it. Just getting here just shows what a strong voice she is in sharing that.
In subsequent years, we have had three more Conservative women leaders�we like female leaderships in our party, don�t we? So come on, folks on the Labour Benches; put yourselves forward. We now have my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) leading us and I am extremely proud to sit at the shadow Cabinet table with her. I am sorry to say that in the last year, I have lost many dear colleagues�female MPs who have not come back to this place. The voters, I am afraid, bit back, but we will keep pushing on our side of the House.
We will hear from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), about the short, cruelly shutdown lives of those who have been robbed from us by femicide. We will acknowledge the impact on their families and friends. I welcome the new Government�s Minister for Women and Equalities, Baroness Smith of Malvern. I thank the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for her sisterhood and her kindness to me in her previous shadow role and in government. But it would be remiss of me not to say at this Dispatch Box that I am disappointed that the role has not been retained in this House. Perhaps the Minister might have found time to take it on, because I have worked with her over the past 10 years, including on the first Women and Equalities Committee, and there is an admiration�I hope�on both sides.
I turn to some of the amazing women in my constituency, including Rev. Canon Martha Mutikani, the new vicar of Scaynes Hill, who follows Rev. Bev and who is in place today; Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, the West Sussex chief fire officer; and Katy Bourne, the police and crime commissioner for Sussex. Many people know that I have two daughters. One of them was born on International Women�s Day, so it is always a cake-versus-marching day, and cake has won this weekend. One of my young daughters is now a degree apprentice in a frontline role, and I know exactly what it means to take on challenges. I must mention Kathryn Hibberd-Little from the Mug Tree in East Grinstead. She is an amazing woman entrepreneur, and above all, she is making the birthday cake, so she is wonderful.
I must also mention Helen Tomlinson, the cross-Government menopause champion. I am proud of her work on �No Time to Step Back�. During my time in government, with the now Minister, we worked on women�s employment, progression, safety, spiking and standing up for women, including menopausal women, and that is roundly supported across the House.
As March is Brain Tumour Awareness Month, I would like to mention my friend and constituent Holly Vivian. She is a young mum and nurse living with brain tumour. It is Wear a Hat Day soon�please do that for her to raise awareness and fundraise.
Turning to accelerating action on issues affecting women and girls, there is a fundamental right to be safe from violence. I remind the House that criminality in the home is called domestic violence, and we should never accept it. We should always remind women and anybody suffering from domestic violence that there is a safe people for them, and we as MPs will be there for them in the community.
I remind the House about my concerns, along with those of Women�s Aid, about the early release scheme. I am sure the Minister will continue to look at the safety of women regarding that scheme, and I hope that Equalities Ministers will work with Justice and Home Office colleagues to ensure that dangerous criminals guilty of offences related to sexual or sex-based violence are not among those getting the chance to leave prison early. Just last week at Maidstone Crown court, it was reported that a prisoner from that scheme groped a woman within 15 minutes of being released. I hope the Minister can assure the House on this issue.
On safety, I reiterate my party�s calls around the time-limited independent inquiry on grooming gangs. I thank all Members of this House who stood up on this matter, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who, like many others, have continued to work on the matter. We can and should go further to ensure that victims are adequately heard and that we continue to protect women and girls from those appalling crimes. The victims of the Wales-wide grooming gang have asked for that, and I hope that the Government, particularly on this day, will listen.
The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) talked about mothers murdered by sons. As I said, domestic violence is criminality in the home, and I found that a particularly stark part of this afternoon�s proceedings. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) talked about erasing women and that we have come too far to go backwards. I know that she will not let that happen. We do not always agree on everything, but we can definitely agree on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) spoke about her gale-force mum�an incredible woman�as well as amazing farmers and Olympians in her constituency. I also thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for talking about her work and highlighting FGM, which is extremely pertinent.
If I can find my final note�I have so many notes here�I will bring my remarks to a close; otherwise Madam Deputy Speaker will drag me out. Madeleine Albright said:
�It took me quite a long time to develop a voice, and now that I have it, I am not going to be silent.�
On the theme of �Accelerate Action�, it is time to listen. MP stands for �most persistent,� and we must all do what we can, together with men and boys, to deliver true equality, safety and fairness for all, on today�s International Women�s Day and beyond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker�and all the Madam Deputy Speakers who sat through the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing the debate. She said in her comments that she was the 286th female Member of Parliament. Ten years after she was first elected, I became the 311th, so there were only 25 women between the two of us. Yet someone said today that they were the 649th, so the pace accelerated in the following 10 years. Accelerating action is what International Women�s Day is all about this year, so let us keep that up.
International Women�s Day is a moment to celebrate the achievements of women here in the UK and to recognise the enormous contribution they have made across every sector�many Members have done that today. It has shone through in the debate, and it has been a privilege to listen as Members have reflected on the women who have influenced and inspired them. However, it falls to me to do the thing I do every year. I wish I could be entirely uplifting, but while we celebrate the women who have lit up our lives and helped to change the world, we lament the loss of those who did not have the chance.
The statistics show that, on average, a women is killed by a man every three days in the UK, and that one in five homicides are domestic homicides. We cannot allow that to continue; we must act now and be relentless in chasing the change. Many Members have mentioned Raneem�s law, which the Government have brought in to embed specialists in 999 control rooms. I hope that that shows how important the issue of women being killed is to the Government�it drives our actions. I read out the names Raneem Oudeh and her mother Khaola Saleem on the years in which they were killed.
We have also set about putting in place the new domestic abuse protection orders, which are a huge step forward and already means that, where perpetrators breach their orders, they are arrested swiftly and incarcerated. That comes entirely from every domestic homicide review that I have read�they tell me that the consequences can be fatal when a perpetrator breaches an order and we do not respond.
The Government are also seeking to push forward massively on stalking laws. Many women whose names I have read out from the list over the years have died because we did not take stalking seriously. One thing the Government will do is allow people to know the identity of their online stalkers, which is not currently the case. That proposal is based on the case of Nicola Thorp; I am going to call it Nicola�s law. I want to start having laws for women who did not die�for women who did not have to die so that we change the law. That is what we have to get to. We must go further and push harder.
Unfortunately, it is too late to protect those already taken from us. To ensure that we do not forget them and all the women who have suffered due to violence against women and girls�men�s violence against women and girls�I will take this opportunity to read the names collated by the amazing women at the Femicide Census. They collate the list of the women and girls aged 14 and above, and this year four children are included on the list, who have allegedly been killed or are known to have been killed by men in the past year.
This is the 10th year I have read this list. I do it now for the first time from the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons. I do it in front of and to honour the families of these women and the women who have appeared on the list in the past. Last year, I said that I felt tired, angry and weary and that I was sick of the failures. But as I stand here today, on the Front Bench, placed here by a Prime Minister inspired to action, who mentioned the reading of the list in the first ever speech he made from this Dispatch Box as the Prime Minister, alongside a Home Secretary and a flight of brilliant Ministers who are totally dedicated to this, I feel hopeful. The women whose names I am about to read out left us breadcrumbs�they left us clues as to why they died. We cannot stand and say any more that lessons will be learned. What I promise is that I will actually learn the lessons.
Here is the list this year: Zhe Wang; Pauline Sweeney; Carol Matthews; Ursula Uhlemann; Tiffany Render; Frances Dwyer; Ruth Baker; Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche; Samantha Mickleburgh; Rachel McDaid; Lisa Welford; Karen O�Leary; Sonia Parker; Tarnjeet Riaz; Anita Mukhey; Bhajan Kaur; Kathryn Parton; Emma Finch; Margaret Parker; Amie Gray; Maria Nugara; Patsy Aust; Veronica Chinyanga; Delia Haxworth; Joanne Ward; Lauren Evans; Maxine Clark; Scarlett Vickers; Sophie Evans; Joanne Samak; Carol Hunt; Louise Hunt; Hannah Hunt; Jenny Sharp; Alana Odysseos; Laura Robson; Kulsuma Akter; Rebecca Simkin; Olivia Wood; Courtney Mitchell; Nina Denisova; Alberta Obinim; Stephanie Marie; Sophie Watson; Vicki Thomas; Eve McIntyre; Montserrat Martorell; Cher Maximen; Brodie MacGregor; Zanele Sibanda; Bryonie Gawith and her children, Oscar Birtle and Aubree Birtle; Davinia Graham; Barbara Nomakhosi; Christine Everett-Hickson; Juliana Prosper and her children, Giselle and Kyle Prosper; Rachel Simpson; Mary Ward; Luka Bennett-Smith; Anita Rose; Mashal Ilyas; Rhiannon Skye Whyte; Catherine Flynn; Sandie Butler; Rita Fleming; Cheryl McKenna; Carol James; Phoenix Spencer-Horn; Harshita Brella; Alana Armstrong; Margaret Cunningham; Kristine Sparane; Margaret Hanson; Karen Cummings; Astra Sirapina; Mariann Borocz; Gemma Devonish; Joanne Pearson; Teohna Grant; Heather Newton; June Henty; Leila Young; Julie Buckley; Jamelatu Tsiwah; Dianne Cleary; Claire Chick; Margaret Worby; Carmen Coulson; Rita Lambourne; Megan Hughes; Lisa Smith; Ana Maria Murariu; Leanne Williams; and two women from Birmingham whose names have not yet been confirmed. Finally, though the suspects have not been identified, I would like to honour the lives of Dora Leese and Christine Jefferies.
In the last year, Sharon Holland, Chloe Holland�s mother, asked if Chloe could be remembered, because her name would never have been read out on this list. I ask that we remember Chloe, and that alongside her we remember the list of women who died from suicide, or in unclear, sinister and hidden circumstances where we know there was a history of domestic abuse or sexual violence. Those women�s names will not make it on to this list, because nobody has ever been held accountable for their deaths. Today I promise that we are working on these hidden homicides. They deserve better. They deserve justice.
I will finish by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate. I note in this year�s debate the number of people who talked about women who had been harmed in their constituency, and the calls for action and change have been incredibly heartening. We have heard about making work pay, keeping our streets safe, and women who have fought tirelessly to embed true equality into our everyday lives. This a fight that demands the very best from all of us, and we must rise to the occasion. Under this Government, this issue will get the attention that it deserves. We will keep honouring and celebrating women as we build a society in which they are respected and protected, and we will back up our words with action as we seek real and lasting change, undeterred by those who sit on the sidelines while the list of names grows longer.
Dawn Butler
I thank the Minister for doing what she does and reading out those names. This was a very difficult debate to have had, and I feel more emotional than normal because I fear that things are going to get worse. I fear that that list is going to get longer, because we are at a tipping point. If we do not stop what is going on around the world, and if we do not call it out, it will get worse.
I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. It has been a powerful debate, and it is wonderful for Members to have an excuse to talk about the brilliant women in their constituencies. It has been great to hear about them, and I would love to meet them all. Women have talked about their lived experiences: about being pregnant and how they were treated as a disabled woman; about being the youngest woman in Parliament and how they are treated; and about being raped and how they have come through that. I hope that everybody outside the Chamber hears that lived experience and hears those stories.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
And we should never need an excuse.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Women�s Day.
Political Finance Rules
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of our democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.
Before I start my remarks, I pay tribute to everything that was said from the Dispatch Box in the last debate by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). This House and our Government are stronger, more effective and more compassionate because of her contribution and her work.
I begin by declaring an interest: I am a member of a political party. I have spent many years actively involved in party politics as a campaigner, a local councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, so I know that political parties sit at the centre of our political landscape and that they are key pillars in our elections and our broader democratic system. Of course, those parties need funding to fulfil their day-to-day functions and to contest elections. Our pluralistic democracy depends on lively and active political parties that can campaign and engage with the public. Indeed, tomorrow evening I will be back out on the doorstep, clipboard and leaflets in hand, listening to voters and campaigning with my local Labour party. Those very activities would be impossible without political donations.
However, far too often the financing of political parties involves suspect donations making their way into party coffers. And the numbers are not small. Research by Transparency International found that �115 million in donations�almost �1 in every �10 of reported donations �came from unknown or questionable sources between 2021 and 2024. How has that been allowed to happen? Unfortunately, the UK�s political finance rules, designed to block foreign donations and dirty money from seeping into political parties, are ripe for abuse and riddled with loopholes.
Hostile state actors, kleptocrats and international billionaires are easily able to sidestep the UK�s permissibility rules and funnel money, via UK-registered shell companies, into our political parties. As it stands, a British company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, even if the company has not generated sufficient funds to support that same donation. That means that foreign actors or any mystery donor could legitimately use shell companies as a conduit to channel money into political parties here in the UK.
This is symbolic of a much bigger problem. It should not be that easy to pump money into British politics behind a layer of corporate secrecy. Donations that could come from anyone, anywhere pose a significant threat to the security and integrity of our democratic system. Foreign interference in British democracy and elections is a direct attack on our sovereignty, our national interest and our vital democratic institutions.
We have been warned about the problem for many years. A series of independent review bodies and the security services have sounded the alarm time and again. They have made it clear that risks are posed by opaque donations coming in from overseas. In 2020, a report by Parliament�s Intelligence and Security Committee identified that multiple members of the Russian elite with links to Vladimir Putin had tried to donate or successfully donated to British political parties.
Later, in 2022, MI5 warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to influence parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist party. In 2023, concerns were raised in Parliament about alleged links between the Chinese Communist party and party fundraising. The then Minister of State for Policing, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), noted that
�all political parties need to be alert to the danger of representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or influence their activities.��[Official Report, 19 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 249.]
I fear that our unhealthy dependence on a handful of large donors also poses a risk of undue influence and capture by narrow vested interests. We know that of the �85 million of private donations made in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 mega-donors, each giving well over �1 million. Just recently, one would-be mega-donor dominated headlines for that very reason. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and not a British citizen, was giving �serious thought� to donating millions of pounds to a British political party�Reform UK. As a South African-born billionaire who lives in the United States, Elon Musk cannot legally make a personal donation to a British political party, but, as we know, he could easily go through the UK subsidiaries of his various companies.
Although that rumour has not yet come to pass, the risk that it poses to the integrity of our democracy cannot be overstated. I repeat: it should not be this easy to pump money into British politics, especially from halfway across the world. Our democratic institutions and elections should never be the plaything of a billionaire who cannot even vote in a British election, and a UK-registered company should not be a convenient vehicle to allow them to make such a donation. Even the perception that our political parties are captured by those with deep pockets has a corrosive effect on public trust in politics and in us as politicians. At a time when that trust is regretfully at a historically low level, we need to tackle that perception head-on and show that our politics is not for sale and cannot be unduly influenced.
How do we go about toughening up the rules? First, we close the loopholes I have outlined once and for all and ensure that companies are able to make donations only from profit made in the UK in the last two years, as well as introducing a requirement for political parties to identify the true source of donors� funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules, because even if Elon Musk were ever to breach election law, why would he care? The maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose is just �20,000�not even small change to the world�s richest man.
Unfortunately, the previous Government only made matters worse when they stripped the Electoral Commission, which is tasked with regulating political finance, of its independence and further opened the floodgates to mega-donations by drastically increasing spending limits during election periods by around 80%. Strengthening the rules around donations to political parties is a manifesto commitment of this new Government. I know that the Government and Ministers are committed to restoring trust and protecting British democracy, so I hope they will act swiftly on that commitment by restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission and empowering it to impose much larger fines.
The Government should also look closely at capping donations and spending, perhaps in line with recommendations put forward by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. Smart tweaks to existing regulations, such as increasing fining powers, lowering reporting thresholds and capping spending limits, do not require primary legislation. Those changes could be enacted quickly and still have a significant impact on cleaning up our politics and ensuring that our parties are all free from suspect donations. Finally, I sincerely hope that Ministers will look closely at the role that shell companies play in allowing opaque donations to be made here in the UK, often originating from overseas.
I am proud that this Labour Government were elected on a mandate to restore integrity in politics. As the Prime Minister rightly stated in his victory speech in the early hours:
�The fight for trust is the battle that defines our age.�
I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I look forward to hearing from the Government and from hon. Members here today exactly how we can win this crucial battle. Only by doing so can we protect democracy, clean up our politics and rebuild trust with the public.
Several hon. Members rose�
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. As Members will be able to tell, we have considerably more Members wishing to speak than we have time for, so perhaps we will start with an informal time limit of no more than five minutes.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate on such a crucial topic.
Public trust in politics is at an all-time low; only 12% of people trust political parties, and only 15% of the population think that political funding is transparent. There is clearly a problem at the heart of British politics. As the hon. Member said, it is particularly bad in our country, because we have an Electoral Commission with very little in the way of teeth or of limits. That leaves our democracy open to corrosion and dark money, which we have to be particularly worried about guarding against. As the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said in the previous debate, we must guard our democracy against those anti-democratic forces and against dark money�the influence of money in politics is a core part of that corrosion.
In the UK, there is no limit on individual donations. That is not the case in Canada, in France, or even in the US. Why is there no limit on how much money an individual can donate, and on how much influence they can therefore exert on British politics? Corporate donations are allowed here, but are banned in so many other countries. Foreign donations are theoretically banned here, but loopholes mean that an individual such as Elon Musk could quite easily work within existing, very bendable rules in order to exert what would undoubtedly be a very corrosive influence on our politics. The hon. Member for South Dorset mentioned the Electoral Commission�s lack of enforcement powers: the maximum fine it can impose is �20,000, yet the influence in our politics totals tens of millions of pounds. Just over the past decade, �115 million has come from unknown sources. This is clearly a serious problem.
I welcome the fact that the current Government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties, in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence. I very much hope that in her summing up the Minister will be able to clarify exactly what that will amount to. What actions do the Government intend to take in order to protect our democracy from foreign influence? Can she commit to taking measures such as strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission to issue fines, reducing the reporting thresholds in order to increase transparency, and clarifying spending limits? Those measures would not require primary legislation, so can the Government set out the timetable by which they will bring forward those urgently needed measures to protect our democracy?
Big money in politics is a corrosive influence. This Government have the opportunity to put a stop to it�to bring us up to the standards that other democracies have put in place. Will the Minister set out her timetable for doing so, and clarify precisely what she will do?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I intend to make a short contribution on one particular aspect of political funding that I believe is especially corrosive to faith in democracy in our country. Across North East Hertfordshire, from Buntingford to Thundridge, local communities have worked hard to create local neighbourhood plans that are pragmatic but full of hope for the future. However, time and again, those plans are overruled, and residents get development that could hardly be further from what they have sought to secure�poorly designed, palpably unsustainable, and outrageously overpriced. So often, the reason for this is the enormous financial and political pressure that big developers are able to bring to bear on the debates around the future of our towns and villages in their relentless pursuit of profit maximisation.
Our constituents will never have faith that our planning system will deliver fair outcomes that put nature, community life and genuinely affordable homes before developer greed for as long as those same developers�and the lobbyists they employ�are pouring vast sums of money into the bank accounts of political parties. Given the constant clamour for planning deregulation and the already enormous profits that these developers are making, it is hard to escape the conclusion that those sums of money have been a very wise investment on their part.
The Labour Government have inherited the Conservative party�s housing crisis; we must not inherit the same issues of influence that plagued the previous Administration. Trust in politics will return only when we make our position unimpeachable, and the future of development in our towns, villages and countryside is too important even to appear to have been subverted on behalf of private interests. If we want the public to believe that the planning guidelines that we set nationally and locally will be fairly adhered to, it is my contention that we must ban all political donations from developers, those who work for them and the lobbyists they employ.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this important debate. The lack of transparency in the funding of our political parties is well documented, although I suspect not so well known among members of the public, who tend to associate the corrupting influence of money in politics with other countries, usually very far away. The reality is that it is taking place on our doorstep.
According to research done by Transparency International, almost �1 in every �10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some �42 million comes from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in other corruption, fraud or money laundering, and �38.6 million comes from unincorporated associations that have not reported the source of their income, despite Parliament introducing new transparency rules in 2010. The rest of its findings highlight millions from donors alleged or proved to be intermediaries for foreign funds and/or a hidden source, and millions from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions they have made.
Other research has confirmed that successive Governments have invested trillions in the defence industry. Our new Government are also proposing to increase defence spending to 2.5% and then to 3%. The defence industry is reportedly responsible for approximately 40% of all corruption worldwide, and much of the money that we and other countries spend in defence is funnelled back through opaque channels into political parties and members. The industrial military complex needs to be investigated and dismantled.
The fact is that our political finance rules are too weak on hidden money, making the system vulnerable to subordination from rich individuals and secretive vested interests. My constituents and people from our country are concerned by the malign influence on Government policy of parties, Governments and Opposition Members and other Members accepting millions from state and industry lobbies, corporations and mega-rich donors.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a case. Does he agree that foreign money has no role in our democracy, and that one of the strongest ways in which we can clean up our politics and indeed strengthen our democracy is to make sure that the Electoral Commission has real teeth and has higher fining powers? Does he also agree that where we have concerns about foreign money coming into our country, we should have particular concerns about money coming from people such as Elon Musk?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree with the hon. Member. The action that the Electoral Commission should be permitted to take should not just be limited to bigger, greater fines for donors. There should be consequences for those accepting donations and potentially being influenced.
My constituents and the people of this country see and feel in their daily lives the deep impacts of pro-rich, pro-war, anti-poor and anti-consumer decisions and policies. The solution lies in reforms: to tighten spending rules; to shine a light on the source of financial contributions; to lower spending limits to reduce campaign costs and reliance on large donations; to introduce donation caps of �10,000 a year for individuals and organisations, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; to remove the corrupting influence of big money in politics; and to close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources.
The UK used to lead the way on funding transparency. The UK was a founding member of the Open Government Partnership, and placed third in the 2014 OECD open data index, but in recent years the UK has slipped. The most recent OECD rankings saw the UK fall to 24th place, with stories about dodgy dealings, personal protective equipment procurement and Ministers� disappearing WhatsApp messages all contributing to the decline in the trust that the public place in their politicians.
As has been mentioned, it should be a cause for grave concern that of the �85 million of private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 donors giving more than �1 million each, the highest ever share of mega donations. If we do not want our politics to go the way of American politics, with British equivalents to the likes of Elon Musk and his fellow tech billionaires blatantly using money to buy influence and remake politics in their own interests, we need tighter regulation of political finance than we currently have, and full transparency for the public.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I thank my fellow Dorset resident, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for securing this important debate. It goes to the heart of the concern that the public have, namely that economic dominance leads to political influence. Money is used to influence politics, and politics is then used to enable those people to make more money through changes in laws or regulations. This is the issue that worries the public. We also know that civic participation diminishes if people feel that they have no influence compared to those with large amounts of money.
Public trust in our political system is at an all-time low. That flows in part from a sense that politicians are unable properly to represent those who elect them, that money in our politics exerts undue influence that is often obscured from public view, and that those who break the rules that do exist are not adequately punished. Nearly 60% of the public think that funding of political parties is not transparent, and only 30% think that political parties that break the rules will face any action. That is why Labour�s manifesto made the welcome pledge to
�establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent Chair, to ensure probity in government.�
The commission must be empowered to challenge the corrupting influence of not only the developer lobby but other big money donors, including those from the oil and gas industry. We should also close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources, and publish clearer guidance on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality.
It is worrying, too, that UK political parties are relying increasingly on a small number of extremely wealthy people to bankroll their election campaigns. The last Government increased national campaign spending limits from �19 million to �34 million, which has intensified the demand for donations across all our political parties. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said earlier, Transparency International UK claims that between 2001 and May 2024, �42 million came from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in corruption, fraud or money laundering. Political parties should therefore be required by law to identify the true source of funds as part of a risk-based approach to donations, and a donation from a company should not be allowed to exceed its net profits generated in the UK within the preceding two years. A UK-registered company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, which is why political parties should be required to conduct checks on donations to assess and manage their risks.
There are real concerns about unincorporated associations. Such associations are not required to check that those who donate to them are permissible, which means that they could legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. As other Members have said, the Electoral Commission should therefore be given powers to investigate candidates� compliance with the rules and to impose sanctions.
Finally, banning companies that win public contracts from making political donations would end the potential conflict of interests that this creates and the perception that political friends have received political favours.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
As the Prime Minister declared last year, and as we see so graphically on the world stage now, the �fight for trust� will be
�the battle that defines our political era.���[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 56.]
It is clear that if we MPs are to achieve the changes that people need most in their lives, we need a functioning democracy. If those we represent do not trust politicians to act in their best interest, we will not be an effective institution. Currently, it is simply not the case that they trust us. Both in the UK and across the globe, faith in politics and politicians is at an all-time low. In the UK, 76% of people have little to no trust in Members of this House�up from 54% a decade ago. I note with no great relish that this may not be surprising after years of a Conservative Government who were more concerned with their internal politics than the concerns of people around the country, but it should be a deep concern for us all. Rebuilding trust in politics is the goal, regardless of our political colour or persuasion. I am sure that all Members of the House can support that, but it will not happen overnight.
Research from the Electoral Commission shows that only 15% of people agree that there is transparency around the money spent and received by parties and campaigners�down from over a third in 2011. We should be clear that political donations are not inherently wrong and are part of a vibrant democratic system. Individuals should be able to take part in the democratic process through political donations, which can help people to further the goals and ideals that they believe in. Banning any donations would entrench power, leaving new or smaller parties unable to campaign against incumbents. It would work against many of our democratic principles, but it is clear that although political donations are a good thing, we must have adequate transparency as to the source of the money. That is currently not the case.
The legal framework for the political finance system is now over 25 years old, and though it was explicitly intended to ban foreign donations to UK political parties, there are clearly many loopholes. There is no doubt that foreign nations have an interest in altering our politics. Dictators such as Putin and Xi Jinping have made it perfectly clear that they do not believe in democracy and are willing to undermine our institutions, but our current system has built-in loopholes that allow foreign interests to channel money to our politics to shape it in their interest. At present, UK-registered companies are permitted to make donations using money raised overseas and, as has been said previously, unincorporated associations can legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible donors.
It is not just foreign donations that should cause concern; the sheer amount of money coming from a small number of extremely wealthy donors is also worrying. Of the �85 million received in private donations in 2023 alone, two thirds came from just 19 donors. Money helps direct the political winds, and having that amount of money come from such a small number of powerful individuals risks bringing our democratic system into disrepute.
We must introduce a cap on donations. No matter how noble the intention, no individual should be able to donate excessively, as large donations can at the very least give the impression that undue influence is being exercised over our democracy. This would not only be a positive step in cleaning up politics; it would be popular too. A recent YouGov poll found that more than two thirds of the British public support a limit on political donations. Personally, I also have concerns about the capacity of union barons to exercise what might appear to be undue influence via the vast amount of money accumulated through the political levy, which they can donate or withhold as they see fit. However, I acknowledge that the issue is complex.
We are at a crucial juncture, and it is in everyone�s interests that the Government get a proper handle on this issue. We cannot enter the next general election with so many questions left unanswered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Stella Creasy, with a four-minute time limit.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like everybody in the Chamber, I must be sure to draw the House�s attention to my entry in the Register of Members� Financial Interests.
�Follow the money� is one of those phrases we always hear, as if there is somehow a crushing inevitability that money determines outcomes in all areas of life, whether personal or political, but now in our democracy there is a clear and present danger that the loudest voices and largest wallets will dominate, and that the two are connected. Even in these difficult political climes, it is extraordinary to think that the existential threat to our country�s democracy posed by the suggestion that Elon Musk could donate �100 million to any political party here has not caused a Cobra meeting to be called, because it is a national security threat. A foreign agent, who is now part of the structures of a foreign state, is openly talking about interfering in our democracy�buying it, and boasting about doing so�and he is not the only one.
I guess that, for many, the idea that politics is so infused with money is not a surprise. After all, we have been trying for over 160 years to regulate foreign donations �and indeed local donations�in this country. For the avoidance of doubt, donating to a political party is a noble thing for people to do, given the concerns and passions they may have, and we in this Chamber have all sought donations. However, we have seen scandals through the years, starting with David Lloyd George and including the cash for questions affair and the personal protective equipment issue. Time and again, Transparency International has drawn our attention to the current data on this, and that is before we even get to Taylor Swift, because she is right: �It�s me, you, hi�we are the problem�. As politicians, we have not regulated this, even though we have seen these problems time and again.
In the short time available to me, I want to make a plea to the Minister to ensure she is looking at the impact at local level. When money is channelled through unincorporated organisations, many of us will have seen the impacts in our communities and our constituencies and, frankly, the failures of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to intervene. In America, a 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of candidates at local level, and many of us now have third-party organisations that are active in our local communities and trying to create disinformation to disrupt our local democracy.
People may ask what the problem is in my constituency, because I have a substantial majority, but given that one in five MPs have a majority of less than 5%, these activities�fake leaflets, third-party adverts on Facebook and so on�could be critical to the outcome of local and, indeed, national elections. We have gagging laws for charities, but we have nothing to deal with the businesses that are behind this and that are funding these activities. It is a grave irony to me that many of us came here yesterday to defend aid as part of national security work, because part of our aid budget goes on tackling disinformation and disruption in the democracies of other countries, but we are not doing anything about it at local level.
Just the other week, The Guardian reported that a network of Telegram channels with Russian links is encouraging UK residents to commit violent attacks on mosques and offering cryptocurrency in return. These activities are also happening online, as we have all seen. The online is now the offline threat, and vice versa. We saw that with Cambridge Analytica, and nobody really acted then. Members are right about the scale of the challenges with regulation and fines, but we need to do something about the fact that much more pressure can be brought to bear on MPs at local level because the results have been much closer.
This is not some Netflix drama; this is the state of British democracy at the moment. Everybody in this Chamber has a vested interest in resolving it so that we can have free speech. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), who plays an instrumental role in the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, for securing this important debate.
I was really proud to stand on a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties, and I welcome the Government�s commitment to bring forward an elections Bill in due course. I hope today�s debate will help inform what is in that future Bill, because as others have said, restoring trust in our political system and ensuring that everyone has a voice in the decisions that affect their lives is absolutely crucial to British democracy.
We know from international evidence the risk of allowing ever increasing amounts of money to dominate politics. I lived in Washington DC for almost 10 years and saw at first hand the impact of that system, including the world�s richest man spending a quarter of a billion dollars to bankroll the last election. When billionaires and corporate interests drown out the voices of everyone else, we should not be surprised that people lose faith in democracy working for them. It continues to amaze me that representatives of Reform, who unsurprisingly have not turned up for this debate, seem eager to take that approach to politics. They preach populism on the one hand, while courting foreign billionaires and their policy agendas on the other. That is not in keeping with British values.
But this is also about places such as Moldova and other countries where we have seen Russian operatives shipping money in to buy elections. We should not be complacent. Other Members have covered the threat to the UK, and I would like to pay tribute to Transparency International UK, Spotlight on Corruption and all the other great organisations helping to shine a light on the issue. I will move on swiftly to some areas on which I hope the Minister will consider reforms: transparency, company donations, the Electoral Commission and a cap.
On transparency, unincorporated associations, as we have heard, are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Since 2010, over �40 million has come through unincorporated associations and we have no idea where 95% of that money came from. As it stands, they are not required to check that those who donate to them are permissible, so they could be foreign donors. They are easy to set up, we do not know who are behind them and there are no transparency requirements in law for donations to candidates, as opposed to political parties or campaigners. I hope that in a future elections Bill, the Government will introduce reforms to clamp down on those loopholes, including provisions on identifying people responsible for unincorporated associations, permissibility checks for political donations and lower reporting thresholds.
We have already heard that company donations are a big issue. I fully endorse the proposals made on the issue by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset.
Thirdly, we need robust independent oversight and to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission. We need an urgent review of the requirement for the commission to submit a strategy and policy statement to the Government. I believe that was part of an entirely confected agenda on voter fraud in the Elections Act 2022. I hope we will repeal that as soon as possible.
Finally, I believe it is now time to consider caps on political donations. The previous Government�s massive increase in spending limits and the increasing reliance on major donors has convinced me that a well-enforced cap would be healthy for our democracy.
This is an issue that should unite us as a House. It is about the health of our democracy. There is a lot more we need to do: votes at 16, automatic voter registration, improving citizenship education, and ensuring citizens have a voice between elections and not just at them. But on this particular issue, with trust so low, it is vital that we act urgently.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week gave me two really clear reminders about why this issue matters. First, I spoke with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) at a rally to mark the illegal invasion of Ukraine. We saw a frank reminder of authoritarianism right on our doorstep. Then, on Thursday, the Labour party lost a by-election in Vincent Square. While I do not like that result one bit, I am very proud to live in a country where a community can come together and make a decision about who represents them. We currently see more of that sort of politics in this country, with people able to go out to the polling station, but sadly we are at real risk of seeing it decline.
We cannot ignore the fact that there are forces intent on weakening our voice, our vote and our rights in the media, in business and in politics, and that they are co-ordinating to replace democratically elected regimes with those that would do their bidding. These forces are spreading conspiracy theories, which have driven division and violence in our communities. They give a platform to those who would question fundamental British values, and they undermine the democratic process as they question free and fair elections around the world. This is not a question of competition within our democracy, but of democracy itself. We need to preserve a system where the voters are the ones choosing their leaders, not billionaire autocrats. Keeping their money out of our politics is becoming a difficult task. Our finance flows are becoming more elusive, with cryptocurrency enabling money laundering at scale, and our politics has a growing demand for more cash, with ever-growing competition for voters� attention. What Member has not had to struggle with an inscrutable Ring doorbell or security gates? Understandable changes to home security and design have real impacts on our political finance, as we spend more and more money trying to reach voters through online ads and direct mail.
However, getting this money out of our politics is more important than ever at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. Politicians must be effective natural communicators as well as thoughtful legislators, and even the suspicion that we might not be acting in our constituents� interests will further erode the trust that voters do have in their representatives. Fixing political finance is, therefore, an essential part of restoring faith in democracy. We have already heard that a tenth of the money in our politics comes from unknown or questionable sources and is donated through loopholes in existing law. Now, we have to come to the solutions.
Enforcement is made more difficult by loopholes and a weak enforcement system: Companies House reporting rules are too loose, while the Electoral Commission lacks the independence to investigate potential breaches swiftly and thoroughly. Reporting obligations for parties, elected officials and candidates require tightening up, as they allow some individual candidates to accept money without reporting. Meanwhile, the disincentives for bad behaviour, such as fines, are set well below the level that would impact bad actors.
We need to close the loopholes around unincorporated associations, open up political parties to greater transparency and give more power to enforcement entities. We cannot take for granted that voters will always be able to speak truth to power, and we need to fight to preserve a system where British elections are decided only by British voters. The forces of foreign interference are knocking at our door, and we need our Ring doorbell more than ever.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As colleagues have done already, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate.
I rise to speak as someone who dedicated almost 15 years of my working life before coming to this place to being an anti-corruption professional. It is an issue that goes to the heart of our politics, so it is somewhat disappointing to see that no Back-Bench Members from the official Opposition are present to speak in this debate. This is a vital issue on which we need to build consensus across party lines.
We have heard about low turnout at elections, which, as I think we all know, tears at the very fabric of our society, corroding democracy and the social contract between the citizen and the state. Foreign political donations might well be banned in the UK, but the current restrictions are far too easy for determined actors to circumvent. In response, we must be bold in reforming our outdated oversight of political donations.
The risk posed by foreign interference plagues all our parties. Although it is not just about one person, individual or party, I have taken the liberty of raking back through donations of years past to illustrate my argument. Indeed, just before the election, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism made what should have been impermissible donations to all six major parties. All but one�Labour�failed to correctly identify that the donation could not be accepted under current rules and return the money.
Elsewhere, the Intelligence and Security Committee�s 2020 report on Russian interference made it clear that Russian money has been used not just to buy up sprawling mansions, but to attempt to buy influence in our politics. We have seen Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a former Putin Minister, donating more than �2 million to the Conservative party. One might ask, what does �2 million buy? Well, in return, Lubov was awarded with a tennis match with Boris Johnson and dinner with Liz Truss and Theresa May�they picked up the bill, presumably. Let us also take the case of oligarch Alexander Temerko, who ran a Russian state arms company and has coughed up more than �700,000.
Separately, we know that the Russian state and its proxies have a well-documented history of interfering in the politics of other countries and subverting hard-won democracy, whether that is in the United States, France or Moldova, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned. We should not be so arrogant as to assume that Britain is immune to this interference.
So what can we do? First, I hope that we will see an elections Bill in the next Session, which would provide a golden opportunity to close the loopholes we have heard about today, give the regulator real powers and safeguard our democracy against foreign influence. If the Minister is looking for inspiration, she need only look to organisations such as Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International UK, as well as the Electoral Commission itself. We should include proposals around making sure that we introduce �Know your Donor rules��or KYD. Introducing such rules would require parties themselves to conduct proper checks on the sources of a donation. Where that cannot be established, the parties themselves will be required to reject that money.
Secondly, we should close the current loophole in our donation system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even turned a profit in the UK. Thirdly, we must crack down on unincorporated associations, such as the Carlton Club, which can channel donations to political candidates. Some unincorporated associations have become opaque slush funds to channel money into politics, allowing money from undisclosed foreign sources to trickle into our election campaigns.
If we fail to act and send a clear message, we undermine democracy and trust in our politics. We must not allow that to happen, and I urge the Minister to be bold.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his work in securing this important debate, and Members from across the House for their contributions this afternoon.
The Liberal Democrats support this motion, which aligns with our long-standing stance on political finance reform and protecting democracy from foreign influence. We have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increase the transparency in political donations. We support strengthening the Electoral Commission by restoring its independence and increasing its enforcement powers, including higher fines for breaches of political finance laws. Our democracy should never be up for sale to foreign billionaires, oligarchs, or hostile states and, as such, we support this motion, which acknowledges some of those risks.
The Liberal Democrats will continue to push for strong measures to protect our political and electoral system. We want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties. I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) presented a Bill in this House to do just that. And we want to enhance regulatory powers to protect British democracy from the unprecedented threat posed by foreign interference and attacks on our democracy. Liberal Democrats will make protecting our democracy a national security priority.
We are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. Research from the Electoral Commission highlights a significant drop in the rate of public confidence in political finance transparency, falling from 37% in 2011 to about 15% today. It has also recently pointed out the threat of foreign influence on social media, highlighting the rise in misinformation and artificial intelligence deepfakes in the run-up to the general election in July last year, as well as new issues arising from the changes to fact checking on popular websites.
Public trust in our electoral process was not helped by the disastrous record of the former Conservative Government. It was not just their successive sleaze scandals, which created a crisis of democracy in this country, or their exorbitant voter ID scheme, which disproportionately disenfranchises the young and those from ethnic minority communities, but their shameful decision to weaken the independence of the Electoral Commission, and that is a decision that will go down in ignominy. If we are to strengthen our democratic safeguards, and correspondingly strengthen public trust in our democracy, that has to start with empowering the Electoral Commission. That is why we need to reverse the Conservatives� changes. We want to strengthen the Electoral Commission by repealing the Government�s power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the commission.
The former Conservative Government also failed to take the threat posed by Russia seriously. They were content to allow Russian money to flood into the UK and also to allow Russian money to flow into the coffers of their own party. And the manner in which Boris Johnson let the Russia report sit on his desk was shocking. When that report was finally published, it laid bare the extent to which Russia is a threat, including to our democratic institutions. The report said:
�The UK is clearly a target for Russia�s disinformation campaigns and political influence operations and must therefore equip itself to counter such efforts.�
It called Russian influence in the UK �the new normal� and said that the Government had underestimated the response required to the Russian threat. We continue to call for the full publication of the unredacted report.
The Russian Government have been accused of orchestrating a widespread campaign of interference and disinformation that seeks to undermine the global order. In September 2024, the heads of MI6 and the CIA jointly warned that the international order is under threat in a way not seen since the end of the cold war, accusing Russia of a
�reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe�.
I hope that the Minister shares my concern that this week United States Defence Secretary Hegseth has announced the stepping back of US counter-cyber measures against Russia. That is an incredibly concerning decision by the Americans, which threatens not only their cyber-security but our own. Will she update the House on what measures the UK is taking to step up our defence of our democratic institutions? We will continue to urge the Government to designate protecting our democracy as a national security priority.
Turning to foreign oligarchs, it would be remiss of me not to mention Elon Musk. Let us recall that just weeks before Musk became a US Government official, he suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow the UK Government. I hope that other parties will join the Liberal Democrats in unequivocally condemning such remarks. That incident further proves that we urgently need to tighten up political funding. That includes a cap on big donations. We must prevent foreign oligarchs from being able to interfere in our democracy.
The Liberal Democrats want to take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties, and we support the motion. A fair cap will ensure that politics serves our constituents and not big money. Over two thirds of the British public support a cap on political donations. We must deliver the reforms that people are demanding.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I will start with a confession: I am one of the readers of The Guardian on the Conservative Benches, and I pay tribute to the helpful article it published today with the latest update of what has been happening in the world of political donations. It illustrates that, despite the increase in spending limits set out in the previous Parliament, the spend at the last general election reduced as political parties on all sides reined in their spending.
The article also sets out in some detail the fundraising efforts of the parties in the Chamber and helps to put some of the figures quoted in public debates into context. While there may be those promising to donate $100 million to British political parties, the party in question managed to raise �280,000 over that quarter, which is approximately an eighth of the funds raised by my party and a bit less than a quarter of the funds raised by the Labour party over the same period. As a dedicated fan of Private Eye, it is clear to me that the transparency brought by the reporting of these donations is enormously helpful; indeed, it has led to many of the contributions to the debate.
On the whole, the debate has been positive, by and large avoiding much of the casting of aspersions we often see and focusing on the practicalities. I have some brief points to make and then some questions to put to the Minister that are very much about the practicalities of taking forward the work that is under way.
First, there is the need to respond as political parties and a state to the evolving roster of challenges that we face. We know that practices are being imported from the United States, such as the funding of issue-based campaigns, which have enormous political impact, including on the election of politicians, but are not donations to specific political parties. The Opposition would clearly be keen to work with the Government to ensure that donations for a political purpose�without being to a political party�are open to the appropriate level of scrutiny.
A loophole has recently been created by the decision of Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland to extend the franchise to a greater proportion of foreign citizens, allowing them to vote in British elections, because the principle that underpins reporting is that people can donate to a political party only in an election where they are also able to vote. The fact that two areas of our country have different rules on that enables such citizens to donate to those parties, because the political parties there operate nationally. That is a loophole and an issue that I hope the Government will be addressing.
Political finance is seen not just in the form of donation to political parties but in the lobbying, to which a number of hon. Members referred, the trips and the research input. In the last Parliament, there was the lobbying scandal that revolved around a Chinese spy donating about �700,000 to Labour party organisations. That is reflected in the challenge that has come from Opposition Members to the Government�s position on the Chinese embassy. While the Government may feel that it is a legitimate foreign policy objective to cosy up to China, many members across parties express the view that the influence of China in British politics is a significant concern.
Let me put some questions to the Minister. First, why have the Government chosen to abandon the commitment made by Parliament and the last Government in the National Security Act 2023 to enhance the powers so that regulators, law enforcement and security services could share information with political parties? That process would have specifically helped to avoid the kind of situation that occurred with Labour�s Chinese spy problem, by enabling parties to be more informed about who the individuals are who are coming forward.
Will the Government take steps to close the loophole created by the Labour Welsh Government and the SNP Scottish Government that, for the first time, allowed Russian, Chinese and Iranian citizens resident in those countries to donate to UK-wide politicians and political parties? Why has the Minister chosen not to include China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? While we recognise that the Government are pursuing greater trade with China, which is a legitimate political expectation, is that not a green light to the Chinese Communist party to enhance the degree of influence it seeks to transact in British politics?
Does the Minister and do the Government accept that UK politicians themselves are low risk? It is important that we are here having this debate and seeking the highest possible standards. In the past, we saw gold-plating, with the politically exposed persons rules that saw parliamentarians on all sides of the Chamber being deprived of access to basic financial services. Does the Minister believe that we need to remove the risk of genuine, legitimate UK politicians being debanked because of their political views?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in the context of the need to maintain consensus, why are the Government failing to consult the political parties on their plans for changes to political finance law, contrary to the precedent set by past Administrations of all parties? Does the Minister accept the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally seek to impose measures affecting political finance to their own partisan advantage? Will she undertake that there will be discussions with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and that there will be formal consultation with the parties? Will there be discussions through the so-called usual channels or on Privy Council terms? That way, we can ensure that in the context of electoral law that is complex�and for good reason: to protect the integrity of our democracy�we can retain cross-party confidence that those rules are not being used by the Government in pursuit of their own political advantage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for opening this debate and congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and its key members on granting this debate. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their insights and excellent contributions, all of which are incredibly valuable as we make progress on such an important agenda. I have heard real passion and conviction in today�s speeches. In those powerful speeches in defence of our democracy, our desire to protect it from those who would distort and disrupt it was clear.
The UK�s democratic system has evolved over time to create a stable and adaptable political ecosystem, with strong institutions that are rightly held as exemplars the world over. We can be proud of our historic commitments to expanding democratic rights and making our system more representative and inclusive. We must not be complacent, however. Democracy is hard-won and fragile. The price of our democracy is eternal vigilance, and nowhere is that truer than in campaign finance and political funding.
This Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and ensuring full participation in our elections. We will set out the Government�s approach to elections and electoral reform for this Parliament in a published document before the summer recess. Effective regulation of political finance is crucial in maintaining public trust in our electoral systems, and that point was well made today in the speeches by hon. Members.
The UK has a strong political finance framework that makes it clear that only those with legitimate interests in UK elections can make political donations. Foreign money has no place in the UK�s political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted, with the exception of donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Ireland political parties. That recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence. Political parties are required by law to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible, and there are rules that safeguard against impermissible donations through the back door. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognise the continued risks posed by actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic process�a point well made by a number of hon. Members.
We do not think that the current rules provide strong enough safeguards. That is why the Government committed in their manifesto to
�protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties�,
including enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. We are considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations.
Hon. Members have mentioned the important role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK�s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. Robust regulation and enforcement of political finance rules are crucial for promoting public confidence and trust in democratic processes, ensuring integrity and combating the threat of foreign interference.
As part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we are reviewing whether any changes are required to the role and powers of the regulator to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law while remaining proportionate. The Government are developing proposals to give effect to those commitments. In the meantime, I assure hon. Members that we are carefully considering evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including recommendations from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission. At its core, that work is about protecting the integrity of our democratic process. It is therefore vital that we remain responsive to the full range of threats to our democracy and continue our efforts on the related issues of election security and preparedness.
Working across government with the intelligence agencies, the devolved Governments, the police and external partners, the Government will continue to monitor and respond to emerging issues, such as protective security cyber-threats, as well as misinformation and disinformation.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are awake to the evolving nature of the threat, especially in cyber and on social media platforms. One of the things that I hope they look at is the various ways that social media can be used to directly or indirectly benefit political parties.
Rushanara Ali
The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Home Secretary alongside the Deputy Prime Minister, is very much looking at those issues.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talked about the evolving nature of the threat. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of Elon Musk, and I feel compelled to do so, too. This is a man who, when our country was going through riots, said that we were on the verge of civil war. This is a man who said that one of our own Ministers should be put in jail. Is she able to say for the record that that is exactly the type of person who we need to investigate, and that his money has no place in our politics?
Rushanara Ali
It is crucial that we focus on ensuring that our democracy and its integrity are protected from interference and that we have public confidence, and that is our focus. Instead of going into specific individual cases, my focus is on ensuring that we build trust in our system and protect our democracy against interference, and political finance is a key part of that.
In closing, I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to this important debate, which was rich with suggestions and ideas. As we make progress in the coming months, I very much look forward to working with colleagues, across parties, to ensure that we take the necessary action. We want a robust, vibrant and representative democracy, and that means fighting foreign interference and unfair funding. I look forward to bringing forward further details, before the summer recess, on how we intend to strengthen our democracy and uphold the integrity of elections.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank all Members for a thoughtful and constructive debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for their particularly thoughtful contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his powerful remarks about the relationship between donations and public trust, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his consensus-driven contribution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for outlining the urgent need for change�we cannot keep waiting for reform to materialise�and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for setting out the important context of our global responsibility to fight dirty money and clean up politics. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in the Chamber�[Hon. Members: �Yes she is!�] Oh, she is. Apologies�she has been playing musical chairs. I thank her for highlighting what is at stake if we fail to defend our vibrant democracy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for outlining robustly the risks posed by Russian oligarchs and their dirty money. We must stand up against it.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I gently say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that this is an important discussion�I think we all agree on that�but we must always be driven by facts and evidence. Oversimplifying the arguments means that we will not get the right outcomes. I believe that one can support a policy such as increasing defence spending to 2.5% without somehow being in hock to or in the pocket of the military industrial complex, as he put it. That is a gross oversimplification, and I gently remind him of that.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her contribution. I welcome the Government�s commitment to setting out their thinking on this important issue later this year. I thank her for reconfirming that foreign donations have no place in British politics and for making it clear that the Government agree about the need for stronger safeguards. The Electoral Commission will play a crucial role in this. We must ensure that it is fully independent.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.
East Park Energy Solar Farm
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Further to my online petition of residents in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire that has received 1,100 signatures, I present this petition from constituents of Huntingdon and north Bedfordshire who will be impacted by the proposed East Park Energy solar farm.
The proposal announced by Brockwell Storage and Solar to build a solar farm, known as East Park Energy, which will, at 1,900 acres, be bigger than Gatwick airport, has caused great concern among residents in the parishes of Hail Weston, Great Staughton, Little Staughton, Keysoe and Pertenhall. The development has been designated a nationally significant infrastructure project and is being built on farmland, 75% of which is graded as best and most versatile land�grade 2 and grade 3a. The proposed solar farm stands to have a significant impact on local life, as 700,000 photovoltaic panels are installed on 250,000 pile-driven metal posts. The site has even been built on top of a Roman town that has been identified but not excavated.
Local residents feel that their voice in opposition to the scale of the project being foisted upon them has not been heard, and that the Government are unprepared to listen to them.
The petition states:
�The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to not approve the East Park Energy proposal and to take immediate action to remove its Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project status.�
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire,
Declares that the announced proposal by Brockwell Storage and Solar to build a 1,900-acre solar farm, known as East Park Energy, has caused great concern amongst residents of Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire, who are deeply worries as to the scale of the development, and that the development has been classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, which has raised additional concerns about its impact on residents; further declares that the proposed site would result in the loss and permanent damage of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, removing it from food production; and notes that an online petition on this matter received 1,067 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to not approve the East Park Energy proposal and to take immediate action to remove its Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project status.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003050]
Geothermal Energy
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate, as it provides a welcome opportunity to put on the record in this new Parliament the benefits that deep geothermal could deliver for our country, in particular for parts of our country that most need investment, while making a contribution to the vital issue of energy security.
Helping me in this effort is the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal, which the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology helps to administer. I am delighted to spot the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in the Chamber, who are all members of the APPG, which provides me with an opportunity to recognise and thank them for the work they are doing for the cause.
Deep geothermal energy remains an underutilised resource in the UK, despite its potential to provide reliable renewable heat in particular, and also power. With growing pressure to secure our energy future and decarbonise heating, now is the time to give this technology the attention it deserves. As we work towards energy security and decarbonisation, we must explore every viable renewable energy source. Deep geothermal offers a stable and sustainable solution, yet it remains largely untapped in the UK. To unlock its potential, the Government must take the lead, providing the necessary support to get projects off the ground and demonstrate their long-term viability.
One of the biggest challenges we face in the journey to net zero is the decarbonisation of heating, which must be treated as a priority. The UK has more than 28.5 million homes and 1.9 million other buildings�including offices, hospitals, shops and warehouses�the vast majority of which rely on gas boilers for both heating and hot water. These buildings alone account for nearly one fifth of the UK�s total emissions. The Climate Change Committee has identified decarbonising heat as one of the most difficult yet essential steps in reaching net zero.
Achieving net zero by 2050 requires us to use every tool at our disposal. While much of the Government�s attention has been focused on air and ground source heat pumps, alongside other electrification methods, which have an important and certainly dominant role to play, converting the entire housing stock to those technologies will put immense pressure on our electricity grid and supply chains. That is where deep geothermal stands out. It offers a reliable, low-carbon solution for heating that is not dependent on sun or wind�it is there all year round, whatever the weather�and has been successfully deployed in other countries to great effect.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that geothermal, as a baseload energy source that can be developed quickly, should be included in the Government�s clean power plan and have the priority that that affords for grid connections?
Dr Mullan
I fully support the hon. Member�s efforts to raise this issue. She will know from the local projects in her constituency that we are making a start, but it is not enough, and this needs to be part of the broader plan in a comprehensive way.
When I first learned about deep geothermal technology, I thought it sounded too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, reliable and cost-effective source of heat and power right underneath our feet. But the more I explored it, the more I realised it truly lives up to its promise. Let me briefly explain the technology. Deep geothermal taps into naturally occurring hot water deep underground to produce significant amounts of usable heat and energy. Making use of that is no different from the way in which the Romans built their baths above hot springs; we just run a pipe down instead of relying on the water making its own way to the surface. People sometimes wonder whether the technology is fracking mark 2. Fracking involves the use of high pressure to crack the rocks to create artificial flows. Like Europe, we have access to resources of naturally flowing water that simply need to be tapped.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the United Nations all support deep geothermal in the light of its environmental benefits. A site is typically 1 to 2 acres. It does not take up huge swathes of farmland like solar panels can or involve erecting wind turbines, which some communities think detract from the local landscape.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving us the opportunity to discuss the potential of geothermal and the barriers when it comes to planning. In my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, we have businesses that are at the forefront of both shallow geothermal energy, with ground source heat pumps developed by Kensa, and deep geothermal systems such as those being pioneered by the Geothermal Engineering Ltd deep geothermal power project, which is soon to become operational. Does he agree that industry needs Government support, including planning reform to reduce deployment timescales, and a UK geothermal licensing scheme to calculate the size of the geothermal asset and how that asset is protected in law?
Dr Mullan
I agree with the hon. Member. The Government need an entire strategy for deep geothermal that will hopefully draw attention to those different pieces of the puzzle, including planning and licensing, which are so important. Not too far away from his constituency is the Eden Project, which people see as a byword for environmental credentials in this country. It is pioneering this technology, which is a powerful testimony to its environmental benefits.
Since the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive in 2021�unfortunately just as interest was peaking from industry�deep geothermal, unlike solar and wind in their early beginnings, has been without comprehensive Government support to develop the market. There have been encouraging breakthroughs, as was mentioned, and in 2023 the UK�s first operational deep geothermal plant to open in 37 years went online at the Eden Project. Deep geothermal also made its historic debut in allocation round 5 of contracts for difference, with three projects from Geothermal Engineering Ltd securing approval, totalling 12 MW of capacity. At Langarth garden village, green heat network funding is now supporting the development of a geothermal-powered heat network to turn that resource into local supply. Those successes show that, with the right backing, geothermal can become a key player in our transition to clean, sustainable energy.
However, those ad hoc wins are not providing the sort of comprehensive dedicated approach that we need. As it stands, the UK has fallen far behind other countries that have for some time harnessed the potential of deep geothermal. If we look across Europe, as of 2022 there were 74 projects in France, 31 in the Netherlands, and 190 in Germany. Deep geothermal energy heats more than a quarter of a million homes in Paris, and the French Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in �1 billion through to 2035 to develop deep geothermal and make the city�s heating carbon neutral. In fact, Germany is already producing more than 350 MW annually, and the Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects. Across Europe alone, hot sedimentary aquifers have the potential to provide eight terawatts of heat at 90� C�30 times more than the district heating systems that currently serve 70 million people across the region. The potential is enormous.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I would be looked on badly if I did not briefly mention the British Geological Survey, which is based in my constituency. The hon. Member talks about what is happening in Europe, but does he agree that in the British Geological Survey in this country we have one of the world�s experts in studying geology and geothermal technology, which could help unlock what we are doing in this country with deep geothermal?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member is right, and I join him in paying tribute to the BGS, an organisation I have had the pleasure of working with over recent years. It has done fantastic work in mapping and identifying the potential, and with funding it will have the appetite to go even further, reducing uncertainty by helping developers and investors to understand the resources underneath our feet.
The UK is already a world leader in tackling climate change and clean energy, having been the first major economy to halve our emissions, and renewables now account for more than 50% of our electricity, up from just 7% in 2010. With deep sedimentary basins in east Yorkshire and Cheshire, granites in Cornwall and Scotland, hot sedimentary aquifers in Surrey, Dorset, and Sussex�in my constituency�the UK�s unique geography puts us in an ideal position to exploit the benefits of geothermal energy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the work that the hon. Member has done in this area. York has rich sources of deep geothermal. The York Central site could heat 30,000 homes in my constituency, yet the local authority and other bodies do not have the confidence to bring those projects on board. Does he agree that the Government could provide tools and support to enable such projects to come to fruition, as well as just improve basic understanding?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Member is completely right�forgive me, she is also a member of the APPG although I did not recognise that at the start of my remarks. One thing we can do through the APPG�we started to do this in the last Parliament, and I am trying to reconstitute it�is to help interested local authorities form a group and support them. This technology is new to them, and they do not necessarily have the expertise and understanding. Again, the hon. Member is right: these are the sorts of things that a comprehensive Government-led strategy could help to address close the gaps.
As I said, the resource in Europe, and the rocks that are being exploited, are essentially exactly the same veins of rock that cross the channel. There is no geological difference and no less potential than with the rocks that are being exploited in Europe.
It is true that the heat and rocks necessary for deep geothermal electricity are rarer here in the UK, with Cornwall leading the field, which is where the projects I mentioned are getting off the ground, but historically the focus on electricity has caused us to overlook the potential for heat.
The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology�REA�worked with Arup to assess the UK�s potential. They estimated that the UK could support 360 geothermal plants, producing 15,000 GW of heat each year, which could supply heating to over 2 million homes through heat networks. Additionally, some of those plants could generate around 400 GW of electricity annually, enough to power a further 150,000 homes.
The Minister will be looking closely at securing the best possible value for money from every penny invested in renewable technologies, but I want to make four points about the way in which this exercise should be undertaken, because too narrow a framework would underestimate the benefits of deep geothermal to our economy overall.
First, as I alluded to earlier, solar and wind are cheaper now, but they did not used to be and we need to think about the potential trend costs. Secondly, as mentioned, deep geothermal is baseload, unlike solar and wind, and that has to be given due consideration. Thirdly, there is the question of where the investment will end up. I had the opportunity to work with the Durham Energy Institute as part of a national review into deep geothermal for the previous Government. We identified that deep geothermal can play a key role in levelling up, with six of the 10 least economically resilient local authorities also having the highest geothermal potential. Some 44% of the list of high potential locations for deep geothermal fall within the top 100 UK local authorities in need of levelling up, three times the amount that we would expect as a result of chance. Investing in the sector would create thousands of well-paid jobs and drive green growth in areas that need it most. Fourthly, deep geothermal provides a natural transition for oil and gas workers, as many skills, such as drilling, are directly transferable. Oil and gas companies�sometimes UK companies�are delivering these projects across Europe. Surely this is the obvious industry to invest in to protect those jobs and businesses as we transition.
How might we go further in the short term? I have worked with the industry to develop a ready-made plan. I ask the Minister to look closely at the proposals that the APPG have produced to create a carve-out in the public sector decarbonisation scheme to unlock this opportunity. The PSD scheme has already played a crucial role in helping public sector buildings transition to low carbon heating solutions. However, a specific programme could be carved out to support an initial cohort of deep geothermal projects, ensuring that schools, hospitals and other public buildings can benefit from this reliable, renewable heat source. By doing so, the Government would not only accelerate the decarbonisation of public infrastructure, but provide a strong foundation for the wider geothermal industry to scale up and attract investment.
I have spoken in the Chamber before about how hospitals are fantastic anchor candidates for deep geothermal plants. Industry leaders have identified that, of the 210 NHS hospitals in England and Wales that have been prioritised for decarbonisation due to their high heat demand, 109 overlie potential geothermal aquifers. The advantage of working across the NHS is that we can bundle up opportunities to create a bigger investment opportunity. I know that hospitals across the country are already exploring this, including Eastbourne district general hospital, which services my constituents in Bexhill and Battle.
One of the challenges for deep geothermal is scale of cost and uncertainty. Solar and wind are cheaper and more certain investments. A single geothermal plant is expensive and cannot be guaranteed to tap into the reserves the analysis suggests will be found. By pooling together the investment opportunity of a number of sites, economies of scale are created, the risks of not all the sites delivering can be factored in and the numbers can still be made to add up.
The private sector is willing and able to invest in such an opportunity. I have personally met representatives from a number of capital funds and deep geothermal developers and they would leap at such a project. We estimate that a dedicated fund of just �15 million for 10 plants at 10 public sector sites could unlock �250 million of private sector investment and kick-start a wider industry in the UK. Will the Minister meet me and other members of the APPG to discuss that in the near future?
Alongside that, there is a powerful argument for a broader geothermal development incentive, modelled on the heat incentive, which will provide businesses with confidence that geothermal is part of the UK�s energy future. It could be modelled on contracts for difference, ensuring a competitive process, but by offering scale we would again be reducing risk for developments.
I know there are concerns about open-ended support for any industry, but the aforementioned REA-Arup report modelled support for only an initial wave of 30 projects that would help establish a scaled industry in the UK, which could then stand on its own two feet.
Establishing a deep geothermal strategy is crucial to setting clear targets and providing a long-term road map for the sector. Will the Minister advise whether the Government will produce such a strategy? Government support is key to enabling a route to market for the sector. I know the Government are shortly due to publish a review of the comparative costs of deep geothermal. When does the Minister expect the review to be published? That would provide a welcome update. I know that industry stakeholders that work with the APPG and others would be happy to act as critical friends of that review ahead of publication. Would the Minister be happy to facilitate that? It is so important to ensure that this review has looked at all the evidence and can make full use of the experience of industry.
The APPG also considers and is trying to raise awareness of the benefits of shallow geothermal, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) mentioned. While it is very closely related to deep geothermal, as we might expect, that industry faces different challenges, but it could offer solutions even more widely. I know that significant private sector investment is available. Again, we are talking about a technology that could reduce the strain on electricity-driven grid connections. For both sectors, GB Energy might well be expected to play a vital role. Can the Minister confirm my expectation that its remit will extend to heat as much as to electricity, and can she confirm whether the mandate from Government will ask it to consider deep geothermal specifically?
James Naish
On that point, could the Government not help the industry by also ensuring that there is an overarching geothermal regulatory regime, which I think it is fair to say we do not really have yet in the UK? Would the hon. Gentleman support that being brought forward?
Dr Mullan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is one of the pieces of the jigsaw that will further unlock private sector investment. In my engagement with industry, that is slightly further along the chain of things that it is looking for�the numbers do not add up at all at the minute, let alone a proper regulatory regime being in place. As soon as we unlock the numbers, the demand for all the other areas will really ramp up, which is why we need this thought-through strategy from Government so that they can anticipate and prepare to bring in the other elements when they become particularly important.
I hope that I have done an adequate job of showcasing the industry and its potential. Everything we have learned in recent years shows that we need to take advantage of every opportunity. We need to build the biggest coalition, deploy the largest possible workforce and spread the benefits of decarbonising as widely as possible if we are to succeed and bring the country with us in the challenge. I cannot think of a better way of doing that than putting dedicated resources into deep geothermal. I know that it could bring benefits to my constituents and to the constituents of many other Members and unlock hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds of investment into our economy. I look forward to hearing about the Minister�s plans and ambitions, which I hope will get us there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I also thank my hon. Friends for their contributions and for the valuable way in which they have engaged in this debate. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has been a great champion of deep geothermal energy in recent years, and the role he has played in the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on deep geothermal is commendable. I was very pleased to attend its meeting in December, and I am grateful for the engaged and constructive discussion that we had.
I agree with the hon. Member that there is a huge opportunity here, and I echo his desire for action and pace; I will briefly say why I share that desire. He will know, as I do, that we are coming out of the worst cost of living crisis that we have seen in a generation, and energy has been at the very heart of that crisis. The reality is that energy is unaffordable for too many people and increasingly out of reach for people who absolutely rely on it as an essential good, and we as a Government are determined to fix that. That means that we need to take action to lower energy bills by breaking our reliance on international fossil fuel markets and sprinting towards clean, home-grown power. That is why the Government are so committed and why we are running at our clean power by 2030 mission, but it is also why our warm home plan is absolutely critical. I reassure the hon. Member that we see that geothermal power has a critical role to play in our energy mix, following its success in the fifth auction round of contracts for difference.
I agree that geothermal energy represents an important opportunity�if the hon. Member hears nothing else I say today, I ask him to hear that. It has the potential to deliver clean and secure energy and heat, reducing our reliance on fossil fuel markets. As he mentioned, we are acutely aware that geothermal energy could also support a just transition by creating thousands of jobs that use skills from our oil, gas and coalmining sectors. The Government provide financial support for geothermal projects today, and we will continue to do so. The critical thing is ensuring that this is done at an acceptable cost to consumers and in an environmentally friendly way.
As the hon. Member mentioned, the most widespread potential for deep geothermal in the UK is as a low-carbon heat source for heat networks. I am convinced that heat networks have a really important role to play as we roll out clean heat and upgrade millions of homes across the country. We have the opportunity to grow their market share from 3% today to 20% by 2050. One of my first visits as the Minister for energy consumers was to the Mersey heat network, where heat from the Leeds and Liverpool canal is being used to provide hot water and low-carbon power for thousands of people, thanks to a water source heat pump. That is a great example of how communities can benefit from local energy sources, which is what the hon. Member and my hon. Friends are advocating for in this debate. I completely commend that and support it.
There are significant geothermal success stories, such as in Gateshead, where the first mine water heat network to become operational in the UK received �5.9 million from our heat networks investment project. That money enabled the council and Gateshead Energy Company to install 5 km of new heat network pipes and a 6 MW water source heat pump. Today, that network heats 350 council homes and the Baltic arts centre, with 270 more homes to be added.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle referred to the public sector scheme. Geothermal heat projects supplying public sector sites are eligible to apply for support provided that they meet that scheme�s eligibility criteria, and again, I agree with him that there is a big opportunity here. I would add, however, that any changes to the scheme would need to be considered once the current spending round is completed. That is what he would expect me to say, but I reassure him that I am very happy to meet him and members of the APPG to discuss their proposals.
Dr Mullan
The point to emphasise is that the current scheme is based on going project by project, which undermines our ability to bundle up the risk, which is so vital to deep geothermal. That is the key change we are looking for: the opportunity for a number of sites to be pulled together, which is what will be most attractive to investors.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We want to think about creative ways in which we can unlock the potential for investment, so I am very keen to meet the hon. Member and members of the APPG so we can hear those proposals. I give him that reassurance.
Not just today but over recent years, the hon. Member has made a convincing case for the merits of pursuing deep geothermal. The Government remain committed to exploring the renewable energy opportunities afforded by our geography and geology. However, I hope the hon. Member will understand that the priority now�and the thing my boss has tasked me with�is developing the warm homes plan. It would be premature for the Government to set a geothermal strategy with detailed targets in advance of that plan. For us, it is a question of sequencing; for instance, if we are to make the most of geothermal�s potential, we need to start by creating an environment that enables the growth of heat networks and, crucially, protects consumers along the way.
To that end, the Department will bring forward a market regulatory framework in January 2026 to improve consumer protection. We are also consulting on heat network zoning, which is an essential part of our plan to establish and accelerate heat networks. We think that will significantly increase private sector investment and remove some of the barriers. We are committed to taking a long-term, strategic view, and we are trying to sequence this work so that we develop the warm homes plan and build the enabling environment. However, I absolutely recognise the need for us to set a policy framework in which geothermal energy can thrive.
James Naish
The Minister knows that I really admire the work she is doing in this space, and my intervention is more of a query than anything else. She has mentioned the warm homes plan; is a sense emerging of how many of the 5 million properties we are targeting through that plan might be fed by district heating and associated technologies? Is there a crystallisation of what that construct might be, to get us to the 5 million homes that we are targeting?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that there is a big opportunity for district heating, particularly in some of our urban centres. In the work that we are trying to do through the warm homes plan, we are thinking about where those opportunities are and making sure that we work with regional and local government to do some of the planning and the identification of those opportunities. That means that we can take a strategic approach, area by area and place by place.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful for all that the Minister is doing in this area. However, some of this work is quite time-sensitive; for instance, we have a major development in York, the first phase of which goes into planning in September. We very much want to work with Government to see what we can deliver in York Central. Would the Minister be prepared to work with us to see whether we can get this model working on some of those micro sites?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are keen to work with Members across the House, and with local and regional government. We have set ourselves a challenging set of ambitions, so we are clear that we need to work with anyone that can unlock and bring forward investment opportunities, so as to realise those over the course of the Parliament.
It would be remiss of me if I did not say that we recognise that for all the opportunities, there are still challenges faced by industry to secure the necessary investment. As a result, as the hon. Member said, few deep geothermal projects in the UK are financially viable without Government support, unlike what we see on the continent and in other countries.
The hon. Member mentioned the role of Great British Energy. We are clear that it will provide further opportunities for investment in clean energy. The Great British Energy Bill sets out that
��clean energy� means energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels�,
including geothermal, so let me reassure him that it is within scope. Great British Energy is an independent organisation, but we will give it clear direction that it should be looking at all the opportunities that could be exploited across the country and at different technologies, such as geothermal.
Deployment at scale is also unlikely unless there is a demonstrable pathway to bringing down the cost of geothermal heat to make it comparable to other renewable technologies. We know that. It is why we have been working with stakeholders to improve our knowledge and understanding in this area. In 2024, we commissioned a costs research project, to which the hon. Member referred. We intend to publish that this year. I am asking my officials to work at pace to do that, but I reassure him that we will be engaging with industry prior to publication, and he has my assurance that I will facilitate that to ensure that it happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) commended the British Geological Survey, and I share his enthusiasm for it. We have commissioned work from it on open access tools that show the technically viable opportunities for geothermal projects in the UK, and we will continue to work with it. The UK is also an active member of the International Energy Agency technology collaboration programme on geothermal energy�that was a mouthful�which has enabled us to gather further learning and to learn from other international examples.
All that is to say that we see the opportunity and we are trying to build the evidence base. We want to work with industry to think about how we unlock geothermal, because we see it as a viable route to the expansion of heat networks and to delivering the objective of warmer homes and cheaper bills.
In conclusion, we are absolutely committed to the project and to delivering warm homes. We know that we need a range of technologies to do that. We cannot do this sprint on our own, so we will always want to work with industry to enable us to get there. I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle again for securing this debate, and I thank my hon. Friends who are here for being such avid champions of geothermal. My Department is keen to work with them, and I look forward to meeting in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Would all Members ensure that 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 the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 18
Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 18, page 11, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
“(c) the vessel in which the person travelled could not reasonably have been thought to be safe for the purposes of reaching the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an un-seaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 18, page 11, line 36, at end insert—
“(E1C) (a) For the purposes of subsections (E1A) and (E1B), a person cannot commit an offence if the person is an asylum seeker.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection, ‘asylum seeker’ means a person who intends to claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—
(i) the Refugee Convention (within the meaning given by section 167(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999), or
(ii) the Human Rights Convention (within the meaning given by that 35 section).”
This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 18 (“Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom”) cannot apply to asylum seekers.
Amendment 15, in clause 18, page 12, line 5, leave out “six” and insert “fourteen”.
This amendment would increase the maximum penalty for the offence of endangering lives at sea to fourteen years.
Amendment 16, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out “five” and insert “fourteen”.
This amendment would increase the maximum penalty for the offence of endangering lives at sea to fourteen years.
Clause stand part.
Matt Vickers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Clause 18 creates a new offence of endangering others’ lives during a sea crossing from France, Belgium or the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, which results in the commission of an existing offence under section 24 subsection (A1), (B1), (D1) or (E1) of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (6) to section 24 of the 1971 Act states that this offence
“applies to acts carried out inside or outside the United Kingdom.”
The provision is necessary for this offence. Can the Minister explain whether partner countries have comparable offences to this one that can be used to apprehend people in France, Belgium and the Netherlands?
The former director general of Border Force, in his evidence to the Committee, was clear that clause 18 would be more effective if operated by French enforcement agencies, rather than in the UK, as most of the offences occur in French territory. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that, in order to successfully prosecute these offences in the UK, UK Border Force will be able to gather evidence collected outside the UK? Can the Minister guarantee that French support in providing that evidence will be forthcoming? What guarantees has the Home Office been given?
In order to be prosecuted under clause 18 for offences committed in French territorial waters, people would need to be transported to this country if they are not already here, which would have the rather perverse outcome of more people coming and being able to claim asylum. As I have not been able to find any reference to that in the impact assessment, I would like the Minister to share with the Committee what the justice impact tests showed for this new offence. How many new prison places are going to be required at steady state? In other words, how effective does the Minister think the new offence will be?
The Opposition tabled amendment 17 as we suspect that the new offence is not going to be greatly used. Amendment 17 would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an unseaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury. If a person has crossed to the UK in a small boat, they have by definition endangered both their lives and the lives of others at sea. Those boats are unseaworthy, overcrowded and everyone who gets on board is responsible for that position. It is not just the lives of people on those dangerous vessels that are placed in danger, but potentially the lives of those who rescue them.
We have tabled amendments 15 and 16 to increase the sentence for the offence to 14 years. Before the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was passed, section 25 offences attracted a prison sentence of up to 14 years. The 2022 Act increased the penalty to life imprisonment in order to discourage unlawful facilitation of migrants to the UK, so why are the offences in this Bill for endangering lives at sea so much lower?
Since the Government have scrapped the Rwanda deterrent, we would like to help them to make this damp squib of a Bill a bit more of an effective deterrent to those considering making such a dangerous crossing from a safe third country. That is why we have tabled amendments 17, 15 and 16: to demonstrate that if an individual gets on an unsafe boat to cross the channel, thereby committing an immigration offence, they will be found guilty of endangering lives at sea. Then, as a foreign criminal, their deportation should be easier for the Home Office.
If the Minister is not going to accept our amendment, which would ensure that everyone arriving on a small boat should be found guilty of endangering lives at sea, I would like her to explain how people who cram themselves into overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels have not endangered themselves, others on that vessel and those who have to come to their rescue.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship today, Mr Stuart.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on average we are seeing the number of people per boat increasing each year? He alluded to that earlier, and it means that more and more people are crowding into each small boat—he is nodding, so he seems to agree. Does he also agree that, because we are seeing more and more people crowded into these small boats, it is accounting for a rise in the number of people who are crossing the channel in small boats?
Matt Vickers
Yes—it is the case that more people are coming on fewer boats. Equally, however, there is also a rise in the number of boats that are coming across. I think that both those things are problematic. One thing that we know about these boats being filled with yet more people is that they become ever more dangerous, and we have seen some of the horrible consequences and fatalities as a result of that.
Amendment 5, tabled by the Scottish National party, specifies that the offence created by clause 18—endangering another during sea crossing to the United Kingdom—cannot apply to asylum seekers. Surely, that would render the new offence even more ineffective, as it will not be possible to charge people until their asylum claim has been determined. Someone is perfectly capable of endangering lives at sea, whether they are an asylum seeker or not.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Stockton West has just made, starting with the point about the French. Under the last Government, we saw what amounted to Twitter diplomacy, continuous bashing of the French online and in the papers, and a breakdown of that relationship. Since we came into Government, we have seen that Keir and Yvette, who was out there in France recently, have looked to reset that relationship and rebuild it. I believe that recent visits that Yvette has made to France, including one that involved a meeting with the French Minister of the Interior, have been very productive. The French are looking at their laws and considering how they can improve things on their side—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr Stuart. I mean the Home Secretary, not Yvette. The smaller Committee Rooms sometimes result in some informality.
As I was saying, the French are looking to readdress their laws, including things such as intercepting boats in shallow water, which to date has been neglected. That adult approach to politics and working with the French will help us to reduce the number of these boat crossings.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
My hon. Friend is making a really important point: these cross-channel operations and strategies are more diplomatic than they are legislative. Does he agree that, because the UK is unusual in that our Border Force is not a police force, whereas the French police aux frontières, the Belgian police and all other European border agencies are police forces, we have very different kinds of operations and structures, and this work needs to be done gently, through diplomacy and not through amendments to legislation?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes the powerful point that the French need to be engaged with diplomatically rather than being bashed on social media, which damages our relationship with them. The way forward here is to continue with that gentle diplomacy to bring about the changes in their laws that may well benefit the United Kingdom. We have already seen results on that front in Germany. The Germans have changed laws around the facilitation of the kit to be used for these crossings, so diplomacy is already yielding positive results, and I expect we will see more of that.
My second point is that this amendment is fantasy land from the Opposition. We inherited a justice system that was completely broken and on its knees, with just 2% of prison places still available. Do the Opposition propose sticking all these people in prison? If so, where are those prison places going to come from, given what we have inherited?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for a second day, Mr Stuart. I rise to speak to amendment 5 in my name.
Of all the new criminalising clauses in the Bill, this is the one that concerns me most. It is the most invidious and cruel. As we have heard, the clause proposes a new criminal offence of endangering another during a sea crossing, with a proposed maximum sentence of six years’ imprisonment. The offence is defined as committing an act that creates a risk of death or serious physical or psychological injury to another person during a sea journey from France, Belgium or the Netherlands to the UK—in effect, all the sea journeys across the channel by, mainly, asylum seekers who are seeking refuge in the UK.
How that is supposed to be assessed is anyone’s guess. Any potential transgression of the clause could happen only in the most chaotic of circumstances—on a small boat where people will probably be struggling for their lives to try to get here. The only witnesses to any transgressions of this clause will be other traumatised souls who had the great misfortunate to be there at that time. The new offence is concerningly broad, and explicitly aimed at people on the move; it exclusively and directly targets those on the boats.
Which people may get caught up in this offence? The first category that comes to mind is those people who may have been offered rescue by the French but refused the opportunity of rescue. But why would they take that opportunity? These are people who have travelled thousands of miles to try to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. I am supposing that they make up the first category that the Minister has in mind with this offence.
However, it is also possible to prosecute individuals who, in moments of panic or self-preservation, inadvertently put others at risk. That means that someone who makes a sea crossing out of desperation could face a prison sentence simply because of the circumstances of their arrival, rather than any deliberate intent to cause harm. This law makes no attempt to take account of the high risk and chaotic nature of these journeys, where panic, misjudgment or even attempts to help others could inadvertently lead to criminal liability.
What makes the clause particularly invidious, and why we should think about it very carefully, is that it does not do even one thing to tackle what the Government say they are tackling: the gangs—the people who organise this foul trade and are responsible for putting people on the boats. It does nothing to target them. The only people who will be in the sights of this invidious, cruel clause will be ordinary asylum seekers.
The refugee convention is clear that refugees should not be penalised for how they enter a country to claim asylum. The clause runs a coach and horses through that obligation. It also breaches the Palermo protocol, which enables asylum seekers to claim asylum freely and honestly. The European convention on human rights memorandum states that
“parents who bring their children on the type of journeys that the Endangerment Offence captures will be excluded from prosecution in almost all circumstances”.
The key words are “almost all”: there could still be prosecutions, and the memorandum notes that that could lead to families breaking up.
There is another main target of the offence. It is designed to entrap and ensnare those who pilot the boats. Let us look at how far we have come with this new distinction and new category of people that the Government are now going after. It was in 2019 that the Government started bringing criminal charges against people identified as steering dinghies across the channel. Prior to this clause, those identified as piloting boats have usually been arrested and charged with the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for that offence to life imprisonment. In most cases, the second charge is dropped due to a lack of evidence—as I explained, the deeply chaotic circumstances where evidence could be acquired lead to a lack of evidence being presented in court proceedings. However, there have been some successful section 25 prosecutions. For example, they can happen when a person pleads guilty to an offence at the first opportunity before it is dropped.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Stockton West for their contributions. There are a few points I want to make. Clause 18 already outlines provision within the lines that amendment 17 seeks to remove. Naming the act of supplying an unseaworthy vessel, while removing the broader terminology of an act from the Bill, sets a precedent where we would have to outline all possible acts within the Bill. That is wholly unnecessary and not in keeping with the structure of the Bill. Although providing an unseaworthy vessel is the initial act that causes risk to life, amendment 17 would serve to de-prioritise further acts of criminality that could endanger life in a sea crossing. The wording already in the Bill provides sufficient scope to address what the amendment seeks.
Following on from this, I think everybody in this room agrees with the sentiment of amendment 5—that genuine asylum seekers are vulnerable—but it is also important to recognise that someone with the right to asylum could be involved in criminality. The Bill already establishes, through clauses 16 to 18, the provision of a reasonable excuse as a defence, creating a clearer distinction between humanitarian activity and genuine asylum seekers, journalistic or academic works, and those involved in immigration crime as well. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has already conceded that point, having withdrawn amendments of a similar nature.
Tom Hayes
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, who made a very persuasive case. She has stolen much of what I was going to say, which is actually quite helpful. I want to start by reflecting on the international situation, following up on the equally persuasive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal about the relationship between the UK and France. It is worth reflecting on where we are. The current Home Secretary was the first to visit northern France in almost five years. Using a parallel Conservative political time continuum, that was six Home Secretaries ago.
In December, we had the meeting of the Calais Group in London, which was able to agree a plan to tackle people smuggling gangs. We have seen the Home Secretary and Interior Ministers from G7 countries, Germany included, meeting in Italy to agree a new joint action plan. We have seen the French Government appoint a new special representative on migration, Patrick Stefanini. He will work closely with our new role of Border Security Commander so that we have the closest, strongest, deepest engagement and interaction.
It is worth reflecting on that, because we are not going to solve the problem of small boat crossings on our own. We have to repair the damage done by the previous Conservative Government to our relationships with our major EU allies and partners. One of the consequences of the botched Conservative Brexit deal is that the UK no longer participates in the EU’s Dublin system, which determines which countries should take responsibility for processing an asylum claim where a person has links with more than one country, and provides a mechanism to return the person to the responsible country. That is underpinned by a shared database of asylum seekers’ fingerprints. It is chaotic that we had a deal that robbed us of the opportunity to take part in that system.
The Chair
Mr Hayes, I am sure that, from now on, you will want to focus closely on the subject of endangering people while at sea.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I have another compelling statistic for her. Implicit in much of what the Conservatives say is the idea that the UK alone is carrying the burden of asylum seeker hosting, but the UK is actually fifth, behind Germany, France, Italy and Spain, in our receipt of the number of asylum seekers in the year ending September. The point I am making is that actually, contrary to much of the rhetoric that we hear in the Chamber and may be hearing in this debate that the United Kingdom is somehow on its own, shouldering all the responsibility for providing a safe place to asylum seekers, we are not. That is worth mentioning, because as a country we are trying to repair our relationships—
The Chair
Order. That has been mentioned, so clause 18 would now sensibly be the focus of your words.
Tom Hayes
Thank you for your patience, Mr Stuart. I will progress to my more substantive points.
I welcome the introduction of the new offence of endangering another life during perilous sea crossings to the UK, because we know that life is being endangered. At least 78 people died in the channel last year, and a total of 327 have died on the channel route since 2014. With your patience, Mr Stuart, I will talk about a particular case study.
We know that some of the lives that were cut short were incredibly young. A year and three days ago, a seven-year-old girl boarded a small boat in northern France with her three siblings, father and pregnant mother. The family joined six other children on that small boat, all of them seeking to cross the channel to reach the UK. Four other adults completed the complement on the boat. To describe that boat as small is a joke. It was later described as very small, no bigger than the kind a fisherman might use. It was too small for the number on board, which reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Stockton West: that we are seeing the average number of people per boat rising, which accounts in part for the larger number of people trying to cross the channel to the UK.
The little girl I just talked about was pulled out of the water by rescuers. There were efforts to save her, but they failed. She could not be resuscitated. Aged seven, that child suffered a heart attack and she stopped breathing. Her family died. The six other children on the boat died. The four other adults on the boat died.
Later that day—3 March 2024—another boat crossing got into trouble. Thankfully, the 47 lives on that boat were saved. The night before, on 2 March 2024, another boat got into trouble when it deflated because it was not seaworthy. Again, thankfully, 20 lives were saved. But 327 lives have been lost on the channel route.
We know the facts of life in these flimsy boats. We know that every small boat is crowded with more and more people. We know that gangs are set on making as much money as possible, no matter the risk to life. We know that women and children are forced into the middle of ever smaller boats, so that when those boats fold and sink, as they do, it is they who are the first to be drowned or crushed. We know that the fuel is in containers that are so flimsy that they leak, and we know that when it mixes with seawater, saltwater, it inflicts the most horrific burns on the most vulnerable people.
We know another fact of life on these boats: the engines are among the weakest and the lifejackets are fake, do nothing and keep nobody afloat. And so I have to ask: why would we oppose the introduction of this new offence? It will ensure that anyone involved in physical aggression, intimidation or coercive behaviour will face prosecution and a sentence of up to five years.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that this offence sends
“a clear message that we will take action against those who are complicit in loss of life or risk to life at sea.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 63.]
To hear that from a Home Secretary is really important for those criminal gangs that are contemplating criminality. This is about going after those who further jeopardise the safety and lives of others during crossings and who are actively preventing offers of rescue. It is not about, as some have said, criminalising vulnerable people and dangerous crossings. Indeed, the Home Office has already said publicly that the Crown Prosecution Service always considers whether it is in the public interest to prosecute individuals. This is about protecting children like the seven-year-old whose life was ended a year and three days ago.
I want to dwell on the point about child protection, because it is so relevant to the question of sea crossings and whether we have this offence to try to limit the loss of life. We heard in oral testimony from the Children’s Commissioner for England about the horrifying crossings that are taking place, but we also heard that the Conservatives had forced vulnerable children into horrifying situations when they arrived here in Britain. The commissioner stated:
“Children were languishing without proper safeguarding in inappropriate places.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 21, Q21.]
The Children’s Commissioner had to persistently pursue, from a Home Office that hindered her from doing her job, data on
“children who had been victims of attempted organ harvesting, rape and various other things”.––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 25, Q26.]
As she says on children who are missing:
“We still do not know where many of those children are…that is not good enough.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 25, Q26.]
I say that because we have a massive child protection issue on our sea. We have a massive child protection issue in the United Kingdom. We need the Bill to make sure that children are safe.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. These steps have been taken following discussions with law enforcement to be as thorough as possible in our attempts to smash the criminal gangs and disrupt an organised activity at the very source, particularly in relation to endangering another during a sea crossing, but also when it comes to supplying and handling articles for immigration crime. We must allow enforcement every opportunity to identify the causes of such crime and use the findings of any investigation to deter further crossings. If he allows me a little bit of leeway, I will refer to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who spoke about piloting boats.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his point; I agree with him.
I want to continue to dwell on the question of children’s social care. It is this Government who have been backing children’s social care to look after unaccompanied children—something so important in the eyes of the Children’s Commissioner. It is we who are seeking to protect children when they make their desperate crossings and when they are here in the UK. It is no surprise that this Government is doing the same in other areas, such as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in this parliamentary Session, which establishes child registers to track children not at school, strengthens multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and assigns a unique identifier for each child. I say that because children’s protection is absolutely critical.
If the Conservative party, in tabling its amendment, were serious about protecting endangered life and tackling the criminal gangs that threaten children’s safety and undermine our border security, why did it do so little during its time in office and why did it not vote for the Bill? It proposed an amendment with the express intention of killing the Bill—as we saw in the Chamber, its Whips were begging Reform MPs to back the amendment that would have killed it off. I saw that with my own eyes.
This Government have increased deportations, returns and removals, which are at the highest rate for six years. We are cutting the cost of the asylum system. I beg the Conservative party and its allies in Reform to get serious about protecting our borders and protecting children and to stop blocking progress.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
I have some comments on the amendments. I will start with amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I have watched the first episode of “The Chief”, which I enjoyed and gave me some insights into the outlook—perhaps even the ambitions—of the hon. Gentleman, which were very much to my liking. Although I have enjoyed lots of the contributions you have made with such huge passion, and indeed compassion for the people you refer to, my concern is about the unintended consequences of your amendment.
Becky Gittins
Sorry, Mr Stuart. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to exclude asylum seekers from prosecution opens up a situation in which someone who has come here as an asylum seeker, and then seeks to engage in illegal activity to assist more illegal channel crossings, would be exempt from prosecution. That would undermine a lot of what many of us are trying to do. My concern is not with the intention of the amendment, which is incredibly clear, but its application, which would go against a lot of the things we are aiming to achieve.
When he moved his amendment 17, the hon. Member for Stockton West did not give a definition of an unseaworthy vessel. This is potentially another area where, despite the rhetoric—which I understand to be about appearing tougher on gangs and people who attempt to make and to assist illegal crossings—the Opposition may actually have introduced an amendment to dilute the Bill.
The amendment ties criminality to the seaworthiness of a vessel. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked about the ability of these gangs: they are fast-paced and cunning, and they move with the times. The Committee heard from witnesses that the gangs regularly change tack to keep up with and get around legislation. That is why the measures we are taking are needed. There is no legal definition of a seaworthy vessel, only that, “A seaworthy vessel is a type of boat or ship that is strong enough to handle the normal stresses of being on the water, such as waves and wind. It is also capable of carrying cargo or passengers safely.” It is about not only the use of the ship, but the conditions.
Amendment 17 proposes a reasonableness test for a vessel to be deemed unseaworthy. That could include things such as having safety equipment onboard, or having qualified crew—although we have perceptions about who the people smugglers are, it is reasonable to think that some of them could have a background on the sea, as fishermen or as people who have transported cargo, so their boats could potentially have safety equipment and a qualified crew onboard. Some of the things that could be used to deem a ship seaworthy include how many crew members there are on board, which—as we have discussed in this sitting—varies, as do the provisions on the boat, such as food, water and safety equipment, and the weather and sea conditions on the day of travel.
I would welcome clarification from the hon. Member on his particular definition of seaworthiness. I understand the narrative of trying to appear tough on this issue, my grave concern and opposition to the amendment comes from the fact that it would dilute the opportunity to be tough on those criminal gangs.
Chris Murray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will make a couple of points about the amendments to the clause, and the clause overall.
I have always been frustrated that people from both left and right make the same mistake on immigration policy—we forget that immigrants and asylum seekers are people. That means that, just like any group of people, they vary: some are entirely innocent and exploited, and some seek to exploit others and are criminals. We need to make the distinction between those groups.
Amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, makes some important points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East is right about the passion and compassion that drive the amendment. I absolutely recognise, support and understand that passion and compassion, but we must be clear-eyed about the reality of what is happening in the channel.
Yes, people are in great danger, and they are the most exploited, most vulnerable people, but they are not there by accident. They are not panicking because they have stumbled by accident into the boat. There is a large, extremely organised, extremely well-financed criminal enterprise putting them in that position and it does not care one bit whether they live or die. We need to be able to draw a distinction between the vulnerable people who are in that situation and the people who are putting them there.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make that distinction between those who have organised, orchestrated and profited from such activities and those at the sharp end of it: the asylum seekers and immigrants themselves. We need to be laser-focused on the gangs, the people who put together and design this vile trade, not on the ordinary asylum seekers, whom these criminalisation clauses exclusively focus on.
Chris Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am afraid I completely disagree with him on what this Bill is doing. Being an asylum seeker is a self-declaration. It is anticipatory. Someone just declares themselves as one; the system later ascertains whether that is correct and whether they are a refugee. He mentioned earlier that the refugee convention does not penalise people for the mechanism by which they enter; he is quite correct, but that is not a blanket immunity from any criminal act committed in the process.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. If, as I imagine, the wording of clause 18 will not be changed further, I just wanted to draw attention to the concerns that we will be criminalising those making the crossings and not those who organise the passage. I point to written evidence from the Law Society, which raised particular concerns that are important to consider:
“The Law Society is concerned that parents or guardians could be prosecuted for taking their children on these journeys. The human rights assessment produced by the Government for this Bill states that parents who bring their children on these types of journeys will be excluded from prosecution under this offence in almost all circumstances, but the phrasing”—
this is the most important point—
“does not rule out prosecution in all circumstances. There is a concern that this could result in families being split up.”
The Law Society asks that the Government should either
“clarify if this provision is intended to apply to asylum seekers in some circumstances, or amend it to ensure it does not in practice.”
I ask the Minister to address that point.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham and for Clwyd East regarding amendment 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West. I firmly believe that the amendment actually serves to dilute the legislation.
The hon. Member does not consider the fact that many people are coerced into boats in the belief that they will be safe, because there will be lifejackets provided. However, many times those lifejackets do not meet EU or British standards, or children’s lifejackets are provided for every person on the boat—or, when people get on the boat, there are not enough lifejackets. The gangs who are using that to coerce people on to the boats should be prosecuted for that simple act.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It has been a while since the sitting began, and it is easy to overlook that I have not been up on my feet so far. We have had an interesting debate. The amendments before us range from, at one end, the Opposition, whose amendments seek to criminalise everyone who gets in a small boat and presumably cart them directly to prison, through to the other end of the argument, represented with his usual passion by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who feels that, if someone is an asylum seeker, they should be exempt from being judged at all on the behaviour that happens on the boat.
I will deal with some of those points in turn, but I also want to compliment my colleagues who have made their own comments and some very important points in this debate. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, that we are clear-eyed about what is happening in the channel. We can be romantic about it in many ways, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire often appear to be, or we can regard all those who come over as criminals and a threat, but the truth is somewhere in between.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made a moving speech about the realities of what can happen in these circumstances; it is easy to forget, when we are sat in a nice warm Committee Room—although it is not always warm, facing as it does on to the river. Imagine ending up in the water in the channel, Mr Stuart; you can last only so long. You could easily have a heart attack in that cold water and not be resuscitated. Clearly, if you are a child, or vulnerable in any other way, then that is likely to happen—and it will happen to you first.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw, for Clwyd East and for Dover and Deal made important points about the realities too. I will come on to what the Government are trying to do with this offence and why it is in the Bill, but I will deal with the amendments first. I hope I will be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked during this important debate—[Interruption.] I also hope that my voice is going to last out.
Amendment 15 focuses on the length of the sentence attached to clause 18 and seeks to increase the sentence from six to 14 years where an irregular entrant arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK. Clause 18 introduces a new criminal offence that is to be inserted into section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The current sentence for the offence of arriving in breach of a deportation order under section 24(A1) of the Immigration Act is five years.
Because clause 18 will be inserted into section 24 of the Act, the intention of the clause is to ensure that, given the egregious and serious natures of the acts committed under the new offence, the maximum sentencing is increased, albeit remaining in line with the existing sentencing framework in section 24 of the Act. The issues about the length of sentence are all about keeping sentencing in that section of the Immigration Act coherent. Grabbing extra, lengthier sentences out of the air to insert them into the Act can create inconsistency and mess up the structures of sentencing involved in the Act, making it less coherent than it should be. The sentence of five years was reached after discussions with partners about all the sentences and offences in this particular area, and it rightly reflects that coherence.
An increased sentence of six years is considered to be appropriate for the endangerment offence. It furthers the deterrence aim of the policy, but is not so severe as to deter prosecutors from bringing a prosecution in the first instance. That is another area in which the rhetoric of even longer sentences deters prosecutors from bringing charges at all. We have seen that with the facilitation offences, where the introduction of a life sentence has led to fewer prosecutions being pursued; prosecutors think that for a sentence of that length, more obvious evidence has to be accrued, so they charge fewer people. An increased sentence can sometimes have a perverse effect on the system. We think that the sentence in the Bill is in keeping with the Immigration Act and is about right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am pleased that the Minister talked about the length of the sentence, which we have not talked about very much in the debate so far. Fourteen years is the maximum sentence for placing explosives with intent to cause bodily injury, and for such other offences as causing death by dangerous driving. To me, 14 years is more applicable in those cases. Does she agree? I do not understand the rationale for 14 years.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, and it is not for me to get into the head of the hon. Member for Stockton West. Perhaps he will talk to us about why he picked that particular number. I agree with the hon. Member for—is it Worthing? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking—I knew it began with a W, and my own constituency begins with a W, so we are there or thereabouts in the dictionary.
Similarly, amendment 16 seeks to increase the sentence from five years to 14 years where an irregular migrant or arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK and is entering without the requisite leave to enter, entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation. As with the approach taken to those who arrive in breach of a deportation order, and as discussed in relation to amendment 15, clause 18 will provide an increased sentence compared with the offences under section 24(B1), (D1) and (E1) of the Immigration Act.
Pete Wishart
I am sorry to see that the Minister is still bravely struggling with a cold—the Committee has noticed. A variety of offences are available to the courts to make sure that anybody who endangers people at sea can be prosecuted. There is illegal arrival, there is facilitating the illegal entry of others, and there is what Ibrahima Bah was convicted of—gross negligence manslaughter. These offences are all currently available to the prosecutorial authorities. I do not know why the Minister feels she needs this new offence. It can only be because she has a particular target in mind against whom she wants to apply these rules. Can she confirm that?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some insight. I was going to come on to this when addressing the clause itself, but it is in the Bill because we have perceived a change in behaviour in some areas.
There has been an increase in physical aggression towards other people, including migrants and third parties. There is a lot more violence on the beaches against French police. There is intimidating and controlling behaviour on the boats. People are preventing others from disembarking or calling for help when the boat gets into difficulty. There are physical acts that result in harm being caused to another person either while boarding a boat or while on a boat. People are being pushed off boats, including in shallow French territorial waters. The pilots sometimes decide to continue on to the UK even when there have been fatalities or serious harm on the boat. We are now seeing a range of behaviours that clause 18 will allow us to address.
I will address amendment 5, but the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that no asylum seeker should be charged with this new criminal offence, which would render clause 18 unworkable and pointless, as 95% of people who come across on small boats claim asylum. How one behaved on the boat across will be in the purview of clause 18, whether it is dangling children over the side or forcing women and children to sit in the middle—often the middle of the boats come free and collapse, so the women and children are the first to die. Where women and children are forced to sit in the middle, they sometimes arrive in the UK with horrific burns because of the combination of fuel and seawater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said.
I simply do not agree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire that, just because someone will claim asylum when they get to the UK, none of their behaviour on the way over should have any bearing on what happens when they get here. Clause 18, which creates a new criminal offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act, will not criminalise everyone who makes these crossings. It would be pointless and completely unworkable if we sought to do that, as the Opposition amendments do. It is about addressing, discouraging and deterring the acts that cause or create a risk of serious injury or death to others, which we are now seeing from individuals travelling to the UK by small boats.
There have to be consequences for anyone who further jeopardises the safety and lives of others during these dangerous crossings. There are those who insist on continuing their journey when assistance is at hand, who refuse assistance, and often, when there have been fatalities, try to prevent others from being rescued. Clause 18 addresses specific acts that create or cause a risk of serious injury or death to others during a journey. We heard in oral evidence how these journeys are being made more dangerous by such acts, and clause 18 is a response to the increasing propensity of this kind of behaviour.
There have been shocking and tragic cases of women and children being forced and intimidated into life-threatening positions during journeys that are already dangerous enough, which is exactly the type of offending that clause 18 aims to target. The approach cannot simply be to say that whatever happens on the boat, stays on the boat. The new offence is another tool designed to curb the endangerment of life. It sits alongside other activity against gangs that intentionally place people in danger by selling these crossings as a viable route to the UK. This Government take fatalities and injuries at sea extremely seriously, and we are going further than ever to try to bring an end to them.
Pete Wishart
I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendments before the Committee. I totally agree with her on amendment 17, and I hope the Committee rejects it. It is a ridiculous and unworkable proposition that everybody who comes to our shores should be criminalised almost immediately upon arrival.
A couple of things have been said in this debate that I want to challenge and take head on, including the idea that everything is black and white, that people are either the exploited or the exploiters. Everybody accepts that there is a grey area. I think every member of this Committee believes that those who behave in a reprehensible, appalling and awful way, whether on the small boats or in getting people on to the small boats, should rightly face the full force of the law.
The Minister is right to highlight all those examples of the dangerous behaviour that happens during some of these journeys. None of us would want people to get away with that behaviour, but the Bill does not refer to such activity, and there is nothing in the guidance or the explanatory notes. Nothing in the Bill specifies this type of behaviour. As the Bill progresses, the Minister will have to make sure it mentions such behaviour.
The other challenge with the type of activity the Minister describes is how to get the evidence. This activity is happening in the most chaotic circumstances, on small boats coming across the channel. We know these things are reported, and we know that people are arrested and face the full force of the law, but the Minister still has to convince the Committee that a new offence is needed, and that certain categories of migrant will not be caught up.
Chris Murray
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if his amendment 5 were accepted, someone could orchestrate a boat crossing the channel, throw a child off—which this measure is trying to prevent—and then, when they arrive on the shores of the UK, just say, “I am an asylum seeker”? That would be an obstacle to any prosecution.
The only way we could get over that obstacle—even if the person were French—would be for them to go through the entire asylum process. They would be placed in a hotel in one of our constituencies and, given the huge backlog we have, it would be almost two years before we are able to prosecute them.
Pete Wishart
It must be how I am presenting this but, again, I am not being understood. I am sorry that I have not explained the intention clearly enough, but I have no intention of that scenario happening. [Interruption.] Can I say to the hon. Gentleman—and to the Whip, the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position—that existing offences are in place to deal with the activity being described. I have cited the example of Ibrahima Bah, who was done for gross negligence manslaughter. Where that happens, of course people should face the full force of the law. And that happens, because we have existing laws in place.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s description of the new types of activity that she feels clause 18 is necessary to address, but those activities have to be specified and defined. If she moved new clauses to address such activity, I am sure she would get a fair hearing—she would get a fair hearing from me—but, because clause 18 is so broad, other behaviour and activity will inadvertently be drawn into these offences. People who are possibly acting in self-protection, or who are trying to save people but inadvertently put others at risk, will be caught by this clause.
We need to apply common sense to what the Minister is trying to do, and we need to make sure common sense is reflected in the Bill because, at this stage, it is not.
Becky Gittins
I just want to tease out what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that, if this amendment passed, gang members facilitating crossings on small boats would escape prosecution?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely not. Again, I must be having great difficulty getting through, and I accept that that is my responsibility, but that is not what is intended in the least. A variety of laws deal with the activity that the Minister mentioned. We know that because 244 people were charged in the course of 2023, and since the Labour Government came to power, something like 86 people have been charged with offences. People are being charged and prosecuted for serious offences.
The Minister has identified new dangerous activity, and she is right to do so, but if we want legislation to deal with it, bring that legislation before the House. Do not bring in this broad-sweep legislation, under which natural, normal activity that may be designed to help and protect people could be caught up. The difficulty with this legislation is that it inadvertently draws in people who do not deserve to be. I know it is about targeting the pilots in the boats, but there has to be some recognition of what forces and coerces people into piloting the boats. There needs to be an understanding of their situation and why they are doing that, but the clause fails to take account of any of that.
Chris Murray
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I can assure him that no one has higher respect than I do for the organisations that have supplied such evidence. I have been in conversations with them myself. The issue at hand here, however—I know this from having worked in the sector—is that they are not set up to stop the gangs or take through criminal prosecutions. That is not their objective. Their job is purely, and properly, to protect migrants. They will lean towards a broad definition, and that is why I think he has inadvertently fallen into a trap. In excluding everyone from the provisions, we avoid the traffickers, but it is not the job of those organisations to target them.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The job of those organisations is to be concerned for the welfare and conditions of people who come to our shores, and to ensure that they are supported on their journey through the asylum process. The organisations have identified that the Bill does little to target the gangs that the hon. Gentleman is referring to; in fact, they do little at all. They are all about ordinary asylum seekers. The new criminalisation clauses that we have debated over the past couple of days are all exclusively devoted to the activity of asylum seekers coming here, and none more so than this clause.
I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through its remaining stages—particularly when it goes through the other place, although that greatly concerns me for a number of reasons—we will be able to improve it, and get to a place where it reflects what the Minister said in her fine contribution.
Sarah Bool
I did not hear from the Minister a response on the Law Society’s concern about parents and guardians being criminalised, and I wonder whether I could hear some thoughts on that.
Dame Angela Eagle
In general, it is not expected that parents will be criminalised, but there is not a total ban on that. It will depend on what has happened and what the circumstances were. That will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to be more explicit about that, given that the nature of the offence represents a stricter law that is meant to deter people from making small boat crossings. It is a signal to smugglers and passengers that fatalities and injuries at sea are taken extremely seriously, so there may well be consequences for particular unacceptable behaviour of the sort that I have talked about. I would not want there to be an absolute exclusion, but I would not expect a large cohort of people to fall within the purview of the new offences.
Matt Vickers
I thank Members for their considered contributions. Effective international partnerships can be useful, but I would not want to deny anyone the right to scrutinise a partner on Twitter, particularly one to whom we pay so much money. The previous Government were right to toughen up on sentences for the worst offences. They were right to restrict prisoner release during the pandemic. That put pressure on the prison system, and that that is why the previous Government were also right to undertake the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. I realise that the Labour party did not agree, but it was right that the previous Government used the Nationality and Borders Act to increase the penalty for people smugglers to a life sentence.
Tom Hayes
I was going to allow that statement to go by, because lunch is near and I am quite hungry, but I am hungrier still for the truth. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the validity of independent assessments of our prison system—the system that this Labour Government inherited—as near to collapse? For him to claim otherwise is farcical, and I hope he will withdraw that.
Matt Vickers
I repeat exactly what I said: the previous Government were right to toughen up those sentences and make those who are guilty of some of the worst offences stay longer in prison. They were right not to release people during the pandemic, and therefore they were right to have the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era; that is a fact. It was also right that the previous Government used the Nationality and Borders Act to create life sentences for people smugglers. The vile criminals who profit from the peril of others deserve nothing less. That is why it is right to increase the sentence for this offence, as set out in amendments 15 and 16, to deter people from engaging in this awful, vile and inhumane trade. I will press amendments 17, 15 and 16 to a vote—
Matt Vickers
As I said in my opening remarks, that has to be a deterrent. This is a damp squib Bill. If people come to this country illegally—if they break in—there should be real consequences. If they put other people’s lives at risk, there should be real consequences. I think we have proposed the right sentence, and Committee Members can now have their say on it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind members to email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Members should not imbibe tea or coffee in the room, and electronic devices should be switched to silent.
Clause 56
Procedural rights
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
A priority when designing the Bill was that its powers be sufficiently balanced by strong oversight and transparent safeguards to protect the vulnerable and guard against human error. Rightly, a large number of the questions from the Committee have probed that. Clause 56 is a key part of that design. It ensures that certain steps must be taken and assured before a penalty may be issued; these steps cannot be rushed, skipped or subverted. As I have confirmed, the application of these powers will be strictly limited to specifically authorised officers within the Public Sector Fraud Authority, as set out in clause 66. To exercise the powers, these officials will be required to comply with the relevant training and qualifications, as set out in the relevant codes. They will be subject to both internal and external oversight, including scrutiny of training.
Further safeguards are embedded throughout the legislation for civil penalties. These include the right to make representations in clause 56, the ability to request an internal review in clause 57, and the ability to request an appeal to an appropriate court in clause 60. Additional details of the safeguards will be set out in a code of practice published before the first use of the civil penalty powers. I will give some detail of what will be in that code of practice when we discuss the later clauses. Clause 56 is essential because it holds the PSFA and this Government accountable, ensuring that the safeguards are not only explained to the public but maintained and reviewed by independent oversight.
Clause 57 ensures that a penalty decision notice must be issued before a penalty is imposed, and provides an essential safeguard by giving individuals access to a review and sufficient time for it to be carried out. Powers of review will be available only to authorised officers within the PSFA who are appropriately trained. Penalties are a key part of the deterrent message that this Government wish to send by delivering the Bill. Fraud will not be tolerated, but it is not enough to simply recover money lost to fraud and error. A clear message must be sent that fraudulent actions have consequences.
Clause 58 is essential to ensure that the PSFA enforcement unit acts with transparency and is held accountable for its decisions. It is also an essential safeguard for the individuals and businesses that it will deal with, as it provides a right of review and a chance for decisions to be challenged. As part of the process, the penalised person will have the opportunity to request a review of the penalty and state why it should not be imposed; a person may contest the level of the penalty. During review, a penalty will not be imposed, per clause 57(3). If a person is not satisfied with the result of a review, they will have the opportunity to appeal the outcome to an appropriate court, per clause 60. Reviews will be carried out by an authorised officer of higher grade than the authorising officer who made the original penalty decision, as stated in clause 66(3). This is yet another safeguard that ensures a fair review of the penalty.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The clauses outline the steps and safeguards before the Minister may impose a penalty. Getting these provisions right, ensuring that due process is followed, affected individuals and businesses have a right to respond and penalties are not imposed arbitrarily, is crucial.
Clause 56 sets out the procedural rights of a person facing a penalty. It ensures that penalties are not imposed without the affected party first being allowed an opportunity to respond. Subsection (2) requires that a notice of intent be given to any person facing a penalty, inviting them to make representations before a final decision is made. Under subsection (3), the notice of intent must include the amount of the proposed penalty, the reasons for imposing a penalty of that amount, and the means by which representations may be made, as well as the timescale for doing so.
As we are approaching the end of part 1, I know that the Government will be disappointed if I do not have a long list of questions on these provisions for the Minister. A theme from Tuesday’s sessions was the time limit on representations. The Bill states that individuals and businesses must be given a minimum of 28 days to make representations. There is a little more flexibility in the provisions we debated on Tuesday, but do the Government intend to set a maximum limit, whether in the legislation or perhaps the code of practice, on the number of days that would be available for such representations? If not, how will it be ensured that the process does not become excessively prolonged, as the Minister spoke about on Tuesday? As well as causing delay for the public authority seeking to recover funds, it might cause uncertainty for businesses and individuals. We are also interested to hear about guidance that might be issued on when it would be appropriate to vary the 28 days and allow a longer period for representation in order to strike a balance.
On the issue of authorised officers, and assuming that the decisions are being delegated, the Minister has previously referred to the Carltona principle whereby Ministers can delegate decision-making and executive powers to appropriate officials. In the light of the Government’s intention to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, I am interested to know whether they have assessed the impact that might have on the operation of the Carltona principle in these circumstances. The principle is derived from pre-second world war case law, but it was significantly weakened in the Gerry Adams challenge. It was one of the things the previous Government were seeking to change, as a response to amendments in the House of Lords to re-establish the principle. In the absence of the 2023 Act, will the principle still be legally robust enough to allow the delegation that the Government intend under this Bill?
We assume that the decision on whether to maintain, reduce or cancel a proposed penalty will be made by an authorised officer rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, so will the Minister set out the level of seniority of the authorised officers within the PSFA and how that decision was reached? What training will those officers be required to undergo for this specific function, and what steps is the PSFA expected to put in place to ensure consistency in decision making across different cases?
Clause 57 outlines the process for issuing a penalty decision notice once a final decision has been made. Again, the requirements in the clause appear to be sensible and necessary if we are to ensure that individuals and organisations are fully informed of their liability and have an opportunity to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect or unfair, so we support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 58 deals with reviews of penalty decisions. I have a few questions about who in the PSFA or Government will conduct the review. Who will ensure that they are properly separate from the individual decision-making process and if the reviews are to be conducted by officials, what will be the level of seniority required?
The clauses set out important procedural safeguards that seem to be appropriate to ensure penalties are not imposed unfairly. If we are given clarification regarding the degree of discretion available, the seniority, and training in decision making and the safeguards that ensure fairness, we will be content for the clauses to stand part of the Bill.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses. Safeguarding people is an essential part of the Bill. I suspect we will go into that in greater depth as we embark on part 2.
Georgia Gould
I would indeed have been disappointed if the shadow Minister had not had lots of detailed questions for me on the operation of the powers. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of safeguards.
To take the questions in turn, we are confident of the legal robustness of the Carltona principle. It is how Government routinely works, and we are confident that the powers can be exercised by highly trained authorised officers. As the shadow Minister says, 28 days is a minimum. There are no plans at the moment to introduce a maximum, but the intention is for the team to work as quickly as possible to recoup public money. As we have discussed, there might be exceptional circumstances where people need more time, and the authorised officers will be able to provide that time on a case-by-case basis, always bearing in mind the need to return money that is owed because of fraud.
We will talk shortly about the oversight and review process, but we want a separate team outside the PSFA that is answerable to an independent reviewer. It could look at the wide range of cases and ensure there is consistency and that powers are used proportionately. It could report to Parliament, so there would be ongoing scrutiny of the exercise of the powers. It is important to remember what will have taken place by the time we get to a penalty. In order to establish the recovery of a debt, if the individual did not agree, the matter will have gone to court. An authorised officer will have reviewed the case and submitted to a senior member of the team the rationale for a penalty to be imposed.
There are a number of routes of review. The first is a review by another authorised officer of a higher grade in the PSFA team. If the individual is not satisfied with that, they will, as the shadow Minister set out, have the ability to apply to a court or a tribunal to have that reviewed. There are robust safeguards built in within the PSFA and outside the PSFA.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 57 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Appeals
Georgia Gould
This legislation is underpinned by robust oversight and layers of protection for individuals and businesses. Safeguards have been put in place to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities for individuals and businesses to make representations, request internal reviews of decisions and appeal to the relevant courts. Every opportunity will be provided to ensure that no one is penalised unfairly or in error.
Clause 60 is an important final safeguard that ensures that everyone has the right to appeal to an independent court or tribunal should they disagree with the PSFA’s final determination. Per clause 14(b), once an appeal is made, recovery measures may not be exercised until after the appeal is heard and completed.
The clause includes a delegated power that allows the Minister, by regulation, to make further provisions about appeals. The regulations are subject to the negative procedure. Crucially, the Minister is not given the power to remove the right of appeal; instead, the Minister may amend the clause simply to make the appeal process more efficient—for example, by allowing an appeal against a penalty or debt to be heard at the same time.
Mike Wood
We support the provision that a person can appeal against a penalty to the appropriate court. This is an appropriate level of oversight for these civil penalties, and it is appropriate that the court can uphold, revoke or amend the penalty notice and make the final decision on whether an individual should be penalised for fraud. Obviously the Minister’s judgment that the behaviour was fraudulent and caused the loss to the public authority will form a part of that decision. It is clearly right that there is a role for the legal system in the appeal process. It is also sensible to have the decision by the appropriate court marked as the final decision, to prevent ongoing appeals that could frustrate the proper recovery of funds that are properly payable.
The clause also allows the Minister to make further regulation via the negative procedure regarding appeals against a penalty notice. Will she explain why the negative procedure was judged appropriate in these circumstances, rather than one that would allow Parliament automatically to have its say on any proposed regulations? What further provisions does she envisage being introduced at a later date? I understand that part of the purpose of the clause is to accommodate unforeseeable changes in circumstances, so it is not always possible to see the detail, but some clarity on the kind of area or circumstances in which regulations may be needed would help the Committee to form a judgment on the clause. If no further provisions are expected and there is no reason to imagine that they may be necessary, that clearly renders that part redundant.
That is a rather shorter list of questions to this clause—I am drawing to a close. I would appreciate if the Minister could provide that clarification.
Georgia Gould
I am pleased to provide that clarification. As I said, the critical point is that this provision is very limited in its scope, and the right to appeal set out in the Bill cannot be removed. In my initial remarks, I gave an example of making the appeal process more efficient, such as by allowing an appeal against a penalty or debt to be heard at the same time. The provision is limited to how appeals are operationalised, and does not affect the right to have an appeal.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Code of practice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
The clause is an important part of the Bill because the code of practice will set out how and why civil penalties will be calculated and imposed. This will help to ensure that those powers are used transparently and reasonably. I made a commitment as we went through the previous clauses to go into detail about what will be in the code of practice, which I plan to do now.
The code of practice will set clear guidance and standards for authorised officers when using the powers. It will also help the general public to understand how those powers are exercised. To encourage co-operation with our investigations, allowing the PSFA to recover more from fraudsters in the most efficient way possible, it may be appropriate to offer discounted penalties to those who co-operate.
We will consult on the code of practice and publish it ahead of the first use of the civil penalty powers to ensure sufficient time for Members to familiarise themselves with the measures. In the spirit of being helpful to the Committee, I want to give as much detail as I can on what the code of practice will contain so that the House has the opportunity to understand it, as well as the other place in due course. This will of course be subject to change if either House amends the Bill.
The code of practice will set out the statutory obligation under which it is published, who the intended audience is, and how it should be used. It will set out the rights of anyone who is penalised, which will include appointing legal advisers or other representatives, and how to access legal aid, if entitled to do so. It will set out how the civil penalty system will be overseen by senior officials and set out the roles of the oversight function and the “independent person” under clauses 64 and 65.
The code will explain the scope of the power and how individuals, companies and other organisations will be treated. It will also set out the various kinds of penalties in the Bill, and that penalties may be applied to fraud that occurred before the Bill is enacted. It will cover the training that authorised officers will have undertaken before being authorised to issue civil penalties and the standards used by the Government’s counter-fraud profession.
The code will inform the public about the investigative process in enough detail to give a fair understanding of how cases will be proven to the civil standard, without giving so much information that it would enable a fraudster to game the system. This will include how cases are referred to the PSFA, how authorised officers will be trained to assess individual vulnerability and how that will be assessed during the initial case assessment.
The code will explain how the information powers in the Bill work, how they will be used, the safeguards for their use and how reviews may be requested. It will include how authorised officers will establish a claim, including in court, and how authorised officers will assess whether a case meets the civil burden of proof required to issue a fraud penalty. It will also test that assessment with others, including subject matter experts, specialists and legal advisers. It will explain the decision-making process, including who will make the decision about penalty calculation and imposition.
The code will also set out the circumstances in which the PSFA will not apply a penalty, such as where there has been an error rather than fraud. Importantly, it will also make it clear that civil penalties will not be applied as an alternative to criminal prosecution but as a separate response to fraud.
The code will set out how fraud penalty levels will be calculated. Penalties will be bespoke to the case they relate to, based on the individual facts. Penalties imposed will be reasonable and proportionate, and the code will set out what that means in practice. Penalty levels will be decided by reference to a variety of factors, based on the circumstances of each case. Those include, but are not limited to: the financial loss to the public authority; the time period and frequency of the offence, whether it is a one-off or a sustained fraud; the harm done to a public authority; the impact of the offence; the offender’s behaviour; whether the offender has acted alone or as part of a group; whether a position of trust held by those committing fraud has been abused.
Separately, the code will set out how the penalties in the Bill for non-compliance will work, along with information powers and debt recovery powers, and the safeguards that will be in place. It will set out the criteria by which the PSFA may offer to discount a penalty for fully co-operating and disclosing fraud. It is beneficial to the Government to seek early resolution to investigation and enforcement action, and that kind of discount is used elsewhere to incentivise that. However, the code will also explain that there can be no discount without full co-operation.
The code will set out the practical steps of issuing a penalty in accordance with the clauses in the Bill. That will include the issuing of notices of intent; how a person can access their right to make representations on any relevant matters; how penalty decision notices will be issued; and how to access the rights of internal review and of appeal to the tribunals. On that last point, the code will also help a person to understand what a tribunal is and how to appeal. It will not replicate the existing published guidance on the tribunals, which it will instead signpost people to.
The code will set out when a penalty becomes payable, how to pay it and what will happen if it is not paid. That will include setting out how the debt recovery powers in the Bill will work, if their use is required, and other potential routes of debt recovery action. Finally, the code will make it clear how the PSFA will process, hold and share data, as set out in the Bill and with reference to the Data Protection Act 2018.
The content of the code of practice, as I have set out, will give anyone affected by these powers a clear understanding of what will happen and why, their rights and responsibilities, and how the PSFA will act throughout the process. Having explained that, I commend clause 62 to the Committee.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Obviously, it is helpful for us to have what are, essentially, the chapter headings of the code of practice—the areas that it will cover. That clearly provides some degree of transparency, but it is no substitution for the detail of what will actually appear within those chapters.
We heard from a range of witnesses last week who, in response to many of our questions, were unable to say whether the powers and provisions in the Bill are appropriate and proportionate because of the absence of detail about the code of practice. It would be helpful and courteous to this House, therefore, if as much detail as possible about what will appear—the actual provisions for how the code of practice will operate, rather than just the chapter headings—could be made available at an early enough stage for it to be considered during the Bill’s passage through this House.
Can the Minister give more information about the input that will go into deciding what the details are within the code of practice? Which stakeholders does she expect will be engaged with? Are there any parallel equivalent codes of practice in other areas that might be expected to be a model for this code, or are we effectively starting with a blank sheet?
Again, although the Minister’s explanation is extremely welcome, we continue to be disappointed that the actual detail is currently scheduled to be made available only for Members of the House of Lords to consider before legislating, rather than elected Members of Parliament. We appreciate the recognition of the importance of transparency, which we are obviously seeking to maintain throughout the Bill, but we hope that the Government will accelerate their plans to provide more information for Members of Parliament so that informed decisions can be made about this important legislation.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. I want to reiterate the points made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. It is not good enough to be able to refer only to the official record of the long list that the Minister just read out of what is likely to appear in the code of practice. At this stage of the legislation, we ought to be scrutinising at least a draft.
The clause does not include any consultation on a draft code of practice and there are no scrutiny safeguards built into the legislation, so it is wrong to not be looking at the details. In previous debates, I have set out my concerns that although there have been reassurances that this part of the Bill is about major fraud, and that it excludes the Department for Work and Pensions, it is easy to envisage that there may be a scheme of fraud against other Departments that involves defrauding grants that are available to support people claiming certain benefits. That might bring people who are poorer and more vulnerable into a scheme where, according to previous clauses, these penalties may be applied. We need to look at the code of practice in draft form at this stage of the legislation or as soon as possible.
Steve Darling
Legislation that is rushed is often legislation that is dangerous, and I fear that that is where we are today. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire was very polite in putting his challenges to the Minister, but I would like to be a little more robust and say that I believe it is extremely unreasonable that we do not have the code before us. “The devil is in the detail” is a hackneyed phrase, but that is the fact of the matter. I say to the Minister that it would be extremely helpful if the code could be published before the legislation passes throughout Parliament, so that there is at least the opportunity to scrutinise it at a later date. I look forward to receiving a satisfactory response from her.
Georgia Gould
I am grateful for those questions. As I set out, the code of practice provides additional guidance and operational detail, but the important thing is that the key safeguards we have discussed are covered in a great deal of detail in the Bill. We have gone through the right to appeal and the level of the authorised officer who will be looking at every part of the process, whether that is the initial decision or the review. We have discussed the timeframes, all the appeal routes that are built into the legislation, and the oversight. The key safeguards to the operationalisation of these powers are in the Bill in a great deal of detail.
It is right that I went through the kind of operational detail that the code of practice will cover. To hopefully offer some reassurance on the questions of consultation and precedent, in developing the code of practice, we are building on a great deal of precedent within Government—from the DWP, the Home Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—on the use of these powers and what has worked well. There is already a huge amount of consultation, at ministerial and official level, on developing the code. There will be a public consultation on it as well, and, as we have already committed, we will bring forward the code of practice within the parliamentary process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Independent review
Steve Darling
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 64, page 34, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), ‘the relevant committee’ means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would ensure Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 65 stand part.
Steve Darling
The amendment is about ensuring transparency around the Bill. I have already explored transparency, and other hon. Members have talked about reasonableness. The Bill gives the Minister the ability to appoint their own independent person. Although I am sure that those in power for the foreseeable future are very reasonable individuals who will genuinely appoint independent persons, we can read in our newspapers about people not very far away who are effectively appointing yes-people around them, so I fear that we need to future-proof the Bill to ensure that the people appointed are genuinely independent.
Constitutions elsewhere in the world have checks and balances heavily built into governance. The amendment, which proposes to delegate to the Speaker the decision about how the appropriate Committee of Parliament can be involved and consulted about the appointment of the independent individual, would be a good way of ensuring genuine independence and reasonableness. I hope that the Government seriously consider it; we will be pressing it to a vote.
Georgia Gould
I will start by talking about clauses 64 and 65, and then I will address the amendment.
It is absolutely necessary that there is appropriate independent oversight to ensure the powers in the Bill are used appropriately, and we welcome debate on that. That is why we have introduced the power to appoint an independent person, which might be one person—an independent reviewer—or an organisation such as His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. They will augment the existing oversight structures laid out elsewhere in the Bill, such as the role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, set out in clause 9, which will investigate the most serious complaints into the PSFA’s use of entry, search and seizure powers.
Clause 64 mandates that an independent person appointed by the Minister undertakes reviews of the use of powers in the Bill. The independent reviewer will conduct reviews to consider whether the exercise of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance. They will produce a report of their findings for the Minister, including any recommendations they deem appropriate. The Minister is then required to publish the report and lay it before Parliament. That ensures there is both public and parliamentary accountability in the role of the independent person outlined in the Bill.
As we state in the explanatory notes, we intend to make the duty imposed by the clause in two ways. First, the Government will commission His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to inspect the PSFA’s use of the new investigative powers, which can include the end-to-end investigative process and decision making. HMICFRS has a long-standing history, going back to 1856, and it independently assesses and reports on the performance of police and fire and rescue services in the UK, as well as other public bodies with investigatory powers, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. HMICFRS reports are already made available publicly, and are an efficient way to hold bodies accountable for their investigative practices.
Secondly, the Government are creating a new position for an independent reviewer to whom the PSFA’s oversight team will report. The independent reviewer will assess how the PSFA exercises the powers given to it in the Bill. The independent reviewer will carry out reviews and report on whether the use of the powers is in keeping with the legislation, codes of practice and relevant guidance, as well as considering areas where HMICFRS or other oversight bodies have not already reported. The independent reviewer could, for instance, consider live case reviews or conduct supplementary reviews between those undertaken by other bodies, or look specifically at how the PSFA has taken forward recommendations from past reviews. The independent chair will have discretion in determining where to focus their resources.
We do not believe it is necessary to legislate in the manner proposed by the amendment to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament will scrutinise the independent person’s report, which the Minister is obliged to lay in Parliament. There is also an established process for agreeing posts that should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committees without the need for legislative provision. That process is to reach agreement on posts suitable for pre-appointment scrutiny between my Department and the Chair of the relevant Select Committee. We will be following that process for the appointment of the independent chair. We hope that offers assurance to the hon. Member for Torbay. The appointment of the independent reviewer will also fully comply with the governance code on public appointments which is overseen by the Commissioner of Public Appointments.
Mike Wood
Clause 64 sets out that the independent person has responsibilities to prepare and submit a report on the review. We welcome that element of transparency, but are conscious that we need to balance those publications against the privacy of individuals. It is covered within the legislation, but could the Minister further detail the measures that are being taken to ensure that the independent person’s reviews do protect the privacy of individuals involved, especially where there may not have been a legal process in which someone has been found guilty of an offence?
What sort of person is considered an independent person for these purposes? Is the provision intended to create a team of civil servants in the Department who do these reviews, or will it be an individual? What oversight will there be of the independent reviewers, and what resources will they have? Will they have any other responsibilities beyond the report that they produce at the end of the period that the Minister sets out?
Clause 65 allows the Minister to give direction
“as to the period to be covered”
by the review, and provides that the Minister
“may disclose information to the independent person, or to a person acting on behalf of the independent person”.
Even if the Minister is only able to set timeframes for reviews, I would still like clarity as to how independent that person is intended to be from the PSFA, the Cabinet Office and the Minister. We understand why information will need to be shared between the Minister and the independent person if they are to carry out that function, but what protections are in place to maintain privacy and protect against the sharing of unnecessary personal information that goes beyond what the independent person will require?
We have some sympathy for amendment 31, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. There is clearly a need to ensure a proper and open appointment process, as choosing the right person will shape the effectiveness of many of the review mechanisms. It is therefore vital that that decision is right. The involvement of Parliament does seem to be one way of achieving that oversight, in the absence of any better proposal in the legislation. While we recognise that this role may be rather different from the others that are set out in annex D of the Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny, we would be more comfortable knowing that there is going to be that scrutiny rather than relying, at some point after the legislation is passed, on conversations between whoever happens to be in the Cabinet Office at the time or whoever happens to be Chairing whichever Committee the Speaker feels is most appropriate to be conducting any such hearings.
Georgia Gould
Let me address those questions. The first thing to say on personal or sensitive information is that the teams will of course remain subject to data protection legislation and fulfil all their obligations under the law. Only information that is pertinent and necessary to the review or inspection process will be shared with external bodies, and that will be done in accordance with information handling rules.
The team in the Cabinet Office will be a small, separate team that does not undertake day-to-day investigations; the team will be created to exercise the reviewing powers in the Bill. Its members will take direction from, and report to, the independent chair. They are intended to carry out the day-to-day oversight work as well as to support the functioning of the independent chair, both administratively and in conducting their formal reviews. A similar approach is taken by other independent persons who have a duty to conduct independent reviews or monitoring, and who require support from a Department —for instance, the independent Prevent commissioner for the Home Office. There is provision within the Bill for the PSFA to become a statutory body that will further separate out these functions. I reiterate the point that I made in response to the amendment: we do expect, as is normal process, that there will be a parliamentary role in the appointment of the chair, but we will continue to stay open to all suggestions as the Bill progresses.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Georgia Gould
The powers in the Bill are conferred on the Minister, but they will be exercised by officials specifically authorised by the Minister and termed “authorised officers”. The clause is an essential element of the legislation. It sets out the decisions that, if not made by the Minister personally, may be undertaken by an authorised officer only: deciding to give an information notice; deciding to give a recovery notice; deciding to make or vary a direct deduction order; deciding to make or vary a deduction from earnings; deciding to give a notice of intent to impose a civil penalty; and imposing a civil penalty.
Furthermore, the clause details some fundamental safeguards on the use of the powers. First, to be appointed as an authorised officer, the individual must be employed in the civil service within the Cabinet Office. That is to ensure strict control over who may use the powers. The clause also defines who may conduct internal reviews, a protection offered widely in the Bill. Any internal reviews must be undertaken by an authorised officer at least one grade senior to the officer involved in the initial decision, or by the Minister. That ensures that officers cannot review their own decisions when challenged for an internal review.
Authorised officers form the backbone of the Government’s approach to taking the powers. The officers will need to complete a rigorous bespoke training programme, which will cover all aspects of investigative practice, including the relevant powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for authorised investigators. That will be to the same standard as for other public bodies using the same powers. Only after the training conditions have been met will an individual be put forward to the Minister for authorisation to act as an authorised officer and then may use the powers. Their use of the powers must follow strict processes, guidance and codes of practice. They will be subject to internal and external independent oversight of their use of the powers.
The clause is essential, as it provides a statutory gateway for PSFA officials to use the powers under the Bill. Without the clause, the Government’s intention to improve counter-fraud enforcement would either be impractical, or the powers would be given to more individuals than is absolutely required. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mike Wood
As the Minister says, the clause sets out those decisions that can be taken by an individual authorised by the Minister on their behalf. It specifies that the authorised officer must be a civil servant in her Department. Where there is a review, it must be taken by an authorised officer of a higher grade than the one who took the original decision. As we said when debating earlier clauses, the level of the original officer seems to be set at a rather lower level than in the equivalent decision-making processes in the police and other similar organisations. The measures set out in the clause appear to be sensible, but we have one or two questions about their practical aspects.
In particular, how many of the decisions referred to in the clause does the Minister expect an officer to be likely to make on a weekly basis? When we were debating civil penalty notices, the Minister suggested that it might only be a few a year. This clause covers a rather wider range of notices, so some idea of the workload to be expected of authorised officers will help us to form a better picture of the detail of what we expect authorised officers to be considering. Similarly, does the Minister have any expectation at this stage of how many authorised officers across the different grades will be fulfilling these functions?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Critically, we have been clear that the team will be small. However, as I have said, if the practical use of these powers goes well—we expect it to, because they are widely used in government—there is the opportunity to grow the team. Importantly, these will be highly trained officers who are specialists in this work. They will have that breadth of experience. In the first instance, we expect around 40 cases a year, but as I said, that is subject to change as time goes on.
The team will be higher executive officers or above in the PSFA. Authorised investigators must also be higher executive officers or above. That means that they will receive further training on PACE powers. Where PACE stipulates that a decision must be made by an officer with a rank of inspector or above, schedule 1 states that it will be taken by an authorised investigator of senior executive officer grade or above. That is proportionate. These are highly trained officers. We specifically ask that the powers not be given out widely, but to a group of people who will have a huge amount of training and oversight to be able to exercise them proportionately, and in a way that recovers fraud but also safeguards those being investigated.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Disclosure of information etc: interaction with external constraints
Georgia Gould
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 67, page 36, line 10, leave out “disclosure, obtaining or use” and insert “processing”.
This amendment clarifies that clause 67(3) applies in relation to all processing of information and makes it consistent with clause 67(1) and (2)).
Georgia Gould
The clause is essential in protecting specific information, preventing potential harm to individuals and upholding ethical standards in situations where unauthorised sharing could cause damage. The clause ensures that the powers adhere to current data protection legislation by safeguarding data from misuse, damage and unauthorised access. It also ensures that a person’s legal professional privilege rights are protected. The clause safeguards an individual’s rights and prevents them from being forced to provide information that could incriminate them.
Amendment 3 is necessary to clarify that this power applies to all processing of information, and to provide consistency with clauses 67(1) and (2). It would replace “disclosure, obtaining or use” of information with “processing”. It would create no additional effect and ensures clear comprehension that clause 67(3) applies in relation to all processing of information.
Mike Wood
The clause sets out how the provisions relate to data protection legislation. It is clearly an important provision to reinforce the data protection framework, given the number of concerns raised, particularly by Opposition Members, about the protections for individual privacy. The clause sets out some protection, albeit at a baseline of the existing legal provisions, to prevent breaches of any obligation of confidence owed by the people making disclosure, or of other restrictions including legal privilege. It seems eminently sensible, but will the Minister detail further the oversight mechanisms that will ensure that the safeguards are followed? What processes and avenues are available if someone believes that the requirements set out in the clause have not been followed? How should that be pursued?
As the Minister said, Government amendment 3 is a technical amendment. We have no objection to it.
Georgia Gould
As I set out previously, the PSFA will collect personal data necessary only for the relevant purposes and will ensure that it is not excessive. Any data not relevant to the stated purposes will be erased in line with the data retention policy, which specifies that data connected to a suspected fraud is held for up to five years following resolution. Data that is not connected is held for up to two years. The use of the powers will be governed by the Data Protection Act 2018 and other data protection legislation.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Crown etc application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
Clause 68 sets out how the powers in part 1 of the Bill variously apply or do not apply to the Crown, to Parliament and to the King and his estates, and in circumstances of grounds of national security. The clause sets important boundaries on the scope of part 1. As such, it is essential that it stands part of the Bill.
The clause ensures that the Crown is bound by specific powers and provisions in the Bill. It applies in relation to premises used or held on behalf of the Crown —for example, a building owned by a Government Department—in the same way as any other premises. For instance, an authorised investigator could, if necessary, apply to a court for a warrant to enter, search and seize evidence from Crown premises. However, it does not bind the Crown in respect of some powers, specifically those in clauses 16 to 37, relating to recovery orders and recovery from bank accounts, and chapter 5, relating to civil penalties. If it did, the effect would be the Crown recovering money from itself or imposing a penalty on itself that it would pay to itself, simply moving money within its own accounts.
Subsection (4) creates a power for the Minister to certify that it appears appropriate in the interests of national security that the powers of entry conferred by this part should not be exercised on Crown premises specified in the certificate. Authorised investigators could not seek a warrant to enter those premises to search for evidence. This carve-out exists because there are certain Crown premises where searching may compromise national security. It is important that this is respected. In that event, the PSFA would discuss with the relevant Department or agency what alternative approach may be possible.
Finally, the clause states that the power of entry conferred by this part cannot be exercised on His Majesty’s private estates or premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament. The King’s private estates are those held by His Majesty as a private person. This does not mean the Crown Estate—the sovereign’s public estates, which are managed by the Crown Estate commissioners on behalf of the Crown. In the incredibly unlikely event that evidence suggested that it was necessary to search the King’s private estates or either House of Parliament, the PSFA would request to be invited by the appropriate authority, which would be the Speaker or the Lord Speaker in the case of this House and the other place, respecting the privileges of Parliament.
Clause 70 is the interpretation clause, which sets out the meaning of terms used in part 1. I do not propose to run through the whole list of terms. Many of them are straightforward and refer back to previous clauses we have debated, but some are important to understand the scope of this part or are used in a novel way. I will say a few words about them so that the Committee can understand them in the correct context.
The first term is “authorised officer”, which we covered in clause 66. In this part, authorised officer has the meaning given in clause 66, which as we have already seen says that they must be employed in the civil service in the Minister’s Department. This means that other types of public sector workers, such as consultants or contractors, cannot be authorised officers, which is a safeguard on the use of the powers.
The clause defines “fraud” as including
“the offences in sections 1 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006…and…the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.”
The Committee will recall that we discussed this in the debate on clauses 1 and 2, and I can repeat the assurances that I gave then. The definition sets the scope of fraud in relation to the core functions of a Minister in clause 1, and it covers the three main fraud offences: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position. It also covers the common-law offence of conspiracy, which requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. Together, these give the scope needed to tackle the key forms of public sector fraud.
The clause defines “public authority” as
“a person with functions of a public nature so far as acting in the exercise of those functions”.
This sets out the scope of the Departments, bodies and agencies that the PSFA would be able to work with and on behalf of. The definition is deliberately wide to enable the PSFA to tackle public sector fraud wherever it may arise. It will allow the use of powers to investigate fraud against all central Government Departments and agencies—except HMRC and the DWP, because they already have existing powers—as well as local government and any arm’s length delivery mechanisms that deliver functions of a public nature.
The clause defines “suspected fraud” as
“conduct which the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect may constitute fraud”.
We discussed this definition in the debate on clause 3. Reasonable grounds to suspect is an objective test meaning a belief based on specific evidence that a reasonable person would hold. It is not just based on the investigator’s own subjective opinion. It is a reasonable test that asks, “Would an ordinary, reasonable person”—like you or me, Sir Desmond—“being in possession of the same facts as the investigator, agree that it was reasonable to suspect that fraud had occurred?” This is a common standard to initiate an investigation.
Finally, beyond the definitions, the clause clarifies references to
“giving a notice or other document”
and sets out how court proceedings are considered to be finally determined. The clause is essential to ensure the correct understanding and interpretation of key terms used throughout part 1 of the Bill.
Clause 71 states that all regulations under this part should be made using statutory instruments. This ensures a structured approach to the regulatory framework. The clause allows for the creation of different types of provisions, such as consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving measures. This flexibility helps to adapt regulations to various circumstances.
The affirmative procedure requires that the regulations be approved by both Houses of Parliament, which ensures that there is oversight and accountability. The negative procedure allows regulations to be implemented promptly, but they can still be annulled by either House of Parliament if necessary. The option to convert regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure ensures flexibility in response to the significance of particular regulatory provisions.
Clause 71 is essential for establishing a coherent and responsive regulatory framework in the legislation. By mandating the use of statutory instruments, it promotes a structured process that enhances accountability and keeps the regulatory system transparent.
Mike Wood
We fully support the measures in clause 68 on Crown premises and the Houses of Parliament—they seem perfectly sensible. As the Minister said, clause 70 specifies a whole string of definitions. Given the time, Members may be relieved to know that I do not have a specific response for each of them; there is very little in the definitions to quibble with.
Clause 71 sets out the regulations under this part. The Minister drew attention to subsection (5), which allows for the regulations specified in the Bill to be subject to either the negative or affirmative procedure. As we said earlier in Committee, many of the cases that have been outlined will be require regulations that have potentially far-reaching consequences, both for individuals and organisations. Such consequences would strongly justify the active participation of Parliament, rather than simply relying on the negative resolution, which lacks any guarantee of a debate on an attempt to pray against.
Regulations can be very difficult for Parliament to object to. We encourage the use of the affirmative procedure and hope the Government will detail their intentions on when it will be used for provisions that would otherwise be subject to the negative procedure. Beyond that, we have no objections to the clauses.
Georgia Gould
When I previously went through the different regulatory areas, I also went through which would be subject to the negative and affirmative procedures. I absolutely hear the point; the critical point for me is that the key provisions sit in the Bill. We do not expect changes made by regulation to change the key areas of oversight and the safeguards but, as the shadow Minister says, the provision for changes is there if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
The Public Sector Fraud Authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Georgia Gould
The clause creates potential for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to be established as an arm’s length statutory body, as defined in schedule 2. It contains provision for the establishment, constitution and operational framework of a new statutory body called the Public Sector Fraud Authority. It enables the transfer of the functions conferred on the Minister by the Bill to the new PSFA, and other practicalities.
The policy intention is not to commence the provisions for the independent PSFA immediately, but at a later date once a review of the effectiveness of the use of the powers has been undertaken. Providing the ability to establish the PSFA as a statutory body allows for future flexibility in how the Government conduct their counter-fraud activities. However, the decision to establish the PSFA as a new arm’s length body should not be taken lightly, nor should any decision to create a new statutory body. The Government have assessed the case for doing so immediately and decided that it would be disproportionate at this time to do so, but that will be kept under review.
The PSFA is running a pilot enforcement function. There are a relatively small number of staff and cases, so we judge that turning the PSFA’s limited enforcement function into an arm’s length body would be disproportionate at this time, given the significant cost and administrative burden involved in the short term. The Government intend to focus instead on ensuring that the powers conveyed in the Bill are bedded in effectively and the oversight is strong, so that the PSFA’s valuable work can benefit immediately from the additional investigative tools and debt recovery powers the Bill enables.
The Government will review the position on the PSFA as a statutory body once a suitable amount of time has passed to fully understand the required scope and scale of such a body. Schedule 2 ensures that, at the appropriate juncture, the Government will have the tools needed to create that body. It provides precise detail on constitution, make-up and remuneration of a board. It enables the PSFA to appoint staff. Remuneration, pensions and other payments shall be determined subject to the approval of the Minister.
Furthermore, the schedule imparts a duty on the PSFA to exercise its functions effectively, efficiently and economically. It allows for the PSFA to authorise a member of the PSFA, their staff authorised for that purpose, or a committee or sub-committee to exercise its functions. The independent PSFA must prepare a report on the exercise of its functions for the financial year, to be sent to the Minister. The Minister must lay the reports before Parliament and publish them. The Minister may create appropriate transfer schemes for assets and liabilities to enable the independent PSFA to exercise its functions. The schedule also provides a regulation-making power to transfer the powers conferred by the Bill to the new body.
The schedule allows the Minister to amend part 1 of the Bill and other existing enactments amended by part 1. This is to ensure that part 1 of what will be the Act is fit for purpose when the PSFA is established as a statutory body. The Minister may make regulations that enable the Minister to give the PSFA general or specific directions regarding the exercise of its functions. This would allow the Minister to guide the PSFA’s strategic priorities to align with Government priorities, or to direct the PSFA’s future structural changes, for example.
Mike Wood
The clause contains provisions on setting up the Public Sector Fraud Authority on a statutory basis. As I said at the beginning of Committee stage, we support the Government’s work to strengthen the PSFA’s role. The form in which it has been operating since it was established under the previous Government offers an opportunity to see how its functions can be exercised more effectively to recover a greater amount of public money that has been lost either to fraud or to error.
Although we have a range of concerns, which we have discussed, about the exercise of some of the functions and, in particular, about the oversight of some of them, we think the decision to have a Public Sector Fraud Authority is the right one, and agree that there may be future circumstances in which those functions could be performed more effectively were the authority placed on a statutory basis, so we do not oppose schedule 2.
As we have reached the end of part 1 of the Bill, and so probably the end my exchanges with the Minister, I thank her for the answers she has given. We will seek to follow up on some of those answers during the passage of the Bill, but for now we are happy for clause 69 and schedule 2 to be part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
In general, I very much support the move to make the PSFA an independent body, and the constitution in schedule 2 seems like a good start. However, looking through it I cannot see anywhere how the people appointed as the chair and executive of the PSFA will be subject to a code of conduct; to rules on transparency and registering interests; to requirements relating to compliance with the Nolan principles; and to the oversight of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments relating to subsequent work after they leave the PSFA. The Minister, who is currently named in the Bill, is subject to all those requirements.
There is clear potential for conflicts of interests in the various roles, so it is important that they are put under that regime. Will the Minister be clear about how that will come about and whether that could be added to the constitution if it is not already there?
Georgia Gould
I echo the shadow Minister and thank him for his constructive line of questioning. It has been helpful to look into this part of the Bill in such detail. As he set out, I hope we will continue to have conversations about a number of areas, not least some of the commitments I made to look at the provision on 28 days in parts of the Bill. I appreciate the support for the provisions in this area.
On the process of establishing a statutory body, there is Cabinet Office guidance on the establishment of a public body that looks at a whole range of issues, and protections in the ministerial code require Ministers to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. In commencing debate on clause 72, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, passes the baton to me, to discuss part 2 and the elements of the Bill that pertain to the Department for Work and Pensions. This part sets out reforms of the Department’s approach to five key areas: information gathering, the eligibility verification measure, debt recovery, search and seizure, and penalties reform,
Clause 72 inserts proposed new section 109BZA into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The new section grants DWP authorised officers powers to issue information notices to any information holder as part of a DWP criminal fraud investigation. When I say “authorised officers”, I mean DWP staff who have been authorised by the Secretary of State on completion of training and receiving accreditation, and can therefore issue notices. “Information holders” may include businesses or employers; a useful illustration of the sort of organisation from which we may request information is a travel agency. This kind of information can be vital in proving or disproving fraud.
The DWP already has powers to compel information in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Act sets out a list of information holders from which the DWP can request information, but that list is restrictive. New section 109BZA will update the powers to enable the DWP to obtain relevant information from any information holder in respect of all payments and investigations made by the Department; it also includes the ability to compel it electronically, which is a vital updating mechanism. These updates enable the DWP to take an approach similar to the one already adopted by the Scottish Government for their own criminal investigations into social security fraud.
The DWP takes its responsibilities in handling personal information very seriously. That is why new section 109BZA is constructed with a number of safeguards to ensure the appropriate use of the powers. First, per subsections (1) and (2), the power may be used only by an authorised officer where there are reasonable grounds to expect that a person has committed fraud. Reasonable grounds are established by an objective review of available facts, intelligence and evidence. This is the same principle on which the police also determine reasonable suspicion. Reasonable grounds cannot be supported by personal factors or a hunch. In addition, subsection (1)(b) stipulates that all the information requested must be “necessary and proportionate” for the purposes of investigating the fraud allegation. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory training in the use of this power will be undertaken by all authorised officers.
New section 109BZA will make it easier for information holders to understand and respond to requests for information. It requires that the information notice must identify the individual concerned, and set out how the information should be returned and by when; it must also set out the consequences of non-compliance.
The clause will help to make the DWP’s fraud investigations more effective in both proving and disproving fraud. I understand that the Opposition will be interested in the code of practice, but I urge them to hold their comments until we consider clause 73, in which the code of practice is discussed at length. Having outlined the main provisions in the clause, I commend it to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. As it was to the Minister, the baton has been passed to me from our Cabinet Office spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, as part 2 sets specifically how the Bill applies to the DWP.
We recognise that there is a huge amount of work to be done, given the increasing levels of fraud and error against the Department for Work and Pensions in recent years. We broadly support the details of part 2, but unsurprisingly, we will have some questions in the coming sessions, and we are tabling a number of amendments too.
Clause 72 amends the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to provide powers to require information related to fraud. An authorised officer can give a written notice requiring information where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has committed or intends to commit fraud, and where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The Minister spoke about how this will enable organisations outside the DWP to be required to provide information. It would be useful to understand better the Social Security Administration Act and what it is currently used for, to make sure that we have covered specifically why it needs to be amended in addition to the provisions of this legislation. I recognise what the Minister is saying, but is there a problem now? Are we not able to take its provisions far enough, and so need these changes to be made? Why are existing information-gathering powers insufficient? This is quite a broadening of the current powers, so some clarification would be great.
I have another question on clause 72 and the changes proposed to the 1992 Act. When we talk about a “person”, is this just the person the information is being requested of—an estate agent or whoever it may be—or does the term also relate to the person being investigated? Are we talking about the person who is suspected of committing a fraud, a person in possession of information about that person under suspicion, or both? In effect, who is the written notice intended for? I am sure that is probably straightforward, but it would be useful to have it outlined clearly.
I note what the Minister said about the code of practice, which I was not planning to mention in this speech. I was saving my comments on that for clause 73—we are learning as we go in this. Can the Minister confirm whether there are any limits on the non-financial institutions that will have to provide information under the verification notices? Does this include institutions such as education institutions, insurance companies, water agencies and others that people receiving benefits might be paying bills to? Where do the limits lie around the types of organisations that will be contacted? I appreciate that is done in other legislation at the moment, but it is quite a big move. We may well cover this later, but are they subject to the same sort of time restrictions as other organisations? If a school that has never had to do this before is contacted, and they have no idea of what is expected of them, how are we going to ensure that they are not penalised? This could be the first time that anything like this has come in their direction.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. Liberal Democrats believe, as do all members of the Committee, that fraud is bad. It clearly impacts on the ability of the state to support people and our communities. It is important to put that on the table. I will give a small overview as we start debate on part 2 of the Bill, but as a liberal, the idea of mass surveillance within this part of the Bill causes me grave concern on a number of levels. This will be unpacked over the next few sessions.
I would welcome the Minister commenting on why this piece of legislation is being rushed. The rush poses a danger to our communities. The fact that the Government commissioned a review into the carer’s allowance overpayments is to be welcomed. We Liberal Democrats called for that, but we are gravely concerned that the Government are bashing ahead with this legislation without being able to take into account any lessons that could be learned from the carer’s allowance debacle.
Although the vast majority of the challenges that we face are error and fraud, my and my colleagues’ concern is that the Government need to fix the Department for Work and Pensions, which is effectively broken. I could wax about that for England, but I will not. When the machine is not fit for purpose, we need to fix it before adding more bells and whistles; simply adding to a broken machine will not fix it. I would welcome some explanation of why we are dashing ahead when we do not have the findings from the carer’s allowance overpayments review. I would also welcome a deeper explanation of what reasonable grounds for suspecting fraud will be. Putting a bit more colour on the palette would be extremely helpful.
Andrew Western
I welcome the broad support from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, for the overall intent of the Bill. She asked a number of questions about the usage of the 1992 Act. It sets out the information-gathering options available to the Department where fraud is suspected. When we want to compel information for whatever reason—it may be a referral, or data or evidence may be suggesting that there has been fraudulent activity—there is the ability to request, as part of an ongoing investigation, any information that may be useful.
There are two principal reasons why we need changes. The first is modernisation, as I said in my opening comments. I am sure all Members can see how being able to request information via digital means will add speed and simplicity to the process. That is a basic modernisation. There is a more significant change in the shift towards an exclusion list rather than an inclusion list of organisations, which broadens the range of organisations that we can request information from.
The hon. Lady asked whether institutions such as schools or utilities companies may be in scope. In essence, anybody is in scope for this power—for a request for information—unless they are withholding exempted information. There is a range of things that would be specifically exempt. Legally privileged material is an obvious example, as is information that could lead to self-incrimination for recipients and their spouses or civil partners.
It is worth saying for clarity that organisations that provide no-cost advice and advocacy services will not be compelled to share personal data about their service users. That will maintain trust, which is an important principle of their work, and allow individuals to seek help without fear of their information being disclosed. There is also an exemption from providing excluded or special procedure material as defined under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That includes personal records, including records relating to physical or mental health, human tissue and confidential journalistic materials. Those are the types of information that would be exempt. With the exception of the organisations providing advice and support, all organisations are essentially in scope if they hold other relevant information to help with an ongoing inquiry.
The person in receipt of the notice is the person or organisation we are compelling the information from, rather than the person about whom it is compelled. So the person receiving the notice is the one we are asking for detail from.
Andrew Western
With permission, before turning to clause 73, I will take the opportunity to make a few general points about the approach to codes of practice for this Bill more generally, as that has become a recurrent theme in the line-by-line scrutiny and was in the evidence-gathering sessions last week. The codes of practice issued under the Bill do not contain statutory provisions. That means that they do not have any particular legal effect; they will simply outline how the measures will be operationalised in more detail. The Bill, and particularly its associated schedules, set out a baseline for that operation. In my view, that gives us more than enough opportunity to understand how the Bill will work in practice.
As the codes of practice do not contain statutory provisions, the guidance, as previously referred to in the evidence sessions, does not say that we must provide them alongside the legislation. The guidance even goes so far as to say that it is “unnecessary” to make it a statutory requirement to provide these codes at all, but we have done so as we believe that is the right thing to do. It is the legislation itself, as I said, that should be considered and scrutinised. There is considerable detail within the Bill, and it clearly sets out the legal obligations that the Government are creating that Parliament must consider, as we are doing in Committee.
As I have said, however, we want to be more transparent with the House, because we recognise that these codes are of interest, even if they are not wholly relevant to the legal obligations that the Bill will create. As such, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has done on part 1, I will provide an outline of what the codes will cover as the relevant clauses are debated. We have committed to provide drafts of the relevant codes as soon as they are available. That is not a requirement, but it recognises the interest of Members. We are going above and beyond what is required in the spirit of transparency.
The “Guide to Making Legislation”, which the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire may be interested to know was reissued this week—I assure him that it will be my bedtime reading this weekend—outlines that codes are not to be used as a substitute for legislation. That is why we have made a conscious effort to include lots of detail in the Bill about how the powers will work in practice.
The clause amends section 3 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 to require a new statutory code of practice for authorised officers accredited by the Secretary of State to exercise the information-gathering powers under the proposed new section 109BZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Beyond the detail already included in clause 72 and other parts of the Bill, the code will set out more detail on the limitations of the powers and how they must operate, and clear conditions for their use. That includes detail on the meaning of a reasonable suspicion of fraud, as set out in clause 72.
The code will also include additional detail to help guide information providers. It will provide further detail on the timeframes for compliance and how an information request must be complied with—including how to comply with requirements under subsection (5), which includes the power for the DWP to request that information be provided in a specified form, and for the DWP to require an information holder to state where the information may be held if they do not have it and to explain why it cannot be provided.
The code will also include further details on the consequences of non-compliance. Under existing legislation, information providers who fail to comply with an information notice may be subject to prosecution, which can result in a fine of up to £1,000. If they continue to refuse to provide the requested information, they may be liable to a fine of up to £40 for every day that they fail to provide the requested information. That approach will apply to the new information-gathering provisions. There will also be further detail in the code about the consequences for information providers who repeatedly fail to comply with information requests, and about what may be considered a reasonable explanation for why the information provider is not able to comply with an information notice.
Before issuing the code of practice for the first time, we will carry out informal consultation with stakeholders on a draft code, to ensure that their views are reflected in the drafting. Once finalised, the code of practice will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and published.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for setting out that information. This is a short clause, so my comments will not be long. It amends section 3 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 to add a code of practice on the use of information powers exercised by an authorised officer.
As has been said, much has been made of the lack of a code of practice. We maintain our view, and I am sure other Opposition Members will agree. I have heard the reassurances of the Minister and, earlier today, of the Cabinet Office Minister, but the Minister’s indication of what will be in the code gives me an opportunity to ask a couple of questions.
I welcome that there will be a consultation on the code, although I appreciate that it could slow down the introduction of the legislation. Had the code of practice been developed in tandem with the Bill, or even beforehand, we could have implemented the Bill much more quickly after its passage to crack on with recouping some of the fraudulent costs and highlighting any errors being made. However, we are where we are and, even so, I welcome the consultation.
The Minister has reassured me that we will continue to hear about the code of practice, but my other question goes back to what I said on clause 72 about additional non-financial organisations that might be contacted, and to what the Minister has just said about the fines to be levied for non-compliance. A huge amount of responsibility is being placed on the people who receive these notices. This will be new to them as it is a new Government power, particularly as it pertains to the DWP.
What will be in the code of practice to ensure that we remember the people about whom we seek information are not necessarily the ones at fault? How do we communicate with them so that they want to co-operate, and so that they do not end up in a non-compliant position? This may not be within the scope of the Bill, but how do we communicate to the general public, in layman’s terms, what is expected of them? For example, if this lands on the desk of a primary school headteacher, how will the Department ensure that they understand what has been done and are not terrified by the process? How will it ensure that we achieve the process and outcomes we all seek?
Steve Darling
The Minister will not be surprised that I return to the fact that the Bill has been rushed. I respectfully remind him that we are a very refreshed House of Commons. This is fresh information for the vast majority of Members. Although Parliament may have a corporate memory, this Bill has moved at great pace since First Reading and we remain very concerned that this may result in errors.
The Minister has assured us that the code of conduct will be available in due course, but can he identify by what date or by when in the legislative programme? That would give us some comfort. Although positive words have been said about the code of conduct, it drives the culture of an organisation, and culture is extremely important. I look forward to some words of reassurance from the Minister.
Andrew Western
I am not sure that I agree with the assertion of the hon. Member for South West Devon that the time it takes to pass the code will significantly slow down the Bill. As she is aware, we are currently working with a range of organisations and stakeholders, and we are gathering information and ideas for a draft of the code.
To answer the hon. Member for Torbay, we hope to share the draft of the code before Committee in the House of Lords. I am happy to put that on the record, as it is an important point that applies to all codes of practice in the Bill, both for the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the DWP.
I am not sure I fully agree with the hon. Member for South West Devon that we could have saved time by having already drafted and consulted on the code. If there were any amendments to the Bill, the code would have to be rewritten, at least to some extent, to reflect them.
I was asked which organisations are anticipated to be called upon to provide information, as well as their willingness to do so and our ability to maintain a positive relationship. They want to engage with this, because tackling fraud is important and has a clear public benefit. We want to make the information notices as clear as possible. People will have at least 14 days to comply with an information request, and they will have the right to appeal should they have any particular issues. We would look to work with them wherever possible to ensure that they are able to provide the information needed. Clear communication is important, and we want to be certain that we achieve it.
I have dealt with the question about the code of practice, and I hope that is helpful to the hon. Member for Torbay. I struggle rather more with his suggestion that our being a new Parliament means the Bill has been rushed. A number of Bills have already made their way through the House since July. The machinery of government must be able to continue at the pace required to react to change, particularly for a Bill such as this where we are responding to evermore challenging and complex types of fraud. The Department for Work and Pensions alone lost £9.7 billion to fraud and error last year, which suggests to me that urgency is required. On that basis, I see no issues with the timings of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Eligibility verification
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in schedule 3, page 84, leave out line 12.
This amendment would remove pension credit from being a ‘relevant benefit’ for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment 25, in schedule 3, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit”.
Amendment 29, in schedule 3, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.
This amendment would remove the provision for regulations to change the list of qualifying benefits.
Amendment 35, in schedule 3, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert
“remove types of benefit from the definition of ‘relevant benefit’”.
This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.
Amendment 24, in schedule 3, page 84, line 25, at end insert—
“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”
Schedule 3.
Andrew Western
Before I address this group, may I make a brief correction? I confused my information notices earlier: it is 10 days to comply, with no right of appeal, but we are happy to have conversations with those who, for whatever reason, are unable to provide the information that we require, and to work with them to ensure that they can.
I will speak to clause 74 and schedule 3, and then colleagues can speak to the various amendments. Clause 74 inserts proposed new section 121DB and proposed new schedule 3B, which is outlined in schedule 3 to the Bill, into the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The proposed new clause and schedule contain provision for the eligibility verification measure, and they must stand part of the Bill so the Secretary of State can issue a bank or other financial institution with an eligibility verification notice, which will help the DWP to identify incorrect payments in the social security system.
Ensuring that a person is eligible for the benefit they are receiving will help to prevent fraud and genuine errors so that people do not accidentally build up large debts, with all the worry and distress that causes. The measures before us are tough on fraud, but they are also about: fairness to those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system; fairness to those who make errors, by helping to identify potential errors sooner; and fairness to taxpayers, by ensuring that every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it and are legally entitled.
Fraud and error in the welfare system were responsible for the overpayment of almost £10 billion in 2023-24. Since the pandemic, £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been incorrectly paid to those not entitled to that money. These measures alone will save £940 million over the next five years, up to 2029-30—a figure that has been certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
An eligibility verification notice issued under schedule 3B will require a bank or other financial institution to look within its own datasets and to provide data to help the DWP identify where someone might not meet the eligibility criteria for a particular benefit. To do that, the notice will contain defined criteria that the bank or other financial institution must use to detect accounts that might not meet the eligibility rules for a certain benefit—for instance, accounts that receive universal credit but have over £16,000 in capital, which is above the normal limit to remain eligible.
Only then, if there is an indication that an individual may not be eligible for the benefit they are receiving, will the bank or other financial institution share limited information about the account to allow the DWP to undertake further inquiries, as necessary. We know that a customer might hold money in more than one account, and not necessarily in the one that receives the benefit payment. For that reason, schedule 3B requires a bank or other financial institution to look at all the accounts it provides to the individual, and to compare them with the criteria set out in the notice.
The measures also contain important safeguards to protect benefit recipients and associated individuals, to protect their data, and to ensure that it is not unduly onerous for a bank or other financial institution to comply with an eligibility verification notice. Those safeguards, which are extensive, include clearly restricting who the DWP can collect information on, and for what purpose; clearly restricting how the DWP can use the information gathered under these powers; tightly limiting the accounts in scope, including the sharing of data on UK accounts; limiting the type of information that can and cannot be requested, with clear provisions that certain data, such as information on transactions, cannot be shared; and showing that a human will always be involved in decisions that affect benefit entitlement. A code of practice must be produced, providing guidance for financial institutions on their obligations under this legislation.
To protect the privacy of our customers and associated individuals, such as appointees, we must take steps to ensure that limited information is shared with the DWP—the minimum to enable further inquiries, where necessary. That is why part 2 of proposed new schedule 3B outlines provision for a comprehensive penalties regime to prohibit banks or other financial institutions from sharing information that is not permitted to be shared under the measure, as outlined in paragraphs 1(4) and (5). This can include information about individual transactions and special category data, such as data about an individual’s health, ethnic origin or political opinions.
If a financial institution wishes to dispute a notice, it has recourse under proposed new schedule 3B. Specifically, it will have access both to a process to ask the DWP to review the decision to issue a notice, as set out in part 3 of proposed new schedule 3B, and to an appeals process to formally dispute the requirements of a notice, as set out in part 4. Part 5 will mean that the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice to govern the use and operation of the measure, including data received under it.
I said I would spend a moment on codes of practice where appropriate, so I will now speak to this in more detail. The code of practice for EVM will provide further guidance for banks and other financial institutions on complying with notices, and information for those who may be affected by the measure. It will include detail on the eligibility of verification notice and its purpose, including how it will be sent, who should comply with it, and further details on the accounts in scope, such as linked accounts and appointees. It will specify further the type of information that the DWP will request from financial institutions, and the type of information that is prohibited, such as transaction and special category data. It will also set out how the DWP will use the data received in response to a notice, beyond what is in the Bill.
The code will also set out more detail on the safeguards to ensure that the measure is exercised in a proportionate and measured manner, along with the mechanisms embedded to ensure accountability. This includes safeguards for individuals, financial institutions and the data itself, as well as the independent oversight of the measure. It will explain how data must be handled and treated once received, along with the confidentiality and security requirements and compliance with rules and provisions set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK general data protection regulation. It will also set out clear avenues for compliance concerns to be raised.
The eligibility verification measure is projected to save £940 million over the next five years, and it is a vital part of a package of measures that will save up to £1.5 billion over the next five years.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, it would be immensely helpful if Members could say whether, at this stage at least, they intend to press their amendments to a vote. They will, of course, have a chance to change their mind if the Minister persuades them otherwise when he winds up.
Rebecca Smith
As we have just heard, clause 74 amends the Social Security Administration Act to give power to the Secretary of State to obtain information for the purposes of identifying incorrect payments of certain benefits. I think that is fairly self-explanatory, so I do not have any questions.
Schedule 3 provides further detail on eligibility verification measures, but what happens when people have an account with a bank or financial institution other than the one that DWP payments are made into? We talk a lot about linked bank accounts, but it is implied that one bank will be looking to see whether a person has multiple accounts. However, people have much more complicated lives.
How does the Minister intend to ensure that we not only look at the account into which the benefit is paid, so that the investigation is more thorough? Thinking specifically about National Savings & Investments—a Government account into which people save money—are we going to make sure that a person’s entire suite of bank accounts are included, or just the one into which the DWP pays money?
That leads me on to my amendments. As the official Opposition, we have tabled amendments 24 and 25 to schedule 3, relating to the scope of who may be subject to the legislation. I will also speak to the amendments tabled the hon. Members for Torbay and for Brighton Pavilion during my comments.
Amendment 24 would include within the scope of the Bill accounts held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person. We have tabled that because it would mean that proxy accounts are not excluded and wider patterns of potential organised fraud could be monitored and prevented over time. Without that measure, we believe that it would be easy for fraudsters to deliberately evade monitoring.
Steve Darling
I am sure that many colleagues will be alive to the fact the proposals before us mean that one in eight will be affected by these quite significant powers of mass surveillance. Will the hon. Lady advise us on how many more people will be affected by including housing benefit in the proposals?
Rebecca Smith
If I may, I will come to that when I speak to amendment 25, which deals with housing benefit. I think it will be simpler if I deal with the amendments separately, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question.
We believe that we should look at the recipients of what are essentially proxy accounts because, without that measure, it would be easy, as I said, for fraudsters to evade monitoring deliberately, and therefore investigations and consequences. The Bill in its current form will be limited in how it can tackle welfare fraud, which is one of the main purposes of the legislation. Ultimately—maybe with the exception of error—where people are determined to commit fraud, there are numerous ways of doing it, and if the Government’s Bill is not enabling that significant investigation, we believe that it will fall at the first hurdle.
We also believe that the proposal has the value of increasing protection for vulnerable or older people who may otherwise be unwittingly targeted by those seeking to defraud the DWP. In effect, therefore, this amendment broadens the scope of fraud prevention, ensuring that any misuse of benefits by third parties is identified, and that includes those who are acting as a proxy. We argue that this is, in effect, a tidying-up amendment to enhance the measures in the Bill and to ensure that the legislation does not create loopholes before it has come into force.
We have also tabled amendment 25, as we believe that we should add housing benefit to the list of benefits that fall within scope. If we are serious about tackling fraud and error, we should want to expand the relevant benefits as far as we can, while ensuring that the cost-benefit analysis remains proportionate. Although housing benefit is in the process of being replaced as part of the roll-out of universal credit, as of November 2024, 2 million claimants of traditional housing benefit remain. New claims, as Members will know, can still be made for housing benefit by people who have reached state pension age or who live in supported, sheltered or temporary housing. Receipt of benefit is dependent on household income, including savings and capital, among other criteria.
Amendment 25 provides a focus in our debate on economic impact and cost effectiveness. The current accredited official statistics, published by DWP in its report, “Fraud and error in the benefit system”, show:
“The Housing Benefit overpayment rate was 6.3% (£980m) in FYE 2024, compared with 5.7% (£860m) in FYE 2023… Overpayments due to Fraud were 3.9% (£600m) in FYE 2024, compared with 3.5% (£530m) in FYE 2023.”
That represents £600 million of lost taxpayer money. The report continues:
“Under-declaration of financial assets (Capital) was the main reason for the changes across total Housing Benefit overpayments”—
I know that came up quite a lot during our evidence sessions. The report also states that at a total level, capital fraud
“increased to 2.2% in FYE 2024, compared with 1.3% in FYE 2023.”
We know that that is a significant problem. Indeed, as we heard in evidence from the Minister about capital fraud, the amount is eye-watering. Often this is about error, but equally, it does still mean that people fall out of scope for receiving benefits. That increase is statistically significant and highlights why we believe that housing benefit should be brought within the scope of the Bill, if the Government are truly serious about tackling welfare fraud and error.
Steve Darling
I reflect to the hon. Member for South West Devon that accusing somebody of being short-sighted when they have a guide dog with them is a bit of a juxtaposition, but it was taken well.
The Liberal Democrats and I have grave concerns about this Orwellian approach to mass surveillance, and that the proposals are overcooked. I go back to my concerns that the DWP is, sadly, not fit for purpose. One has to look only at the significant delays throughout the system and the challenges within that Department, and yet we are looking at granting it massive, extremely significant powers. The DWP already has the ability to intervene where it suspects fraud, and we welcome that where there is reasonable suspicion, but to actually subject people to this approach is outrageous. Some of the evidence I heard when I consulted people from disability groups is that people with mental health issues may be fearful. They may think, “Because the Government Minister is looking in my bank account, I can’t afford the nice cheesecake from Waitrose. I can only shop in discounted supermarkets because the Minister is going to be watching what I am doing.”
Turning to our amendments, we have grave concerns that the approach could be the thin end of the Government wedge. We have therefore tabled amendment 29 to put a clear restriction on the proposals, ensuring that what is before us is set in stone rather than allowing for mission creep.
On amendment 30, we know from the debacle around the winter fuel allowance that getting pensioners to step up to the mark and claim pension credit has been a real challenge. I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that pension credit is an area where there are significantly lower levels of fraud. There are already low levels of fraud generally throughout the benefits system, but the pension credit levels are extremely small.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I think the Conservative spokesperson just gave the figure of £500 million in pension credit fraud and error last year. Is the Lib Dem spokesperson saying that that is not very much?
Steve Darling
We need to make sure that there is a level of proportionality. On pension credit, proportionality suggests to me that pensioners are often extremely private people, and they will fear that the Minister will be looking through their shopping bills. Although there may be reassurances, this is still the presentation of what parts of our society may see as a Big Brother state. We have concerns about the impact, and by excluding pension credit specifically through amendment 30, we would serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society in the best way we can.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak against clause 74 and schedule 3, and to support my amendment 35, which I intend to push to a vote. I also support the two Liberal Democrat amendments, and will vote for those if they are pressed.
In short, I am opposed to clause 74 and schedule 3 standing part of the Bill, and to the related powers that apply to the eligibility verification process. These powers do nothing less than bring in a system of disproportionate, mass financial surveillance of millions of people who have done nothing wrong and are not suspected of any wrongdoing. It is of profound concern that these powers are likely to be used at scale to monitor the private bank accounts of people who need the support of society and have done absolutely nothing to arouse suspicion.
One of the changes that people wanted to see when they voted out the last Government was a welfare system that treats people with dignity and respect. Sadly and disappointingly, these parts of the Bill are based instead on blame and suspicion of people in need of help, when the bigger issue is unclaimed and underclaimed benefits due to a lack of awareness, complexity in the system and stigma. I asked the Minister in the evidence session whether he would be using these new powers to also help alert people who are underclaiming benefits to what they may be due. The answer was not very clear, but I think it was no, because only the possibility of overpayments and reclaiming those was discussed.
I do not want to tweak these proposals—I want to prevent these two parts of the Bill becoming law at all, because they would allow the DWP to require banks and other financial institutions to provide information about claimants of universal credit, pension credit and employment support allowance in order to interrogate their claims of eligibility and entitlement. I assume that every claim would be examined over time. That means a huge new invasion of citizens’ privacy.
Currently, if someone is out on the street, the police can only use suspicion-less stop and search on them if they have a section 60 notice in place, which involves setting out a clear reason, identifying a small area and identifying a fixed time for which that would take place. The Bill effectively puts a section 60 notice around every single person who claims these benefits. These people include, disproportionately, people from protected groups—disabled people and older people. This is a real problem; it is discriminatory, unsettling and unfair.
On the numbers, around 7 million people receive universal credit, around 1.4 million pensioners receive pension credit, and around 1.5 million get help from employment support allowance. These powers will drag nearly 10 million people directly into a net of intrusive financial surveillance, as well as those appointed to receive benefits on their behalf, including parents, carers, appointed people and landlords. Given that several of these benefits have eligibility requirements based on household income, we are bringing in family members as well. Unsurprisingly, these measures are of huge concern to disability rights, poverty, pension and privacy groups, who are united in their opposition to them.
Ideally, I want to see everything struck out, but amendment 35 to schedule 3 would at least mean that more benefits could not be added to the list of relevant benefits by regulations. It would leave in place the ability for Ministers to remove benefits through regulations in future.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, set out on Second Reading the risk of damaging trust in and engagement with the DWP for millions of people who might otherwise not claim benefits. I raise that problem because I believe that underclaiming is as much of a problem as fraud and error and should be getting as much attention.
On proportionality, it is incumbent on Ministers to come up with a new, more proportionate way to address fraud, where there is reasonable suspicion. I am not against the issue being looked at, but I add that administrative errors are 8% of the problem. They are caused by the DWP’s mistakes and should not result in a need to treat as suspects people who might make errors in their claims due to lack of clarity in or awareness of requirements.
It is absolutely right that fraudulent uses of public money are dealt with robustly. To that end, the Government already have significant powers to review the bank statements of welfare fraud suspects. Ministers did not hear me complaining at the new powers to require more information when there is a reasonable suspicion of somebody having committed fraud. This eligibility requirement goes way, way beyond.
There are automated decision-making powers coming through in another Bill, which impacts on this Bill and the assurances we have received from Ministers. They say that no automated decisions will be made based on the eligibility verification data alone and that, where potential fraud is identified against those eligibility indicators, cases will be referred to the DWP for further consideration and investigation. However, assurances by the DWP that a human will always be involved in the decision whether to investigate an individual are not set out in the legislation, and the scale and nature of any human input is very unclear, despite its having been promised.
Furthermore, as we heard in oral evidence, while assurances about human involvement are also provided for under current data protection law, the Data (Use and Access) Bill currently making its way through Parliament will remove any proper prohibitions on automated decision making. Those must be included in this legislation, in the code of practice or in the regulations. I believe it is for the Government to produce urgent amendments to solve the problem.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is important for us all in this place to remember that, although we make legislation with the best of intentions, it does not always play out perfectly in practice. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I heard evidence a few days ago from a number of claimants who have had a very bad experience at the hands of the DWP. Their overall theme was one of antagonism and hostility from the service, and they described a number of serious problems.
That is the attitude that, unfortunately, many claimants and many people across the country have. They think that the objective of the DWP is to catch them out rather than to help them—rightly or wrongly, that is what they feel. In that context, the title of this Bill covers “fraud and error”, not “fraud and genuine human mistake”—which, frankly, is what goes on a lot of the time.
I say that particularly in the context of our amendment 30 relating to pension credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has described, pension credit is an area of relatively low fraud. However, there are more elderly and vulnerable people who are more likely to make an error, particularly in the context of the removal of winter fuel payments. There is a little extra onus on pension credit, and we are trying to push greater take-up. About a third of eligible people do not claim pension credit. Part of the reason is that many of them feel intimidated by the process and the feeling that they are getting something that they should not have. It is fear that holds them back.
A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said she would “move heaven and earth” to try to push that take-up higher, because we never seem to get past that 65% to 66% level. In that context, this feels like a retrograde measure, likely to depress rather than to encourage take-up.
Neil Coyle
Could the hon. Member give us the figures on the increase in pension credit take-up for the period during which a Lib Dem held the position of Minister for Pensions?
John Milne
That was before my time and I was not even in the country, so I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
It is very important that we should be pushing take-up, not sending it into reverse. For that reason, I ask the Minister to reconsider the need to include pension credit; that the upside—the amount of money that might be recovered from fraudulent claims—is relatively modest compared with the potential downside of putting more people off claiming.
Regarding amendment 29, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, we have heard from many witnesses, such as Big Brother Watch, about the risk of mission creep and these powers being extended in too many directions. It seems to me completely unnecessary to simply give the Minister of the day the power to add whatever benefits he or she feels like at that time. There is no need for it. Excluding that now does not affect the tax take or the potential benefit for the Government, and it seems an unnecessary and disproportionate power. I urge the Minister to reconsider the inclusion of that measure.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
I want to make a few points, because I am worried that some Members are underestimating the level of fraud and the direction of travel, because it is only going up.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is correct in a sense in saying that people voted for change and that fairness in the welfare system is one of the things they voted for, but part of that is about having confidence in the welfare system. People can see the level of fraud, and they want the Government to restore the balance so that it is less in favour of people committing fraud.
I encourage those Members who are apprehensive about these elements to visit their local jobcentre. I did two visits at my local jobcentre in Kingswood; I had to go back because the work coaches had so many stories to tell. Members of the Work and Pensions Committee will have heard me say this before, but I spoke to two women: one had been there for 45 years and the other 41 years. They said the level of fraud is something that they have never seen before. I wish they were here now, because everything that they said about how we deal with it was about getting information from banks and other agencies and sharing that information on eligibility and combating fraud. I wanted to make those points and I encourage Members to speak to them.
Siân Berry
Does the hon. Member recall me talking about clause 72 and not speaking up about speeding up the electronic getting of information from banks when people are under suspicion? Does he agree that there is a barrier at that point?
Damien Egan
I really appreciate the point, but I think if hon. Members were to spend time and speak to work coaches—as they may have done—they would find that work coaches want, and are asking for, more of that information to be shared. It is also about trying to prevent people from committing fraud.
Andrew Western
I will make a few general comments on the thrust of hon. Members’ contributions, beyond the comments that they made about their amendments, and then I will speak to the amendments as one at the end of my contribution.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, talked about people who bank with more than one financial institution, and asked what happens if their benefit is paid into one institution and they have savings in another. She is right that we will not have full sight of somebody’s accounts if they bank with more than one institution. That is by design, specifically because of the concerns we heard from other Members about the scope of the Bill. Were we to take the power to check every single account in the country, there would understandably be significant outcry about proportionality; indeed, we have heard some of that with regard to what I would call the limited scope of what we are putting forward.
I would be especially concerned were we to attempt to narrow the scope by sharing the details of benefit recipients only. That would breach an important safeguard that we have built into the eligibility verification measure: namely, that we will not share data directly with banks. I do not think there would be a way to do that for somebody who banks with more than one institution without either checking every single bank account in the country—which would not only be a mammoth undertaking, but would lead even me to use words such as “mass surveillance”—or sharing data in the other direction, which I am incredibly keen to avoid.
This is a question of scope. We have gone a considerable way in narrowing the scope of this eligibility verification measure. It most obviously compares to the third-party data measure that the previous Government put forward in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. That did not make the same interventions to narrow scope—for instance, removing the state pension—nor would there have been independent oversight of the process.
The hon. Lady is correct that there is a question about what happens when somebody banks with more than one institution. I assure her—this is a really important point from a fiscal perspective—that the savings that we have earmarked against the Bill and the eligibility verification measure are based on the principle of checking only the institution into which the benefits are paid. That does not mean that we would check only that account, however, so if the person had more than one account—a current account, a savings account and so on—that would be in scope, albeit business and charity accounts are explicitly ruled out.
The hon. Lady also asked about the capacity to better protect older and vulnerable people. That is incredibly important. Clearly, there is already a range of safeguards across the Department to work with people who present to us as vulnerable. We have specialist staff who work with those people and a vulnerability management framework within the Department to ensure we work as best we can with people who need additional help and support. She is right that that may manifest more in cases involving pension credit, and we will do all we can to work with people in need of additional assistance.
That does not mean that we get everything right, but we have made strides in our day-to-day support for vulnerable people, both when they apply for benefits in the first place, and when they owe debt to the Department for whatever reason. When we come to the debt recovery powers in the Bill, I will say significantly more about the vulnerability protections that we have built into the Bill and have more generally across the Department.
That brings me to the general comments that the hon. Member for Torbay made. I will avoid some of the more hyperbolic language—“Orwellian”, “mass surveillance”—and go straight to one of my favourite things: a Waitrose cheesecake. I assure him that, as expressly set out on the face of the Bill, transactional data will not be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions under the eligibility verification measure. He says that people are saying that that should be of concern to benefit recipients; I suggest that those of us in this House have a particular responsibility not to peddle those sorts of myths.
I am compelled to address the overarching accusation that the DWP is not fit for purpose. We are not a perfect organisation and do not claim to be, but we support millions of people, week in and week out, pay out billions of pounds, week in and week out, and provide a vital safety net for people up and down this country. I am proud of the work that we do. That does not mean that we do not need to strive to make improvements or that we are in any way beyond reproach. But I have to say that the role we play in supporting the most vulnerable people in society is absolutely critical for this Government.
Siân Berry
I hope the Minister will not take this the wrong way, but I hope that he is able to understand that the stigma that people feel about applying for benefits is partly to do with the attitudes people have towards those who receive benefits. The idea of the Government applying a privacy invasion measure against that cohort of people as a whole feels like discrimination to them. It adds to the stigma; it speaks to the fact that they feel that they are not treated as well as other people in society. They are not believed when they say that they do not have £16,000. Those are all parts of the same package of discrimination, are they not?
Andrew Western
They would be, were the powers entirely unique. However, as we heard in the evidence of the representative from HMRC, there is a long-standing power—introduced, I believe, in the Finance Act 2011—for HMRC to routinely and regularly check all interest-bearing bank accounts in the country. I have not looked at the cohort of people who are fortunate enough to have interest-bearing bank accounts, nor have I ever been in such a position myself, so I plead ignorance here. However, I suspect that there is not the same over-representation of vulnerable groups.
The important point—this comes back to the broader point around automated decision making, AI and so on that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion made—is that we are looking to better improve our access to data, not take decisions as a direct result of the information we have received. Indeed, we have built in human decision making at every stage of the five areas where we are taking new or updated powers on the DWP side of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I referred to the proposals as Orwellian, and my concern goes back to “Animal Farm” where the notice was amended to read:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
We have this perverse situation with the legislation where for some sections of society it is appropriate for the Government to use AI to go through their bank accounts, and for other sections of society it is not appropriate to use AI to go through people’s bank accounts. How does that lead to a society that is cogent and speaks together? Or is this just sowing division around our communities?
Andrew Western
It is incredibly important to reiterate for anybody who may be watching our proceedings that the Government will not be going through anybody’s bank accounts. We will be asking banks and financial institutions to do that, and to share information with us only where there is a potential breach of eligibility verification. The information that is shared with us will be specifically related to identifying the bank account and the potential breach of eligibility. It will not be, for instance, special category data or transactional data.
To return to my point about the use of AI and automated decision making, when a flag comes back on the eligibility verification measure, a potential breach of eligibility will immediately be passed to a human investigator to take that forward. It will not at any point trigger a penalty or a prosecution for fraud without a human intervening and, as they do at present, establishing that there is potentially fraudulent activity or, indeed, an error that warrants a reclamation of overpayment.
Amendment 30 seeks to stop the DWP from being able to use the eligibility verification power in respect of pension credit. We have had quite the debate about that already, and the hon. Member for South West Devon made many of the points that I would have made.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
According to the House of Commons Library, one of the biggest factors in that 10% of pension credit expenditure that is lost to fraud and error is payments to people who are abroad. How will the measures on eligibility verification help to identify people who do not actually live in the country so would not be eligible for pension credit?
Andrew Western
I am grateful beyond belief to the hon. Gentleman, because he highlights why this provision is so important. More than 50% of the fraud and error that we see in pension credit comes from two principle sources, which the eligibility verification measure specifically seeks to address. One is the issue of capital fraud, where there is a relatively easy indicator—for example, in respect of universal credit, was the individual in receipt of capital in their account of more than £16,000?
The provision also has the benefit of helping us to establish when somebody has been out of the country for longer than their benefit entitles them to be. For instance, it would provide a flag on an account when somebody’s bank account suggested they had been making purchases abroad and so on. We would not receive the transactional data or know specifically where the purchases were made—or, indeed, whether it was cheesecake or some other item—but it would give us specifically the date that somebody left the country, and thereby show whether they were in breach of the length of time they are allowed to be away. This is not, then, just a tool to deal with capital fraud, although that is the most straightforward example to articulate and, therefore, the one I use most readily; it will also be useful to identify people who have been abroad for longer than their eligibility suggests they should be allowed to be while continuing to receive benefits.
It is important to recognise—I touched on this when I set out the human safeguard that is in place—that a flag would not necessarily mean that someone has done anything wrong, or that they are no longer entitled to benefits. On capital fraud, it might be because someone has received, perfectly legitimately, a Government compensation payment, such as for infected blood, which would be out of scope. That is why a human would check that. The person would therefore not lose benefits or receive an overpayment.
On someone being out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be—if they have been taken ill, or if there has been an environmental catastrophe, humanitarian disaster or some such, that means they are unable to leave the country they are in—again, that would be investigated. The person would not face action as a result. I hope I have set out exactly how the eligibility verification measure is useful not only for capital fraud, but for allowing us to notice and receive indications about when someone has been out of the country for longer than they are entitled to be while still receiving benefits.
As I said, on amendment 30, the hon. Member for South West Devon touched on many of the comments that I would have made about why pension credit is included. The change would not explicitly exclude pension credit, as with the state pension, because the legislation still enables Ministers to lay regulations for its inclusion at a future date. My intention, however, is to use the power for pension credit payments from the outset, because unfortunately the rising trend in overpayments of pension credits demonstrates that pension-age benefits are not immune from fraud and error.
In 2023-24, £520 million in pension credit was overpaid, and pension credit has one of the highest rates of capital fraud and error, with £198 million lost in 2023-24 alone. The rate of fraud in pension credit increased by more than 50% in 2023-24, as against the previous year, so we have a clear problem. The under-declaration of financial assets and claimants staying abroad for a longer period than is allowed remain the two main causes of pension credit overpayments in ’23-24. As I said previously, they accounted for more than 50% of all overpayments.
Equally, it is important to ensure that people receive the right payments. The eligibility verification measure is not about removing pension credit payments from anyone; it is about confirming that claimants meet the conditions of entitlement. The measure also enables the Department to help to prevent individuals from unknowingly accruing overpayments, pension credits or any other benefit in scope, which could lead to financial stress if later they need to repay money they were not entitled to.
Overall, the measure and the inclusion of pension credit will help the DWP to ensure that public funds are used responsibly while maintaining confidence in the benefit system. On that basis, I will resist amendment 30.
Rebecca Smith
Before we move on from pensioners, throughout the debate there has been a valid concern about pensioners potentially being alarmed at or feeling vulnerable about what might happen. Will the Minister clarify something? Any pensioner who is not involved with pension credit is not likely to fall within scope of having their bank accounts checked, so only those people who are interacting with the Department in one shape or another are likely to have their bank accounts searched, and only in relation to those benefits. Every single pensioner out there will not have their bank accounts scrutinised; only someone of whatever age or bracket who is, or seeks to be, in receipt of benefits will fall within the scope of the Bill. Am I correct in believing that? That would at least reassure a proportion of pensioners—although not all—that they are not, as we said, going to get snooped on for buying a cheesecake. They will fall in scope only if they end up interacting with the Minister’s Department.
Andrew Western
I am happy to confirm that the situation is as the hon. Lady articulated. Only someone in receipt of one of the three benefits initially in scope would face use of the eligibility verification measure.
Steve Darling
Will the Minister confirm whether, once the Bill has passed, he could choose to increase the scope to include all pensioners?
Andrew Western
That brings me to amendment 25, which seeks to include housing benefit, and to later amendments on the affirmative procedure regulations that we propose for being able to bring other benefits in scope. We would need to do that to reflect the changing nature of fraud and the fact that fraudsters, unfortunately, change their behaviour and the benefits they target depending on the safeguards in place and the extent to which they are effective. Therefore the answer to the question is yes, and I will say more on that when we come to the specific amendments in that space.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 19
Meaning of key expressions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Stuart, for what will be a marathon session. Clause 19 provides definitions for the key expressions used in relation to the electronic devices measure. These definitions mean that the measure will focus the powers only on irregular entrants who are in possession of an electronic device that authorised officers have reasonable groups to suspect contains information relating to facilitation offences under the Immigration Act 1971.
Furthermore, clause 19 defines “authorised officer” as:
“an immigration officer, or…a constable of a police force maintained by a local policing body”.
The aim of the powers is to gain access to information held on such devices on the organised crime groups who help facilitate or plan migrants’ dangerous journey and, as a result, to save lives from being lost. The clause is integral in defining the key expressions relating to how the powers can be used.
Clause 20 enables immigration officers within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and police constables in England and Wales only to search an irregular entrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are in possession of an electronic device that contains information linked to a facilitation offence. That power enables the search of a person, property, premises, vehicle or container. That is to ensure that, in any circumstances in which it is necessary to obtain a device, the authorised officer can use the powers to conduct a search. The clause contains safeguards to ensure the powers are used appropriately. Clause 20 provides clarity over how searches must be conducted in accordance with these powers.
Finally, clause 26 defines any additional expressions referenced throughout clauses 19 to 23. That will ensure that it is clear to users of the powers what key expressions mean. It is important to be transparent about what is meant and to ensure that the public and authorised officers fully understand these expressions.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
We support clauses 19 to 26, but only in so far as they endorse powers that we think already exist to seize, extract and retain data from mobile devices. Clause 19 provides definitions of key terms in sections 20 and 21 relating to the provisions of those clauses to allow authorised officers to search for, seize and retain relevant articles. The definition of a “relevant article” is
“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971 is, or may be, stored in electronic form.”
Will the Minister provide some concrete examples of what the Government think such information might consist of?
Clause 20 gives relevant officers—either an immigration officer or a police constable—powers to search a relevant person, which is someone who has entered the UK without leave or in breach of a deportation order. Will the Minister explain why subsection (2) does not allow for any more than one search after the person in question has arrived in the UK? The clause gives officers the power to search for “relevant articles”, which are described in clause 19 as
“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission (whether in the past or future) of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971”.
That is quite a narrow definition, as it covers just electronic devices. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary powers to search for non-electronic items exist elsewhere? In practice, we suspect the power will be used to gather information and evidence to identify smugglers for prosecution. We fully support that, but most mobile devices are destroyed during or prior to travelling across the channel. Will the Minister therefore explain whether she expects any of the evidence gathered using the powers in these clauses to be used to support decision making on immigration enforcement?
If the devices are seized, as the former director general of Border Force pointed out in his evidence, they may contain useful information about nationality, identity, age and travel history, and may provide valuable evidence when assessing asylum claims. Will the Minister explain how effective the new powers will be in supporting evidence gathering to remove those with no right to be here? Will information gathered using these powers be available to asylum screening teams? Will that evidence be used in decision making for immigration appeals? These clauses do not have extraterritorial reach, so can the Minister explain to what extent the Government envisage these additional powers will make a meaningful difference to smashing the gangs, when many of the perpetrators are located outside the UK?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
These clauses create invasive new search, seizure and retention powers, along with the powers to access, copy and use information contained within an electronic device. The new powers can be applied to any person who arrives irregularly and has not yet been granted permission to enter or remain in the UK. They allow an immigration or police officer to fully search a person, including a search of that person’s mouth. I expect that the Minister will tell us exactly whether that particular qualification is required for these new powers.
This is not the plot and setting of some future dystopian film: it will be the UK sea border in the course of the next few months. These things will not be done to hardened criminals wandering the streets of the United Kingdom or those associated with violent crime. They are to be done to some of the most abandoned and traumatised people in the world. With these clauses we are starting, measuredly, to go into police state territory. They are essentially a hybrid form of stop-and-search powers, without the due qualifications and reassurances. I do not know if profiling will be a part of this—I will be interested in the Minister’s response—but it seems like only one profile will be included in all that, which is that of every asylum seeker. They may all be subject to these new powers.
For these powers to be exercised, there need only be reasonable grounds and suspicion that a relevant article appears to store some electronic information that relates or may relate to the future or past commission of a facilitation offence. That seems excessively broad. Practically any person who arrives irregularly to the UK may be subject to these powers. Any information received from these searches would be used for preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting facilitation offences. The property can be retained for as long as considered necessary to assess, examine or copy information for use in proceedings for an offence, before being returned or disposed of.
I trying to think why the Government want these clauses. I know they are going to tell us it is all about helping to disrupt organised crime and making sure they can find particular and specific information on electronic devices, but I think a lot of it has to do with the 2022 High Court ruling decreeing that the Home Office’s secret policy of blanket searching, seizing and returning mobile phones from individuals arriving by small boats was unlawful.
Just like the Tories before them, if any particular law that defends and protects people is seen or deemed to be a little bit unnecessary, the Government will just bring in a new one to override it completely, forgetting anything to do with the consequences and implications for people. These new offences clearly compromise a person’s right to a private and family life. Given the confidential, legally privileged, sensitive, private and personal nature of the messages, photographs, information, correspondence and data that may be on such mobile devices, we hold that that could only ever be the case. To be fair, the Government respect that and acknowledge it as fact, and the European convention on human rights memorandum suggests that the new powers could be distinguished and that phones will not be seized on a blanket basis when these powers come into force—well, thank goodness for that.
The memorandum says:
“The Home Office will issue non-statutory guidance about the use of the powers and training which will be required for authorised officers exercising those powers.”
We will have to see that happen pretty quickly, because we have no idea how any of these powers will be exercised. Again, I am entirely happy to take the Minister at her word on how the new law will be exercised as we go forward. However, there is no such guidance for parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, so it remains entirely unclear how the Home Office proposes to use these wide and invasive new powers.
I am distinctly uncomfortable with the new powers, and I am disconcerted about how they may be applied and used. A number of agencies have serious misgivings about the type of individuals who will be subject to these new powers. The Minister has to explain just a little more how these powers will be used and what protections will be put in place, particularly for some of the most traumatised people whom we will be ever deal with in this country.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I very much welcome this element of the Bill on electronic devices. While clause 22 will give officers powers to seize digital devices that are believed to be used for the purpose of people smuggling, clause 23 gives suitably trained and accredited criminal investigators the powers to access the information on mobile devices, phones and laptops that will build the evidence base, history, connections and understanding of the routes of the criminal gangs.
Seizing and extracting data from mobile devices is a powerful tool already used by our security services. There are already established Home Office guidelines on this, and these clauses extend those powers and will help enable intelligence-led profiling of irregular arrivals. That key change will lead to greater opportunities to disrupt the trade of these awful gangs.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I want to make just a couple of points on the seizure of phones. We have to be incredibly realistic about the threat that the country faces and how these things are organised. We have seen people-smuggling networks and trafficking networks developing in complexity and scale. It does not start in France; it goes all the way through European countries—our allies—and then through countries that are very difficult for us to engage with, including some countries that are at war and some that are hostile states.
The evidence from the National Crime Agency is very clear that the networks are organised by phone, and that that is the primary means by which these criminals orchestrate them. We know that they are evolving, so it is really important that we give officials the power to seize those phones not only to understand where these smuggling networks are coming from, which is the only way to intercede and save people in unsafe vessels, but to disrupt those networks later.
We heard a whole set of arguments earlier about the insufficiency of deterrents in stopping sea crossings. Professor Walsh from the Migration Observatory was really clear that the demand is inelastic. No matter how many deterrents we introduce, there will still be some demand rising to meet them. That is why disruption is so important, which we can only happen if we have the ability to seize those phones. There is a really important distinction between targeting the demand and targeting the supply of the ability to cross the channel.
On the point about whether the powers are applied on a blanket basis, they are not. The Home Office is clear that there will be statutory guidance. The people who seize these phones will be subject to the same rules that are already in place on the handling of material seized from any individual, and they need those powers. The point about family life and private life is absolutely fair, and it applies whenever someone’s phone is stolen, which is a wider debate that we have in society. The truth is, there is no capacity to only seize part of someone’s phone. We cannot seize only some data and not detect, for example, private text messages or family photographs. It is proper that the Home Office officials who seize such data are subject to the rules that we have in this country about protecting the data and returning it when it is decided that it is not required, but we cannot separate out different types of data, and we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we did not allow the powers to seize it.
Dame Angela Eagle
The proposed powers will enable immigration officers and the police to search for, seize, retain and extract information from electronic devices, but only based on two criteria. The first is reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has a relevant electronic device and that it contains information that relates, or may relate, to the commission, whether in the past or future, of an offence under sections 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971—the facilitation offence.
The second criterion is that the person must be an irregular arrival or entrant. Currently, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is on the statute book until we get this Bill made into an Act, allows for blanket seizure, and searching for all purposes, of all phones. We are repealing that very wide power and replacing it with this one, which is much more targeted than the IMA one.
The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted that we should use this clause to widen the powers, or allow all the information on the phone to be used for all purposes. That is not what we are suggesting. In fact, part of the reason why the Illegal Migration Act powers of seizure was never operationalised is that building the sheer capacity to take everyone’s phones off them and download the contents and analyse what was on all of them defeated the powers that be, and the technical ability to do so has not yet been developed.
It seems to us, from talking to organisations in the police, and the National Crime Agency, who follow these things very closely, that the best and most targeted way to get at some of this information is to have these criteria. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect, and that is not a blanket thing. These are intelligence-led powers, which will lead us potentially to certain individuals, so that we can take a device off them and analyse what is on it.
Experience suggests that what is on such devices can be very revealing. I will not list things here, because I do not want to produce a list of things that people should not leave on their phones that is essentially public, but we all use our telephones and other devices in ways that we all know about, and we probably would be very sobered if we realised how much Apple knows about us, for example, just by looking at its own records. A lot can be gleaned, but there must be reasonable suspicion that the individuals whose devices are taken are involved in facilitation—not just coming over, under section 24, but under section 25, which is facilitation, the more serious offence.
The hon. Member for Stockton West said he thought those powers already existed. In the Illegal Migration Act, yes, but they are completely uncommenced and not put into effect, and are far too blanket to be useful. There is a current power to seize, but that power does not enable immigration officials or police constables to search and seize devices in many circumstances at all. First, a person must be under arrest before that can be done, and we think that, as part of our intelligence-led, counter-terrorism-style powers to defeat organised immigration crime, being able to search a bit ahead, and certainly ahead of an arrest, is a useful power, so that is what these clauses provide for.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked whether information found on phones could be used for asylum casework. No, we do not think that is appropriate. This focused power allows us to search for information and evidence about organised immigration criminality, not about any other aspect of the person’s existence. There are clauses that we will come to later, however, that would enable us to operationalise the information we have, particularly if other crimes come to light as a result of a search.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Powers to seize and retain relevant articles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 21 provides immigration officers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and police constables in England and Wales, with the power to seize and retain electronic devices. Clause 21 provides a clear and detailed approach for authorised officers to ensure that the powers are correctly, efficiently and effectively used.
Matt Vickers
Clause 21 gives authorised officers the power to seize any electronic device that has been found in a search under clause 20, or is not found on a search but appears to the officer to be, or to have been, in the possession of a relevant person. How would officers determine whether an article appears to be or to have been in the possession of a relevant person? What is the evidence threshold for that?
My question for the Minister about clause 21 is similar to my one about clause 20. Will the powers be used to gather evidence that can be used in immigration decision making and appeals? The Opposition support the powers in this clause, in so far as they go.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the powers, but I emphasise to him again that clause 21 is very much in the context of the clauses that we have just agreed. It is a more limited—not a blanket—power. It exists within the parameters that I set out in the previous debate.
I emphasise again that none of the information seized in this context could be used in an asylum case; it is for the purposes of dealing with organised immigration crime. It is not for wider purposes, unless other criminality is found, in which case it becomes available and can be passed on. That will be dealt with in some clauses that are coming up. But these provisions are limited to collecting evidence and intelligence on organised immigration crime from people who have just entered the country illegally.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Duty to pass on items seized under section 21
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 22 will provide immigration officers using the powers with the duty to pass on electronic devices to other agencies, such as the police. The clause will be used if an electronic device seized contains information about a non-immigration offence—this is the case that I was hinting at earlier. Clause 22 provides the process to be used in these types of cases. We cannot seize an electronic device without that process in place, because we may discover information relating to a criminal offence, such as a counter-terrorism offence or an offence related to indecent and/or obscene material of a child—those kinds of offence. If we discover evidence of such activities on a phone, we must act, and to act we have to have the processes in place to enable items to be forwarded to police or any other agency that needs to take possession of the device for its investigation into the other criminality.
The clause provides for a robust step-by-step process to ensure that immigration officers know what actions to take to forward the device or if the agency to which we wish to forward the device refuses to accept it for an investigation.
Matt Vickers
Clause 22 gives authorised officers the duty to pass on seized items that have been found in a search under clause 21 where there is a reasonable belief that the article or information stored on it has been obtained in consequence of, or is evidence in relation to, an offence other than the relevant immigration offence. The immigration officer is under a duty to notify someone who has the functions to investigate the relevant offence. What might be the reasons why a person notified under the clause might not accept the article, and what would be an acceptable reason? If a relevant person refuses to accept the article, what are the next steps? We support the powers in the clause so far as they go.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a bit difficult to talk about specific circumstances in a generalised way. As the hon. Gentleman will perceive, there may be some material on a phone that police or immigration officers are worried breaks the criminal law—I talked about counter-terrorism and child sexual exploitation as potential examples. That information may be passed on and the relevant authorities might decide that it was not at a criminal level—that would be the kind of occasion that the hon. Gentleman was asking me about.
However, one would assume that, with the appropriate training, it would be fairly obvious whether something would be a worry for the purposes of counter-terrorism or child sexual abuse, and police forces could understand whether they have an obligation to try to prevent criminal activity of a category other than that for which the phone was originally seized. Once we begin to seize phones for narrow purposes, we have to make certain that passing on that information is lawful, and that is the purpose of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Powers to access, copy and use information stored on relevant articles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Access to mobile phone location data—
“(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 86 (Part 3: interpretation), after subsection (2A)(b), insert—
‘(c) illegal immigration.’
(3) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(4) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 10, (electronic monitoring condition), after subsection (2)(d) insert—
‘(e) involve the tracking of P using P’s mobile phone location data.’”
This new clause would allow law enforcement to access mobile phone location data of people who enter the UK illegally.
Dame Angela Eagle
I will wait until the hon. Member for Stockton West has spoken to his new clause before I respond to anything he says about it; I will briefly outline what clause 23 does and if the hon. Gentleman wants a reply, I will come back at the end.
Clause 23 will ensure that authorised officers can assess, examine, copy and use information stored on a relevant article. It will enable authorised officers to copy the information from electronic devices so that the device can be returned to the owner as soon as possible. The clause is vital to enable authorised officers to obtain the information needed in relation to facilitation offences under sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, to use for purposes relating to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of such an offence. It is very much targeted at organised immigration crime and the facilitation of illegal entry to this country.
Clause 23 will help the Government to tackle organised crime groups, protect migrants from exploitation and prevent lives from being lost on dangerous journeys across the channel. Obtaining that information will further focus our approach to tackling organised crime groups, identifying as early as possible the trends in the activities of gangs, including their modus operandi, and providing the Government with improved information to prevent future fatalities.
Matt Vickers
Clause 23 gives authorised officers the power to access, copy and use information stored on relevant articles that have been retained under powers detailed in clause 21, and authorises the use of any information retained under this clause relating to the prevention, detection and investigation, or prosecution of such an offence. We support the powers in the clause. However, it is important to bolster the utility of the powers in clauses 20, 21 and 23. It is for that reason that we have tabled new clause 22, picking up on the suggestion made by the former director general of Border Force in his written evidence to the Committee.
We have tabled the new clause because currently Border Force and immigration enforcement officers are not able to use mobile devices to track illegal migrants on bail. Although powers exist for electronic tagging, there are difficulties with using these powers and so they are not frequently used. At present, mobile devices can be used only for tracking people for serious offences. Under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, an illegal entry into the UK does not count as a serious offence for these purposes.
Mobile devices are often used by migrants on bail to report by phone rather than in person, which minimises their risk of arrest and detention on reporting. Without access to location data about illegal migrants, they are able to stay at addresses not listed on their bail forms. If immigration officers were able to make use of location data from mobile devices, they would be better able to secure compliance with bail conditions and thus reduce the risk of absconding.
New clause 22 would allow law enforcement to access the mobile phone location data of people who enter the UK illegally. It would do so by adding illegal immigration to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 as a serious offence that allows location data to be used. We would also amend the Immigration Act 2016 to allow a person’s mobile phone location data to be used as part of electronic monitoring for immigration enforcement.
Of course, migrants can change phones, but they are more likely to make use of them than electronic tags. In our view, the new clause would add a useful new power to immigration enforcement teams. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s view.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 22 proposes an amendment to section 86(2A) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, I do not think that this proposal is either necessary or appropriate.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides law enforcement and other relevant public authorities with the ability to acquire communications data covertly, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Members of the Committee should particularly focus on the seriousness of the powers conferred in the 2016 Act, including the ability to covertly acquire communications data where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
With new clause 22, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to add immigration issues to that area of the law, and whether, with an immigration issue, it would be necessary and proportionate to start acquiring covertly communications in an immigration setting. It is important to consider whether that would unbalance the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and cause some issues that would probably weaken it.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is intentionally neutral on the specific types of crime for which the powers within it can be deployed. Instead, it sets a threshold for serious crime, to enable access to more intrusive powers. The threshold for the acquisition of communications data—the who, when, how and where of communication, but not the content—is set out in section 86(2A) of the Investigatory Powers Act. Events data, which includes details of where and when a specific communication took place, is available only for crimes that meet the serious crime threshold. The threshold at section 86(2A)(a) of that Act is a crime for which a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment can be handed down.
The proposed new clause does not define illegal immigration, but many of the immigration offences in section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as recently amended by the Nationality and Borders Act, will already meet the serious crime threshold. There is no real reason to put immigration crime in there; it is already implicitly included. If we start to add particular instances, that will unbalance the way that the Investigatory Powers Act works. That is a technical point, but it is about keeping our statute book coherent, rather than adding things in for effect. Essentially, since offences under section 24 of the 1971 Act are indictable, the serious crime threshold would already be met, so events data can already be acquired as part of the investigation. We do not need to go through the rigmarole in the new clause to emphasise what is already possible.
Where offences do not meet the serious crime threshold, it would not be proportionate to extend the use of events data to those crimes. The right to private and family life is set out in article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is important to uphold our obligations to the European convention on human rights. I know that is not always the most popular thing among Opposition Members, but as someone who voted for it in 1998, I am still quite proud of it. Defending our human rights and ensuring that such things are proper, proportionate and lawful is an important part of trying to pursue and deal with difficult cases with certain standards of behaviour.
Although article 8 is a qualified right, we must ensure that interference remains necessary and proportionate to the level of criminality. By introducing specific crime types that do not meet the sentencing threshold, we risk eroding the safeguards in the regime. By taking away the rights of people who may seem marginalised at the moment, I submit that we are putting at risk our own rights, and human rights in general. That is not something that I would want the Government to do.
New clause 22 would also unnecessarily amend schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016. Where a person is subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of their immigration bail, the Home Office can access their location details via the GPS tag or non-fitted device. There is no need to access mobile phone location data, because there are already powers to monitor the whereabouts of individuals at risk of absconding. I hope that, having had that debate, the hon. Member for Stockton West will realise that those things are already covered in the way that we currently do things. I hope that he will not press the new clause to a vote, but obviously we will not know until we get on to voting on it—some time in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Amendment of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clauses 24 and 25 deal with amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, extending those powers to other authorised officers and to key definitions in the clauses. Clause 24 includes amendments to the 2001 Act to extend powers of seizure where a device may contain legally privileged material, excluded material and special material. The 2001 Act also contains essential safeguards for the handling of such material. Extending its powers will ensure that the seizure of any device will not be prevented by claiming that it holds legally privileged, excluded or special material, which is often an excuse that is raised when such matters come up.
Furthermore, clause 24 will ensure that this data is protected, but that operationally, the information needed can still be taken for the purpose of these powers, and that seized electronic devices are returned as soon as reasonably possible.
Clause 25 provides the Secretary of State with the ability to extend the powers to other authorised officers, via secondary legislation, if they are required to support the disruption of organised immigration crime. The Government will ensure that any decisions on extending the powers to other authorised officers will be fully considered before action is taken.
Matt Vickers
Clause 24 amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 so that provisions relating to the protection of legally privileged material and excluded and special material apply when mobile devices are seized under clauses 20 to 23. Can the Minister explain how often the Government envisage that those provisions would need to be invoked?
Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend the powers given to authorised officers in clauses 20 to 23, to be available to other people, including people designated by the Secretary of State. Why might these powers need to be extended to different categories of people? Who does the Minister have in mind? Why are those not included on the face of the Bill? Why was it judged appropriate that these powers are subject to the negative procedure?
Clause 26 defines key terms used in the preceding clauses, and we have no problem with those definitions.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Clauses 19 to 23 contain very wide powers. Often, police constables have those powers only when they are authorised and monitored by their superiors, but the powers in the Bill almost allow civil servants and immigration officers to use them without oversight. Clause 25, first, allows Ministers to extend those powers to privately employed staff, and secondly, does so without requiring Ministers to give directions for the exercise of those powers. That sits very poorly with me. I am quite concerned about that. I can understand why we need some broad powers, and I was happy to let the others go through on the nod, but clause 25 seems to go further still. Could the Minister try to reassure me—or us? Particularly, would the Government agree to issue directions for the use of those powers, either today or before MPs vote fully, on Report? I think some colleagues out there will say that the private sector should not have these powers, but if they are clearly identified and statutory guidance is issued, I would feel a lot more reassured.
Dame Angela Eagle
The first thing to say is that the powers under the Criminal Justice and Police Act are already used by law enforcement and apply in many statutes. Therefore, all of these powers will be used to ensure compatibility with ECHR protections, GDPR protections and data protection generally. We have a very high level of expectation when it comes to data protection in these instances.
Both hon. Gentlemen—the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Woking—have asked about the extension to further authorised people, which is potentially available as part of the clause. It is not unusual—the hon. Member for Woking has made this point—for the Government to hire and use contractors, on either a short-term or a long-term basis, depending on demand or business needs. One example that comes to mind in this context would be for a forensic data specialist to do analytics of the information that had been downloaded. [Interruption.] I am very sorry if that is me. Hopefully it is not.
Some of this is about ensuring flexibility in the statute, within the protections that I have just talked about—the GDPR, data protection legislation and ECHR requirements —to be able to deal with the information in all circumstances without having to come back to primary legislation. Clearly, those people would be working under the same data protection expectations and requirements as any directly employed person working for the Home Office.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
New clause 23—Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals—
(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) of section 15 (Exemptions etc), at end insert “, and makes provision about the exemption from all GDPR provisions of persons who entered the United Kingdom illegally and foreign criminals;”
(3) In paragraph (2) of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) GDPR provisions do not apply if the data subject entered the United Kingdom illegally or is a foreign criminal.
(1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)—
(a) a person “entered the United Kingdom illegally” if they entered 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; and
(b) “foreign criminal” is defined in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.”
This new clause would disapply data protection laws from data on people who have entered the UK illegally or are Foreign National Offenders.
Dame Angela Eagle
Again, I will reserve my comments on the new clause until after I have heard what Members on the Opposition Front Bench have to say about it.
The group entails clauses 27 to 29, which cover the arrangements for HMRC to supply information that it holds in connection with its customs functions. The group also covers new clause 23, which I will try and separate out so that I can try to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West, once he has put them.
Government Departments like the Home Office and law enforcement partners rely on information sharing for a range of purposes, including law enforcement and border security-related purposes. Key datasets are held by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, many of which are held in connection with HMRC’s customs functions. Existing statutory provisions to share this information are complex, fragmented and restrictive in ways that prevent the Government from taking full advantage of technology such as modern big data analytic tools.
Clause 27 will create a new power for HMRC to supply information that it holds in connection with its customs functions to a range of recipients, including UK Ministers, Government Departments, police, and certain international partners. HMRC will be able to supply information for use for the purposes of any of the functions of the recipient.
The sharing of entire datasets and the use of customs information for more than just customs purposes will enable the Home Office and other partners to analyse the information to identify suspicious activity that would not be apparent if each dataset were considered in isolation. This will support key Government objectives, such as disrupting and dismantling organised crime groups, preventing the unlawful movement of people and goods into the country, prosecuting offenders and protecting vulnerable people, as well as the Government’s safer streets mission.
Clause 28 regulates how the information supplied under clause 27 may be used and disclosed by its recipients. The aim is to ensure that the information is fully safeguarded while also enabling Government Departments to use information received for any of their functions. That will ensure that maximum benefit can be derived from the information received.
Information shared under clause 27 is subject to a general rule: the person who receives it must only use it for the purposes for which it was supplied. They may not further disclose it to anyone without HMRC’s consent. However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule that will enable certain recipients to use and disclose information more flexibly. UK Ministers, Government Departments and the police will be able to reuse customs information for any of their functions and further share it between themselves for specified border security and law enforcement-related purposes. Additionally, there will be extra onward disclosure permissions for the Home Secretary so that she may disclose the information to any person for use for certain immigration and customs-related purposes.
Clause 29 regulates how the information supplied onwards in accordance with clause 28 may be used and disclosed by its recipients. The aim is to ensure that the information is fully safeguarded. The clause focuses on making clear the restrictions surrounding the reuse and onward disclosure of information supplied under clause 28. Any person supplying information in reliance on clause 28 or 29 must notify the recipients of these restrictions, as they apply to the reuse and onward disclosure of the information. In recognition of the particular importance of protecting HMRC information, which can include a great deal of personal information, clause 29 extends the existing criminal offence of wrongful disclosure under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to apply to any person who discloses information in contravention of these restrictions.
The intent of clause 29 is a continuation of the safeguards laid out in clause 28, while ensuring that none of the restrictions go against the spirit of the overall information-sharing provision. Clause 29 protects information from being shared beyond the provision’s intent. I will not deal with new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West until he has spoken to it.
Katie Lam
We welcome the powers in these clauses to share HMRC data. Border Force is responsible for clearing both people and goods at the UK border. There is international precedent for moving towards joint targeting centres for people and goods. From a law enforcement perspective and from ours, the more customs information that can be shared with UK and other Government agencies, the better. HMRC has a range of customs functions, including the collection and management of customs duty, monitoring and controlling the movement of goods, and control of cash entering or leaving the UK. HMRC is bound by a statutory framework of confidentiality and needs a lawful basis to disclose information.
Clause 27 will allow HMRC to share customs information in support of defending the security of the UK borders. The clause allows UK Ministers, Government Departments and the police to reuse customs information for any of their functions, as the Minister laid out. The clause also allows data to be shared with international organisations that have functions relating to the movement of goods or cash across international borders, or if an international arrangement makes provision for co-operation between that organisation and HRMC. We welcome the powers in clause 27. I would like to ask the Minister how often she expects these data-sharing powers to be used for law enforcement and her assessment of what practical effects the powers will have on making it easier to disrupt organised crime networks.
Clause 28, which we support, specifies the circumstances in which UK Government Departments, Ministers and the police can further share customs data. We also support clause 29 on the safeguards included in this clause. We have tabled new clause 23 to disapply data protection laws from data on those who have entered the UK illegally or are foreign national offenders. The purpose of the new clause is exactly the same as the purpose of clauses 27 to 29, which is to minimise barriers to data sharing between agencies for immigration and law enforcement purposes. We table it in the spirit of the support I have already mentioned for the Government’s aims regarding data access.
If someone has entered the UK illegally or is a foreign national offender, law enforcement for their removal is vital and GDPR legislation should not stand in the way of being able to gather and establish any necessary evidence for use in immigration appeals or law enforcement. We wish to remove the barriers to data sharing in these cases, and we know the Government want that too. We hope that they will find the suggested new clause useful.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to new clause 23. As she said, it seeks to disapply the protections afforded by the UK GDPR regulations to people who have entered illegally or who are foreign criminals. I think that would massively complicate data protection legislation, given that we would always have to keep an eye on who is a foreign national criminal or an immigration offender, over time as well as in the moment. That could make it harder to apply some of the data-sharing rules.
We believe that with the protections in clauses 27 to 29, we can get and share the information that we need to share, to its greatest effect, while protecting people from unlawful disclosure, without complicating things further by trying to check whether somebody is a foreign national offender or has entered the country illegally.
We have a strong history of maintaining high data protection standards. The legislation permits the use of personal data for legitimate purposes, such as immigration control, while giving the public the reassurance that such use will be subject to proportionate safeguards. Our approach will be to rely on the proportionate safeguards, rather than to disapply the entirety of data protection laws to certain groups of people who happen to be in our society at the moment. The proportionality test, with the focus on organised immigration crime, is important.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the lesson learned from the previous Government, with the blanket application of some seizure powers under the Illegal Migration Act being so complicated that they were not actually enforced properly—as we learned from one of our witnesses—is a cautionary tale illustrating why new clause 23 should be rejected?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is certainly a good idea to create legislation that can actually be commenced. Otherwise, we are just all having a fun time in Committee— I can see everyone agreeing with me—and not affecting the statute book, making it easier to do what must be done or enabling the law to help with that rather than having a gigantic problem. As a Minister, I am certainly in favour of enacting laws that we can commence, and I hope that we will be able to commence large parts of the Bill as soon as it has made its proper progress through both Houses.
The UK has a long history of maintaining high data protection standards. Complicating them by trying to disapply them for certain individuals who are in our society whether we want them to be or not implies that we would have to keep very up-to-date, regular records of every single person in the country to check their status. That sounds like ongoing identity checks across the whole population, and that is easier said than done. It is not Government policy, and I did not think it was Opposition policy either. Although the new clause is well meaning, it is a complication rather than an assistance.
Where the exercise of data subject rights, such as the right to seek access to personal data, could undermine the tasks, appropriate exemptions can be applied on a case-by-case basis. Disapplying data protection rules in a blanket fashion for certain groups is unnecessary and could disadvantage some of the most vulnerable people in society, such as victims of trafficking. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Weald of Kent will not press new clause 23, with the reassurance that we think that these clauses give us the power to use big data and big data analytics in a way that is in keeping with data protection laws, the GDPR and the ECHR.
Katie Lam
I take the Minister’s points about practicality, but in situations where new clause 23 created additional complexity, the Home Office would retain the option to adhere to the GDPR if it wished to; it would just not be forced to do so. We really think that the provision would be a useful addition and we hope the Government will consider it further. However, we do not intend to press it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Supply of trailer registration information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clauses 30 and 31 concern the sharing of trailer registration information. Clause 30 creates a clear discretionary power for the Transport Secretary and, in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to share some or all of the trailer registration information they hold with the Home Office, for specified purposes related to border security and law enforcement; the National Crime Agency and HMRC, for use in connection with their statutory functions; policing bodies, for purposes of policing law enforcement and safeguarding national security; and specified persons in the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar for purposes equivalent to their UK counterparts.
The measure is designed in recognition of the limited timeframes that law enforcement bodies have to review information and take decisions when risk-assessing thousands of lorry movements into the UK each day to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute crime, and to conduct checks at the roadside. Border Force intends to use this information, alongside customs information and other information it holds, to develop a richer picture of vehicle movements and enable timely interventions. For the police, the National Crime Agency, HMRC and recipients in the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar, the value of the information will be realised via the law enforcement data service, which will provide it on demand at the point of need.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I am sure that if we cast our minds back to 2019, we will all remember the awful case where 39 Vietnamese migrants died in the back of a trailer in Essex. Reading reports of what people found when they opened the lorry, and hearing about people dying in excruciatingly painful ways, makes us all realise that everything we are doing is about trying to stop harm to vulnerable people and save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that this group of clauses will make it easier for data held by DVLA on UK-registered trailers to be shared with our law enforcement and police, and that as a consequence we might be able to avoid more misery and loss of life in such excruciating circumstances?
Dame Angela Eagle
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That is at the higher end of the harms that one would hope could be prevented by more timely access to this kind of information. These clauses will ensure that those charged with securing the border and beyond can use the information in line with the range of threat types enabled by cross-border lorry movements such as the one my hon. Friend just mentioned, to ensure that the law enforcement community engaged in tackling organised immigration crime, and wider serious and organised crime, are able to tackle it at pace.
Clause 31 complements clause 30 by setting out how information received by the Home Office and the police may be disclosed onwards, with whom and for what purposes. Robust inter-agency and international co-operation is crucial to smashing the criminal gangs. Border Force routinely works with the National Crime Agency and the police for the purposes of criminal investigations connected with the smuggling of people and illicit goods, and with HMRC for customs purposes.
The police, in turn, need to be able to alert law enforcement partners to identify specific trailers of interest. Border Force and the police also need to be able to alert European law enforcement partners to intercept trailers where there might be a threat to life and in support of cross-border co-operation against illicit goods. This clause, subject to safeguards contained in clause 32, enables just such an outcome to be achieved.
Katie Lam
Clause 30 provides a power for the Secretary of State for Transport to supply trailer registration information to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for immigration purposes, law enforcement purposes, human welfare purposes, purposes connected with functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, protecting national security, and responding to an emergency. The information can also be shared with the National Crime Agency and HMRC.
We support the powers in the clause. As with the previous group of clauses, this is about being able to bring together the information held by different arms of the state to defend the border, and we wholeheartedly agree with that. I must confess that this is going to be a fairly friendly section of the afternoon, for which I can only apologise to all involved.
Clause 31 provides powers for the onward sharing of information in clause 30. It is important that that information can be shared with those exercising public functions, including those outside the United Kingdom. We also support the new powers in the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Sections 27 to 31: general provision about disclosure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
This group includes clauses 32 and 33, which provide for safeguards with respect to the customers and trailer registration information-sharing provisions, which we have just agreed will stand part of the Bill, as well as providing clarity about the meanings of terms within those clauses.
Clause 32 makes general provision about the disclosure of information with respect to clauses 27 to 31. That is information held by HMRC in connection with its customs functions, as set out in clauses 27 to 29, and the DVLA’s trailer registration information in clauses 30 to 31. The clause does two things. First, it clarifies that clauses 27 to 31 do not limit how information may be disclosed outside of the scope of this legislation. It does not tie the hands of a named party to disclosing information subject only to the regime established here if another information gateway exists. Secondly, it clarifies that nothing in clauses 27 to 31 authorises disclosure where it would contravene UK data protection or investigatory powers legislation. In deciding on that, the clauses are to be taken into account. Clause 32 neither treads upon other legal regimes to disclose information outside of the scope of this legislation nor permits anything that would fall foul of existing statutory safeguards—a perfect, balanced approach.
Clause 33 makes provision for the interpretation of clauses 27 to 31—the terms used, their scope and limits. First, it defines the meanings of certain terms through direct definition and in reference to other legislation. Secondly, it seeks to capture all UK police forces and bodies that might be the end users of the information, referring to a “UK authorised person” and a “UK authorising officer” for the purposes of clause 30, and defining what it means in this clause.
The use of the terms “UK authorising officer” and
“the person under whose direction and control the constable…is”
avoids reliance on references to chief constable, commissioner and chief officer, because those terms have prescribed legal meanings that exclude the commanders of the very important ports police and the even more important Mersey Tunnels police, which rely on other ranks to command. That ensures that the definitions apply to everybody, whatever the force. The ports forces and the Mersey Tunnels police are an extremely important part of defending the border, for obvious reasons.
For “UK authorised person”, the term constable, which includes special constable, is used. The clause also refers to
“other person who is under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables”.
Such is the poetry of legislative diction, but lawyers know exactly what that means. Instead of police civilian staff, or similar terms with prescribed meanings, we have that rather long and convoluted explanation, which includes everybody. That is because not all forces employ police staff subject to employment contracts. Some also use police volunteers. The MOD police uses civil servants in such roles, while the Police Service of Northern Ireland has powers to use civil servants separately from employed police staff. Use of “other person” accommodates all these cases, so it is all-encompassing, and I hope we have not missed anybody out.
Thirdly—this applies only to the trailer data—we have worked with the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar to identify persons undertaking statutory functions equivalent to their UK border security and law enforcement counterparts. We have defined them as a non-UK authorised person and specified them in a table along with the authorising officers.
Finally, the clause establishes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of specified purposes related to policing to ensure that the data requirements are met today and can be updated from time to time as operational requirements evolve. Such an extension would be subject to consultation with policing bodies across the UK, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and it would require the affirmative resolution of both Houses. With those reassurances, I hope members of the Committee will be happy to support clauses 32 and 33.
Katie Lam
Clause 32 makes general provision about the powers of disclosure in clauses 30 and 31. Subsection (2), as the Minister laid out, clarifies that nothing in clauses 27 to 31 authorises disclosure where it would otherwise contravene data protection or investigatory powers legislation. How much difficulty does the Minister envisage these provisions causing for the sharing of information? I seek reassurance—she has offered some already—that the safeguard will not frustrate legitimate data-sharing activities. Clause 33 defines key terms included in clauses 27 to 31, and we have no problems with it.
Dame Angela Eagle
I reassure the hon. Lady that we do not envisage the definitions causing any practical problems with data sharing and the powers defined in clauses 27 to 31.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Provision of biometric information by evacuees etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 34 is critical to the Government’s ability to manage crises and support evacuations effectively. Where the UK Government are considering or have facilitated an individual’s departure from a country in crisis, it is essential to lock in identity and conduct necessary biometric checks at the earliest opportunity, for obvious reasons. Clause 34 ensures that there is a clear legal framework for collecting biometric information outside the UK in these exceptional circumstances. The clause includes important safeguards, particularly for children, to ensure that biometric data is collected responsibly. The provision reflects the UK’s commitment to maintaining both security and efficiency in high-risk international evacuation situations.
Katie Lam
Clause 34 provides a power for an authorised person to take biometric information when the Government are in the process of facilitating their exit from a state or territory. The purpose of the power is to ensure that only those who qualify under particular evacuation schemes are able to come to the UK. The power to take biometric information should help to verify identity and conduct screening checks, as individuals in these circumstances are often undocumented. We fully support the provision.
We would be interested to hear more about whether the Government intend to take further action on biometrics, which could be brought about through the Bill. Countries such as Dubai and Singapore are investing in biometric entry and exit systems, as is the EU. The UK does not routinely capture biometrics at the border, although with the new UK electronic travel authorisation, we will collect digital photographs of all non-visa nationals, with the option of retaining fingerprint scans.
We are aware that there are logistical and financial challenges to enabling Border Force to collect biometrics routinely from all passengers on arrival and departure, but there are also substantial benefits, including helping to match illegal migrants and asylum seekers leaving the country, thereby giving a clearer picture of those who are overstaying through more accurate migration figures. We would be interested in hearing how the Government are thinking about biometrics more broadly in the context of their not extending the power to capture biometrics more widely in the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Working out the potential for electronic borders and a more sophisticated approach to the hundreds of millions of journeys that cross our borders every year is an important part of the day job of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. This is a more limited clause, but we are certainly investigating the potential, costs and benefits of a much more digitalised border. We are not about to introduce that through this Bill, but there will be more to be said when that work has been done in due course.
We understand the potential for making border crossings much more convenient for everybody while having more robust information about who has crossed borders, and when and where they were crossed. Some of this is about goods, trailers and a range of other things crossing borders, and ensuring that we have information on when people smugglers and clandestines cross borders, too.
Tom Hayes
I note that clause 34(3) sets out the requirement for an authorised person only to take biometric information from a child under the age of 16
“in the presence of a person aged 18 or over who is—
(a) the child’s parent or guardian, or
(b) a person who for the time being takes responsibility for the child.”
Does the Minister agree that we ought not to disapply the requirement for consent on such tests for children who are under the age of 16?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is important that we uphold standards and have those requirements, which is why the clauses we are debating do that. These clauses deal with the need, in an emergency situation, to evacuate people who are British citizens and/or people who live in families that include British citizens. It is about being able to get them to safety but, at the same time, to collect biometric information so that we can check who they are. It is much more effective for us to do that at the earliest opportunity rather than getting them to the UK or on UK territory and having to do it then. That is why the clauses will put us in a much better situation from the point of view of identity and security checks, if there is an emergency evacuation of British nationals from a particular place in the future, which we hope will not happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Provision of biometric information at ports in Scotland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Clause 36 will enable the biometrics of persons detained in Scotland under schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to be taken at ports, thereby bringing the position in Scotland into line with that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Those schedules allow an examining officer—a constable, or a designated immigration or customs officer—to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port, or at the border area in Northern Ireland, for the purposes of determining whether the person appears to be a person who is, or has been, engaged in terrorism or hostile activity. An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is, or has been, engaged in terrorism or hostile activity. Those are important powers that allow counter-terrorism police officers to detect, disrupt and deter terrorism and hostile activity at the border.
The powers for taking biometrics in Scotland are contained in paragraph 20 of schedule 8 to the 2000 Act and paragraph 42 to schedule 3 of the 2019 Act. Clause 36 amends those paragraphs, removing the unnecessary restriction unique to Scotland that requires that those detained under those powers are taken to a police station to have their biometrics taken. The clause will allow biometrics to be taken much more easily and quickly in situ, rather than the person having to be transported to a police station.
Katie Lam
Clause 36, as the Minister has laid out, extends biometrics powers to ports in Scotland. As we understand it, immigration enforcement already has the power to take biometrics from people arrested in the UK, including at ports, if they are suspected of having entered or remained in the UK illegally. How does the Minister think that the clause will add to existing operational powers?
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a lacuna in Scotland rather than a problem elsewhere. It is simply that, in Scotland, biometrics cannot be taken except in a police station. In his 2020 report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended that we address the issue. We saw the Bill as an opportunity to deal with what is obviously an unintended kink, so we are ironing it out.
Dame Angela Eagle
At the moment, under Scottish law, biometrics—in this instance—must be taken in a police station. Everywhere else, they can be taken in situ. We are just bringing the situation in Scotland into line. It is a minor change, but it will have an important practical effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further considered be now adjourned.—(Martin McCluskey.)
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
English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance
(1 day, 9 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
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the financial sustainability and governance of English football.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Clubs across the country face unsustainable finances and poor governance, which is why so many MPs have gathered here to represent their local clubs. We have a range of clubs from up and down the football pyramid and up and down the country: from Brighton to Basingstoke, from Bolton to Luton, from Wolves to Aylesbury. We have MPs from various parties, and we even have Reading fans in the same room as Oxford United fans, showing the unity and strength of feeling across Parliament that football must have a sustainable future.
Before I go into the concerns that we all share, and the remedies we would like to see, I will give a brief history of how we got here. Since the premier league was formed over three decades ago, over 50 clubs in the top six tiers of the English men�s football pyramid have gone into administration. One of those clubs is Bury. After being sold for �1 in 2019, Bury went out of business and was expelled from the league. The following year, 2020, saw the demise of Macclesfield Town and Wigan Athletic going into administration. In the following year, 2021, while England�s top six clubs briefly broke away to try to form a European league, Derby County slipped into administration.
These clubs and this chaos is just the tip of the iceberg. According to research by the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, the majority of the top 92 clubs in the game are technically insolvent, meaning their liabilities exceed their assets. That is a precarious situation for any business to be in, but football clubs are not just any business; they are the foundation of many of our communities, and they bring many of us pride in the areas that we live in.
One of the clubs that might be technically insolvent is Reading football club, which has its home stadium in my constituency of Earley and Woodley. Reading is one of the oldest clubs in England, and had previously been known for its good management. Now, after four winding-up petitions, five points deductions and persistent late tax payments, Reading sits on the brink. I started getting involved with the campaign to rescue Reading football club when I bumped into some fans at a local fair in Woodley a few years ago, who had read my reporting in the Financial Times. They knew I had an interest in scrutinising companies with complex structures and distant owners, and they asked whether I had an interest in scrutinising a local company with a complex structure and distant owners. But fans should not have to do that kind of scrutiny. Life needs to be a lot simpler for fans just to be able to follow the game, and not worry about whether the game is up for their local club. So many fans have experienced what Reading has gone through, and we owe it to them to voice the problems that we see across the football pyramid.
I will pick out three particular problems, which I am sure will feel familiar for many of those listening: first, how clubs receive income; secondly, how they spend their money; and thirdly, irresponsible ownership.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Chesterfield football club wanted me to put on the record its support for the work of football governance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that, on the one hand, we have a monstrous success story in the level of money in football, but on the other, we have almost the entire English football league running effectively bankrupt and relying on the owners for bail-outs year after year? That simply cannot make sense as a model, can it?
Yuan Yang
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is an advocate for his local club, that too many clubs across the country are suffering from the unfair distribution through the football pyramid. In fact, that is the first issue I will describe: the problem with the money going in. The last four decades have seen a complete transformation in English football, which has been characterised by a widening gap between the clubs at the very top and the rest of the football pyramid. Ticket sales over that time have become less important as a source of revenue. Instead, the biggest source has become the multibillion-pound broadcast deals agreed by the Premier League.
We all celebrate the success of the Premier League�s dealmaking, generating the most revenue out of the big five European leagues. That dealmaking is notable for many reasons, not just the large amount of money involved. The 20 premier league clubs get together to sell a deal collectively. However, economists and competition lawyers have raised concerns about the impact that collective selling has on fans and smaller clubs, and they have argued that collective selling is justified only when there is a public benefit. However, most clubs do not currently benefit from these broadcast revenues. The vast majority stay in the premier league and, as a result, the gap between the top and the rest grows wider every season.
This season, premier league clubs and the four recently relegated clubs held on to 94% of the league�s broadcast revenues. That means that the remainder of the 68 clubs in the EFL received just 6%. In comparison, the German Bundesliga ensures an 80:20 split between the top two divisions. Meanwhile, the Union of European Football Associations�better known as UEFA�allocates 75% to the champions league and 25% to the two competitions below it. Those leagues have chosen those ratios because they find that it creates a sustainable pyramid for them. The EFL has long sought a similar distribution ratio with the premier league.
We want all clubs to work together to protect the pyramid as a whole because, without its base, the top of the game would crumble. As we all know, the pyramid serves as a platform for player development and talent spotting. Reading�s Michael Olise broke through locally and moved on to Crystal Palace, and I am sure that we can think of many such examples.
The national popularity of the premier league rests on our strong local football cultures, which are spread by clubs in their communities and the sports charities attached to them, working with people aged six to 60-plus. However, last year, the premier league and the EFL failed to agree a deal for a more equitable distribution of funding between clubs, underscoring just how sticky the first problem of income is.
The second problem is the money going out�the expenditure. Costs have been driven up to unsustainable levels. The concentration of riches in the premier league creates an overwhelming incentive to spend big and chase the dream. According to football finance expert Kieran Maguire, on average, for every �100 a championship club brings in through revenue, it spends �101 in wages. That is clearly unsustainable. Reading�s current owners, Dai Yongge and Dai Xiu Li, took over in 2017 when Reading was near the top of the championship. They also chased the dream. By 2021, Reading football club was spending over 200% of its annual revenue on player wages. Overall, Reading�s owners have invested over �200 million in the club. It is no surprise that they would spend at that level.
The NGO Fair Game has shown a clear correlation between how high a club is in the league and how high its spending is on wages. This competition is made more intense because of parachute payments, which I will not go into at length. However, overall, the pressure to compete means that clubs often spend beyond their means. This is unsustainable. We have spending rules such as financial fair play, but breaches continue to happen.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about costs. One of the brilliant football clubs in my constituency, the Aylesbury Vale Dynamos, really struggles with the cost of keeping its ground maintained. It is at real risk of flooding, and the cost of dealing with that is huge. The other club in my constituency, Aylesbury United, has not had a ground in Aylesbury since 2006. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the costs that they incur, having access to a secure and financially sustainable ground to play on is an essential part of the sustainability of vital grassroots football clubs?
Yuan Yang
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a deep interest in her local clubs. Fans need to be able to see their clubs perform in their local area. Many MPs who are in this debate have concerns about the relocation of their grounds or lack of appropriate grounds.
The final problem is ownership. The first two problems have shown how little incentive there is to be a well-run club that spends responsibly. Most clubs rely on a generous owner to stay afloat. When the good will or cash flow of that owner starts to run dry, clubs often have nowhere else to turn. Reading fans know the perils of this dependence. The current owners, the Dai siblings, put the club up for sale almost two years ago, but they have not been seen at the club in well over a year. Fans have mostly been kept in the dark. Credible bidders for the club�some of whom I have had the fortune to speak to�have made offers, and they have been turned down and dragged through lengthy negotiations. Bidders have faced difficulties in navigating the ownership structure of the club in which the stadium, the training grounds and the club itself have been separated into different corporate entities, and in which club assets have been used as collateral for other loans.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I can forgive her for being from Reading�at least she is not from Swindon. Oxford United, which I was grateful that she mentioned, must be able to move out of the Kassam stadium for which it is charged unviable rent, despite lacking a fourth stand and many other problems. Does she agree that the club�s exciting proposals for a new stadium in Kidlington must go forward, but that future governance models need to stop previous owners from entrapping clubs in unviable and unsustainable stadiums?
Yuan Yang
I very much agree. Stadiums are also vital community assets. I look forward to one day seeing Reading beat Oxford at the new Kidlington stadium.
What the EFL has at present is the use of fines. The owners of Reading have been fined on numerous occasions for failing to fund their monthly wage bill, but that has not changed behaviour. The most frustrating thing for Reading fans, as I am sure it has been for Portsmouth, Leeds, Bury and Charlton fans before them, is a feeling that the whole chaos could have been avoided if the EFL had had sufficient powers to implement a more robust owners test when the current owners, the Dai siblings, first took over.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I never thought I would say this, but I have a lot of sympathy with Reading fans at the moment. When I was a kid growing up, my team, Brighton and Hove Albion, experienced a lot of what my hon. Friend�s team is experiencing now. When Reading was well run by the Madejski family, Brighton were at the bottom of the league in very much the opposite scenario, and Brighton are now enjoying the other side of the pendulum. We have probably the best type of ownership. It is a fantastic model that everyone should try to emulate. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the lottery of ownership�the pendulum that went from, when I was young, Brighton having to sell their ground and play in Gillingham, to Reading now experiencing the problems that they are experiencing�is what we need to change with the regulator?
Yuan Yang
That is absolutely the case. My hon. Friend highlights the history of his club in Brighton. In the �80s and �90s when the future was unclear, it was down to the owners. Too much, unfortunately, is down to, as he mentioned, the lottery of ownership. Brighton and Hove is now a well-managed club. I think we can have many such positive stories across the country, including a positive story, and a positive outcome, for Reading, but the question about football governance and sustainability affects all of us in this room today.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a passionate speech and has done a great job of bringing us all to this Chamber. I lived through Reading�s trials through my stepson who is a season ticket holder� obviously, my first love is for the Whites in Salisbury. Does she not recognise the fundamental challenges of disturbing a market that contains one of our greatest national assets, which is the premier league? I feel quite torn and anxious about the scope creep of any regulatory intervention, although I accept that the core of what she says has a lot of merit.
Yuan Yang
I always appreciate my fellow Treasury Committee member�s comments on the correct regulation of markets, but I would argue that football clubs are not simply a commodity and football competition is not simply a market. If we were to accept that view and for the sake of argument say, �Let�s treat the competitions as a market�, I would argue that we have severe market failure when over 50 clubs have gone into administration in the last four decades. The externalities of that market failure are borne too much by the fans sitting in the room with us today.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We do not have competition right now. In the premier league, the three promoted clubs are almost certainly likely to go back down to the championship. The disparity of money and funding means we are losing what is the best part of English football: competition. If we really want competition, we have to make the money go down the pyramid more fairly.
Yuan Yang
I agree with my hon. Friend. Parachute payments skew the financial incentives in the game. I also agree that we do not have the full competition that would allow clubs to play their best game, which is what we fans want to see.
Why does all of this matter? It is about the community at the end of the day. Some might say it is only a game, but for many of my constituents the importance of our football club stretches beyond the game and into the community. Reading football club�s community trust is run by volunteers. It supports young people and promotes social inclusion and participation in sport. In many of our most deprived communities across the country, it is the local club that sets a model for aspiration.
Constituents always tell me how important Reading FC is to them and how important it has been to their families going back generations. Just the other day I received an email from a fifth generation Reading fan. One constituent wrote to me:
�Reading was and is a family club��
a club in previous years awarded family excellence status. Yet it is at risk of not being around for the families of tomorrow. Working with fan groups�some are here with us today�since my election last year, I have seen at first hand how motivated those volunteers are by this common cause. Fans want to see a competition for points; they do not want a competition to the death.
While Reading is in exclusive talks with a new potential buyer, we need to ensure that the same story is not repeated anywhere else, so I am delighted that the Government are bringing the Football Governance Bill through Parliament to create an independent football regulator. I will be meeting the shadow regulator in a few weeks to ensure that they have a full picture of what has happened at Reading, and what can happen when absent owners neglect their clubs. I encourage all Members to do the same. We need a right-touch regulator that helps us to build a football pyramid with strong foundations, and we need a football regulator that can pass the Reading test, so that fans elsewhere do not have to go through the problems that Reading went through.
Football has a problem around governance and financial sustainability, but fans and Parliament working together can fix it. I am glad the House is considering this motion.
Several hon. Members rose�
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. There are 29 Back Benchers wishing to catch my eye, so the speech limit will be a minute and a half. If you have to make an intervention, I respectfully request that it be very short. Remember that making an intervention may mean that you are not called in the debate, so please be considerate to colleagues. I will call the first Front Bencher at 2.28 pm.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate and for eloquently setting out many of the governance and sustainability issues in English football.
English football is central to the social fabric of Britain and is one of our greatest exports. It is more than a sport; it is the beating heart of our local communities. I agree with Bill Shankly: some people think football is a matter of life and death, but I assure you it�s much more serious than that. Each week, fans come together to back their club and create a shared sense of identity. The social impact of local clubs goes far beyond the pitch. In my totally unbiased opinion, there is no better proof of that than Luton.
Luton Town FC is at the heart of our town and has worked for years in partnership with local charities. The Luton Town Community Trust, which was founded in 2008, is a charity dedicated to delivering community service to people across Luton and Bedfordshire, using the power of football to make a positive impact in sports, education, health and social cohesion.
The club is at the heart of the town, and the fans are the heart of the club. Throughout the ups and downs of Luton Town FC�s journey, it has been the fans who stepped up to fight fiercely to protect our proud Hatters heritage when reckless ownership threatened to tear it down. The fan-led 2020 consortium bought out the club from further mismanagement after it went into administration in 2007.
We all know that Luton�s promotion in 2023 was historic, but that promotion was a springboard for further exciting prospects for our town. There are detailed plans for the Power Court site, which will be the new home of Luton Town FC. It will transform Luton�s economy by directly contributing between �100 million and �250 million per year and supporting between 900 and more than 1,100 jobs.
Despite the consensus that there is much to celebrate about the success of English football, the underlying governance structure and its financial sustainability are highly fragile. I am therefore delighted that our Labour Government have reintroduced a strengthened Football Governance Bill, delivering on our manifesto commitment to establish the independent football regulator and a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of our communities. Crucially, the Bill will ensure that fans are prioritised at the heart of the game, which is what our football clubs should be about. I am proud that Luton is already a great example of putting fans first.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this important and timely debate.
For places like Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, football is more than a game; it is the beating heart of our town, a source of identity, pride and belonging. Grimsby Town FC is an institution. It was formed in 1878 in the Wellington Arms on Freeman Street, and Blundell Park was built in 1899; one of the original stands is still in operation. Through the Grimsby Town Foundation, the club has generated more than �4 million in social value, supporting education, mental health and opportunities for young people.
For too long, the football pyramid has meant that clubs up and down the country have faced uncertainty through bad ownership, financial mismanagement and an unfair distribution of wealth. It has left many on the brink. I welcome the Football Governance Bill�s intent to address those long-standing issues. Introducing an independent regulator to protect clubs ensures financial sustainability and puts the focus back on the heart of decision making.
I commend David Artell and his team for their fantastic recent form�they have had seven games unbeaten and are pushing for the play-offs. We must ensure that our clubs and community assets are protected for future generations. I will end by saying: up the Mariners!
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this important debate. I echo her remarks about the betrayal of Reading FC by its owners and the importance of the club to families across Reading and Berkshire.
Although the home of the Royals now sits in my hon. Friend�s constituency, for more than 100 years of Reading FC�s long and proud history it was at Elm Park, just outside the boundary of Reading West and Mid Berkshire. It had a large open terrace at the western edge of the ground called the Tilehurst end, named after Tilehurst in my constituency. The passion and loyalty that supporters of the club show in my constituency are illustrated by the long queues of fans waiting to catch a bus to the stadium on a match day.
The only rivals Reading FC players and fans should be battling against are our friends in Oxford and Swindon. Unfortunately, the club has had to battle against the very person who should be its greatest supporter: its owner. I will not repeat what my hon. Friend said, as she explained the situation clearly, but I will say that she is a wonderful champion of Reading FC, along with other colleagues. I thank the supporters� groups, STAR�Supporters Trust at Reading�and Sell Before We Dai, who have been tireless campaigners, alongside all other loyal fans who have stood alongside their club.
None of that had to happen. It could have been prevented if Dai Yongge had acted in the interests of his club and if we had had proper regulation of the football industry and proper protection for clubs such as Reading. That is why I echo my hon. Friend�s call for a comprehensive inquiry and why I am so supportive of the Government�s Football Governance Bill, which will establish an independent football regulator.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing the debate. I declare an interest: I am a Norwich City fan and a King�s Lynn Town supporter.
The premier league is the most viewed league in the world and supports 90,000 jobs across the country, and league one is also very popular, so football is a success. I want to focus on the governance proposals, particularly in the Football Governance Bill. All fans would sign up to the key objectives of ensuring financial sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions and protecting heritage, but my concerns are about possible over-regulation and overreach. I welcome the amendments that have been tabled in the other place to introduce a growth duty into the Bill, which the Government previously resisted.
Of course, the provisions on revenues attract the most attention. Let us be clear that the proposal is for the Government to take the power to mandate how to divide the proceeds of football. Currently, there is a voluntary distribution of the revenues through the football pyramid, and that is essential to the health of the game. We are seeing the impact of the proposals: the EFL is refusing to negotiate with the Premier League and has said that it is waiting for the backstop powers to come into force.
The Government have made the proposals even worse by including parachute payments in the backstop. That is a complete mistake, because clubs such as Norwich need the certainty of parachute payments to invest so that they can compete in the league. That would ensure we have a competitive league that generates income. The EFL will not engage with the 3UP national league campaign, because it is waiting for the backstop before making a view on whether to get one more promotion from the national league.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
As I said in my brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), I have been contacted by Chesterfield football club, which is very keen that its support for the Football Governance Bill be known.
I would like to start by expressing the sadness that everyone in Chesterfield feels at the news that the club�s owner, Phil Kirk, has inoperable cancer and is receiving end-of-life care. He is the absolute epitome of a great owner and has absolutely transformed Chesterfield�s fortunes. Chesterfield has also had the opposite: Darren Brown almost took the club into insolvency at the same time that he was going to jail, so we know that there have been many owners who have let clubs down.
There have also been lots of owners who did everything they could, but were simply not wealthy enough to operate within a business model according to which the better a club does, and the further along the way it gets towards the premier league, the greater its losses are on every step of the way. It loses money by being promoted from league one to the championship. There is a perverse incentive where the financial success of the company gets worse the better it does, until it reaches the promised land of the premier league. That all needs changing. It is madness.
We have a very wealthy game. A slightly better distribution would still allow the premier league to be the golden goose, but it would also support the pyramid.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Wherever people go in the world, whichever bar they walk into, the one thing we can guarantee is that they will see a premier league game being played. That is the strength of the United Kingdom�s export and the stranglehold that we have on football across the world. Any other country would want to topple us from that position, so we must be very careful when we look to regulate in this space. That does not mean that I do not have sympathy; just down the road from me is Coventry City, which to say the least has had a turbulent time in its dealings with the premier league and now with its rebuild.
I want to concentrate on one area that I think is really important. When sentence is passed on a criminal, there is a mechanism through which the Government can ask the Parole Board to have another look. That would work really well in this situation. We need an independent regulator to satisfy FIFA and UEFA, but Parliament also needs to be able to hold people to account. To find an example, we need only look at when FA cup replays were taken away last year. The public were upset, the clubs were upset, but the decision was taken. I argue that a parole board mechanism would allow the Government to say to the regulator, �Have another look.� If it still decides to do it, fantastic, but at least we will have had our say.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this debate. I will focus on one area of the proposed legislation: the distribution of wealth around the game.
It is not true that anyone wants to destroy the premier league or kill the golden goose. What people want is a fair distribution of resources. Over the past seven years, two of the clubs that have been promoted have been in receipt of parachute payments. It is small wonder that that happens when the average club in receipt of parachute payments receives �49 million, while a non-parachute-payment club gets �5.4 million. That promotes risk-taking and distortion. No other organisation would accept, as the English Football League does, an outside organisation like the Premier League providing resources that distort the competition. That is why we need a regulator. We have to stop that risk-taking.
Another point that our legislation must address is the separation of clubs from their assets. The previous owner of Charlton Athletic, my local side, now owns the ground and the training ground. We have to find a mechanism that could bring them back to the clubs.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
As is seemingly my usual opening line in many of these debates, I am one of very few people elected in this place who has any actual experience of the industry that we are discussing. As a former premier league football chairman, I can honestly say that the premier league works. Britian does not have many success stories left, but our domestic football is one of them. My message to all of you is �Leave it alone.�
I mean this as a genuine question: do any of you understand the consequences of what you are looking to do? Regulating these industries does not work. London as a financial centre has withered and died on the vine since the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Why would football be any different? The premier league projects unrivalled soft power, rakes in a fortune for HM Revenue and Customs and is actually good fun, usually offering competitive football, despite Southampton�s woeful record this season.
What is the Government�s plan? It was first proposed by the Conservatives, of course: regulate, strangulate, suffocate. Who wants that to happen the most? La Liga, Serie A, the Bundesliga and even the Saudis. A regulator would deter foreign investment and add bureaucracy to an already heavily governed industry. It is ludicrous and does nothing to protect clubs in the lower leagues. It should be revoked. Let us encourage and campaign, not regulate. The private sector built this success without regulation. My overriding message to all of you is �Leave football alone.�
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing the debate. Football is more than just a sport in this country; it is a cornerstone of local pride and community identity. I say that as a proud Boro fan, and now as a fan of Thornaby FC. Since the premier league�s formation in 1992, its revenue gap with the EFL has grown from 33% to a simply staggering 1,600%. Two seasons ago, just 25 clubs received 92% of English football�s distributable revenues�around �3.3 billion�leaving the remaining 67 clubs to share only 8%, or �245 million. Parachute payments originally designed to assist relegated clubs now act as trampoline payments, giving some clubs an unfair financial advantage and limiting promotion opportunities.
There is enough money in English football for sustainability throughout the pyramid to be a realistic aspiration. That can be achieved without harming the premier league�s status as the primary league in the world. I welcome the Football Governance Bill and the establishment of an independent football regulator with enforcement powers to ensure financial security. Football is often called the beautiful game�we must ensure that it also remains the people�s game.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate. I am so lucky to have Port Vale Football Club, based in the mother town of Burslem in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. A day out watching footy brings communities together, whether it is a home game at Vale Park with our team mascot, Boomer, or a community-run lads and dads club.
I pay tribute to Carol and Kevin Shanahan for all the work they do at Port Vale both on and off the pitch. Last season, the Port Vale Foundation supported more than 5,000 people in my constituency. The Shanahans have surrounded themselves with people who truly care for our community. From Matt Hancock to Darren Moore, and from the staff to the players, they make a real contribution to the lives of people in Burslem and beyond. As Darren Moore said only two weeks ago,
�The club is right at the heart of the community�.
I could not agree more.
In 2021, Port Vale was named the EFL community club of the year, and for good reason: it has upskilled our young people, it provides community meals at Vale Park, it delivered over 2,000 presents last Christmas, its Golden Valiants group tackles social isolation among our older community and its community cupboard at Tommy Cheadle�s keeps our local families fed.
Communities such as ours need additional support. Our EFL clubs, positioned in the heart of our communities, are perfectly located to offer that. Securing a sustainable football pyramid is key to cementing the future of our valued clubs and the communities they empower.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important and timely debate. So many things make me proud to be an MP from Derby, and Derby County football club is one of them. We have some of the most dedicated and passionate fans in the country.
However, as anyone who has followed the fortunes of Derby County will know, we have had our fair share of financial difficulty. In 2021, our beloved club entered administration. I know at first hand how the lack of transparency made the subsequent negotiations and the administrators� job difficult, and I was involved in a number of those discussions. We were thankfully saved by a local man and fan, David Clowes, who stepped up to preserve Derby County for generations of fans to come, but the dire financial situation he faced in 2021 showed just how important securing financial stability is for clubs in the EFL.
EFL clubs will lose around �450 million this season. The financial instability jeopardises the clubs that sit at the heart of our communities. That is why I welcome the Government�s plans to introduce an independent football regulator through the strengthened Football Governance Bill. It is right that clubs are required to stick to stringent financial regulations.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). It was John Madejski who said that the best way to be a millionaire is to be a billionaire and buy a football club.
As well as being a supporter of Harlow Town football club who saw the effect on the mental health of fans when we had to withdraw from the league due to ongoing pitch issues, because they were not able to go and see their wonderful football team, I support another football team who, not too long ago, would have put fear in the hearts of the opposition players. They say that every team has one hard man, but Leeds United had 11. Unfortunately, due to financial mismanagement, I saw Leeds on the edge of self-destruction. As we are celebrating International Women�s Day at the weekend, we should be aware that when a club suffers the financial issues that Leeds United did, the women�s and youth teams and the community aspect of the club are cut to finance the first team.
I am running out of time but let me say that, sadly, the days of Bremner, Lorimer and Jack Charlton seem a long way away, even with the offer of Bielsa-ball. To those who think that we should not intervene in football governance I say that, as elected representatives, it is our job to represent the community.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Football is the UK�s most watched and played sport. Some 35 million fans have been watching the top four leagues this season, and there are 40,000 football clubs in this country�more than in any other country. As a season ticket holder of Wolverhampton Wanderers, I hope that our club will stay in the premier league.
The Premier League has a lot to offer. It contributes �8 billion to the UK economy and makes a direct tax contribution of �4.2 billion to the Exchequer�and, out of that contribution, �5 billion comes from outside London. In my constituency I also have a lower league football club, AFC Wulfrunians, soon to become Wolverhampton City football club. I know the contribution that the club makes to the community, just as my club Wolverhampton Wanderers does through its foundation.
I very much support the Football Governance Bill because an independent football regulator will make improvements. I hope that the Bill will create a proper process for distributing revenue throughout the football pyramid, with proper deals between the Premier League and the English Football League.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this excellent debate.
Last year I met representatives of Hampden bowling club and Football�s Square Mile who are working to preserve football heritage in my seat, which includes the birthplace of Alexander Watson Hutton, the founder of Argentinian football. Glasgow East is the start of the story that leads to Messi, Maradona and River Plate and Boca Juniors, which are the Oxford United and Reading of Buenos Aires. Their project points to something profound. Football is our history and culture. It is part of our families� history, and is a tie that brings us together.
All that draws us to football and more, in particular the emotion of hope. We all feel that hope at the beginning of a season that we might win something: the hope in the bleak midwinter that a team can win a derby�not my team Newcastle�or win a cup game. We lose this at our peril. I wonder whether football has lost sight of it. For example, in my lifetime, Rangers, Aberdeen and Celtic have won the European cup winners� cup and the European cup. Dundee United remains unbeaten against Barcelona. We heard mention of Leeds; we could also mention Forest and so on. Could that happen now? Not at all. The chance of success is concentrated on a small number of clubs. Many fans say that they have less interest in football as a result. This poses a profound challenge to our game. As Sir Bobby Robson said, football is about
�the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.�
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. In Morecombe, the Shrimps are an integral part of our community. They bring together people from all backgrounds who share in our love of the Shrimps. The Morecambe FC Community Foundation runs a range of programmes that support education, health, social inclusion and sports participation. I am not the only parent from Morecambe who has had a child come back chattering about the professional footballers who came to help out that day.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because our respective teams are currently propping up the bottom of league two. She mentions the important community work that the Shrimps do, and that is vital. We are fortunate at Carlisle United to have very generous owners who have invested huge amounts of money over the last 18 months, but even I can see that community work can best be guaranteed by having a fairer distribution of revenues.
Lizzi Collinge
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. In Morecambe, the football club is a community hub that we cannot afford to lose. We have the Shrimps Trust, which is a democratic and representative voice for the fans. The board of Morecambe really want us to survive and thrive and is doing everything it can to make that happen. It is passionate about our success.
The Shrimps have been under a lot of pressure in recent years due to a combination of ownership issues, financial instability and the threat of relegation. My hon. Friends have laid out coherently the challenges with financial flow, ownership and governance, so I will not go through them again. In my first speech in Parliament, I reiterated my promise to the Shrimps to deliver an independent football regulator, a stronger owners and directors test, better fan representation and much better measures on financial sustainability. I only hope that it does not come too late for Morecambe FC.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
For too long, the governance and financial model of our game has left clubs vulnerable to mismanagement, unscrupulous ownership and, ultimately, financial ruin. I am fantastically proud of my local club Basingstoke Town FC, with its much-loved Camrose ground, but it is one such example. For over 70 years, the Camrose was the heart of our town�s club. It was a vital community hub where generations of fans came together to support their team, but the covenant on the ground that should have guaranteed a sports facility for the town for another three decades at least was, and continues to be, blatantly and disgracefully disregarded.
In 2016 the then chairman of the club sold the freehold of the Camrose to a company he owned, following years of underinvestment in the stadium. He eventually evicted the newly formed community club from the Camrose in April 2019. That stadium now stands in ruins. A once iconic stadium that brought pride and opportunities to our town has been reduced to a distant memory. In that time, it is the fans of the club, including those in the Gallery today, who have fought the injustice that went on and continue to power the club now. One such example is Jack Miller, the chairman, as well as all the volunteers who keep the club going.
Basingstoke Town is a non-league club. Those clubs also need protection. Could I ask the Minister to put on record what the Government plan to do about that?
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I commend and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for bringing forward this very important debate. I thank other colleagues for taking part today, including even my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). Most of all, I thank the fans of Reading and other clubs who have come here today for their incredible patience and tolerance at this very difficult time.
I wholeheartedly support the Football Governance Bill. I want to reiterate in the brief time available the importance of the Bill based on what has happened to Reading. Put simply, Reading is in a terrible position because of poor ownership. As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley and other colleagues, this is due to mismanagement by owners.
Reading faced relegation from the championship, which it had been in for a number of years�previously it was in the premiership. That was because of its owner, and not because of anything that happened on the pitch. The owner did not pay wages on time and the club was taken to court by His Majesty�s Revenue and Customs a number of times, which led to points deductions and relegation. That is an outrageous position for any club to be in; it simply should not happen. There needs to be a much better test of what makes for a fit and proper owner. I look forward to that coming forward in the Bill. I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I finish by urging Mr Dai Yongge to speed up the sale of Reading to a new owner who will invest in our wonderful club and take it forward.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Bolton Wanderers has been based in my constituency for over 25 years. It is no exaggeration to say that the stadium in Horwich, once known as the Reebok, now the Toughsheet community stadium, is the most important building in our borough. Bolton has long been a community club with international recognition. That is why it is not uncommon to see former Olympic sprinter Usain Bolt enjoying dinner in Westhoughton with one-time Wanderers player and long-time friend Ricardo Gardner.
In 2018, our historic club nearly went out of business. Bolton Wanderers entered 2019 subject to winding-up petitions from His Majesty�s Revenue and Customs; players were not paid and the club could not fulfil fixtures. I am pleased to say that the club has since recovered, thanks to the work of the new owners, Football Ventures, which is led by the formidable Sharon Brittan. Bolton now has a successful local business as its sponsor, with the incomparable Doug Mercer of Westhoughton firm Toughsheet stepping up to help the club. I pay tribute to Sharon, Doug, Phil Mason and Michael James, all of whom have done remarkable work to restore fans� trust and put the club back at the heart of the community.
In Bolton�s darkest time, it was the fans who rallied together; the supporters� trust was set up to give fans an organised voice through which to vent their anger and frustration. As MPs, we all know how important it to recognise the fundamental role that our clubs play in our communities. Their traditions, their history, their failures and their triumphs are all sown into the social fabric.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Reading football club is a community club. I have fond memories of going to Madejski stadium as a kid as part of a project with local schools�just one example of the fantastic work that clubs across this country do in their communities.
Unfortunately, Reading also offers a stark warning of what the bad management of football clubs can do to communities, and the effect it can have on the beautiful game, as was so eloquently touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda). I thank the Sell Before We Dai campaign and the Supporters Trust at Reading, whose chair is my constituent.
The Football Governance Bill will come too late for Reading, but I am determined that it will be there to protect clubs that find themselves in that invidious position in future. It is a good Bill. It was supported by the Tories in the previous Parliament, and that is why we have picked it up now, yet the Leader of the Opposition insists on opposing it. In her opinion, giving fans a say on how their own clubs are run would be a �waste of money�. Well, in the Tory game of political point scoring, it is fans who stand to lose out.
I ask the Minister to speak a little about support for clubs below the national league. Bracknell Town football club has been moved out of Bracknell by its owners, and it would be great to see�
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
In my constituency we are lucky enough to have Mansfield Town, founded in 1897, as our local club. We are currently in English football league one. The Stags, as they are known, have had their ups and downs, but I am pleased to say that the current owners have clearly indicated to me their commitment to our approach to financial sustainability and good governance. The chairman and members of the board have done a great deal of work to secure the future of the club, but I want to take this opportunity, just a few days prior to International Women�s Day, to recognise the work of Carolyn Radford, who has been the chief executive officer since 2011.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that football clubs are often a focal point for communities, and that it is important that we nurture and support grassroots football in our constituencies. I am pleased to say that Mansfield Town does just that through the Radford and Hymas Academy and the Mansfield Town community trust. As the local MP, I wholeheartedly support that work, and I will do whatever I can to support those civic-minded aspirations; I hope they go from strength to strength in the coming years.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing the debate. Of course, this is a debate on English football governance, but for the benefit of Hansard I put on record the undebatable fact that Scottish football is the best in the world, because it has the highest per capita live attendance at matches and because of the existence of Falkirk FC.
The Football Governance Bill goes a long way to redressing the competition issues that have stained the beautiful game down south. The independent review and the licensing powers to prevent corporate mismanagement will hopefully prevent situations like the one currently facing Reading from happening again, and resolve the runaway inequality in the game.
That runaway inequality is something that the Scottish game is definitely not immune to. Failures in corporate governance and financial mismanagement stem from that inequality, as well as from an over-reliance on single owners and, uniquely, the lack of diversification in sources of income in Scotland.
More recently, we have seen anti-competitive decisions, such as the Scottish professional football league banning artificial surfaces from only the top flight in Scotland in 2024. Artificial surfaces are far more common in Scotland. The ban will force clubs such as Falkirk, Hamilton or Livi, which is currently in the championship, to fork out �1.5 million extra simply for getting promoted. It will prevent community use and provide barriers for women�s teams and shared ground arrangements. On artificial surfaces, the SPFL must think again.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Football in England is not just a sport; it is a way of life. It binds communities together, gives local communities pride and provides opportunities both on and off the pitch, not least to my amazing nephews and my niece.
In my constituency, Weston-super-Mare AFC�the Seagulls to its fans�is more than just a football club. It is a social hub, a youth development centre and a lifeline for many. The club charity, Seagulls in the Community, led by trustees Andrew Kynaston, Bridget Bolland and Oli Bliss, leads a wide range of projects that have a direct impact on the lives of people in the town, including a youth club, a disability football team, a dementia caf�, and a veterans breakfast to name a few. It also opened the doors to the FUCHSIA cancer support group after its previous venue closed. Julie Crowther has been running this group for over 14 years, but without the football club�s willingness to offer up its facilities free of charge, that much-needed community resource might have been forced to close.
Football is for everyone, not just the elite. If we want our communities to thrive, we must act now to safeguard the entire football pyramid, so that clubs such as Weston-super-Mare AFC and thousands of others can continue to serve their communities for generations to come.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. No one in Ipswich is yet tired of reminding the world that we are now a premier league town. As I like to remind my colleagues in Essex and Norfolk in particular, we are the only premier league town in the east of England too.
One of the biggest issues that gets raised with me on the doorstep is the regeneration of our town. Having a financially secure and sustainable football club goes a long way to advancing that agenda. The economic benefits to our town include thousands of people travelling into our town centre and filling up the pubs, restaurants and shops. It has been estimated that premier league status has brought a huge �200 million to our town this season alone. More than that, it speaks to our civic pride and the sense of community that has been brought to our town under the leadership of Mark Ashton off the field and Kieran McKenna on it.
That has not always been the case. We, too, have seen our fair share of dark days and what poor leadership does when its rips out the sense of community and the links to businesses, academy players and so on. We have heard many examples today from Coventry, Portsmouth, Derby, Wigan, Reading�the list goes on and on. It is no exaggeration to say that when football clubs run into financial or other off-the-field issues, that impact is not just felt on the economy of the town; it has the potential to rip the heart and soul out of a place too. These clubs are not just commodities; they are our community�s crown jewels.
Labour�s Football Governance Bill is a landmark moment for safeguarding a financially sustainable and well-governed football pyramid. If we get it right, the prizes on offer for Ipswich and towns across the country are immense.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I want to briefly tell the story of my local club, Brighton and Hove Albion, which is very much the story of the recent highs and lows of English football. In summary, I have been a Brighton fan for 30 years. The first 15 of those were pretty terrible, but the second 15 have been fantastic. In that time we have played in all four leagues. We were one game away from going out of the football league; now we have spent nearly a decade in the premier league, and we have enjoyed European nights against teams such as Marseille and Ajax.
In the dark days we experienced the very worst of ownership: our ground was sold and we ended up playing in Gillingham or in a rented athletics stadium. Despite the gloom, we always had two things on our side. First, we had the strength of our fans who stuck together through thick and thin, raised money, went on marches and did everything we could to keep the club going. Secondly, we found a saviour in new ownership�a Brighton fan and a genius; everything you would want in an owner�in the shape of Tony Bloom.
Because of those two things, we have gone through the lottery from the worst to the best of ownership. We heard in the opening speech about the test of the Football Governance Bill being the Reading test, but I want to impose a Brighton test. Could the Bill have stopped the first 15 years of my life, where we experienced the worst of ownership? A second test: will it encourage more owners to come forward who, in the shape of Tony Bloom, are rooted in the community, serve the community and deliver a fantastic football team? I hope very much that the Bill can do both.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this debate and for her diligence in campaigning, along with many others, as she highlighted in her speech, for the future of Reading football club. In the Reading area, including Wokingham, Bracknell and Newbury, the cross-party approach that has united fans and politicians of all political persuasions is to be applauded. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member and others and Reading FC fans on this important issue.
Reading football club is a recent story of tragedy for its fans, for its community and for English football. Gone are the glory days of Sir John Madejski, former chairman, who embodied the very definition of what ownership of a football club should look like. I am young enough to remember seeing Roger Smee and Frank Waller in the stands at Elm Park as chairmen of the club.
Back then, Reading football club was an institution driven by its owners for the good of the club and for the fans. It promoted close links to the community and with its fans, built a great relationship with schools and was able to deliver premier football quality as well. That makes it more frustrating that it is now a stark contrast to what it was a decade ago and synonymous with the very worst of football club ownership.
Dai Yongge is not accessible to fans; nobody knows where he is. He has attempted to asset strip the club and is one of the clearest reasons why Reading football club is being held back from greater success. For example, alleged cash-flow issues under his ownership have caused the late payment of wages, resulting in points deductions.
People are just fed up with the way that the club is being run. Take, for example, the saga over Bearwood Park, Reading football club�s training ground in my constituency of Wokingham. This is a state-of-the-art facility that Dai Yongge attempted to sell in early 2024, with no consultation with fans on the decision. All he wanted to do was to get some cash for his business�for himself.
Sue Symes of Sell Before We Dai contacted me on a Thursday evening to ask what a clause in the training ground�s planning permission meant. At the time, I was a local councillor for Wokingham borough council. By lunch time the following day, I had a clear answer from council planners: the training ground development had been approved several years before, provided it belonged to Reading football club. Dai Yongge wanted to sell the training ground to Wycombe and further devalue the club. If the training ground was lost, the club was at a significant risk of having no alternative sites to train its squad.
I arranged for Reading FC and Wycombe to be reminded of the existence of that all-important clause, and within hours Wycombe had pulled out of the deal. That is just one battle that was won in a war that is hopefully close to concluding. I am pleased to acknowledge Sue Symes�s role in that.
Sue can rightly be proud of making sure that the sale of the club�s training ground did not happen, so that the club, the training ground and the stadium could all be sold as a viable concern. The club has been up for sale for more than 500 days, and it may have been close to selling several times. It will hopefully not be long before a sale actually happens, because Dai Yongge has bled the club dry and no one will deny that he must go.
The issue does not, unfortunately, end with Reading. Football clubs are not just luxury goods for millionaires to buy and sell like yachts; they are important to fans and are part of the DNA of their local communities. It is therefore good to see successive Governments bringing forward important legislation to establish an independent football regulator, which will provide a vital bulwark to protect our national game. I seriously hope that the new regulator will consider the case of Reading FC and other teams, such as Bury and Macclesfield Town, and take the time to speak to fans and learn the lived lessons of fans faced with an agonising process to retain their club�s assets and identity.
The Football Governance Bill is currently making its way through the other place. I want to record my support for the rules in the Bill requiring an assessment of the honesty and integrity of owners and officers. Importantly, the Bill also includes provisions to monitor owners and hold them accountable during their time in office, rather than just before they make their purchase. That will hopefully prevent any future Dai Yongge from taking root in a football club. I do, however, hope that the Bill will go further to protect assets beyond just stadiums. Protections should be extended to other club-owned assets, particularly training grounds but also car parks, hotels and other land owned by the club.
I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister answered a few questions. Will the independent football regulator, once set up, have any formal duty to engage with clubs that have faced hardships? What steps are the Government taking to strengthen the protection of club assets? Will the Minister reflect on whether the new Football Governance Bill, in its current form, would have prevented the takeover of Reading by Dai Yongge?
In conclusion, football is not just any other sport; it is an integral part of the fabric of our cities, towns and villages in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what drives passion and desire among so many people. Quite simply, they want the five tiers of professional football to function because, from their perspective, if football cannot function, then how can society? Finally, I pay tribute to all those fans who have tirelessly campaigned on this issue, including the groups Sell Before We Dai and Supporters Trust at Reading, and people such as Sue Symes, Adam Jones and Ian Morton. They have all taken time from their personal lives to save a team about which they care deeply, and they are a wonderful example to our community.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate. As we all know, football is more than just a game. It is a passion that unites millions across the country, from all backgrounds and communities. It is woven into the fabric of many communities, from grassroots clubs such as Foots Cray Lions and Welling United in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, to the premier league giants and those seeking to rival them.
Football and rugby were key to my own development as a teenager and although I do not get to play as often as I would like any more, sport taught me key life skills such as communication, teamwork and leadership, and taught me the positivity that comes from healthy competition. When I talk about football, it is personal to me. I want our beautiful game enjoyed for generations to come in the spirit of healthy competition. Football is nothing without its fans and the people who make football work throughout the year.
Although there are many debates to be had about the independent regulator in the months ahead, when the governance Bill finally returns to the Commons it is imperative that Members across the House do not lose sight of what a success story the evolution of English football is, in both the men�s and the women�s games. The premier league, for example, is the most watched competition in the world, attracting the best players and managers, and generating significant economic and cultural benefits to the United Kingdom. The EFL is also thriving, with attendances in the championship, league one and league two surpassing many European peers. But with the immense popularity and influence of this great British success story comes a responsibility for both the clubs and the governing bodies to ensure that the game remains viable, fair and open for future generations. In recent years, some clubs have suffered financial distress or, in the case of one of my local clubs, Charlton Athletic, they have been owned by someone who clearly did not have the club�s interests at heart.
Although we must be realistic about the global economics of football and the fierce competition from rival leagues, including the Saudi league, we cannot ignore the consequences on fans, communities and the wider football pyramid when clubs are run badly. I have great sympathy for Reading football club and the fans in the Public Gallery, because I see many similarities with the challenges that Charlton has faced in recent years. That is why the previous Government introduced a more measured, balanced and proportionate Football Governance Bill, which sought to ensure that English football was more financially sustainable for the future and more accountable to fans. It also sought to stop the breakaway European super league.
However, football clubs must live within their means. Clear and responsible financial frameworks are already in place within the premier league and the EFL, and are supposed to be overseen by the FA and the leagues. However, the FA is often overlooked in debates in this House�it has hardly been mentioned today�and in the other place, as many seem to forget that there are already many football regulations in place and that the FA and the leagues are the regulators. That is even before we consider the role of the likes of UEFA and FIFA, and we understand that UEFA has raised concerns with the Government about interference in our national sport.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Gentleman said that the previous Bill introduced by the Conservative Government was measured, and the Conservative party now opposes this version of the Bill. Could he state, really clearly for everyone here, what measures have changed that his party does not agree with?
Mr French
I am happy to answer that question. The Bill is still changing in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but amendments from the Conservative party have been accepted by the Government; I will come on to one of those amendments on growth of the game. I appreciate the enthusiasm of new Government Members as they try to please their Whips and the Government, but amendments are still being made to this Bill in the other place. I understand their eagerness, but we have not seen the final Bill.
There are challenges in football, but we must not lose sight of the importance of the independence of the sport. We must prevent Government interference, which will assuredly diminish the unique nature of the game and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. A careful balance must be struck: regulation must not address just short-term issues; it should serve the sport�s long-term interests and it should not deter vital investment.
We should also acknowledge the progress in football governance over recent years. The Football Association, the Premier League and other key stakeholders have worked tirelessly to address issues such as financial fair play and racism and to improve safety standards at grounds. If we as legislators impose a blanket, top-down regulatory framework, we risk stifling the innovation and flexibility that has helped football to evolve. It was this innovation that allowed the premier league to come into existence in 1992, and that has provided world-class football in United Kingdom for more than three decades. It begs the question: would the premier league now be banned by this new Bill coming from the Labour party?
We cannot risk a return to the football of the 1980s, when English clubs were banned from Europe. Members may not be familiar with a letter from 2 September 2024 from the UEFA general secretary to the new Secretary of State raising concerns about the Bill. When we have requested sight of these concerns, the Government have denied us access. What are the Government hiding from football fans? Are there risks that our clubs, and even our national teams, may not be able to compete? Please can we have sight of this letter from UEFA raising these concerns? We have written to request it, and we have requested it in the other place. Members of Parliament must have complete transparency on what they are being asked to vote on and the risks of the Bill.
But it is not all own goals from the Labour party. It is welcome that this Government have now accepted some of the Conservative amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked a question about that, and I have an example for him: the Government�s regulator must now avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football; we will closely monitor how it does that as the Bill develops. Equally, we have to be mindful of unintended consequences on clubs, fans and ticket prices. The Bill will increase the regulatory burden on all clubs. One football chief executive has already said:
�We�ve two choices with those costs. We either stop doing some of the things we�re already doing, whether that�s academy, women�s, girls� football or whatever, or we pass those costs on to fans.�
Members must acknowledge that football is a delicate international ecosystem that is at huge risk if the Government get this wrong. As we look around at the various challenges facing football today, from financial stability to governance issues and from player welfare to fan engagement, one thing becomes clear: football is at a crossroads. The time has come for us to empower the sport�s governing bodies to use their expertise to lead the way and chart a course that puts the game and fans first. As the official Opposition, we will continue to closely scrutinise what the Government�s expanded new Bill does, and try to limit the number of own goals they score.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing this important debate. I begin by acknowledging that English football is world-leading. As well as sitting at the heart of communities up and down the country, English clubs have fans in every continent, and attract the best players from across the world. The premier league is one of our country�s best exports. Along with the EFL and the national league, it contributes billions of pounds to our economy and supports thousands of jobs, as has been outlined across the House in this debate. Its success and infrastructure support and inspire the next generation of footballing talent in English towns, villages and cities. It is because of this success that the Government want the sport to thrive for generations to come, securing the financial sustainability of the football pyramid.
My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley, who represents Reading football club, has been a vocal supporter and campaigner on the governance and sustainability of football. She is right to raise those concerns. Reading, like so many of the other clubs that have been spoken about today, is an example of why this debate and the legislation are so important. Calls for change to secure the sustainability of football in this place date back to the cross-party Select Committee report of 2011. We then saw the ill fated super league attempt that resulted in the fan-led review. The review, led by former Conservative Sports Minister Dame Tracey Crouch, identified the need for an independent football regulator. I thank and pay tribute to her for her commitment and work. I have been pleased to be part of the women�s parliamentary football team with her, alongside so many other amazing women.
The previous Conservative Government published their Football Governance Bill�their legislation on this matter�on 18 March 2024, just less than a year ago. How time flies! That continued the cross-party consensus that existed until very recently. Members on the Government Benches and Conservative Benches were elected on manifestos that committed to bringing forward an independent football regulator. We on the Government side of the House are following through on that commitment and are on the side of football fans.
I will take this opportunity to address some of the specific questions put to me in this debate; if I cannot go into much detail, I will be happy to meet hon. Members. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) has taken a great interest in this subject. He asked about a second look. A new Government Lords amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the whole regime after five years. More specifically, if an owner were found to be unsuitable by the regulator, they would have the right to request a review of that decision. That review would be taken by the board. There is also a right to appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Dr Luke Evans
The decision to take FA cup replays away, for example, was taken by the FA itself without any consultation; that is the difficulty. That is a prime example of the heritage of the game being taken away, and that mechanism would not quite address that. I will be happy to meet the Minister to talk through an idea that may well fit.
Stephanie Peacock
Great; I will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and I am really sympathetic to his points, but the Government cannot and do not want to be involved in all issues, and the regulator will not be able to cover them all. However, let us meet after the debate to discuss his ideas.
My hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and Bracknell (Peter Swallow) mentioned non-league football. I visited Basingstoke during the general election. Non-league governance is for the FA, as I set out in the Adjournment debate secured last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I appreciate all the challenges that have been outlined as I have seen them first hand in my own constituency. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), posed a number of specific questions. I will not comment on individual cases, but I was pleased to meet him before Christmas and will address some of his points later in my speech.
To answer the shadow Minister�s specific question, I have met UEFA, we have a good relationship and it has not raised any issues. We do not publish private correspondence, just as his Government did not. Growth is central to this Government�s aims.
James Wild
I have to say that it is very curious that we know that this letter exists�it has been confirmed in the other place that it exists�and yet the Government repeatedly refuse to publish it, despite the potential impact that political interference with the governance of sport could have. Why does the Minister not just ask UEFA for permission to publish the letter and give it to Members?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House who I know spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. His Government, like this one, did not publish private correspondence, but I can absolutely assure the House that I have met UEFA and it does not have any issues.
As the Member of Parliament for Barnsley South, I know how important a club is to the community. Barnsley FC is a huge part of my town, and the community trust does amazing work, but Barnsley football club narrowly avoided administration 20 years ago. Football clubs mean everything to local people, with family, friends and neighbours coming together to watch games, win or lose. In turn, football would be nothing without its fans.
Hon. Members have spoken so well today about what clubs mean to their communities. We have heard from so many: Reading, Aylesbury United, Oxford United, Brighton and Hove, Luton Town, Grimsby Town, Norwich City, Chesterfield, Coventry City, Port Vale FC, Derby County FC, Morecambe FC, Carlisle United FC, Basingstoke Town, Bolton Wanderers, Bracknell Town, Mansfield Town and Weston-super-Mare. That really shows the strength of debate up and down this country and across this House. Despite bigger revenues than ever coming into the game, too many loyal fans have had their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and ultimately the worry that their cherished clubs might be lost.
Dan Aldridge
While the Tories and Reform might be happy to see rogue owners running roughshod over fans and players across the country, does the Minister agree that this Labour Government will not allow fans to be taken for fools any longer?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is right: the Government are on the side of football fans. That is why we have introduced the Football Governance Bill: to put fans back at the heart of the game.
Mr French
Given the last intervention and the ongoing auditions for Parliamentary Private Secretary roles among Labour Members, I must push the Minister: at what point will introducing a regulator and the measures that she is discussing lower ticket prices for football fans?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman should know that that is a commercial decision, but we have made a change so that fans will be consulted. We think that it is the right change. Our Football Governance Bill will put fans back at the heart of the game. It will protect club heritage, take on rogue owners and secure the financial sustainability of English football.
Stephanie Peacock
I have been very generous with my time and have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman, so I will make progress.
Too many clubs have faced the precipice. There have been more than 60 instances of administration since 1992. That is simply unacceptable, so in the short time that I have left today I will turn to the detail of our legislation.
The Bill will introduce a new regulator for the game. It is intended to cover the top five levels of the men�s game. There will be strengthened tests for owners and directors. It will make clubs more financially resilient and will put fans back at the heart of their clubs. This is designed to be a light-touch regulator. At a very basic level, owners need to do three things: be an appropriate owner, have a sensible business plan and have proper engagement with fans on key issues. I will take each in turn.
Being an appropriate owner means that club custodians must be suitable; we are protecting fans from irresponsible owners. Having a sensible business plan means that clubs will need clear financial plans, with detail on risk management and resource plans for owners. Having proper engagement with fans on key issues means setting a minimum standard for fan engagement. We are ensuring protections on changes to club crests, home kit and club names and giving fans a voice in the day-to-day running of their club.
Clubs will need a licence to play. They will not be able to join closed-shop breakaway leagues or move around without proper consultation. A football-led solution is always the preferred outcome to financial distribution. In the Bill Committee on the previous Bill, Dame Tracey Crouch rightly said that
�distributions are an issue for football�
but that if no solution is found, it is
�important for backstop powers to be there to intervene���[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2024; c. 234.]
If a football-led solution is not reached, the regulator will be ready to step up, if asked, to facilitate a solution as a last resort. The state of the game report will underpin that, informing the regulator�s work through a broad review of the financial health and economic issues in football at any given time.
As I have stated more than once, the Bill is very similar to its previous iteration, but we have made some moderate changes. Fans will have a greater voice and will be consulted on changes to ticket prices. We have brought more clarity and certainty to the backstop, so all issues relevant to redistribution can be considered. By removing the provision on following Government foreign policy, we are making the regime more independent.
The Bill is a historic piece of legislation that has been developed over several years, including by the previous Government, who recognised the need to regulate. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto said:
�We will introduce laws to ensure our fans never again face the threat of clubs in England joining breakaway closed-shop competitions and giving them more of a voice through the Independent Football Regulator.�
Stephanie Peacock
I am about to conclude, so I will not give way.
I believe that the Bill will protect and promote the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities it serves. Given the urgent issues that I and other hon. Members have highlighted today, we are determined to make sure that the regulator is up and running as soon as possible. I thank hon. Members for contributing to this huge debate, which has shown how much the House wants to see the regulator introduced.
Yuan Yang
I thank all hon. Members who have made speeches or interventions today. I also thank the Minister for her response and reassurance that she and this Government will continue to take seriously the real and pressing need for better football governance in this country. I am glad that she mentioned this Government�s amendments and additions to the Bill, particularly concerning fan consultation. I think we can all agree that we are here today in this Chamber because of the fans we represent.
Many hon. Members have brought up the social value of clubs and the community value that they bring to us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) pointed out, it is rare in any other walk of life to find a club that spans youth clubs and elderly people�s clubs and does work across the spectrum of ages and backgrounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) described how much of a presence her local club has in her town. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke about how his local club, Port Vale, received an award for its community value, and he described the value of the cohesion that a football club can bring as a focal point for the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has worked at length with her local club the Shrimps, described how clubs can bring people together. I recognise that Morecambe football club faces a severely urgent need for an independent regulator. Because of that urgency, I was actually quite disappointed to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), describe the history of the Bill, but then sidestep that history and seem to oppose the current Bill. I also note that he did not respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about why he had changed his mind.
For many clubs across the country, we need regulation sooner rather than later, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out. Every day we wait means another day that the staff of Reading football club forgo their wages and fans forgo certainty. My neighbour the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who described this as a cross-party issue. I urge Opposition Members to maintain the cross-party consensus that was built over the last Parliament, when we all identified the need for independent football regulation.
I recognise the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) about the effects of a new regulator. I see where they are coming from, but I would argue that regulation can only increase international business confidence in the integrity of our football pyramid. There have been legal challenges already in the past few decades about the collective selling in the premier league, and I believe that better governance would reassure all those looking on that the public benefit argument has been sufficiently thought through.
More regulation would mean more stability across the pyramid and would prevent the situation we are in today, under which so many Members in this room have seen their local clubs go into administration, and which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) experienced when he was the chair of Southampton and it went into administration. For those clubs that have experienced administration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described, the impact on fans and on staff is immense. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) described how fans can rescue a club from administration, but so few manage to go down that route and emerge successfully.
My 90 minutes is drawing to a close, and there is no extra time for us in this match.
Yuan Yang
The referee is very clear that I cannot give way.
I pay tribute to those hon. Members who mentioned the importance of non-league clubs and of Scottish clubs, which are not covered by English football regulation. However, given that this is a Backbench Business debate, as I remind the shadow Minister, we can cover all topics that we deem fit.
Football is not just a business, yet it has to endure as a business. Clubs are not just commodities; they are central to our community. I thank all fans watching this debate, in Parliament and beyond, and our local fan groups in Reading, Sell Before We Dai and the Supporters Trust at Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the financial sustainability and governance of English football.
Ambulance Response Times
(1 day, 9 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
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered ambulance service response times.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important debate.
Unacceptable ambulance response times have become endemic in the UK, leaving people in pain and distress and costing lives. An estimated 50,000 people died last year after long A&E waits, according to Office for National Statistics data. One of those was Jim�s wife in Street. She was suffering from aggressive liver and bowel cancer and had to wait seven hours in agony for an ambulance in February last year. When the ambulance arrived, Jim and his wife were told that the crew were not trained to take her downstairs, so they were left to wait for another crew. When they arrived, several hours later, Jim�s wife was too ill to be moved and was told that the journey would kill her. She died shortly after.
Jim told me again today how that experience still makes him angry, yet he recognises the perilous state that the NHS is in, caused largely by the last Conservative Government. Like Jim, many people have lost faith in health services after the NHS was stretched and left grossly underfunded as a result of the last Conservative Government�s neglect.
We know that this is having a devastating impact on patients, but it is also impacting the incredibly hard-working medical staff. The 2023 NHS staff survey showed that 39% of ambulance staff respondents often or always felt burnt out. The number is higher for control room staff, at 44%, and higher still for ambulance technicians and paramedics, at 45%. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in thanking and paying tribute to everyone working in the ambulance service whose hard work, dedication and commitment to patient safety is second to none.
Most people in Somerset will sadly know of someone who has faced a heartbreakingly long wait for an ambulance. The family of an 89-year-old Somerton resident told me how they faced a 10-hour wait, stuck in agony on the floor, as no ambulances could come to help them. Another resident told me about their ordeal of having to prop their mother up on the toilet after she had had a fall. They then had to spend 13 long hours waiting for an ambulance to arrive. I am sure other Members will have similar heartbreaking examples.
It is important to understand the context of these examples, so I will briefly outline the NHS targets: seven minutes for category 1 calls, for which 90% of ambulances should arrive within 15 minutes; 18 minutes for category 2 calls, for which 90% of ambulances should arrive within 40 minutes; while 90% of ambulances for category 3 and 4 calls should arrive within two and three hours respectively.
Those targets remain unmet in the south-west, where we have the worst-performing ambulance service in the country. In January 2025, South Western Ambulance Service failed to meet the targets for category 1 and 2 calls. The average time it took to respond to a category 2 call was 51 minutes and 45 seconds�nearly three times slower than the NHS target. This has serious repercussions for people�s health. In every minute that a stroke is left untreated, nearly 2 million brain cells die, and lifesaving treatments such as clot-busting drugs need to be delivered quickly, often within four and a half hours.
I have heard from many constituents across Glastonbury and Somerton who are deeply concerned by the delays in stroke treatment due to ambulance waiting times. These fears are compounded by the planned closure of Yeovil district hospital�s hyper-acute services. The reconfiguration of services will mean that all patients who have suffered a serious life-threatening stroke will be taken to hyper-acute stroke units in Dorchester or Taunton to receive care.
As much as these new cutting-edge services and facilities are welcome in the south-west, the fact remains that if stroke patients or any patient needing emergency treatment gets to hospital too late, the results will be catastrophic without improvements to the ambulance service, and all the best equipment, drugs and treatment by clinicians will have minimal impact on patient outcomes. I have spoken about the impact of these changes on stroke care in this place before. I do not feel it necessary to go into detail again today, suffice to say that ambulance delays only increase the pressure on stroke services. The Liberal Democrats have demanded that localised data on ambulance delays is published, so rural areas like Somerset that are underperforming can receive focused and appropriate support. I would welcome the Minister�s comments on that.
Lengthy delays are made all the worse when we consider the impact of drawn-out handover times, meaning ambulance crews are unable to head back out on to the road to pick up more patients. The Darzi review laid bare just how dire the situation has become. In 2024, around 800 working days each day were lost due to handover delays. Incredibly, that is the full-time equivalent of nearly 14,000 paramedics over a year. In addition, ambulances across England collectively spent 112 years waiting outside hospitals to hand over patients in 2023-24.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I was in my local hospital, Queen�s medical centre in Nottingham, where they are currently trialling 45-minute handovers, to make sure that paramedics get back on the road as quickly as possible, while also making sure that patients are safely handed over into the target speciality care they need. Does the hon. Member welcome that sort of trial, given the challenges she describes?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to that point a little later.
With the stark realities facing people in an emergency and the distressing sight of ambulances backed up at hospitals now commonplace, leaving my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton in despair, it is time to properly address these failures. The NHS standard contract states that handovers between ambulance and emergency departments should be 100% within 60 minutes, 95% within 30 minutes and 65% within 15 minutes, but these targets are left unmet. Between October 2023 and June 2024, 3.7 million handovers took an average of 35 minutes and one second, resulting in over 900,000 hours lost. It is even worse in the south-west. In January 2025, over half the handovers took over 30 minutes, which is nearly 30% higher than the England average.
We in the south-west face specific issues due to our rurality. Analysis by the Liberal Democrats revealed that waits for life-threatening calls were 45% longer in rural areas than in urban areas. The South Western Ambulance Service has responsibility for the provision of ambulance services across 10,000 square miles, covering an incredible 20% of mainland England. Rural regions have a lower capacity to divert ambulances to other hospitals during periods of significant pressure, largely due to the vast distances between emergency departments.
We may now see ambulance teams in Somerset adopt a �drop and go� policy, which involves leaving patients in certain areas in a hospital without an official handover to A&E staff. The nationally defined target for hospitals included in the NHS standard contract states that after 15 minutes of waiting, the patient in the ambulance becomes the responsibility of the hospital. If no formal handover to A&E happens within 45 minutes, the ambulance crews can just leave the patient within the department and get back on the road.
The South West Ambulance Service is moving towards this approach with hospitals from Swindon and Bristol to Cornwall and Plymouth. Although this policy might alleviate some of the pressure on ambulance crews, it would fail to ease the struggles that underfunded and overstretched A&E departments in Somerset are facing. Somerset has an ageing population: within the next decade, one in three people in Glastonbury and Somerton will be 65 or older. That may make it harder to quickly discharge patients, as some may also require onward social care provision. It is inevitable, therefore, that delayed discharge due to internal processes such as waiting for pharmacy diagnostics and therapy assessments, and a lack of capacity in adult social care, will lead to poorer ambulance service performance. The social care crisis has a devastating effect on the healthcare system.
Last year, Care England said that
�over 45% of hospital discharge delays are linked to social care�.
One in seven hospital beds are taken up by people who are medically fit to be discharged. For patients, delayed discharge can lead to an increased risk of hospital infections and the loss of mobility or cognitive function, and can make it harder for them to regain their independence. The problems in the healthcare system will never be fixed unless we urgently address the social care crisis. Only last week, social care providers felt the need to protest against Government inaction for the first time ever.
The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning to fix social care by introducing free personal care based on the model introduced in Scotland, so that provision is based on need, not ability to pay. We also welcome the cross-party commission to forge a long-term agreement on social care, but we believe it can be completed within a year, not three. We cannot afford to kick this can any further down the road, and I urge the Government to listen to the Liberal Democrats� calls.
We also need to solve the hospital bed shortage in the UK. The lack of available beds negatively impacts hospital flow. As a comparison, the OECD EU nations have about five beds per 1,000 people, whereas the UK has only 2.4. The Royal College of Physicians revealed that four out of five doctors were forced to provide corridor care in the past month due to a lack of hospital beds. According to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, bed occupancy is at a staggering 93%. The Liberal Democrats want to bring that down to a safe 85% by increasing the number of staffed hospital beds.
We are waiting for the Government to publish the urgent and emergency care improvement plan soon, along with the 10-year health plan. It is vital that we urgently wrestle with the problems that the Conservatives left behind to ensure the safety of patients. Over the past seven years, the previous Conservative Government were forced to find an average of �376 million of emergency funding each year to tackle the NHS winter crises. Under the Liberal Democrat proposals, a new winter taskforce would instead manage a ringfenced fund of �1.5 billion over the next four years to build resilience in hospital wards, accident and emergency departments, ambulance services and patient discharging. That would allow integrated care boards and NHS trusts to plan their budgets more effectively to prevent winter crises, instead of just receiving emergency funding from the Government at the last minute.
We urgently need to give our healthcare services the ability to forward plan. They must not be forced to deal with crises on the fly as situations unfold. Somerset�s ambulance services, like all services across the country, desperately need and deserve support. Localised data must be published to help pinpoint specific improvements that can be made in rural areas. The Government have outlined their desire to improve urgent and emergency care�they accept that ambulance waiting times are unacceptable�but now is the time to act to achieve those objectives; otherwise, more people will suffer and sadly some lives will be lost. That must be part of a serious rethink about the way we fund social care; otherwise, we will never move towards a solution that works.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this much-needed debate.
It is incumbent on us to get the waiting times down to the level that we all expect because in a medical emergency every second counts. Every minute without the right care could mean the difference between life or death, independence or disability, full recovery or a lifetime of complications. Yet, across nearly all categories, ambulances are failing to meet their target response times. They are often stuck waiting instead of saving lives, held up by staff shortages or gridlocked outside hospitals with no beds to offload patients. I know this from personal experience because my health trust suffers from it more than most in London. We all have a stake in improving our NHS. We all want to see more beds, more timely treatment and a healthcare system that keeps our friends, neighbours and families healthier for longer.
Last year, Labour�s Budget unlocked �22.6 billion in funding for the NHS over the next two years to pay our doctors fairly, to provide critical hospital beds, and to end the backlog, but for emergency services there remains a critical issue that pumping money into the NHS alone will not fix: staff shortages. Paramedics have one of the highest turnover rates of any profession. Although the number of paramedics has increased since March 2018, absence caused by poor mental health has also increased and so has the number of staff leaving the field all together. Between 2022 and 2023, nearly 7,000 paramedics left their jobs�a 51% increase in leavers from 2019-2020. Without enough staff, ambulances cannot operate at full capacity and response times suffer.
In the current state of the NHS, paramedics are overworked, stretched to the limit and living with the consequences of underfunding and lack of support. Burnout is not just a risk; it is their reality. Who can blame paramedics for wanting to leave? Let us be clear: we have reached this point not because paramedics are not working hard enough, because they are, but because the emergency services have become a safety net. Without preventive measures such as screening, GP appointments or adequate social care, patients get treated only when their condition has escalated to a true emergency, putting undue stress on services. When patients can be treated only once their condition has become an emergency, it is a failure of the system and it increases pressure on our emergency services. It is a bad deal for patients and for those working tirelessly in our emergency services�a deal made possible by 14 years of Tory mismanagement, underfunding and neglect.
If we want better health outcomes and to meet our response time targets, we must make bold structural changes. We need to ensure that paramedics are not carrying the burden of overstretched services in every corner of the NHS. We must ensure that all parts of the NHS function well, from community screenings to adequate support for paramedics, who should be able to continue in their roles and not be driven out because the system has made it unbearable to stay. Every minute counts for overworked paramedics at breaking point and the patients who desperately need their care. I look to the Minister to do the heavy lifting and fix the broken system, which will be the difference between life and death.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Jardine, for calling me to speak and also for giving me my full name, Nicholas�I think the last time that was done was when I was six years old and in trouble with my mother.
I applaud the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this very important debate. I think we can all agree that this is an important issue not only for our constituents, but for every community across the country. As we have just heard, the time it takes for an ambulance to reach people in need of urgent medical care can make all the difference in saving lives. We have a responsibility to engage constructively across party lines to find solutions that work.
Since the pandemic hit, we have all seen the challenges faced by our local health services, and ambulances are no exception. In January, average response times for the two highest priority incidents missed NHS targets. Official data shows average response times for category 1 incidents of eight minutes and 16 seconds, instead of the seven-minute target, and average response times for category 2 incidents of 35 minutes and 40 seconds, instead of the 18-minute target.
Even those statistics obscure dramatic variation across the country. This is particularly concerning in my constituency of West Suffolk. Haverhill, our biggest town, has a population of 30,000 people, but the response times for the highest priority incidents in Haverhill are twice as long as they are in Cambridge. Figures from the NHS England weekly ambulance scorecard show that in the 12-month period to the end of September, Cambridge�s average response time for category 1 incidents was 7.3 minutes, just missing the national target, but Haverhill�s was 14.7 minutes. Ambulances starting their shifts in Haverhill are often dispatched towards Cambridge, which is 15 miles away at its nearest point. This is an inequality that needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
The problem arises in part from the fact that Haverhill ambulance station is located right on the county boundary, at the edge of south Cambridgeshire. The ambulance station is used for maintenance, but it does not have its own ambulances on standby. This appears to have a negative effect on how ambulances are assigned for the local area, with resources sucked into Cambridgeshire and staying there. Addenbrooke�s hospital has become a hotspot for this problem: ambulances with patients waiting to be treated wait outside for long periods, instead of responding to more incidents in and around Haverhill.
I have spoken to the East of England Ambulance Service several times over the past few months to learn more about the situation. It believes that the system status plan, which decides where to send ambulances, should be changed so that Haverhill becomes a priority and more ambulances can be sent there.
Since my election, I have also been making the case for a co-located and purpose-built blue light facility in the town. This would allow the local police, fire and rescue service, and ambulance service to better serve local residents and save taxpayers� money. The plan has the support of local councillors and several interested parties, and the Government have also made positive comments about adopting this approach nationally. I look forward to the publication of the Government�s urgent and emergency care improvement plan, as well as the 10-year health plan.
I remind the Minister of the Health Secretary�s commitment, which he made on the Floor of the House, to follow up with me regarding this proposal. Since the Health Secretary made that commitment, I have not received a response to my letter. I hope that a Minister or appropriate official from the Department will come to visit us in West Suffolk. It would be an excellent opportunity for them to meet representatives of the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, officers from Suffolk police, the Suffolk police and crime commissioner, and the fire and rescue service to discuss the next steps.
I hope that today�s debate will provide us all with an opportunity to work together to improve ambulance services. I know that the problems that I have described in West Suffolk exist in other parts of the country, and we have much to learn from one another. There are solutions that can be implemented to deliver faster response times and improve outcomes for our constituents. I look forward to supporting any practical measures to help achieve exactly that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing today�s important debate.
I welcome the news that ambulance waiting times are slowly improving in my area of the west midlands, but I would like to raise an issue that has been brought to me by several of my constituents in very distressing circumstances: how long those ambulances are having to wait outside A&E departments.
An ambulance service needs hospital services that can support it, and my constituents deserve to know that if they need urgent healthcare, an ambulance will turn up quickly and be able to deliver them to the appropriate care as soon as possible. At the moment, that is simply not happening: 66.6% of ambulances at Worcestershire Royal hospital, which serves many of my constituents, were left waiting longer than 30 minutes in the first week of January 2025. Prior to that, in October, only 50% of people attending any of the trust�s A&E departments, including mine in Redditch, were treated, admitted, or discharged within four hours. That same month, 1,300 ambulance patients waited more than an hour outside. I would like to share what that means in reality for some of my constituents.
My constituent Connie�s mother was sat in the back of an ambulance for hours outside the Royal, waiting for space to go in. Once she was finally admitted, she was left in a chair in a corridor for even longer. Not only is that a distressing situation for the patient, but while she was unable to be admitted, that ambulance was forced to stay outside and not be redeployed to help others. I heard from another constituent, Elaine, who had to call an ambulance for her 80-year-old mother-in-law due to a serious hypoglycaemic event, and although the ambulance crew were prompt in their arrival, she spent seven hours in the back of an ambulance as the A&E was not in a position to take her. She then spent 48 hours in A&E and a further three weeks in hospital before she was discharged, having received excellent care, but it is those seven hours that still stay with her now.
At the Alexandra hospital in my constituency, there are no in-patient children�s beds, so very sick children have to be taken to Worcestershire by ambulance if they need to be admitted. The Minister knows all too well that I have raised this issue with her before. If these services were provided more locally, over more than one site, ambulances would be freed up to deal with truly urgent cases across Worcestershire. Our ambulance and hospital staff work tirelessly to help us stay safe and well, but they are being let down by a system that has been neglected for too long.
I will not make a party political point, but�let�s be honest�we pay for the service we get. As the son of someone who worked in the NHS for 40 years, I would say that for too long we have not been investing in our health and social care systems in this country. We must take action now to ensure that our hospitals are given the resources they need so that handovers from ambulances can take place quickly and safely, and patients can truly receive the care that they deserve.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) on securing this important debate.
From the January 2024 figures, we can see that the South Western Ambulance Service consistently ranked near the bottom across all categories of ambulance response times. The mean response times were nearly all below NHS targets, and the longest category 4 response was over nine hours against a target of three. The geography of rural Devon, and particularly of my constituency of South Devon, is not conducive to speedy ambulance response times�I would challenge anyone to drive along our hedge-lined rural lanes at speed, even with a blue light flashing�so it is no wonder that figures might be lower than national NHS targets dictate, but while ambulances spend hours waiting at clogged A&E departments, they are not out on the road responding to patients.
I will focus particularly on two areas. The first is the very worrying issue of the proposed relocation of out-of-hours emergency cardiac services from Torbay Hospital to Exeter, which is being proposed by Getting It Right First Time�a programme that claims to present
�a data-driven evidence base to support change.�
Patients in Torbay and South Devon currently face significant delays with ambulances already struggling to meet response time targets, but with the relocation of cardiology services, ambulances will have to travel an extra 20 miles to Exeter after collecting and stabilising a patient, and for those who live in the furthest southern part of my constituency�Dartmouth, for example�this is a significant extra travel time to add to what is already quite a long and slow journey. That extra travel time will delay critical interventions for heart attack patients. For every 30-minute delay to treatment, there is a 7.5% increase in mortality. In other words, that is 15 people out of every 200 who could lose their life because of an extra half-hour delay.
Last week, a dozen cardiologists at Torbay hospital met me and other local MPs. They told us that they have been calling on the local ICB for a year not to go through with the change and that, crucially, no evidence has been presented in a case that would justify the move. They said that even 10 to 15 minutes can literally save a life. We know that quicker response times also mean a better chance of full recovery for patients who get to hospital in time to survive. Most worryingly, South Western Ambulance Service did not know anything about the proposed move. It feels appropriate, while we are discussing ambulance services, to say that that strikes me as wholly unacceptable for a body that wants to �get it right�.
There is growing support for treating strokes as category 1 emergencies, on a par with conditions such as cardiac arrest, due to their time-sensitive nature, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton described. Quicker responses could significantly improve long-term outcomes, reducing the risk of permanent disability or death. The first three hours are critical for intervention as brain tissue continues to deteriorate after that. Faster treatment helps to prevent that damage. Although strokes are in category 2, evidence shows that response times often exceed the ideal timeframe. The average time it takes for an ambulance to arrive and provide care for category 2 calls is often well beyond the optimal window for effective stroke treatment.
In the south-west, the mean time for an ambulance to respond to a cat 2 call was nearly 52 minutes, against an NHS target of just 18 minutes. The longest time was one hour and 53 minutes. Changing the categorisation of stroke could ensure that ambulances prioritise stroke victims as they would a cardiac arrest or a trauma case, which could improve response times and overall care. That would put yet more pressure on ambulance services but, after all the public education campaigns about recognising stroke symptoms�which are very welcome�ambulances are simply not arriving in time to provide the necessary treatment.
Our paramedics and ambulance services have so much to offer, from providing lifesaving urgent medical care to delivering care in the community and driving welcome innovation for the NHS. Yet according to official NHS figures, in the winter of 2023-24 ambulances across England collectively spent a staggering total of 112 years waiting outside hospitals to hand patients over. It is an astonishing and dangerous waste of resources for ambulances to be stuck for hours waiting outside crammed A&Es. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton said, the crisis in our social care system goes a long way to exacerbating bed blocking in hospitals, which is having a direct impact on ambulance services.
The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to publish accessible, localised reports of ambulance response times and create an emergency fund to reverse closures of community ambulance stations�which are particularly vital in rural areas�and cancel planned closures where needed. We need a proper plan to fund this crucial part of our NHS, rather than last-minute emergency funding each year during repeated winter crises, which does not enable local trusts and ICBs to plan effectively and efficiently.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
NHS England has set ambulance response time targets since 2018. As the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) indicated, there are four categories of severity for ambulance calls, each with a different response-time standard. In my Wolverhampton West constituency, ambulance response times are managed by the West Midlands Ambulance Service. The Care Quality Commission�s 2023 inspection of the West Midlands Ambulance Service resulted in a regulation 12 notice for response times.
I pay tribute to ambulance workers, who work very hard. When the ambulance was called for my parents, before they passed away, the ambulance workers were very diligent. They worked very hard and did their best for my parents.
I wish to address an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal): mental health among ambulance workers. Sadly, it has come to my attention as the MP in Wolverhampton West that there have been cases of bullying and harassment among ambulance workers, with whistleblowers then being targeted by management. Although I appreciate that this is probably a discussion for another time, I want to emphasise that we need to protect whistleblowers in our health service. The wellbeing of ambulance workers will have an impact on ambulance response times.
The Black Country integrated care system covers my constituency of Wolverhampton West. On the four categories for ambulance response times, although the ICS�s response time for category 1 was found to be within target, the response times for categories 2, 3 and 4 were under target.
In January this year, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care acknowledged that patients have been let down by ambulances that do not arrive on time, and that there is variation in performance across different parts of the country. He also mentioned the urgent and emergency care improvement plan, which is currently in production and will be published before spring 2025. I look forward to seeing the results.
The Government�s mandate to NHS England this year includes an objective to reform and improve urgent and emergency care. The mandate describes ambulance response times and A&E waiting times as unacceptable. NHS England�s priorities and operational planning guidance includes a national priority to improve A&E waiting and ambulance response times.
As a Government we have made excellent strides in reducing hospital waiting lists and making more hospital appointments available, and we have improved accessibility to GP appointments. In the same way as we have made strides in reducing hospital waiting lists and increasing hospital appointments, we must now make similar strides in improving ambulance response times.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this important debate and for opening it with, as usual, a thoughtful and well-researched contribution.
It is no surprise that Members have largely been in agreement in this debate, and they have made useful contributions, so I will quickly run through them. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) importantly highlighted the issue of burnout and the impact of the current situation on hard-working staff in the ambulance service, and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) highlighted the huge regional variations and the inequality of service for people who live in very rural areas.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) told a story�which would be familiar to people in Shropshire�of long handover delays; my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned the importance of dealing with stroke patients and seeing them quickly; and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), with whom my constituents and I share the West Midlands Ambulance Service, highlighted some of our concerns with that service as a whole.
I was first elected in the North Shropshire by-election back in December 2021. All that time ago, when my colleagues and I were out canvassing, it was extremely apparent that ambulance service delays were the No. 1 issue for my constituents. Every canvassing session we did, somebody heard an absolutely heartbreaking story of an ambulance delay that had led to a much worse outcome for a loved one, or possibly even a death. In all honesty, it was a shocking campaigning issue to have to focus on.
Almost a year later, after being elected, I completed a shift with West Midlands Ambulance Service in Shropshire, and I was blown away by the professionalism, dedication and hard work of the ambulance crew. But suffice it to say, the delays were still as appalling as they had been a year before.
Since then, there has been huge political turmoil, and that has not helped the situation. There have been four Prime Ministers, six Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, and two Governments, and I am afraid to say we are still not seeing the improvement that we need. This winter, handover and waiting times reached the point where in some ambulance services people suffering heart attacks were at times advised to drive themselves to hospital. That is an unacceptable situation.
The most recent available data for my local ambulance service in Shropshire�the rural element of the West Midlands Ambulance Service�goes up to December 2024, and it still paints a stark picture of the distressing reality facing my constituents and people across Shropshire. The mean waiting time for category 1 callouts was 12 minutes 19 seconds, while the target is seven minutes. For category 2 callouts, the mean waiting time was 50 minutes and 36 seconds, while the target is 18 minutes. Those categories include callouts to people suffering from heart attacks and suspected strokes. For category 3 callouts, the mean waiting time was well over 200 minutes, and the target is an hour. After a long campaign, �21 million was secured to boost emergency care, and there has been improvement, but response times are still totally unacceptable.
At times, as many as 16 ambulances have been queuing outside the Shrewsbury and Telford emergency departments that serve my constituents. More than one in three ambulances have to wait for more than an hour to hand over a patient, and the longest wait was an astonishing 17 hours. Even this week, as we approach the spring, a constituent told me they had stopped to help an elderly lady laying on a cold pavement with a suspected stroke and had had to wait nearly an hour and a half for an ambulance or first responder to arrive. All the while, the lady�s breath become more and more shallow. This crisis is real, and it has not significantly improved.
Let us look at the national picture. The Darzi report found that each day in 2024 around 800 working days were lost to handover delays. However we cut that�14,000 paramedics a year; 112 years�it is just not acceptable. It is no surprise that people have lost faith in emergency health services as a result of the last Government�s appalling neglect of the NHS. The paramedics, nurses and doctors in our emergency departments go above and beyond, but they are stretched to breaking point and are unfortunately starting to leave the service because of burnout. We are campaigning to end excessive handover delays by increasing the number of staffed hospital beds and by tackling the impact of degrading corridor care.
Let me focus for a moment on social care. Crucially, A&E delays are often caused by an inability to admit patients because thousands of people are stuck in hospital every day when they would be better cared for elsewhere. Bed occupancy is well above safe levels in hospitals, and one in seven hospital beds are occupied by somebody who would be better cared for either in a care home or in their own home. Meanwhile, local authorities such as Shropshire are spending as much as 80% of their budget on social care. They are at risk of issuing section 114 notices as they are unable to cope any longer.
It is really important that we get on with the cross-party talks on social care and with the Casey review. We in the Liberal Democrat party absolutely welcome that, but we urge the Government to speed up the timetable and crack on with it as soon as possible, because 2028 is too late for a long-term solution for social care. The cross-party talks that fell through last week need to be reinstated. I urge the Minister to encourage the Secretary of State to do that as soon as possible.
Let us focus for a moment on the rural problem. Imagine an ideal scenario in which the issue of handover delays has been resolved, the urgent and emergency care plan has been successfully implemented and the 10-year plan has sorted out other issues across the NHS. For those who live near Oswestry, Whitchurch or Market Drayton in my constituency, the nearest community ambulance station has closed and the nearest station or hospital is well over 20 minutes away�that is, if the traffic is clear. Otherwise, if the response time targets for category 1 or 2 calls is to be met, they are reliant on a spare ambulance roaming free in the community, waiting for that call to come in. That is unrealistic. We would expect and hope that, in between calls, paramedics would go and have a cup of tea and a sit down, to decompress from some of the awful things they have seen that day, if they do not have a patient to go to immediately. Hopefully, they go back to the ambulance station in between call-outs.
The implementation of this centralised model across the country is detrimental to the people who live a long way from an ambulance station. It may well be efficient in urban areas, but it certainly is not working in rural ones. I hope the Minister will commit to reviewing the service that is received in rural places. There are thousands of people in large market towns. For example, Oswestry has nearly 8,000 residents, Market Drayton has more than 12,000 and Whitchurch has nearly 10,000. These people expect to receive an ambulance within the target time. I must urge the Minister to commit to looking at ambulance station provision in those areas. I also repeat my colleagues� calls for the Government to publish accessible, localised reports on response times and to create an emergency fund to reverse the closures of community ambulance stations that have already taken place.
The Midlands Air Ambulance Charity does fantastic work across the west midlands and is one of the busiest air ambulance charities in the country. It does not have an NHS contract; it is entirely reliant on the contributions of people living locally. I wonder whether the Minister might consider putting air ambulance services on a statutory footing, because we are so dependent on them, particularly when specialist hospitals might be a long way away and air ambulance crews supply specialist support to stabilise patients where they are found, at the roadside or in their home.
The situation is unacceptable, and I look forward to seeing the urgent and emergency care plan, which I hope it will consider the needs of rural areas. I must urge the Minister to look at social care, because that is one of the key things we need to do to fix the crisis in the NHS.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to the ambulance services and to paramedics and their colleagues, who are on the frontline of our healthcare service, today and every day. Regardless of the weather, or whether it is a bank holiday, they are always there for all of us.
In my medical career, I have been required to deliver full intensive care to children, and particularly babies, who were being transferred across the county in East Midlands ambulances throughout the night and day. I have hurtled along in the back of an ambulance as it travelled down country roads, around corners and down the hard shoulder of motorways, so I understand some of what ambulance crews do. That has given me a deep appreciation of their work, and highlighted to me some of the unique challenges and pressures they face, particularly in our rural areas.
Before I was elected, I had two experiences of delayed ambulance services. On one occasion, I was driving up the A1 when the gentleman in the car in front of me skidded on some water and went into a tree. I am sorry to say that the ambulance took a very long time to arrive, and he died shortly afterwards. There was a fire truck, police officers and an incident manager, but there was no ambulance service. I do not think it would have made a difference to the outcome, but in other cases it might have.
On another occasion, I was sat in traffic when a police officer knocked on the window, which is always slightly worrying. They were looking for a doctor because they had been waiting so long for an ambulance for the people in the accident that was causing the traffic. It took a further 40 minutes from me arriving at the scene for the ambulance to arrive�I am not clear how long the people at the scene had been waiting before. So this issue was a great priority for me before I became a Member of Parliament.
In my first question at Prime Minister�s Question Time, in January 2017, I thanked the East Midlands Ambulance Service for its brave and stellar work serving the people of Sleaford and North Hykeham, and asked for ambulance service response times to be a priority. I also raised the issue in my first meetings with the then Prime Minister and Health Secretary. I understand that response times have improved somewhat, at different periods with different initiatives but overall, as we have heard, they are not where we need them to be.
In January, a constituent wrote to my office detailing the difficult experience of waiting too long for an ambulance to arrive. This 85-year-old gentleman came downstairs at 10 am to find his 82-year-old wife, who suffers from advanced dementia, lying on the hardwood floor, covered in blood, crying and confused. He managed to get her into a chair, calm her down and call 999. The operator could not hear him properly because the phone service was bad, his wife was crying and trying to get out of the chair, and he was struggling. Eventually, he was told the ambulance would be there in 12 hours. The ambulance did eventually arrive, and his wife is now in a stable condition, but that was a traumatising experience for her and the 85-year-old man. I was sorry to read that harrowing tale, and tales like it are too common across the country. I am interested in what the Minister will do to improve the situation; it is easy to say that things are not where they need to be, but it is important to consider how one can improve them, and that is what I hope to hear from her.
Of course, the pandemic threw everything off kilter, and demand for ambulance services rose significantly, with almost 3 million calls in March 2020. In 2022-23, an extra �150 million was allocated to improve ambulance response times through extra call handler recruitment and retention. In January 2023, to improve performance further, the last Government published an urgent and emergency care plan, which set out ambitions to improve average ambulance response times for category 2 incidents to 30 minutes over 2023-24, with further improvement in 2024-25 to get back towards pre-pandemic levels. The plan aimed to increase ambulance capacity by making over 800 new ambulances available during 2023-24, including 100 new specialist mental health vehicles for those who require different types of service. However, in December 2024, under this Government, ambulance response times rose to an average of three hours and two minutes for category 3 calls�category 3 covers elderly people who suffer falls but not a head injury. What steps will the Government take with NHS England to reduce those response times so that people are not waiting hours in pain and discomfort?
I have said to the Minister that it is important that we talk about how we can improve things, as well as about what the problems are. It is crucial that we all do that, and one suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was co-located blue-light services�I am sure he is aware that the first such services were opened not long ago in Lincolnshire. The blue light hub tri-service centre, in the Lincoln constituency, is a co-located site, and co-location is leading to improvements in services. Although that is not my constituency, I am sure the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) would be open to an approach if my hon. Friend wished to see the site.
It is important to look at risk all along the pathway. We have talked about handover delays, but there is a whole pathway from the moment someone calls 999 to the transfer journey, the wait to get into A&E and then the wait in A&E. The risk is clearly highest at the point where someone has called 999 but does not yet have access to on-site or in-person medical care. To improve that, we need more ambulances on the road and fewer sat outside A&E.
I have some questions for the Minister. Ambulances are double-crewed�there are two people in the ambulance �but do two staff need to stay with the patient? If two ambulances have arrived, each with two staff and one patient, could two of the four crew go off in one of the ambulances to see more patients? That would avoid a situation where there are two staff per patient in the ambulance, when many patients are not that unwell medically. Nursing in intensive care is only one to one, but we are providing higher levels of care than that with these staffing ratios. Is that necessary?
We also have a delay in handover�in getting people out of the ambulances�because the A&E is said to be full. The front door is open, but the back door, for people coming in an ambulance, is in effect closed. If patients got out of the ambulance and walked round the building to the front door, they could go in and be triaged as normal. It does not make sense. Some of my medical colleagues have gone to see people in the ambulance and discharged them from there, without their needing to come into the hospital at all. So there are clearly people with a level of medical acuity that would potentially allow the crew, with guidance and training, to discharge them into the front door of the hospital instead.
On another question, if some people are well enough to be discharged from ambulances, are the public sufficiently aware of what constitutes a necessity when it comes to calling an ambulance? How many ambulances that are called are necessary? One would not wish to deter anyone who is frightened and concerned for their wellbeing from calling an ambulance if they feel they need one, but education on when one is needed might be useful.
As has been alluded to, staff retention is also important. One o constituent�a single mum with children�left her role as a paramedic because she was struggling with working hours that overlapped with getting her children ready for school in the morning. She was able to cover most other aspects of childcare�such as picking them up from school�with after-school clubs and the like, but she struggled in a morning, and her flexible working request was refused. I recognise that there must be balance, and that all hours of the day must be covered by ambulances, but has the Minister thought about how working practices and hours could be changed?
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), mentioned resources in rural areas. That is important because response times will necessarily be increased by the geography, so greater levels of resource perhaps need to be provided to rural areas, in recognition of the fact that if we want response times in them to fall, we need a higher level of ambulance availability.
Another significant factor causing delayed ambulance response times is staff sickness, which is not necessarily an issue of NHS funding. Ambulance services in England report the highest level of sickness absence rates of any other profession across the NHS. Against a national average absence rate of 4.3% over an eight-year period, ambulance staff showed an average absence rate of 6.2%, with year-on-year increases. There are stark regional differences in sickness rates, with the West Midlands Ambulance Service consistently maintaining a lower absence rate�around 50% lower than its counterparts in London or the east midlands. The NHS would benefit from sharing best practices between trusts, which would make a real difference, ensuring a healthier workforce and, ultimately, better patient care. The issue is also costly financially, and an independent review published by Lord Carter in 2016 estimated even then that a mere 1% reduction in staff absences could save ambulance trusts up to �15 million a year. That figure would clearly be even higher now.
I also want to raise the issue of air ambulance services. Air ambulance charities deliver lifesaving treatment every single day and complete more than 25,000 lifesaving missions across the country every year�an average of more than one every 10 minutes. I commend the work of all those involved, and particularly Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance, which operates in and around my constituency, the crew who airlifted my husband from Silverstone to Coventry last year and looked after him so well.
In the last Parliament, the previous Government gave significant support to air ambulances. The Department of Health and Social Care�s three-year capital grant programme in 2019 allocated �10 million to nine charities across England. That funding supported air ambulance charities to move towards 24/7 operations and improved seven airbase facilities across England. However, services are now under threat from the Chancellor�s rise in national insurance and taxes. Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance will need to find another �70,000 just to pay the national insurance rise�this is an entirely charitably funded organisation. Can the Minister justify that policy, given the vital work that air ambulance charities do across the country?
On 19 November, my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I wrote to the Chancellor to ask about exemptions from the national insurance hike for air ambulances. Despite raising the issue at Treasury questions and in a point of order, and despite repeated chasing from my office, we have not had the courtesy of a proper response to our letter from the Government, although they have suggested that they are now asking the Department of Health and Social Care to respond to the letter. That is a huge discourtesy to the House, and I would be grateful for the Minister�s assurance, because the letter is apparently with the Department of Health, that we will receive a response by the end of the week. That is quite a reasonable request.
Finally, it is fair to say that ambulance crews are doing a sterling job, but that response times are not where we need them to be. I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us how she will improve those services for our constituents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing the debate. I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part, including my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), and the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). I will endeavour to deal with as many issues and questions as I can. If I do miss any, will hon. Members please get in touch with me afterwards, and I will make sure they are picked up?
The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned the commitment made by the Secretary of State to meet him and visit his constituency, and I will ensure that that issue is raised. The parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), is here, and I am sure she will be happy to pursue a response. We will also do what we can to get a response from the Treasury for the shadow Minister.
The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton and other hon. Members rightly raised constituents� experiences of long waits for an ambulance response. I put on record my deepest sympathies for the hon. Lady�s constituent Jim on the loss of his wife. As the Secretary of State has made clear, this is not the level of care that staff want for their patients, and it is not the level of care that this Government will ever accept for patients.
Lord Darzi investigated the issues facing the NHS, and his report was honest about the challenges facing the health service. Urgent and emergency care performance remains a long way from a resilient position and there is continued high demand for A&E and ambulance services, with ongoing seasonal winter pressures. For example, in December the London Ambulance Service recorded more than 121,000 incidents, the highest on record for the service. Improvement needs to happen across the urgent and emergency care pathway and through the expansion of neighbourhood health services.
Nationally, congested emergency departments reduce the productivity of ambulance services, a matter that I think almost all hon. Members raised. A huge amount of time is lost to ambulance handover delays because there is no space for patients. Having crews tied up waiting outside hospitals exacerbates poor ambulance response times. We have also seen the continued normalisation of corridor care. We will never accept patients being treated in corridors; it is unsafe and undignified. We are investing an extra �26 billion to begin turning around the NHS, and we will do all we can, as fast as we can, to consign corridor care to the history books.
Lord Darzi�s investigation into NHS performance highlighted wide variation across different parts of the country. The situation is unfair to patients and goes against the principle of a universal service. I acknowledge that there can be challenges in rural areas, where longer distances often mean that patients wait much longer for ambulances than in urban areas. I often find myself in this place with the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and we both talk about the experience in our rural constituencies. I assure her that that is on my agenda. As she says, ambulance response times for the south-west and some other areas highlight the rurality differential.
In January, the South Western Ambulance Service�s average response for category 2 emergency incidents, which include strokes and heart attacks, was 51 minutes and 45 seconds, which is 26 minutes longer than the best-performing ambulance trust in England. The NHS constitutional standard for category 2 average response times is 18 minutes, and no ambulance trust in England has met that target since the pandemic. This cannot go on. Prioritising patient safety will always be the Government�s and the NHS�s main focus. We are committed to getting A&E waiting times and ambulance response times back to NHS constitutional standards.
The independent review of ambulance trust culture was published in February 2024. Its recommendations included addressing workforce pressures. NHS England is working closely with ambulance trusts to implement those recommendations. We have made some significant investments in the ambulance workforce, and the number of NHS ambulance staff has grown by 9% compared with last year, but we recognise that there is much more to do on retention and wellbeing for ambulance staff. That is something that we will continue to work on.
We cannot keep plugging the gaps. There is a need for more fundamental reform. We have been clear that there are no quick fixes and that to turn things around will take investment and reform. We have provided the highest real-terms capital budget for the NHS since before 2010. We announced an extra �22.6 billion in day-to-day health spending and an additional �3.1 billion further capital investment over two years. That extra investment will be accompanied by fundamental reform, of which ambulance services.
In January, the Government published �Road to recovery: the government�s 2025 mandate to NHS England�, which clearly sets out delivery instructions for the NHS through the prioritisation of the five key objectives aimed at driving reform in the NHS. Improving A&E and ambulance service performance was also one of a small number of prioritised objectives in the Government�s mandate to NHS England to specifically start to address the current challenges facing urgent and emergency care.
In turn, NHS England�s planning guidance for this year includes the target to improve average category 2 ambulance response times to no more than 30 minutes across 2025-26. The guidance also sets out a range of key actions for the NHS to deliver in the same timeframe, focused on reducing avoidable ambulance dispatches and conveyances and reducing hospital handover delays.
Helen Morgan
Will the Minister pick up on the point about social care? Inability to admit to hospital is a key point in the handover delay problem, and the social care talks are a key measure in solving it.
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Member will be delighted to know that I am coming to that point next.
We are working on reducing delays and getting hospital handovers back to within 15 minutes, ensuring that no handover between hospital and ambulance services takes longer than 45 minutes. We want to improve the range and co-ordination of services to avoid unnecessary ambulance conveyances, including through improving access to urgent community response and hospital at home services, and continuing to build on ambulance services and the great work that they do to increase the hear and treat rates so that people can be advised on what they can do and what services they can access that might mean they do not need that ambulance. We will also be driving consistency and commissioning practices across England for ambulance services. I will say a little more about the rurality element in a moment.
We are taking the first steps in the reform and improvements that we want to see in services, and we will shortly set out further plans in the urgent and emergency care services plan. We know that there is no solution for ambulances that does not include tackling the challenges facing adult social care. Health and care services need to be more joined up.
Today, there are approximately 12,000 patients in hospital beds who have no criteria to reside. They do not need to be there but cannot be discharged for reasons of capacity. Over the last month, on average, 276 of the patients with no criteria to reside were in the Somerset integrated board area. That is why the Government are making available up to �3.7 billion of additional funding for local authorities that provide social care. We are funding more home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant this year and next, so that people�s homes can be safer, reducing the risk of their needing an ambulance. We are reforming the better care fund to ensure that the pooled NHS and local authority funding spent on social care contributes to wider efforts to reduce emergency admissions and delayed discharges.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Social care is clearly very important, but what assessment has the Department made of the effect of national insurance contributions on social care provision as a whole?
Ashley Dalton
The hon. Member will be aware, because we have discussed the matter many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber, that the funding has been made available to the statutory sector bodies for employer national insurance contributions for public sector pay, and the negotiations for the delivery of commissioned services locally and within the NHS will take place locally. I am sure that we will be able to point her to some more detail on that issue, which has been discussed at length by colleagues.
We have announced the largest ever increase in the carer�s allowance earnings limit since the benefit was introduced in 1976. It is worth approximately �2,000 a year for unpaid carers. We are also introducing fair pay agreements to empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay and terms and conditions in a responsible manner. That will help to address the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector. It is not all about ENICs; it is about making sure that our social care service is resourced in order to make sure that social carers are recognised for the powerful and important work that they do. We have appointed Louise Casey to help to build a national consensus on the long-term solution for social care.
The social care cross-party talks, to which the Liberal Democrat spokesperson referred, have not been called off; they have been merely delayed. As I told her in the Chamber just yesterday, it is very much about making sure that we have the right people in the room and that they can attend. It is our intention for the talks to go ahead very soon. They have not been called off; they have been merely postponed.
Of course, we need further reform. We are bringing it forward through the 10-year plan this spring to accompany the additional investment in the NHS. The Government will publish that plan for radical reform in the NHS, with those three big reform shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. The reforms will support putting the NHS on a sustainable footing so that it can tackle the problems of today and of the future.
The shadow Minister asked about the configuration of ambulance services. As I am sure she is aware, decisions on service configuration must be made by those who are experts in delivering it.
We have also talked about the key issues of rurality. A range of adjustments are made in the core ICB allocations formula to account for the fact that the costs of providing healthcare may vary between rural and urban areas. Some of the differences, such as the tendency for rural populations to be older, are naturally captured within the formula. We continue to review the formula for the impact of the characteristics of local areas, such as rural, urban and coastal, in the development programme.
I encourage all hon. Members to raise these matters with their local ICBs, which are responsible for commissioning the right configuration of local services. The NHS has increased the availability of local data on ambulance response times performance, with category 2 ambulance performance now published at ICB level, which has increased the transparency of the important data. I encourage hon. Members to use that data to direct conversations with their ICBs.
We have also talked about air ambulances. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the contribution that they make, as the Government do. The Government support the long-standing independent air ambulance charities model for the successful operation of helicopter emergency medical services in England, which gives the sector the independence to raise funds through commercial activity and sponsorship from corporate partners. The NHS continues to support air ambulance services, including through thorough training and the provision of NHS clinicians.
Communities right across the country, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, are struggling with poor services and crumbling NHS estates. We are putting record capital into the NHS. We will bring down ambulance response times. We will get waiting lists back down to what they were in 2010. It will take time, but we will deliver an NHS and a national care service that provide people with the care they need, when and where they need it.
Sarah Dyke
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. The examples that they raised highlight the urgent need to improve ambulance response times. It is just unacceptable that people cannot trust that when they need an ambulance, one will arrive. That is not fair on patients or on the incredible ambulance staff who dedicate themselves to saving lives.
I urge the Government to listen to the Liberal Democrats� calls to publish localised ambulance data, reduce hospital bed occupancy rates to 85% by increasing the number of staffed beds, and introduce a new winter taskforce that would manage a ringfenced fund of �1.5 billion to build resilience in the system. Those changes would lead to improvements that cannot come soon enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered ambulance service response times.
Covid-19 Vaccination
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
His Majesty�s Government (HMG) is committed to protecting people most vulnerable to covid-19 through vaccination as guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
On 13 November 2024, the JCVI published advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme for spring 2025, autumn 2025 and spring 2026. On 12 December 2024 the Government accepted their advice that a covid-19 vaccine should be offered in spring 2025 to those in the population most vulnerable to serious outcomes from covid-19 and who are therefore most likely to benefit from vaccination.
Vaccination will therefore be offered in England in spring 2025 to:
adults aged 75 years and over;
residents in a care home for older adults;
individuals aged six months and over who are immunosuppressed, as defined in tables 3 and 4 of the covid-19 chapter of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) green book on immunisation against infectious disease.
The Government are considering the JCVI�s advice for autumn 2025 and spring 2026 programmes and will respond in due course.
The vaccines that will be supplied for the spring 2025 programme are the Moderna mRNA (Spikevax) vaccine and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty) vaccine.
Notification of liabilities
I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine deployment via this statement and accompanying departmental minute laid in Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken.
The covid-19 vaccines to be used in spring 2025 were pre-procured as part of HMG�s pandemic emergency response. As part of the contractual arrangements with covid-19 vaccine producers for these vaccines, provision of an indemnity was required in order to enter into supply agreements. This only applies to vaccines purchased as part of the pandemic emergency response.
The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses increases the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
I will update the House in a similar manner as appropriate, as and when any future decisions impact the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
[HCWS505]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Department of Health and Social Care�s new cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2024-25. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Department of Health and Social Care will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of �1,400,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Health and Social Care. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at �1,400,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS503]
Plasma for Medicines Programme
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Patient Safety, Women's Health and Mental Health (Baroness Merron) has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to inform the House that the first patients in England have now received life-saving plasma derived medicines made from UK donor plasma for the first time in over 25 years. This will boost self-sufficiency and reduce reliance on imports from abroad.
Blood plasma medicines are critical for approximately 17,000 NHS patients who rely on them to treat immune deficiencies and rare disorders. They are also essential in emergency medicine, particularly during childbirth and trauma care.
Using UK donor plasma was banned in 1998. This followed concerns about a potentially increased risk of plasma recipients acquiring the brain disease variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease due to UK plasma donors being exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (sometimes referred to colloquially as mad cow disease) prions from infected cattle. The NHS has relied solely on imported plasma medicines since then.
The ban was lifted in 2021 following a review by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Commission on Human Medicines. The plasma for medicines programme was set up in 2021 by the Department of Health and Social Care as a tripartite programme between the DHSC, NHS Blood and Transplant and NHS England. Since April 2021, NHSBT has re-established its plasma collection programme and collected 500,000 litres of plasma medicine. Following a successful procurement exercise by NHSE, Octapharma was appointed to fractionate the plasma into component parts (including albumin) and made into medicines. Shipments of UK donor plasma began in summer 2024.
This collaboration, along with the generosity of blood donors, means that the first patients in England are now benefiting from these medications. The devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are already actively engaged in the programme, with similar benefits expected in the near future.
This development is a milestone to deliver the Government�s growth mission, and reflects excellent strategic collaboration between NHSBT and NHSE. This is a further step to establishing strategic self-sufficiency in critical medicines and reducing exposure to international markets, with the global plasma medicines industry expected to rise by $15 billion (2023) to $45 billion by 2027. In England, we expect 25% self-sufficiency on immunoglobulin by the end of 2025, growing to 30-35% by 2031, and 80% self-sufficiency in albumin.
DHSC will continue to work with NHSBT, NHSE and the devolved Governments to consider the next steps for self-sufficiency in the supply of plasma medicines.
[HCWS506]
Local Government: Best Value
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, has today made the following statement:
All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils which provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent, and provide value for taxpayers� money. The Government will continue to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, and this should be done in a way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements. I would like to update the House on progress in two such cases: Thurrock council and Woking borough council.
Thurrock
Thurrock council has been under statutory intervention since September 2022. Today I am publishing the commissioners� fourth report which makes clear that the council continues to make tangible progress in its recovery and is working hard to meet its best value duty. The council has developed a corporate plan and concluded its governance review, both significant steps forward.
There is still much to do, and the changes made to date, although positive, remain fragile, and need to become embedded into the council�s business as usual activity to provide assurances that these improvements will bring about the level of transformation required. I recognise there are difficult but essential decisions to be made by the council in the coming months, including delivering Thurrock�s ambitious savings target of �18.2 million for 2025-26.
As we look ahead, and with six months before the current directions are due to end (1 September 2025), it is important to take stock of the improvement journey the council has been on and where further improvements may be required. I am asking commissioners to provide their next report in April, including their assessment of the council�s progress to meeting the best value duty. I welcome the commissioners continuing to support Thurrock council in the development of proposals for unitary local government and in their devolution ambitions.
Finally, I am announcing that I am extending the appointment of Dr Dave Smith, managing director commissioner, to 1 September 2025, and as Nicole Wood has stepped down from her role as Thurrock commissioner to become the chief executive of Essex county council, I would like to express my gratitude for the support, challenge and guidance she has provided to the council since the start of the intervention. I am minded to appoint a new finance commissioner as soon as possible.
Woking
Woking borough council has been under statutory intervention since May 2023 and today I am publishing the commissioners� fourth report. I am reassured by commissioners� comments that the council is committed to achieving the objectives that the council have worked with commissioners to set, which will radically overhaul the operation of the council. I share commissioners� concerns as set out in their report regarding the capacity of the council to deliver this programme of change and encourage the council to continue to work with the commissioners and my Department to consider how we can best enable the council to improve, for the benefit of residents. I welcome the commissioners continuing to support Woking borough council in the development of proposals for unitary local government. As Carol Culley is stepping down from her role as Woking commissioner to become executive director of finance at Birmingham city council, I would like to thank her for her commitment to Woking and the considerable skills she has brought to bear as both a reviewer and a commissioner. I am minded to appoint a new finance commissioner as soon as possible.
Conclusion
I want to acknowledge the diligent and hard-working members and officers of both Thurrock and Working who have continued to do their utmost to provide essential frontline services for residents while driving forward the necessary improvements.
The Government will play their part by repairing the foundations of the sector overall. The final local government finance settlement 2025-26, alongside funding announced at the Budget, has delivered over �5 billion of new funding for local services over and above council tax. This includes an additional �2 billion of grant through the settlement in addition to a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least �1.1 billion in total in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, and a further �233 million of additional funding for homelessness services. Moving forward we will hardwire stability and security into the system with multi-year settlements and fewer restrictive grants. This will allow councils to focus spending on local priorities, and we will set out and measure progress on the key services and outcomes we expect local government to deliver.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS504]
Ukraine (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Relations and Defence Committee Ukraine: a wake-up call (1st Report, HL Paper 10).
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I speak today as chairman of the International Relations and Defence Committee to introduce our report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call. The report provides a sobering, and now urgent, assessment of the implications of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine for United Kingdom defence policy and the broader security of Europe. Before delving into the detail of the report, I thank the members of the committee, including my predecessor as chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde; the excellent clerk and staff, who put a huge amount of work into the report over the summer; and the witnesses who appeared before the committee.
The findings in our report are stark. The war in Ukraine has shattered the assumptions underpinning western defence thinking since the end of the Cold War. This is indeed a wake-up call not just for us but for the whole of Europe. The war has exposed critical gaps in our capabilities and the fragility of our defence industrial base—all because of our assumption, now revealed as wrong, that future conflicts would be short and limited.
The first conclusion of the report is that NATO deterrence failed. President Putin calculated that the West lacked the political will and the military capability to stop him. This calculation, tragically, was in part correct: our deterrence posture has been found wanting. We must rebuild deterrence through improved military capability, clear messaging and a united front with our allies. This has taken on a new significance following the rift created by the heated exchanges between President Trump and President Zelensky last week and the continuing developments this week.
Another significant development since the publication of our report has been the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and the ambition to increase it to 3% in the next Parliament. While welcome, our report concluded that 2.5% of GDP may not be enough to meet the UK’s growing defence needs or plug existing gaps. Subsequent events have underlined that point.
This leads me to the current state of our Armed Forces. The Army in particular has already shrunk to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, and it is questionable whether it will be able to field sufficient fighting forces beyond an initial deployment. The Prime Minister has said that he is willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee the country’s security. While I fully understand his objective, it is difficult to imagine how the Army would be able to maintain a credible deterrent force in Ukraine, for any extended length of time—let alone fulfil its other obligations, which seem likely to grow—without increasing in size significantly.
Crucially, we must rebuild the appeal of military service to the next generation. We also need to revitalise our reserves. Ukraine has shown that well-trained and properly equipped reserve forces can, literally, make all the difference. Ours are woefully underfunded. We must ensure that they are ready to mobilise at scale, when needed, and that numbers are boosted so that they can also be deployed to protect critical national infrastructure at home.
Critical national infrastructure deserves a specific mention, because the experience of Ukraine provides a clear warning to the United Kingdom: Russia has relentlessly attacked Ukrainian energy systems and communication networks. We are already witnessing a troubling shift towards more aggressive hybrid tactics being deployed, in the UK and nearby, by Russia and others. We must up our game in countering hybrid attacks. If not, our enemies will realise that they can get away with it, placing us in an ever more vulnerable position.
Defence is not just about soldiers and capabilities; it is also about cybersecurity, the security of our supply chains and resilience within our communities. The concept of total defence, long practised by nations such as Sweden and Finland, must be adopted here. We must move beyond the notion that defence is the sole responsibility of the military. Total defence entails a high state of readiness by both the state and society to defend themselves in case of threat of war, crisis or natural disaster.
I will now speak in my personal capacity rather than as a member of the committee. There is a little-known but influential organisation, which is critically poised to play a leading role in helping the United Kingdom achieve a total defence stance, called the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association. I declare an interest in that I am currently its chairman. The CRFCA has strong and embedded relations throughout the United Kingdom, with local and devolved Administration politicians, business leaders and opinion influencers through the extensive nationwide membership of the Reserve Forces and cadets’ associations. The RFCAs are the only defence-related organisations that reach all the regions and devolved nations, and the membership connects with all sectors and communities in society.
The Minister recently commented in answer to a Written Question:
“The RFCA has an extensive volunteer membership … bringing a wide breadth of expertise and community links. The RFCAs’ extensive network of volunteer members, based within communities across the UK, enable the RFCAs to … connect to society … While the number of hours volunteered is not formally recorded either for the volunteer membership or non-executive board members, it is estimated that this figure is around 69,000 hours per year”.
In answer to another, he said:
“The vast majority of active members make no claims, reflecting their sense of service and deep connection with the UK’s Reserve Forces and Cadets”.
There is a move afoot in the Ministry of Defence to dispense with this organisation, first created by Haldane in 1908 when it was realised that, to be efficient, while command and training of the Reserve Forces should be centralised, conversely, the raising and administration of those forces could be efficient only if decentralised, this being deemed essential to the encouragement of local effort and the development of local resources in time of peace. This is what the RFCAs, the successor to what were the county associations, provide today with their wide membership; they are local in origin and situation, cognisant of local capabilities and requirements and thoroughly integrated into their communities.
In its stead, the MoD wishes to create a non-departmental public body with one centralised board of paid non-executive directors with little or no experience of, or commitment to, reserves or cadets. There is a significant risk that this, as well as the proposal that the current membership should be retained merely in an advisory or associate capacity, will disenfranchise the members when they recognise that they will have little ability to have a say on how central government directives are implemented in the regions from which they come and on the support they give to sustain the reserve.
At a stroke, the MoD will have lost a body of natural supporters with deep links into the society of their communities and regions, just as the strategic defence review may well place a greater reliance on the reserve for the total defence of the United Kingdom. To quote a former commanding officer tasked with raising a new reserve battalion: “My experience of raising a new battalion has convinced me that the associations are essential to look after the interests of the Reserve Forces as a whole, not just a harmless institution that has to be humoured. It therefore concerns me that there is a view among some civil servants and regular officers of the MoD that the RFCAs are anachronistic and expensive bodies which work against the established chain of command and are positively detrimental to the ‘one Army’ concept”. The RFCAs are here to help and can make a significant contribution to the defence of the nation.
To return to the committee’s report, yet another urgent lesson from Ukraine concerns our defence industrial base. Decades of budget cuts and reduced industrial capacity since the end of the Cold War have left the UK’s defence industry unprepared for high-intensity prolonged conflict. Our procurement processes are too slow and risk averse. Ukraine has, by necessity, embraced a model of rapid innovation, working hand in glove with commercial technology companies and adapting in real time on the battlefield. This is the agility we need. To achieve this, the Government must rebuild trust with the defence industry, whose leaders repeatedly told us that it needs clear, long-term commitments—not shifting goalposts—to enable it to scale up production.
We must also broaden our partner base, including those we may not traditionally think of as military suppliers, in order to provide the cutting-edge capabilities our Armed Forces require. Recent events have underscored the critical need to strengthen our industrial engagement with our European partners. We found that increasing collaboration in integrated air and missile defence should be high on the list of priorities for the Government. The report also highlights the importance of nurturing partnerships. Of course, it did not predict the schism in the western alliance we are witnessing right now, but that only serves to make it even clearer that the UK Government must now use all their diplomatic skills—as I think the Prime Minister seems to be doing, and I commend his efforts—to ensure the unity of the western alliance in support of UK and European security efforts.
Finally, we must acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: the UK is a medium-sized regional power. This may not be a bad thing, but it requires hard choices to be made and a realistic narrative from the Government about what our Armed Forces can deliver. Our report calls for a coherent model that leverages technology, industry, the reserves, diplomacy and society itself to rebuild our deterrence posture and make sure that it is credible. This should be at the heart of the strategic defence review, and the Government must ensure that their response to the review is swift and provides a clear road map for how this can all be achieved. The hard-earned lessons from the war in Ukraine are our wake-up call, and the time to act is now. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I think it is an appropriate thing to do in a week when the House has been debating the hereditary Peers Bill. He is the inheritor of one of the longest-standing peerages that there that there are, I think, but in his time here—and I have now been here for 15 years—he has made a major contribution to the House. I would just like to put that on record.
The report is right that we need a wake-up call, and I think that there are already signs in the way that Keir Starmer is responding to the crisis that that wake-up call is being heeded. I know a little bit about Ukraine. From the late 1990s to 2004, Tony Blair appointed me to head a No. 10 delegation to meet regularly, which we did every three or four months, with the Ukraine presidential Administration. I was lucky, of course, to be given lots of nice trips around that wonderful country to the Crimea, where I sat in Joe Stalin’s chair at Yalta, and to wonderful cities such as Odessa, Lviv and Kyiv itself.
It was always clear to me in those conversations that there was a great division in Ukraine between those who saw themselves as totally dependent on Russia for their security and their energy and those who wanted to become what I would call a normal European country. Of course, Blair was a very strong advocate of European enlargement, so I could readily say to them that the Labour Government of the time respected their European vocation. Indeed, when I went to Brussels with my noble friend Lord Mandelson and the trade talks started with Ukraine, one of the great things that caused the revolution on the streets in Ukraine, both in 2007 and in 2013, was the feeling that they wanted to be part of Europe, not a Soviet satellite.
I think our Prime Minister has done really well, and I am glad to see that so many people on the Opposition agree on that. There is nothing wrong in principle with President Trump’s wish for peace, and he is right, of course, that there is the most awful killing going on. Not least is the brutality of what Russia has done in Ukraine—and we should not forget this in all these discussions—particularly in taking children from Ukraine to be Russianised. That is absolutely shocking, and it should not be forgotten in any peace discussions.
The basic condition of a peace has to be that Ukraine remains a free and independent country able to pursue its European vocation and membership of the EU. Clearly, security guarantees such as NATO membership have not been ruled out, but the European arm of NATO really has to step up to the plate. That is absolutely crucial. There is, of course, no certainty that the guarantees from the US that we are seeking will actually come. Keir Starmer is doing his best. The Ukrainian President seems to think that the minerals deal, with Americans on the ground in Ukraine, will itself provide a security guarantee; I have to say that I do not agree.
We are on course for a very big need for European rearmament. I welcome the step towards 2.5%, but in my personal view that is nowhere near enough. I think that, with the Robertson review, we need to be thinking much more in terms of something like 3.5%. There is encouraging news on this today from Germany, where the likely new German coalition under Friedrich Merz has decided that all defence spending over 1% should come outside the fiscal brake that they have. I think we need to do something similar in Britain.
Britain has to be full part of this European rearmament. This is not anti-NATO; in fact, it is the only way of saving NATO, by convincing the Americans and President Trump that we are ready to stand up to the plate. But this must be done in a co-ordinated way if it is to secure efficiency and rationalisation of the way that Europe works. I am a little sceptical of talk of buying British in this context, because we have to be co-ordinated. One of the reasons that Europe is so weak is because of that lack of planning and co-ordination.
Fundamentally, what the Russians want is a defeated and demoralised Ukraine, where they can convince the people that they should elect leaders who accept Russian satellite status. That is not what we want. There has to be no Munich in Europe as a result of the present crisis.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking our previous chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and our current chair, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and indeed our clerk and her colleagues for the tremendous work that they have done in drawing together the information that emerged in our inquiry and the many thoughts and reactions that we had as members of the Select Committee.
Much has happened since its publication in September 2024, but the thrust of our report remains absolutely relevant and on target. It was, as its title says, A Wake-up Call then; surely the events of the past few weeks have shaken out of their slumber those who did not recognise the urgency of the call at that time and continued to sleepwalk towards disaster. The report sets out with great clarity how Europe as a whole—and our own country, I am afraid—has failed to pay attention to the drift into what I have described as a third global conflict. I have spoken about this in your Lordships’ House before, especially after the Russian invasion of Crimea because, even at that time, the direction in which we were going was clear.
However, as in so many other fields, people tend to live in the world that they wish existed, rather than in the one that they actually inhabit. Europe in general preferred to believe that major international wars in Europe were a thing of the past. After 9/11, many academics and analysts wrote about the new wars, which would consist only of terrorism and intra-state disruption, but insisted that major wars between developed states would not arise. This was an extension of the thought that was around in the later 20th century that technological developments, especially after 1945 and the existence of nuclear weapons, were so damaging and destructive that the truth was that no one would actually contemplate them.
In fact, new technologies rarely replace the old technologies of warfare completely. They simply add more weapons, more tactics and more strategies to the armamentarium. A hundred years ago, most warfare took place on land and sea; then, air became important and, subsequently, space did so as well. But, as if four spaces were not enough in which to have conflict, we developed the cyber world, and we are now in effect engaged in a global conflict in cyberspace.
An old intelligence officer with whom I worked for many years used to talk about the need to be an educated customer of intelligence. What he meant was that we need not only to accumulate ever more data but to analyse it satisfactorily. That means looking at it realistically. When Vladimir Putin wrote and talked a lot about his intention to take territory and restructure the global security architecture, many western analysts said, “Oh, his speeches are just bad history and foolish nonsense”. Even when he amassed troops on the borders of Ukraine, many regarded this as just showmanship and did not prepare themselves for the coming conflict.
It is much the same with President Trump. People often complain that, when politicians get elected, they do not do the things they promised during their election campaigns. The problem with President Trump is the opposite: he does try to implement the things that he has promised. It is necessary to listen carefully to what he says. When he talks of wanting peace, what he is talking about is peace between Russia and the United States; it is not a peace that will satisfy Ukraine or Europe. As far as he is concerned, they are small fry that he can happily disregard because the big players are just the United States, Russia and China; the rest are just what the French call garniture—kinds of vegetables.
This report sets out clearly the urgent need to review our failed deterrence policy, not least because we cannot have the same confidence that our nuclear capacity will always be able to operate with the necessary current US collaboration. We can hope that it will, but we cannot be certain. There are colossal financial and technical implications—and, indeed, implications for our alliances. The NATO we knew is simply not able to be depended upon, but we do need alliances and we need to work closely with others.
It is also true that one downside of having a full-time professional military is that the country as a whole gets to believe that the defence of the country is somebody else’s responsibility: “It’s the Government. It’s the military”. They are absolutely crucial, of course, but, particularly as the amount of resource available has been cut back, it is not possible for the Government and the military on their own to give citizens a guarantee to fulfil the absolute fundamental responsibility of defence and protection. We need a whole-of-society approach and sense of responsibility; as has already been mentioned, our colleagues in Finland and some of the other Scandinavian countries have recognised this for some time. That will need a change in the psychological posture of our people as a whole, as well as in the provision of materiel.
In regard to our weapons systems, bigger is not always better. Some of the things we have seen Ukraine being able to do with small amounts but with creativity need our attention. We need steady nerves but a commitment to face the fearful reality before us and to face the current underpreparedness with necessary funding, personnel and a change in attitude of our community as a whole.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I also have the privilege of being a member of the International Relations and Defence Committee. I will confine my remarks in this debate to one of the points in chapter 3 of our report, “Nurturing partnerships”. This looks at the concept of defence in a more holistic and big-picture way than just the size of the Armed Forces or the supply chains and capability of weapons, crucial though these things self-evidently are.
Alliances, partnerships and reputation also underpin our defence posture and, in the case of Ukraine, have exposed an important weakness when we consider the situation globally and long-term. We need to think very carefully about the response of the countries which we generally call the global South to the support from the UK for Ukraine, partly so that a rounded view of the current situation can take place, but also so that the UK in formulating its future defence strategies and capabilities can be realistic about those alliances, partnerships and reputational risks on which our engagement in any future combat situation might depend.
As the report states:
“International engagement is integral to deterrence and escalation management”.
At the time of the report’s publication—I am certainly not going to go into the astonishing change in voting behaviour by the US at the UN recently—the UN’s 193 member states had voted on six emergency special session resolutions on Ukraine. Most countries supported the first of these, which condemned Russia’s invasion, with only one-quarter of states not in favour. All those that abstained or voted against were countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and south-east Asia: the global South. This pattern held in subsequent votes and few countries in any of those regions have imposed any sanctions on Russia or given any material support to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russia has been able to divide and rule between the positions of the West on one hand and of the global South on the other, by talking up the Soviet Union’s historical support for decolonisation, attracting support particularly in Africa and Asia. Our report quotes a former Portuguese Minister, who said:
“Ukraine’s plight would receive a lot more sympathy in the Global South if it were presented as a war of national liberation … if you described Russia as the last European empire”.
While the UK has been reluctant to embrace this narrative, Russia has gone full speed ahead with diplomatic initiatives to court and secure support from the global South.
For example, it held a Russia-Africa summit and parliamentary conference in 2023 and described a new foreign policy approach in opposition to the so-called western neocolonialism. It also held the first ever Russia-Latin America conference in the same year. This has resulted in countries of the global South feeling aggrieved at what is perceived to be a distracting concern of the West with Russian aggression. They would prefer to see attention towards issues such as debt and climate change, rather than what is being viewed as western hypocrisy and double standards, particularly towards the suffering of people in regions of the world other than Ukraine.
Evidence we received from the Henry Jackson Society suggested that these undesirable trends could be shifted by a more assertive role by the UK in the Security Council and the G7, away from a subordinate position of reliance on the US, and stressed the importance of maintaining a physical presence in regions of potential conflict.
I suggest that this all adds up to a clear pointer that the Government’s recent decision to fund greater defence spending—vital though that must surely be—by raiding the international aid budget might be short-sighted and ultimately self-defeating. If the UK’s future defence capability, strategy, deterrence and engagement are to command the respect of global leadership rather than risk a global cold shoulder, we will need a more holistic definition of defence and the support, not the cynicism, of the global South. We should pay more attention to Latin America and avoid short-changing Africa. On the surface, I can see that that sounds literally miles away from our defence agenda, but the interconnectedness is now more important to understand than ever before. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these points.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, our Select Committee was half way through its taking of evidence when we were rudely interrupted by a general election. It is a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his predecessor in the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, that we picked up the pieces after the election and completed this report. It is a tribute as well to our secretariat, who were terrific.
If I were to summarise the lessons we learned in our report from the war in Ukraine, I would say that they are a surprising mixture of the old and the new. On the old side, we have the front line and the trenches, which are eerily reminiscent of conflicts over 100 years ago and which showed the importance of mass in military operations. On the new side, we have the evidence of the huge importance of drones, which, as we say in paragraph 183, are ubiquitous in Ukraine for intelligence, target acquisition and reconnaissance, as well as for direct attacks. Then, aside from the mechanics of warfare is the international context in which the war is being fought, on which I very much agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. What has the war told us about the standing of the West in the international community, in particular those countries of the global South?
First, on the importance of mass, as we say in paragraph 34,
“the evidence we heard points to the current size of the British Army being inadequate”.
Before we even begin to talk about increasing the size of the Army, we need to focus a little on the immediate problem of the apparent inability to recruit enough people to maintain present strengths. The figures we had were that, up to July 2024, 11,940 people joined the regular Armed Forces, while, in the same period, 15,700 left. We need a 25% increase just to stand still. I would like to hear from the Minister the strategy we now have for delivering the numbers required, particularly in the light of the increased funding announced last week. How much will be accomplished by retaining existing personnel and how much by new recruits? I am sure he agrees with me that retention has great advantages because, in a sense, you already have the finished product.
I would also like confirmation—I think this is such an important point in recruiting—of the fact that skills acquired in a career in the Armed Forces are extremely valuable for life outside the military, and special emphasis should be given to this powerful selling point. In our evidence, we heard that the armed services are consistently in the top 10 of UK apprenticeship providers, with no fewer than 24,800 people undertaking their apprenticeships in 2022.
Finally on recruitment, the Government said in their response to us that:
“The Armed Forces need to continue to attract a range of diversity, talent, skills and experience which is fully reflective of the society it serves”.
Which groups are particularly underrepresented, and are there good grounds for believing that targeting them will bear fruit in the recruitment challenges facing the forces?
Now to the significance of new technology, especially drones, in the lessons learned in Ukraine. The sheer scale of the use of drones in Ukraine is staggering. Dr Ulrike Franke from the European Council on Foreign Relations told us that drones
“are omnipresent on the battlefield”.
She said,
“we are talking about hundreds of thousands of small drone systems being used, and lost, every month”.
Two issues concerning drones stand out from our evidence. The first is the rapidity of development of drones and of defence systems to counter them. This means that there is, in effect, a drones arms race, with any advantage to either side always in danger of being short-lived. The second issue is simply one of drone production capacity. As we say in our report, it is estimated that
“Russia is producing around 300,000 drone units per month”,
compared with Ukraine’s production of 150,000. I ask the Minister: where are we in the drones arms race? Are sufficient resources being provided to keep us ahead in drone technology and defence systems? Is the industrial capacity available to produce drones on the scale that modern warfare requires?
Finally, I turn to the lessons we should learn from the Ukraine conflict about the international context and the standing of the West. In paragraph 34 of our report’s recommendations, we say:
“As the UK Government is facing a world where the Global South is becoming more assertive, with some countries leaning towards China or Russia, it is vital for the UK to be more proactive and have a strategy on how to engage with the Global South”.
The fact that 40 countries are sanctioning Russia because of its aggression can give only limited comfort to the West, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of countries are not imposing sanctions, and many of those are helping Russia, in one way or another, to evade the effects of sanctions. I would like to hear the Minister’s judgment about what the war in Ukraine has told us about the standing of the West in general in the international community and of the UK in particular. The war in Ukraine has been long and bloody. Lessons have to be learned. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I was not a member of this excellent committee, but I think that this is an absolutely admirable report that is amazingly timely, very important and, indeed, a wake-up call to us all. Although I was not a member, I take a little slice of pride as a godparent of the committee because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I had to push the authorities very hard to get the committee set up, which we eventually did, and it has been an outstanding success. This is one of the best reports it has ever produced. I have three points to add, quickly, to the excellent introduction from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in which he covered most of the things I want to say.
First, we should note what he said about reserves. At the moment, our reserves, which used to be called territorials, number 34,280—although I am not quite sure about that; there is a lot of dispute about the number. That is on top of the 74,000 regular Army troops, making the total strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force 134,000, or whatever it is. That can be enlarged very quickly. People forget how rapidly, in the 1930s, the reserves went from being held at about 200,000 into the millions, and then merged totally into the Army. All that happened in a matter of weeks. I cannot claim to remember in the case of my father, because I was two years old at the time, but I am told that he had about a fortnight to transform from being a retired regular back into a territorial, and then went into full combat organisation and was in the desert within a month of the war being announced on 3 September. The whole speed of this thing can be greatly improved, as the report rightly says, and to have bureaucracy slowing it all down is a lot of nonsense. We need to look at that very clearly; the call-up can be much quicker. That is my first point.
Secondly, this report is so good because it brings home that the whole issue is much wider than the picture books and child versions of what warfare is about. We think about the trenches and the front line, and it is absolutely true about the drones that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, just eloquently mentioned. The sheer numbers—the report mentioned 2 million—that Ukraine alone is mobilising can really change the whole nature and drive people back into the trenches like in 1914. I am told that, within 200 miles on either side of the front line, and certainly on the Russian side, anyone who comes out of a trench for a smoke—or, dare I say, a pee—is instantly spotted and probably dead within three or four minutes. This is the changed nature of the whole pattern of the front line.
An even bigger nature change is that it is not just about the front line. Obviously, civilians are targeted, rather as Hermann Göring did with trying to smash all our cities—he failed. Now, of course, Putin has far longer-range rockets of far greater accuracy. All the utilities are targeted, and we want to watch, know and learn from the Minister to what extent we are developing new air defences and missile repellents for, for instance, our power stations. If they can be taken out, and if electricity can be taken out of the system, I am told that, within three days, civil chaos and collapse of morale happens behind the lines. Of course, it is the same lesson that Germany in particular learned in 1918: if morale collapses behind the lines, it spreads to a collapse in morale in the Armed Forces as well. The Russians are well aware of that and are using that strategy in Ukraine at this moment. The concept of having total defence against this kind of warfare, total defence in terms of mobilising people on a far larger scale—regulars and territorials—and having more combat-trained troops ready to add to the regular troops is vital.
On my third point, I differ a little, I think, from the report. The report says that it is all about Europe and how we get together with our European partners. It is not; it is a global issue. There are principles—and fears—that go right through Asia, where all the growth of military, civil and domestic economy will take place over the next 30 years. Japan is extremely nervous about any kind of peace that we negotiate in Europe that gives in to Russian force. They say that that would immediately trigger Xi to have a go at suffocating Taiwan, which would lead to Pacific war and then to world war. We have, but sometimes neglect, our great range of Commonwealth network friends, right through Asia and Africa. They are just as concerned and need to be mobilised just as much. In fact, if you add it up, we probably have more friends—you might say they are soft-power friends and their Governments do not always agree—around the world, outside Europe, than the United States has. The United States might be losing friends at the moment, becoming not America the beautiful, but America the feared, in terms of what it will do next. We need America, but it also needs us.
My fear is that Putin will outwit Trump and offer a peace that looks good to start with but in fact can last only 10 minutes. If he does not do that, he may even offer the kind of peace that leads to the conquest of Ukraine by the Russians. That would of course be the worst of all worlds.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the members of the International Relations and Defence Committee on this excellent report. It is usually a matter of great regret that we are not able to debate such Select Committee reports until long after they are published, but in this case the delay is a positive advantage. Why? To echo the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, it is because, if the war in Ukraine was a wake-up call for us and our European partners in NATO, surely the events of the past few weeks in Munich and Washington have served to tip us entirely out of our cosy collective bed on to the cold, hard floor. The recommendations made in the report are based on a forensic analysis of the evidence and are well judged. I support them all. However, the context has clearly changed—and not for the better.
We all want NATO to survive and to continue the invaluable work it has done over so many decades to guard our collective security. The United States has been at the core of that endeavour, and we wish American involvement to continue. I believe that it will, but we can no longer expect it to be on the scale that it has been in the past. This goes beyond the vagaries of one President or any sense of growing American isolationism. Senior officials in Washington, both civilian and military, have made it clear that, despite their enduring commitment to NATO, they are substantially shifting their weight of effort from Europe to the Pacific. This should not surprise us. This development has been under way and slowly building in momentum over many years. That the American shift now coincides with a dramatically increased risk to our security has just served to open European eyes that, for too long, have remained resolutely shut.
It is now starkly apparent that if we in Europe do not provide adequately for our own security, no one else will. It is also clear that shouldering this responsibility is the surest way of retaining American involvement in NATO. For too long, we and our European partners have scrabbled around in the smallest margins of public expenditure to fund our defence. It was inappropriate in the past; it would be utter folly now. There is a growing acknowledgement by many political leaders in Europe that we are in an era of rearmament. This is right, but we need to define and follow through on what that means. Europe’s militaries, including our own, are too small as fighting units, inadequately armed and lacking in key strategic capabilities. Rearmament means making good these deficiencies. That will take two things: time and money. We have the first, but none to waste.
Russia’s military capability, particularly in its ground forces, is depleted after three years of gruelling combat in Ukraine. This will take time to rebuild, but it can and will be rebuilt. Meanwhile, Russia has learned some important operational and tactical lessons from its early failures in the war, and its nuclear, aviation and maritime capabilities remain largely untouched. So, in one sense, we are in an arms race with Russia, and we cannot afford to fall behind.
This brings me to the cost of rearmament: it will be considerably greater than the Government have yet acknowledged. It is worth reflecting that, at the time of the first Gulf War—the last time we fielded a full armoured division for high-intensity conflict alongside an extended air campaign—we were spending 4% of GDP on defence. Even then, we had to cannibalise the whole of the British Army of the Rhine in order to field that armoured division. So the Prime Minister’s commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the financial year 2027-28 is clearly inadequate; 2.5% of GDP would merely close the gap between the current level of resource and the cost of the existing programme, and there are two years before even that happens. As things stand, it seems that defence will actually receive less cash next year than it will in this. I cannot imagine quite how the Minister will defend this in the House.
So what is the cost? SACEUR has set out a defensive posture that, in his view, would deter Russian aggression —something the inquiry report rightly identifies as the overriding requirement. SACEUR has also identified the contribution that he needs from the UK. This should be costed and a plan drawn up to achieve the necessary force levels and sustainability as soon as possible. I cannot put an accurate price on this, but it will be well north of 3% of GDP so, to put us on the right path, we need 2.5% immediately and we need to pass 3% before the end of the decade.
Of course, the money should be spent wisely. Other noble Lords have commented and will comment on this, but I identify two important issues that need to figure prominently in our plans. The first is the requirement for continuing technological innovation and rapid capability development. This will involve a much closer and more flexible use of SMEs than has been normal in our procurement system to date. The second is the importance of well-trained and equipped reservists. With this in mind, I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in opposing any suggestion that this crucial part of our capability be put under a non-departmental body. That would be a bad idea at any time but folly today.
The Prime Minister has said that Europe must do the heavy lifting in Ukraine, but heavy lifting requires muscle. We have allowed our military muscle to atrophy for far too many years; we now need substantially to rebuild it and to rebuild it quickly, before it is too late.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, those were wise words from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I join him in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his committee.
All seem to agree that the context within which the report was drafted has changed dramatically. Obviously, one would be the announcement by our Prime Minister of an increase in defence expenditure and more to come, but also the flurry of announcements made since Munich by the President and the Vice-President, which makes some argue whether we can still rely on the US and whether all the assumptions we have made since the Second World War about transatlantic relations are put in question. Are we still confident that the US will come to our aid? I note that the former US ambassador to Moscow said over the past few days that we need to rethink the side on which the US is now, because there have been so many things said by the President which favour Moscow, and there has been no criticism of Moscow but much criticism of President Zelensky, who was lectured, indeed humiliated, when he visited the White House and may yet again, Canossa like, have to go on his knees when next week he visits, or is likely to visit, the President, possibly with President Macron and our Prime Minister. The question of trust must arise and must affect all our relations, including our reliance on the US for the nuclear deterrent.
There is an old adage, “Think it, don’t say it", and we have to understand our Prime Minister when he bites his tongue, I guess, about things he would like to say about the utterances of President Trump, but he cannot say them, and we are more able to do so.
You can talk about the responsibility for the war. President Trump mentioned Ukraine as starting the war. He wants to increase the G6 to the G7, and it is sad to see the way in which Congress, or at least the Republicans, a few days ago sycophantically rallied around the President, yet a few months ago, they would have given just the same response to President Zelensky. Now they exult in the President’s new clothes.
Paragraph 155 of the report states that we should:
“expect a gradual shifting of US priorities”.
There has not been a gradual shifting. There has been a fundamental reversal by President Trump, by the pause, in terms of Ukraine, on both the military side and intelligence. To remove intelligence, in terms of both the offensive and defensive capability of Ukraine, can harm the war effort immensely so that Putin can take yet more land in advance of any peace treaty.
Since the publication of the report, we have seen this flurry of declarations, and we need to re-evaluate our relationship. It is argued that the specialist cadre in the Foreign Office regarding Russia has hollowed out. I recall that many years ago when I was in the Foreign Office in response to that challenge, we responded to the Hayter report to increase concentration on Russia. Do we now need a similar Hayter report?
I turn to particular aspects of the report: the wider challenge of defence in a more diverse society and the role of the reserves, which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke wisely about. The older generation in our country is more ready to relate to the military than the younger generation. When I sell for the Royal British Legion for 11 November, I often find that young people are reluctant to give to the military whereas older people are very ready to do so. We need to educate our communities.
Many have made points about the global South, as it is now called. The committee says that we should deal with that with ODA—that does not sit easily with the recent cuts to ODA.
Finally, there is the question of realism, mentioned in the summary and discussed well by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Can we still afford the full spectrum on defence and to what extent should there be a substantial move to our European allies and a rejection of some of the ideological antagonism towards Europe? It is very important that the Government respond to the new Germany, as Chancellor-to-be Merz asks to be brought within the circle of our nuclear powers. On this point of realism, we should invite everyone to go to Delphi, consult the oracle and perhaps be ready to examine ourselves and know ourselves better than we do at present.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, to our wonderful committee staff and to all those who took the trouble and time to give us evidence for this important and substantial report.
I start by saying, across the political divide, that our Prime Minister has handled events thus far with exceptional calm and confidence. It gives great strength to our case that the nation is united in its support for Ukraine and its determination to ensure that we are prepared to make a greater contribution to NATO, which is long overdue, and thus to European security. It is a great pity that we no longer have a seat in the Councils taking place today in Brussels.
I strongly support President Trump’s determination that this should be the case, but respectfully remind him that the Atlantic alliance, which is the most successful defensive organisation of all time, is not something just to be dismissed at the flick of a switch. We will get further quicker if we undertake the vast amount of work that has to be done in an orderly way without the baleful histrionics. He should also realise that, whatever agreement he thinks we may be able to reach with President Putin, the Kremlin will continue to view the West as an enemy. We must therefore take all necessary steps to continue to be aware of the danger it represents and its activities, which are harmful to ourselves, our people, our country and our allies. To this end, we need, as everyone agrees, to build up our defences and our resilience. Investing in our security is in our interest and we need to recognise our urgent obligation to the country to do it.
The wake-up call—now an alarm call—that this committee deals with is extremely timely. It will affect this country’s military activities across all domains and mean profound changes in the military and civilian establishments, in particular in the reordering and encouragement of our defence industrial base, which has so much to offer. I agree strongly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on this. To this end, I urge Ministers to study the case histories of the Americans, who do this sort of thing extremely well, particularly businesses such as Anduril, which I saw the other day and is doing so much in the private sector in R&D and production and at far lower prices than the conventional manner.
I also support strongly an urgent look at how the reserves in all three services can play a bigger role and bring into the defence field many more people who would otherwise not be involved. I strongly—very strongly—support the comments from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, in this regard. Of course, we await the outcome of the strategic defence review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Although we can, I think, all be pleased with the intention to raise spending on defence, to be frank, what is planned at present is nowhere near enough, as several noble Lords have said.
In the months ahead, it will be increasingly important that the public understand that this country is going to have to change its dispositions. I think that it would be a wise step to establish a ministry of civil defence, which would accelerate the planning of the kind of unforeseen circumstances and eventualities that are clearly going to arise; it would be a focus for urgency in building our required, but much overdue, national resilience. Incidentally, I wonder whether the Minister will consider whether it is entirely sensible to send the carrier strike group to the Far East when it may well be required for urgent duties nearer home. It seems to me foolish to dispatch so much of our limited naval power such a long way from its home base at a time of considerable tension.
In my view, the reason why the events of the past few weeks have come as such a tremendous shock in this country is because the Article 5 commitment—and NATO’s solidarity behind it—allowed a billion people in 32 countries to sleep easily in their beds at night. To be frank, that is no longer the case. They will continue to be able to do so only if deterrence is real, robust and understood by friend and foe alike. Deterrence means having the right capabilities and the right forces, with the right equipment, at the right place and at the right time, to defend our people and to frighten off those who wish us ill. In Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine, we have been reminded vividly of what is at risk. We must take all necessary steps. The stakes before us are sky-high and, as this report makes plain, we need to wake up to them.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on introducing this excellent report. It makes grim reading. By its reckoning, we are not defending ourselves as a country well enough. It pre-dated, but was prescient in, its conclusions, which played out in the terrible scenes at the White House last week when, finally, American foreign policy was laid bare.
There will be no security backstop guaranteed by our long-term allies. We have in effect been cut off from what we have long believed to be our security lifeline. America, under this President and his wealthy backers, has reneged on that long-held view that the western alliance worked together against the dictator and aggressor, Putin. That view was shattered to pieces when, at the recent United Nations General Assembly, the resolution blaming Russia for starting the war was voted against by peace-loving, democratic nations such as Belarus and Hungary—and the United States of America. Now, President Trump is threatening to revoke the legal right of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees to stay in the US. Who could possibly have thought it?
That was only the beginning. Things have deteriorated inexorably since then. This report articulates the urgent need for us to examine and address the areas that we need to support in our military strategy in order to assure this nation that we can protect and defend ourselves—the very first priority of any Government. In doing so, we need to ensure that we play our important part in a pan-Europe security role, helping Ukraine to survive this terrible war, particularly since the United States has just decided to suspend its military aid to Ukraine—a shocking, brutal and traitorous act toward a country trying to save itself from Russian aggression.
There is so much in the committee’s report, ranging from the underlying importance of deterrence, through the defence recruitment system and how we build mass, to how we need to recruit and retain more reserves and the urgent need to better understand and work with our defence industry. I applaud all the speeches that have talked about this; it is a blueprint that I hope will be studied and accepted by those about to produce our strategic defence review.
The report identifies what must now be done to rectify this, at speed—all the while acknowledging how difficult this will be when our resources are so low and money is scarce. However, raiding our international aid budget to help pay for this urgent uplift to our national security is, I believe, the wrong way to go about it. There are around $300 billion of frozen Russian assets across the G7 and the EU. We hold around £25 billion of those. Will the Government urgently bring forward legislation to unblock those assets? The money that we have taken from the international aid budget could then be put back and made to work in those countries whose very existence relies on our support. In the long run, that soft power that we have exercised so well in the past will be remembered.
The report also makes much of engaging the whole of society in understanding the importance of defending ourselves against future aggression. A déjà vu moment for me came as I recalled my visit to the civil defence college in Easingwold some 35 years ago. We had three days of intensive training in all aspects of what we should do in the event of nuclear war being declared. As local councillors at the time, we were given insight into how we should help our communities prepare and ultimately survive any attack. We had tabletop exercises, discussions and military personnel guiding us through debates and lectures.
Shamefully, some of us treated this important seminar as a bit of fun—light-hearted relief from our day job as councillors. One evening, I organised an escape committee to the local pub, when we were not supposed to leave the estate. It was only when we were subjected to the awful sound of air raid sirens on some exercises that the reality of what we were doing there had the desired impact on us. Ukrainians have had that every day for the past three years and the reality of Russian terror in so many unspeakable ways.
There was a bunker at County Hall in those days and only one person was in charge of running our county’s emergency defence service—how very British. At least we had an appreciation of just what was involved in civil defence. My fear now is that this knowledge is completely lost and that it will require a considerable effort to bring it back into existence. The report is a wake-up call indeed for this and I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to bring back civil defence awareness in our society.
Now we know that we cannot count on America any more to help in the defence of our way of life and our values as democracies, we have to stand as one against those malign forces that seek to destroy those values. Ukraine has shown us how to do this and we must continue to help that brave country fight for its right to exist. This report charts the work needed to bring this forward at speed. Now is the time for us to make ourselves ready.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it is conventional wisdom across all cultures and societies that when someone visits your home as a guest, you treat the guest with utmost respect and courtesy; it is only good etiquette. You do not berate, bully, belittle or humiliate your guest in public.
President Zelensky’s country has been invaded by a tyrant, and he is travelling across the world pleading for help to save his nation. He is not the invader or the aggressor. He is simply asking for the invaders to leave so that his people can live in peace with their neighbours. Therefore, I appeal to the President of the United States to reinvite his guest, listen to his plea and then stand firmly in support of Ukraine.
The war in Ukraine is indeed a wake-up call for all of us in Europe. After the Second World War and during the Cold War we all knew where we stood. On one side we had Warsaw Pact nations and on the other NATO. No country dared cross another’s border for fear of nuclear conflict. Each side watched the other. Our spies followed theirs, and their spies followed ours. We disapproved of their political system, and they disapproved of ours. Yet, in this strange reality, we coexisted.
Then, at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. We thought we had won the Cold War—indeed, we had. Out of the ashes of the Soviet Union, 15 new nations emerged, finding their own voices, including Ukraine. In the Balkans, after a brutal and bloody civil war, seven more nations found their independence. We celebrated, we breathed a sigh of relief believing that a new world order had arrived, that liberty and liberal democracy had triumphed and that we could let our guard down. How wrong we were.
As some of the new European nations applied to join NATO, our numbers grew, but in the shadows, a Russian bear, an ex-KGB officer with a secret agenda and historical grudge was plotting his rise to power. When he finally took control of Russia, we welcomed him with open arms believing we could do business with him. How wrong we were. In 2014, when he felt secure at home, he invaded Crimea. Our failure to act emboldened him and led him to plan his next move. Three years ago, he launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Only then did we wake up to the grim reality of a new era in Europe.
Yet even now some right-wing populist politicians in NATO countries are allying with Putin. They are questioning the very existence of our alliance. If they succeed in gaining power in their respective countries, Europe will face yet another terrifying threat. Credit must be given to Sweden and Finland, nations which share hundreds of miles of border with Russia, for recognising the danger and immediately applying to join NATO. The time has come for us to make tough decisions. If Russia can deploy North Korean troops to protect its border, why should Ukraine not have the right to invite NATO forces to protect its borders? At their request, we must stand by them not just in words, but in actions. Welcome to a new world order.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to serve on the International Relations and Defence Committee and particularly so to be part of this inquiry. I add my thanks to our chair my noble friend Lord De Mauley, our previous chair the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, and congratulate and thank enormously our wonderful committee staff.
As other noble Lords have said, much has happened since the publication of this report in September. I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Soames that a wake-up call has indeed become an alarm call. We looked at this subject because we wanted to look at the lessons for the UK. We were not trying to second guess what might happen in Ukraine, so that is where I am going to focus my remarks today.
There is a huge amount of support from around the Room today for the reserves. This report noted that Ukraine was able to draw on a large pool of reservists at the start of the Russian invasion. The establishment of the TDF—the Territorial Defence Forces—empowered local communities to take an active role in national security. In evolving from volunteer militias into formal branches of the armed forces, they have boosted the essential mass of the resistance at multiple levels. As other noble Lords, and our chairman in his opening remarks, pointed out, our report pointed to the reserves in the UK as providing a cost-effective model to do just that—build mass—yet a reduction in reserve workforce numbers confirms that the capability of the reserves, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford pointed out, has declined.
Others have already highlighted the RFCAs. To follow up, in an Answer to my Written Question asked on 3 February, the Minister acknowledged the multiple ways that the RFCAs offer support to recruitment, in some cases seeing a 200% improvement in expressions of interest, so I trust he will heed the warnings he has heard today regarding turning them into a non-departmental public body at this time. Surely we have to encourage all links between defence and the wider public, particularly in community and employer engagement, and in areas across the country where local knowledge and understanding may perhaps be limited within the MoD.
I understand that the Minister for Veterans and People is a current serving reservist, as—I declare an interest—is my daughter. We have been told that the Minister is conducting yet another review to determine how defence can utilise our reserves forces. Could he not instead respond to and implement the recommendations already set out in the RF30 review conducted by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton? If the UK is going to send peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, we are definitely going to need highly trained reserves. In our report, Professor Vince Connelly’s evidence noted how history shows that in past crises reservist units were deployed irrespective of their readiness level, making it essential that we put systems in place to enable them to be ready now. This is now personal for me, so I urge the Government not to consider deploying reservists such as my daughter for any task for which they have not been fully prepared. Recommendation 15 of our report states that the Government should prioritise reinvigorating the reserves, and I hope the Minister will today confirm that they will act rather than just wait for another review.
Like many others, my daughter performs her military duties outside core working hours, and I suspect her employer has absolutely no idea of what she does or what she is being trained to do when it gives her time off. We have to straddle the military and civilian landscapes and vocabulary. The population is losing its connection to our Armed Forces. The Minister will know that I had very limited knowledge of military vocabulary until we took part in the AFPS scheme together. This detachment and lack of understanding of what defence means is coming through in the political challenges that the Government have in the population understanding the need to increase the defence budget, and there is alarmingly low public awareness of the threats that face the country. Our report urges the Government to pay greater attention to homeland defence. Others have referred to the Scandinavian all-of-society approach and the need for collective preparedness. Should we be expecting a duty to contribute from individuals, private companies and public organisations? We know that from the start Russian forces targeted critical national infrastructure in Ukraine, and here in the UK we are daily experiencing potentially devastating cyberattacks from malicious actors, which at the very least cause us severe economic loss. I suggest that protecting the UK’s critical national infrastructure should be not only a key defence priority but the responsibility of us all.
I understand that the Cabinet Office is leading on whole-system crisis and resilience planning, which will incorporate a whole-of-society approach, and this could include work on the contribution of the general public to national security and resilience. Can the Minister say any more about this work? How are wider civilian non-governmental organisations being included? When might we expect to hear any details on timings and outcomes?
Our report outlines how the war in Ukraine illustrates that engaging the whole of society in defence is crucial for building a resilient and prepared nation, and I urge the Government to prioritise reinvigorating the reserves, fostering wider public-private collaboration and enabling a more candid narrative about the meaning of defence and its value to us all.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this excellent Select Committee report offers an urgent and timely analysis, rightly stating:
“The UK must commit to spending more on defence, spending it better, and leveraging its alliances by design”.
It also cites a different alliance: the deadly quartet of Russia, North Korea, Iran and China—a country on which we foolishly make ourselves ever more dependent, and a quartermaster that, if it wished, could end this war tomorrow. The report also points to Putin’s deepening connections to key global South countries, referred to by other noble Lords. I too question the wisdom of savaging our programmes in the global South, thus creating a dangerous void into which China and Russia will continue to march.
Defence and development are not binary options and there is an alternative, wiser, moral way of funding both. A hypothetical penny-in-the pound increase in income tax, to be used for defence only, would raise £6.6 billion in the next financial year—more than the £5.8 billion that will be raised by a 0.2 point cut to the ODA budget. How many of the $300 billion of Russian state assets frozen by the UK and our G7 partners have been repurposed to pay for the defence of Ukraine? There is even a risk of the £25 billion in the central bank of Russia, frozen by the UK and managed by Euroclear—referred to earlier—being returned to Russia. What are we doing about that? Why are we still waiting for the release of £2.5 billion from the sale of Chelsea Football Club to help victims in Ukraine? The Government have given no clear reason why these desperately needed funds have not been made available.
Earlier this week I attended a meeting here in Parliament addressed by a Ukrainian MP and Ukrainian prisoners of war, some of whom had been captured after the appalling destruction of Mariupol. They detailed horrific examples of torture and degradation of prisoners, which included rape, electric shocks, beatings and conflict-related sexual violence. We heard about tank cells with as many as 30 prisoners kept in confined captivity. Breaches of the Geneva Convention have been routine. We heard of more than 2,000 attacks on clinics and hospitals in Ukraine: horrendous war crimes. Over 100,000 files for prosecution have been opened, all pointing to the “mother crime”—the crime of aggression. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when the special tribunal needed to bring the perpetrators to justice will be established. What are the remaining roadblocks?
Noble Lords should note, too, that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Putin and Lvova-Belova for the deportation of Ukrainian children. What do we know of the fate of the 19,000 missing children? The forcible transfer of children to another group is defined in Article II(e) of the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide as one of the grounds for defining genocide. What work are government lawyers doing to prosecute this violation of the genocide convention?
In a world increasingly contemptuous of the work of the International Criminal Court, the rule of law and human rights, this is more important than ever. The UK led the way in 1945 and must do so again in 2025. With likeminded nations we must create a great web—a network of accountability from which, however long it takes, there will be no escape route. To that end, the Government should use the new Crime and Policing Bill to introduce the principle of universal jurisdiction. They should expand the scope of Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and consider other measures. I hope the Government will work with the Joint Committee on Human Rights in carefully examining the opportunities presented by this Bill to strengthen justice and accountability.
Ultimately, the cost of deterring war is a fraction of the cost of fighting one. Page 58 of the Select Committee’s report states that deterrence is key to preventing atrocities such as those committed by Russia in Ukraine. Along with hardheaded military deterrence including, for instance, ramping up production of British-Danish Gravehawk air-to-air missiles, we should not underestimate the deterrent effect that the strengthening of international law and our judicial institutions can play in challenging and deterring dictators. To that end, is it not about time that we joined those countries and international institutions that have designated Russia as a terrorist state or a state sponsor of terrorism? Why have we failed to do the same?
Last week’s appalling defenestration of a courageous war leader may have made what Mr Trump called “good television” but that shocking, discreditable charade would have been unimaginable in the White House of a Roosevelt or a Reagan. It would have been unthinkable to break alliances, insult allies and line up with a Russian regime led by a war criminal. To justify this by suggesting that aligning with Russia will somehow counter China—described as a reverse Kissinger—is delusional. Beijing’s cheers will have been even louder than Moscow’s as it gleefully watched the abandonment of a sovereign state, the dismantlement of the world order, division in Europe and the rupturing of transatlantic alliances. An emboldened Xi Jinping, Putin’s puppet master, will take it as a signal that he can do to Taiwan what Putin has done to Ukraine, and do so with impunity and without consequences.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord De Mauley and the members of the International Relations and Defence Committee on their excellent report. For 18 years in the other place, I represented a constituency with three air force bases, two American, including the nuclear strike force. I often felt concern that one day the hugely disproportionate American contribution to Europe’s defence would be challenged, given the low priority given by NATO countries to defence expenditure, but who would have thought that the reasons for any reduction of American support would have arisen after a country totally hostile to NATO had without reason attacked a democratic European country? Indeed, this is a grotesque wake-up call that we need to address.
President Trump has stated that the invasion of Ukraine would not have happened if he had been President. Well, maybe. Let us remind ourselves of the Budapest memorandum signed by Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom, which agreed that in return for Ukraine giving up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, they would respect the sovereignty, independence and existing borders of Ukraine. Had Ukraine kept its nuclear weapons, one may doubt that Russia would have dared to invade, but how many times have we seen examples of Russia signing an agreement and simply not abiding by it? There can be no illusions.
The report rightly highlights the importance of nurturing relationships and partnerships. The United Kingdom has played a vital role in leading from the front in support of Ukraine and in pushing others to do more themselves. This was particularly evident in the decision to send modern NATO heavy equipment, such as the Challenger 2 main battle tank in January 2023. Britain was the first country to take this bold step, and once the precedent had been set, many others followed our lead. This must continue. That these efforts have continued across two Governments and enjoy real cross-party support should be a source of satisfaction for us all and, indeed, for the Ukrainians most of all.
An area that the report touches on, and one where partnerships are vital to success, is sanctions. To be frank with ourselves, the collective effort on designing and enforcing sanctions has been underwhelming. The level of exports to and imports from Europe and Russia via third-party countries has increased enormously. Although sanctions have made it more difficult for Putin to bring in the cash and parts that his Russian war machine needs, we must face the fact that we have been inadequate in cutting it off. We need to draw conclusions about this for ourselves for any future possible conflict.
It looks, however, as if the endgame is in sight. What is critical is that the Ukrainian economy recovers and that foreign investors feel confident investing in the country. That requires clear assurances about security. The Russian navy became very aggressive and dominant in the Black Sea, with the intention of making it impossible to export Ukrainian products, notably grain. There was real anxiety that this would lead to a rapid collapse of the Ukrainian economy, and indeed a threat of horrifying starvation in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Our role in the Black Sea in seeing off Russian aggression is praiseworthy. Between 2014 and 2021, the Royal Navy deployed 11 warships in the Black Sea.
Turkey, however, introduced rules under the provision of the 1936 Montreux convention. Strategically and from an economic point of view, the Black Sea must remain open for Ukraine’s future security and prosperity. The RAF in Romania supports NATO’s Black Sea policing mission. However, our efforts are limited compared with Baltic countries. We have a defence treaty with Poland, we provide unilateral security assurances to Finland and Sweden, and we have a defence agreement with Estonia. I say this because, in the event of a settlement, it is certain that Crimea will remain Russian, thus offering the opportunity to damage Ukraine and contest the Black Sea again.
We should react to this decisively, including through a closer relationship with Romania, Europe’s biggest gas producer from offshore fields. It is good that Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria are removing floating mines with the help of two former Royal Navy Sandown class minesweepers. Just as our activities in the Baltic have given real, measurable confidence and security, we need to consider how our early success in the Black Sea should be used for Ukraine’s economic recovery, benefit and security. I hope that the Government will give this real consideration.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report, which was so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and is the subject of today’s debate, was published last September. Given the volatility of the situation with respect to Ukraine since then, particularly since the re-elected President of the United States and his new Administration took office in January, one could be forgiven for querying whether it was still relevant. However, quite apart from the prescient title, this report contains nuggets of advice and warning that are as relevant today as the day that they were written. I will mention two in particular.
The first section of the report is entitled:
“The underlying importance of deterrence”.
That deterrence has ensured that we have not had what President Trump referred to last week as World War III throughout the past 80 years. Deterrence is a fragile concept, depending as much on the perception of your potential adversary as on your own allies’ political will. In recent weeks, the Trump Administration have hacked some considerable chunks off our deterrence, to the extent that the probable future Chancellor of Germany—a lifelong Atlanticist—on the night of his election victory questioned whether they could still be relied upon. That really was a wake-up call, and will need to be effectively addressed in the run-up to the next NATO summit.
It needs also to be remembered, as was mentioned by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Alton in particular, that if NATO’s deterrence is weakened, it will have negative consequences too for the allies of the United States in the Far East and the South China Sea. It is little short of astonishing that President Trump, who appears to give greater importance to that region of that world, has not worked out that linkage.
The second key point that I mention from the report is the conclusion reached, which reads:
“We welcome the new Government’s commitment to negotiate an ambitious security pact with the EU. This could represent an important step towards rebuilding credible conventional deterrence”.
Clearly, that requires all European members of NATO to strengthen their defence spending substantially; in that context, the Government’s announcement last week of such an increase is very welcome. How far has the security pact project now progressed? What prospect is there for a breakthrough on that by the time of the UK-EU summit on 19 May?
Turning back to Ukraine, the newly appointed US Secretary of Defense told us that we can have confidence in President Trump because he is
“the best negotiator in the world”.
If your Lordships are tempted to believe that, I suggest you read a report written by your Lordships’ same committee, published early in 2020, about the deal with the Taliban struck by President Trump, which provided for a time-limited and uncontrolled withdrawal of all NATO troops from Afghanistan. That deal paved the way for the miserable fiasco later that year.
The shenanigans that occurred at the UN on the day marking the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine defy description or analysis. To end up, as the United States did, abstaining on a Security Council resolution that it was itself sponsoring stretches credibility to breaking point, as does vetoing a resolution put forward by its allies in the company of the aggressor, Russia. That will not strengthen the chances for a just and lasting settlement in Ukraine. Things have gone a long way downhill since the first Cold War ended.
I make one final point. During last week’s meeting at the White House between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, several references were made to the need for diplomacy; the Vice-President was particularly eloquent on the subject. Well, now we know one of the essential components of successful diplomacy: avoid discussing in public contentious issues that are components of future policy. We could do with a bit more of that sort of diplomacy. I hope that the Minister will say what the Government are doing to encourage that sort of diplomacy—not just using the word as a genuflection in its direction.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and commend the committee’s excellent, timely and necessary report. If the war in Ukraine has taught us anything, it is that we can no longer afford to rely on others for our security. The United States, once a steadfast ally, is proving unpredictable, to say the least. As the Prime Minister said:
“Europe must do the heavy lifting”.
The burden of deterrence, security and stability falls on us.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in positioning the United Kingdom as a bridge between America and Europe, as well as the increase in defence spending. However, as the report rightly points out, this is not enough. The lesson from Ukraine is clear: prevention is far cheaper than war. Time and again, from Georgia to Crimea to the Donbass, weak responses from democracies have emboldened rather than deterred aggression. The report rightly emphasises that deterrence is not just a moral imperative but the most cost-effective strategy.
We must act with urgency. Russia, even under sanctions, spends nearly as much on its military as the whole of Europe combined. With a weakening US commitment to security in Europe, we risk being outspent, outgunned and outmanned by a malign power on our doorstep. Strengthening our collective security through the UK-EU defence pact is an imperative. If deeper co-operation can secure the immense benefits of interoperability, intelligence sharing and joint procurement, we must be pragmatic enough to pursue it. In the past, we had the luxury of choice; that choice disappeared in a matter of weeks in February 2025.
However, security is not only about military strength. As the report highlights, winning over the global South, where Russia and China have spread disinformation—very successfully—is crucial. Development aid is not an act of good will, and diplomacy is not a hobby. I strongly hope that the rebalancing under way will not further shrink the FCDO’s budget.
While our focus is rightly on Ukraine, we must not lose sight of another emerging crisis that holds profound strategic importance to us: the western Balkans. If we were to do so, we would shamefully neglect the most important lessons of Ukraine. Before I say more, I take this opportunity to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, for his personal dedication and service in advancing UK interests in the western Balkans over the past three years. The instability of the western Balkans is directly tied to Russian interference and our national security. As the Foreign Secretary put it,
“our partnerships in the region are central to our efforts to tackle irregular migration”.
I have raised concerns about this region on multiple occasions. I regret to say that my warnings have not been heeded and neither the previous nor the current Government have acted decisively so far.
I visited Bosnia this past weekend, and I must say clearly: Bosnia today mirrors Ukraine prior to 2022. Secessionist actions in the country closely follow the path taken by the separatists in Donbass. Their external enablers in Serbia are playing the same role that Russia did in Ukraine and the Kremlin is active throughout the Balkans too. In the last two days alone, the secessionist pro-Russian leaders have aggressively destabilised Bosnia. The region’s assembly has pushed through laws that undermine state police and judicial powers, set up a parallel legal system and adopted a Russian-style crackdown on civil society. In a blatant challenge to the Dayton Agreement, authorities have also hinted at a full withdrawal unless post-1995 state institutions are dismantled.
Secessionists in Bosnia openly speculate about the possibility that the United States will no longer stand foursquare behind European efforts to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country. They further speculate—in a move that would have been unthinkable only a month ago—that the United States will side with Russia in the closed UN Security Council meeting on Bosnia taking place around now. The risk of escalation is real, whether by reckless miscalculation or deliberate provocation.
Does the Minister agree that the lessons from Ukraine must be applied now to avert the possibility of further conflict in the region, which Europe can so ill afford? As he will know, international security structures to deter conflict exist in the country, but they are dangerously undermanned. Can he give his assessment of NATO and EUFOR’s ability to respond to further escalation? Can he give an update on the UK’s renewal of the status of forces agreement with EUFOR? Will the Government now actively consider rejoining Operation Althea and strengthening NATO HQ in Sarajevo? The committee’s report rightly commends the Joint Expeditionary Force as an international success story. Replicating such models across Europe, including in the western Balkans, could provide the unity and deterrence that the region so urgently needs.
Ukraine faces its darkest hour—besieged by Russia in the East and betrayed by some of her allies in the West. We cannot afford to stand idle. This report presents a stark, if inconvenient, truth: our military is underfunded, our technology is outdated and we are woefully unprepared for war. As we stand firm with Ukraine, we cannot ignore Europe’s forgotten flank, the western Balkans. Pre-emptive, decisive action based on deterrence not only is cheaper but gives us the chance to regain the initiative, push back against Russia and its allies and move beyond the cycle of a perpetual reactive response. We have not prevailed over Russia since the Cold War. The western Balkans is one region where we can, and must, do just that.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I speak not as an expert in any of the military or diplomatic matters that noble Lords have spoken about but as someone with some experience in security and a growing frustration with the lack of commitment from Governments on both sides to prioritise defence, which I think many in the country share. I agree that this is an excellent report; it was produced in September 2024, but in the past few weeks the skies have got darker rather than lighter, which only amplifies the conclusions the report draws rather than detracts from them.
I praise this Government for the major change of direction announced by the Prime Minister on 25 February, when he gave a date for the increase to 2.5% of GDP to UK defence, but that was for 2027 and then it will increase during the next Parliament to 3%. I do not believe it is inconsistent to both support that announcement and to say that I think it is too little and will not deliver fighting forces quickly enough for reasons that I hope to set out. I challenge whether 2.5% is growth. I think there is some evidence that it is in fact filling the gaps we have, rather than being the growth it is being portrayed as. I think that is inconsistent and does no one any favours.
My first concern is that we are not yet using clear language to explain to the public the danger that we and Europe are facing. It seems that we have tempered our approach until now in an attempt not to antagonise the bear at our door. The problem is that Russia has taken this as a sign of our weakness, not our strength. Churchill knew a little about how to motivate people and a country. He appealed to the emotions with a clear analysis, a plan of action and speeches that the public heard and understood. In that respect, I commend President Macron yesterday evening, who was starting to speak in a language that people may start to think is making a difference. This is genuinely not a political point. I think the public need to know that this will cost money, and it may yet cost lives.
I do not believe that people join our Armed Forced and entirely consider the decision. They may lose their life; they may lose their life chances or be left physically and psychologically diminished should they have to fight. They will fight for their countries, families and way of life if they feel that they must. Improved efficiency in our recruiting only makes the process quicker and cheaper. Politics can help it deliver people and fighters.
Ironically, since 2022, as Russia walked into Ukraine, our Armed Forces have got smaller, at a time when all our Governments had been saying they were getting bigger. People can see this inconsistency. This report makes clear that our industrial and economic base is unprepared to produce the armaments we need at the speed we require. The Government must help manufacturers fire the furnaces and they must know how much money will be spent on our defence, exactly what is needed and when. Then they can tool up, skill up and invest in research to defend our country, support our friends and defeat an enemy.
Many of the weapons systems have very long lead times of production. Just one example is the production of warships. The noble Lord, Lord West, is not here today; I guess that he would have talked about frigates—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I can feel his presence.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
We probably ought to name one of them after him. But they do not grow on trees; they do not arrive in do-it-yourself kits and Amazon has no Prime delivery options. It takes a while. We will also need strategic reserves of raw materials if we are going to build these things and make sure that we can deliver what we have promised.
I mention in passing one domestic issue, which should not be forgotten. It was alluded to a little earlier. Some of the home security will also need to be enhanced. Our police counterterrorist units presently focus on extreme Islamism and right-wing terrorism. They will, in the future, also have to concentrate on counterespionage. That is of course something that the security services do but, when it comes to action—somebody has to lock them up, put them before a court or do whatever we have to do—there will need to be significant resources following them around and, at some stage, taking them out.
I also remark on our special constabulary, which are another form of reserves. They are there for the police and there are fewer than 20,000 at the moment. If the police go to war, somebody has to backfill and that was their intention. They are volunteers; they are not paid. They are not an expensive option, but they can help. It means that those police officers who could be released, could be released quicker.
As of today, we have not started any order processes, as far as I am aware. It will not be until at least the summer after the defence review by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I want to put a challenge in here because the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, made this point and I thought it was a really good one. We are waiting for the review from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, which of course is sensible. I just worry, is there not some military leader in this country who knows already what we need? Surely somebody knows that we need to double the tanks, triple the Navy or whatever else. The defence review can pull this together but, if we are waiting for another three or four months, that will then be the start of a very long procurement process others have already alluded to. I worry that, if we take too many things in incremental, logical, stepped phases, others will speed past us. We know who we are talking about in that respect.
Russia has already invaded Ukraine, and it obviously threatens Moldova and Lithuania, so I ask the Government this: when will they press the procurement button for all the reasons everybody has talked about today because there will be a time lag when we decide to do it? It is time to send a symbolic message to Russia. Poland did: it is building an army, a military, of 300,000. Announcing 3% in three years is not a very strong message to me. What is ours? I have not heard it yet. Even when we have spent this money, what is it going to do? The time for gentle prose has passed. The time for action has started. This report is about the events in Ukraine, but it is really about the defence of the UK. I think we have heard enough to know that we need to do something now.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for our hereditary colleague and my noble friend Lord De Mauley. I thank him and his committee for producing such an excellent report, and I wonder if anyone has ever thought of such a painfully prescient title.
The report’s recommendations are surely all the more pertinent precisely because they have been overtaken by events. Their validity, even poignancy, is being borne out as we speak. Indeed, I am not sure that I have ever spoken in a debate in which I have been so keen to be proved wrong and for my fears to turn out to be groundless. The ground, as others have said, is shifting beneath our feet. Even though I agree with it, I fear that recommendation 2, particularly that the Government should articulate how much money will be available to UK defence, has to be seen in the highly fluid context where there is a risk that it means it sets a limit and creates two risks: first, that it signals to the mass murderer Putin that there is a point beyond which we shall not go and thus risks emboldening him, and, secondly, that it fails to take into account the rapidly shifting dynamic of what was, until a few weeks ago, a secure transatlantic relationship for, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, suggested, spending will be crucial to retaining US support.
Recommendation 8 highlights the importance of
“understanding the human aspects of war”,
the
“failed assessment of Putin’s will to fight”
and the need for the UK and NATO to
“focus on developing a better understanding of Putin’s strategy and intentions”.
Central to that, I suggest, is recognition that Putin is a professional liar. As a former KGB operative, as we have already heard, it was in his job description. It would also appear to be, regrettably, in his DNA. I am not suggesting that we do not appreciate that, but I am not sure that the bromance between Putin and Trump indicates that the US President does. Trump is no fool, but I share the fear of other noble Lords that he is being played for a fool by a master of the art.
The committee is right to mention in conclusion 9 the
“human aspects that determine the outcome of wars”
and the relationship to “deterrence, defence and de-escalation” because they have huge ramifications for the future of NATO and global security. This is especially important because as the renowned journalist Bob Woodward implies in his excellent book War such vital considerations seem to be playing second, if not third, fiddle to Trump’s very human desire, even determination, to exact revenge on Volodymyr Zelensky for failing to do his bidding nine years ago. The consequence seems to be a personal vendetta that rivals that of only one other man: Putin. In only such a scenario do I begin to find it possible to understand how the supposed leader of the free world can betray an ally fighting for its life, literally on the front line of freedom. Conclusion 31 surely contains perhaps the most poignant understatement of the entire report that:
“The war in Ukraine has thrown the role of alliances at a time of war into the spotlight”.
How true that is when one considers the grotesque spectacle of the supposed leader of the free world treating Ukraine almost as a vanquished enemy whose resources are to be seized as reparations for a war that it did not start and which it is determined to end.
I finish by thanking His Majesty’s Government and the Prime Minister for acting on the basis of the report’s conclusion 61:
“Developments in Ukraine are relevant to UK national security and, in particular, the protection of its critical national infrastructure”.
This of course includes the NHS.
My question to the Minister is: can the two words “trust” and “Trump” belong in the same sentence? Can we rely on a previously steadfast ally? I desperately want to be proved wrong, but the jury is out. It is beyond doubt that Ukraine is proving to be a wake-up call to a far greater degree than most of us could possibly have imagined.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the committee on producing a first-class report, which is frankly more prescient than I expect its members could ever have imagined in their wildest dreams, or perhaps I should say nightmares. To say that the world has turned upside-down at a dizzying pace in recent days is an understatement, but the report’s recommendations remain completely relevant. In essence, we need a completely new response and quickly.
I will say a few words about the current situation before turning to several of the specific recommendations. While I join others in saluting the tireless efforts of the Prime Minister, who has played a critical role on the world stage, I do not believe that we can rely on the USA to be a strong and dependable ally. Indeed, Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made clear, that has a wider resonance in the USA. Article 5 of the NATO agreement—the glue we have relied on for so many years—is no longer anything like as secure as it was. We are in a new and dangerous situation and our response must take account of this.
The response that the Prime Minister has adopted to try to broker re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine is to be welcomed. It is clear that the UK and our European allies will have to accept a step-change increase in resources for our own defence, as the report we are debating makes crystal clear because, once one strips away the rhetoric, the reality is this: Trump is imposing huge pressure on a so-called ally to agree to a surrender/ceasefire on America’s terms, which are to cede territory to Russia and mineral resources to the USA without guarantees to ensure Ukraine’s future security. It has paused military aid to and suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine. It is widely reported that Defense Secretary Hegseth has instructed the US Government to pause all offensive cyber operations against Russia. Ukraine is meant to be grateful.
The key recommendations and conclusions of the report, which I reread last night, are stark and commendably clear. I wholeheartedly endorse them, particularly the focus on a whole-of-society approach.
I turn to a couple of specifics. First, on strengthening industrial partnerships, the report talked about the Government facilitating a broad church of industry engagement to bring in non-traditional defence suppliers such as start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises and tech companies. It also argued that the Government would need to mitigate the risk of collaborating with commercial partners that lack previous experience in defence. It is currently very difficult for new entrants to the UK defence market to establish and prove the required safety, security, quality, et cetera, to the MoD and regulators. New entrants may also have to work for many years at their own expense before they start generating revenues.
An existing model that could be considered is based on UK advanced manufacturing research centres, involving scientists, engineers, researchers and technology specialists working together to develop innovative technologies, systems and products. This approach could be used for innovative defence for the UK Armed Forces, where the role of government would be primarily twofold: to work with the scientific and research community and lead industrial partners to set up and fund these advanced defence manufacturing research centres; and, crucially, to put in place risk-sharing framework contracts with lead industrial partners to co-finance the development and industrialisation of the most promising concepts. Can the Minister say what thinking the Government have been doing in this area?
One area not really covered in detail by the report is undersea cable attacks. A recent BBC in-depth article set out the extent of Russia’s shadow fleet, used to carry embargoed Russian oil products, and the extent of suspected seabed infrastructure sabotage in both the Baltic Sea and closer to home. Twice in recent months, the surveillance ship “Yantar” was spotted gathering intelligence about the UK’s underwater cable network as part of its hybrid warfare on this country’s critical infrastructure. The UK has around 60 undersea cables that come ashore on its coastline, particularly concentrated around East Anglia and the south-west. Only yesterday, the Times reported that Russia had sent a warship into the English Channel to escort a suspected arms shipment in a sanctioned cargo vessel from Syria for possible use on the front line. These are all very worrying developments. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, on which I sit, recently launched a new inquiry into how vulnerable the UK is to undersea cable attacks. Will the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of this current threat?
I conclude by repeating that assuming the US will side with Ukraine to provide a backstop and security guarantees is a fundamental misunderstanding of Trump’s position. Trump has a huge agenda with Russia, and many suspect that he is looking to strengthen US bilateral relationships with Russia to deliver what he believes to be huge economic and security benefits to the US and also, potentially, to strengthen Russia’s focus and reliance on China. What update can the Minister give us on the use of Russian frozen assets to augment our immediate defence spending, not simply the interest but the capital sums? Is fast-track legislation being considered? Ideas have been circulating for an international rearmament bank that would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this? On the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, what plans do the Government have to set up cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded?
Lord Roberts of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this excellent report, which struck me as a model of its kind. Of course, after the disgraceful scene in the Oval Office on Friday, the situation has changed since the publication of the report and significantly for the worse. We must not underestimate the gravity of what has happened, which is that during a war against totalitarian dictatorship the United States has effectively changed sides. It is very unusual for a country to change sides during a major war. Historically, Italy did it in 1943, but that was hardly decisive. However, the Saxons and Württembergers changed sides on the third day of the four-day Battle of Leipzig in October 1813, which doomed Napoleon in that campaign. Before that, the Stanleys changed sides on the morning of the Battle of Bosworth, which similarly spelled doom for Richard III.
We might be shocked by the Trump Administration’s volte-face but we should not be surprised by it. He never hid his antipathy to Ukraine and her existential struggle. Frankly, he is right about the pathetic and woeful levels of GDP that we and the Europeans presently spend on defence. However, the sheer brutality of his dealings over the past week, and especially the United Nations vote alongside Russia, Syria, the Central African Republic, North Korea and Belarus—countries in which I am sure your Lordships would like to live—from which even the Chinese had the decency to abstain, thrusts us into utterly uncharted territory.
What needs to be done now seems clear. The rest of NATO must get its spending up to the 3.4% of GDP that the Americans spend. The $300 billion of frozen Russian assets sitting in Euroclear in Brussels need to be given to Ukraine. EU cohesion funds need to be repurposed for defence, and defence spending needs to be exempted from the EU’s fiscal deficit rules. Meanwhile, missile defence systems must be rushed to Kyiv and Kharkiv.
The brave President Zelensky needs to do his country yet another great service by biting his lip, stop speaking truth to America’s overwhelming power and sign the minerals deal that will financially incentivise the United States to be invested in a durable peace. Winston Churchill called President Roosevelt’s lend-lease agreement “the most unsordid act”, when the Americans allowed us 65 years to pay off the debt. By total contrast, the Trump Administration are gouging Ukraine while the war is still going on—the very definition of kicking a man when he is down. There is no point in expecting security guarantees worth their salt from the United States for the heavily armed 700-mile border that will now scar south-eastern Europe, probably for decades. Security guarantees are only worth while if they are given willingly. The Europeans and some countries outside Europe, such as Canada and Australia, will instead have to patrol that long frontier between civilisation and barbarism. The willingness of the Canadians and Australians, once again in their histories, to step up to a great task should make us proud of the Commonwealth.
Mr Vance has spoken of trying to stop pushing Russia
“into the hands of the Chinese”,
but a policy of trying to draw Russia away from the Chinese orbit will not work. Democracies’ attempts to draw dictatorships away from other dictatorships have consistently failed ever since the Stresa Front of 1935. It might take time to fail, but fail it will. Meanwhile, the tragic by-products of the Administration’s Ukraine policy are already evident, not least in a 15% drop in pro-Americanism in this country almost overnight. I fear that, if the United States was to suffer another 9/11—God forbid—we would not see the wholehearted and full-throated support for her that we saw in 2001. A wholly transactional foreign policy has unseen costs that do not show up on balance sheets and profit and loss accounts.
When Winston Churchill spoke in the Munich debate, he used words that Europe should heed today, as we fundamentally rebalance our world in the light of this startling American defection to the side of a dictator who, throughout his career, has only ever wished America ill. Churchill said that we needed
“a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour”,
so that we could
“arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/1938; col. 373.]
We must adopt that stance, adopt it now and take this first-class report as our template.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have before us a very important report at an important time, indeed a turning point. Rather than pick out particular aspects of the report, perhaps I could summarise what I have been hearing so far this afternoon in three conclusions: Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its defence; Europe alone is not currently capable of defending itself or Ukraine; and President Trump’s most recent statements and conduct are compromising the credibility of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. Those are pretty serious conclusions for us to be drawing. I will say a few words on each.
On whether Europe can still rely on the US to defend itself, I strongly agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said. The US has been focusing away from Europe and towards Asia for a long time, and has been doing so based on a ruthless and dispassionate assessment of its own self-interest. Flagging that up is not anti-Americanism; saying it is a necessary antibiotic to clear some foggy, sentimental minds, particularly those clouded by too much attachment to the special relationship. We all hope that Article 5 is still alive in Washington but, like many noble Lords in this Room, I feel much less confident about that than I was only a few weeks ago. Just as concerning is that a similar assessment will be being made by potential adversaries, and therefore the risk of an extension of this war, or some further war, even if caused only by a miscalculation on this, is made much greater.
I will provide a few figures on the second conclusion that I drew—that Europe is not currently capable of defending itself. European-NATO GDP stands at $27 trillion. By comparison, Russia’s GDP stands at about $2 trillion and the UK’s is $3.6 trillion. Russia is supported by China; in fact, I do not think we have discussed China enough today. Part of the key to the solution, or at least to providing a long-term peace, probably lies in Beijing. On the question of European weakness, President Trump is right: Europe is well capable of defending itself. Our weakness is derived from a weakness of collective will and failure to organise logistics and co-ordinate our manufacturing capacity; it is not one of underlying economic capacity.
While I am throwing out a few numbers, I also point out that, based on figures from the Kiel Institute, 0.5% of European-NATO GDP in one year provides a sum greater than the total value of US support to Ukraine in the three years of this war. Another figure worth bearing in mind is that China’s GDP is six times that of Russia, which has, at least to some degree, become a satellite of China as a consequence of this war.
On the third point, the question of nuclear deterrence, I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, and will add a couple of observations. Even if US nuclear policy has not changed in substance, President Trump’s disruptive style of diplomacy, and the uncertainty that comes with it, increases the risk of miscalculation. Certainty and consistency of policy bolster deterrence, but we are currently experiencing the opposite. Secondly, any diminution of the credibility of deterrence increases the risk of coercion of parts of Europe into concessions. That is the road to Finlandisation, and it is extremely concerning.
I end by referring to the fact that not only do we need to spend more money on defence and work much more closely with Europe to reconstruct our military manufacturing capacity and secure interoperability; we must also work with Europe to re-establish credible deterrence. On that, I quote what Friedrich Merz said two days before his election, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred:
“We need to have discussions with both the British and the French—the two European nuclear powers—about whether nuclear sharing … could also apply to us.”
Two days later, on the night of his election, he said,
“My absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe … so that … we can … achieve independence from the USA”.
He said the US
“does not care much about the fate of Europe”.
I do not know whether he is right, but I do know that we cannot rely on him being wrong.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the chair and members of the committee on this thoughtful and timely report. Although it is ostensibly about Ukraine, it focuses, of course, on the fragility of western security as we know it—or have known it since the Second World War. That is underpinned by NATO, the future of which now lies in the balance.
As the committee articulates so clearly in the report, things were already shifting before Trump started to take down the western security umbrella. They changed on the day that Russian troops marched into Ukraine, in February 2022—a clear failure of NATO to deter Russia in the first place. All this begs the uncomfortable question of whether we can claim to have a credible deterrent; many noble Lords have mentioned this today.
What do we actually mean by “deterrent”? I argue that it must have three factors: capability, preparedness and intent—that is the believability that an actor or set of actors will use force if they have to. It is possible that we have gradually been losing sight of this since the Cold War. The alarming question on all our minds today is whether we are seeing the end of the US-driven western alliance, as the USA’s statements about its preferred way forward on Ukraine, the role of NATO and the expectations from Europe, alongside the onslaught of geoeconomic weapons such as tariffs, have unnerved us all and led us to question America’s commitment to the transatlantic partnership from a military, political, economic and cultural perspective.
I mention this last point because here was the surprise. Much of the rest was already in the market, as others have said: the rush to peace with Putin, the not-unreasonable call for more European defence spending and the signal that American priorities may lie elsewhere. We knew, too, that Trump liked the word “tariff”—he called it “the most beautiful word”—but it was the Vice-President’s comment that Europe’s greatest threat lay within, and was not China or Russia, that really shocked us to the core. It made us wonder whether America is on our side.
In the past few weeks, we have heard accusations that the invasion was Ukraine’s fault and concessions were handed out to Russia without seeking its representations. Ukraine’s tireless and brave leader, holding the front line against tyranny, was branded a dictator. There was the ugly unravelling of talks in the Oval Office last Friday. All that came at the end of a week when the Americans sided with Iran, North Korea and Russia in the UN, as my noble friend Lord Roberts said.
Here, we have a sense of America treating its friends like its enemies and its enemies like its friends, as many noble Lords have said. This is the uncomfortable reality in which we find ourselves, but what does it actually mean? First, there is clearly a resetting of US-Russia relations. Is it to prise Russia away from China in a sort of reverse Kissinger move—many people have said that that would not be a good policy—or does Trump simply prefer to make deals with the strongmen of the world?
That begs a second question: what does all this mean for the China-US relationship, whose fraught relations have so dominated geopolitics in recent years? On the western alliance, the bottom line for us is that the security dynamic with a Trump-led USA is fundamentally shifting. I think that Trump would support a Europe that supports itself. We now need to decide how to respond and come up with a strategy. Herein lies the challenge but also the opportunity—one that opens up big strategic questions for us as a nation about who our closest allies are. What of NATO? What of Five Eyes? How much money will we need to spend on defence? Should we build a European defence umbrella within NATO or elsewhere? Is this umbrella something that we could offer as a new security home for Ukraine?
We are already seeing some choices—the decision to increase defence spending last week, for example. I support that, as other noble Lords have done today. I understand the decision to find that increase from ODA, which looks like a quick fix—no doubt there are savings that can be made there—but I have grave concerns about putting soft power against hard power, especially at such a critical moment when USA is retreating from the global stage. We must think strategically about how we influence and protect ourselves in the world, without leaving an opportunity wide open to the likes of China. This also means addressing some of the issues around the mass resilience and internal coherence of our own Armed Forces, as many noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have pointed out today.
To return to what we mean by deterrence, we must also look at our society and its willingness to defend our values—or, as the report puts it, the human aspects of war. According to a Times survey in recent weeks, Gen Z—of which I have a few living with me—say that they would not want to go to war. We cannot know that for sure, but we can know that a divided, unresilient society that has forgotten the price of peace is unlikely to unite under a common purpose.
I end by paying tribute to the sacrifices that the people of Ukraine have made and continue to make for their freedom since the Russian invasion of their country just over three years ago. I find their determination and courage humbling and a reminder of the values that we hold dear but are often complacent about. We must remain firm in our loyalties; they are not, and never will be, to Putin’s Russia.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I will not speak directly to the proposals of the report to improve our military capabilities but will consider the framework in which they are set.
The report’s underlying assumption is that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made Europe a much more dangerous place, against which we have to rearm ourselves if we are not to suffer the fate of Ukraine somewhere down the line. The report was published before Trump’s victory in the US election and therefore before the possible defection of the United States, which has been the subject of a great deal of comment this afternoon but I do not think touches the main point that the report wants to make. I reject the report’s line of argument. I am the first person to do so in this debate and have done so fairly consistently over the past two or three years. Therefore, I reject the conclusions which follow from it. I will try to explain why.
In 1989, an American political scientist called Francis Fukuyama published an iconic article in the journal The National Interest called “The End of History?”, and the subsequent two decades have sometimes been called “the Fukuyama moment”. Basically, he argued that the fall of the Soviet Union had brought about the end of history, because the causes of war between the great powers had been removed. There was a lot of initial confirmation of that, such as Gorbachev’s dream of joining the common European home. Out of that optimism came the idea of an exciting peace dividend. Of course, there would be mopping-up operations, especially in those parts of the world lagging in their appreciation of western values, but these would be nothing like the mass industrial warfare that we had experienced in the two world wars and which threatened throughout the Cold War.
The Fukuyama view of history was largely myopic. It presupposed that the world would rapidly become democratic and that science and technology would simply promote international economic co-operation. Neither of these expectations was realised. But out of the disappointed hopes of those two decades it was easy to construct a completely opposite future marked by the clash of civilisations, between the autocratic and the democratic powers, and fierce competition between the major nations of the world for control of artificial intelligence technology.
In a way, far from wanting to join Europe, Russia was depicted as wanting to attack it and even to conquer it if given the chance. In this perspective, the rhetoric of the Cold War was simply repurposed to the perceived dangers of the new situation. That has remained the conventional view; John Healey, the Defence Secretary, has said that Russia is very dangerous and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has said in this debate that we face a dramatically increased security risk.
It is interesting that all the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the committee came from the defence sector. Therefore, it is not surprising that the report strongly advocated a new or beefed-up defence industrial society and economy. What is wrong with all that? There is confusion running through the report between the nature of modern warfare, of which Ukraine is an example, and the nature of Russia’s intentions to Europe, as revealed by its invasion of Ukraine. Dr Peter Roberts of Exeter University rightly warned the committee of our inability to understand intent, which is a major flaw in our thinking, and that is true of the report. Yes, the Ukrainian war reveals the threatening nature of modern warfare, but not the kind of threats we face from Russia in Europe.
The accepted view is that this invasion reveals the expansionist nature of the Putin regime. There are, however, many knowledgeable and respected analysts in Europe, the United States and the global South who deny that premise and argue with Jack Matlock, a former US ambassador to Russia, that Putin was provoked into invading Ukraine because NATO was trying to draw Ukraine into a hostile alliance and, had it not been so engaged, there would not have been an invasion.
Let me sum up. I am not against the rearmament of Europe. We live in a dangerous world, of course, but military spending is not an end in itself; it is a means to security. There is no special virtue in spending X rather than Y per cent of GDP on defence. The threats to security have to be perceived and analysed accurately—far more accurately than this report does to justify the volume and nature of the proposals that it is making.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships can always tell when they are getting to the end of a debate, because the noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Balfe, will be speaking. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, I disagree with much of the report, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his colleagues for giving it to us, because this is exactly the time to discuss how we are going to handle the new situation.
Fifty-five years ago, Ted Heath, our then Prime Minister, outlined quite clearly why we should move away from the United States and start to look at the interests of Europe when we are defending Europe. In that, he was surprisingly supported by Enoch Powell. They both fell back on the doctrine that states do not do favours for other states. They have foreign policies to maximise their impact. That was always confirmed to me when I was in the European Parliament. For some years, I was on an outfit called the Transatlantic Policy Network and, through that, got to know the late Senator John McCain quite well. He was quite clear with me that there is no special relationship. He once said, probably very accurately, “There is only a special relationship in that we rely on you to keep the sergeants’ mess in control while we look after the officers”. He was right.
To an extent, I welcome President Trump and his disruption because it is long overdue. The invasion of Ukraine was clearly illegal, but it was not unprovoked. There were years of provocation preceding it, which ended by chasing Viktor Yanukovych out of office. From then on, there was little hope that Ukraine would settle down as a NATO ally in the West because Putin, who is in charge of his country and has to do his best for it, is of the view that the borders need redrawing. I have been in Crimea and all over the Donbass region. It is Russian. Let us face that: it is not Ukrainian; it is Russian and that is why there is little objection to a Russian presence there. Your Lordships are not meant to like these facts, but they are the truth.
What we now have to do, in my view, is adjust our policies in Europe so that we can break Russia away from China. We seem to be settling back and saying, “Oh yeah, Russia and China are going to get together”. China is far more of a threat to western values, because it does not rely on a western philosophy in the way that it looks at the world and, if it is allied to Russia, that means it is on the borders of Europe—it will have bases in the Arctic before long. My view is that we need to come to terms with Trump.
One challenge for the Ministry of Defence is that we need to make sure that our nuclear deterrent will actually work. I was assured by John McCain that the Americans held the key to certain aspects of launching the missiles that made them completely under American control. Could we launch an independent missile? France can, and that is why France will be the leader of the new European security dimension.
The people we need to look to are Merz in Germany—the new chancellor—and Giorgia Meloni, who has a very good vision of how Europe should turn out, and we must hope that Macron can be succeeded by someone who has European interests at heart and is not a nationalist. I see that as being our big challenge: we have to get back into Europe as a country and get as close to the Europeans as we possibly can. We will not be able to lead the European defence initiative, for the bad reason that we decided to leave the European Union. We will not get in there, because France will claim the initiative—and, frankly, if I were France, I would claim the initiative—but we do need to get more closely aligned.
My final point is that we have had some mention of the Scandinavian version of security. That is based on a form of national service and on defending the home space. We need to indulge in that. There is no market in Britain for body bags, and there is no market in Britain for foreign adventure beyond that necessary to defend our own country and our close allies in Europe.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am sorry that I have missed some of it. I declare a relevant interest in the register as an adviser to a defence-related tech company called Thales UK.
I start by agreeing with the view of many that it is a shame it was not felt appropriate to hold this debate in the Chamber. I say this because I think that more recent events give the report a relevance far beyond the relatively narrow focus of its original purpose. In my view, for example, it has a far wider and compelling relevance to the use of information by Governments in the age of artificial intelligence. For my part, I will not focus on any of the specific recommendations of the report, as I have great confidence that others have covered that ground. Rather, I want to spend my allotted time on just one issue: why did we name the report A Wake-up Call?
Many noble Lords will be familiar with the works of the Israeli academic Yuval Noah Harari, the author of the best-selling books, Sapiens and Homo Deus. His most recent book, Nexus, which my son bought me for Christmas at my direction, is a compelling history of information networks from the stone age to present times. In very simple terms, just of one of Harari’s many insights is his belief that there exist two very different views of how information is used. One is a somewhat naive view of information that sees it as the asset by which truth is established and from which wisdom thereafter flows, so the greater the amount of information that can be gathered and assessed, the closer we come to truth and therefore wisdom. Harari does not share this naive or simple view. Rather, he believes that the end use of information, specifically in respect of how nations are governed, is a far more dangerous trade-off between truth and order. More specifically, he argues that Governments, since they are the most powerful institutions in developed societies, have the greatest interest in distorting the truth or at least in hiding the most inconvenient facts. Indeed, he argues that allowing Governments to supervise the truth is like appointing the fox to guard the chicken house.
I would argue that, certainly for at least the past 15 years, successive British Governments have distorted the truth about the state of our Armed Forces. As Chief of the Defence Staff, I bore close witness to this and to some extent always understood why a slightly varnished version of the truth was necessary to avoid public alarm. I could perhaps understand how successive defence reviews rather committed to the delusion that all was well. I could appreciate why inconvenient facts about our performance in NATO, the real costs of the nuclear enterprise, the hollowing out of war-fighting resilience, the state of our Reserve Forces, the lack of a continuum of deterrent capability which permitted the control of escalation and countless other such issues were all being hidden. Indeed, since coming to this place, I have also occasionally marvelled at how at the Dispatch Box dissembling on defence issues has seemed the accepted order of the day.
However, at least two people have seen through these distortions and delusions. One is President Putin, who reached his own conclusions about NATO’s true deterrent capability, a capability that in his eyes lacked credibility and which he was, and seemingly remains, fully prepared to put to the test. The other is President Trump, who recognised that the United States of America was being taken for a wholly unfair ride by the European members of NATO and that it was well past the time when Europe needed to pay for its own security. It is for these reasons that the committee chose the title it did. The UK, Europe and NATO all need to wake up to some remarkably harsh realities.
I am left hoping two things. The first hope is that we have not woken up too late. My fear here is that we already have. In this context, we must be very wary of who benefits from a ceasefire. My view is that it is the side that wins thereafter the race to rearm. My second hope is that, when it comes to our national security, we never, ever, fall so deeply asleep again. The sole issue that I ask the Minister to give assurances on is that, if UK forces are committed to an operational role in Ukraine, it is only in the context of the appropriate command and control, the correct equipment and materiel and the proper security safeguards. Finally, in closing, I wish this Government nothing but good fortune in trying to navigate their way out of this truly awful mess.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the committee for producing an excellent report that has contributed to this being such a stimulating debate. Clearly, there are other, slightly more recent factors that have contributed to it being even more timely and interesting than it might have been, and I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, that it would have been preferable if the debate could have been held in the main Chamber.
We are just over three years after the start of the current operations in eastern Ukraine. I put it like that because today we have really talked only about the situation since February 2022, yet the situation in Crimea since 2014, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, and the situation in Georgia in 2008 remind us that Russian expansionism is not new.
Although the title of the report, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call, is very telling, it is also important for us to remember that for too long, this country, like our NATO allies, tended to turn something of a blind eye. We do not talk about the fact that 20% of Georgian territory is still occupied by Russia. We do not talk very much about Crimea because we seem vaguely to have assumed that it is now just Russian, so we talk about Ukraine of the borders of February 2022, but until two weeks ago, we had at least assumed that we were on the same page as our transatlantic allies.
We are on the same page as Canada. Indeed, Donald Trump and JD Vance have done the most extraordinary thing: they have united Canada and have persuaded the Québécois that they are Canadian after all. Donald Trump appears to be doing something that his friends in the Reform Party probably would not like, which is reuniting Europe, not in terms of European institutions—I am not going to get into any technicalities about the UK-EU security relationship in terms of a bilateral relationship that is signed and sealed as a treaty—so much as the very clear fact that European states need to work together.
There has been a wake-up call, which we began to see at the time that this report was written, but it has become ever greater. At the same time, President Putin has managed to catalyse NATO by ensuring that Finland and Sweden have finally decided that they should be NATO members rather than outside it, so there are a lot of unintended consequences. As noble Lords have pointed out, this report was completed six months ago. By House of Lords standards, debating it within six months is quite quick. The fact that the Government have already responded is excellent but, obviously, nobody could quite have predicted what has happened in the six weeks since President Trump was inaugurated for the second time.
We are in a very different situation where our American allies perhaps cannot be relied on as in the past. As my noble friend Lady Harris pointed out in her trenchant and powerful speech, the US vice-president’s comments were, quite frankly, unacceptable. To suggest that the United Kingdom is “some random country” that maybe fought some war 30 or 40 years ago is absolutely unacceptable and reprehensible. The transatlantic relationship might not be a special relationship in US eyes in the way that it has sometimes been in British rhetoric. As the former UK ambassador to the US, Dame Karen Pierce, pointed out yesterday to the International Relations and Defence Committee, the Americans do not see it in a sentimental way, and they never have. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is quite reasonable that the United States, particularly, but not only, under Donald Trump, in many ways sees the transatlantic relationship through a transactional lens.
One wake-up call we need to understand is that whoever is the American President, we cannot simply assume that NATO will go back to the alliance it was during the Cold War. We need to be aware of that but, equally, we need to be able to trust our allies. We cannot have the vice-president of one of our allies rubbishing the United Kingdom or denigrating the President of Ukraine. It is utterly unacceptable.
I absolutely agree with the many noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who pointed out that the Prime Minister has been very effective over the past few week in working with both the US and our European partners. However, we also need to make sure that we are not only standing up with Ukraine against Putin but standing firm against the United States when it is not acting as a reliable partner.
Various issues arise from that. It will surprise noble Lords that I agreed with a couple of points made by the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Skidelsky. On the question of our relationship with the United States, at a meeting yesterday, it was pointed out to me that we should not just assume that we go back to old-fashioned business as usual. However, the UK’s relations with the United States are qualitatively different from those of our European partners: we are part of the Five Eyes, we have various defence capabilities that our European partners do not, and we clearly have the nuclear deterrent. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, the French nuclear deterrent is independent, but ours is closely tied to the United States. Is the Minister able to confirm that we can use our deterrent independently? It is clearly important because our deterrent is the NATO nuclear deterrent and France’s is not. That is my first question.
Various noble Lords have mentioned the incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has talked about the UK and France sharing their nuclear deterrent. To what extent are we able to do that beyond saying that NATO offers a nuclear umbrella? There are questions about the non-proliferation treaty, which is not frequently talked about anymore, but there may be issues there, so it would be interesting if the Minister could comment.
Defence expenditure is one of the issues that has been partially overtaken by events in the past two weeks. We now have a timetable to get to 2.5% and several noble Lords talked about moving to 3%. That is my party’s policy, and we believe we should do it quickly, but not on the back of development. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, made a valid point that we might say that we need to increase defence and there might be various niche capabilities that the noble Lord, Lord West, would want if he were in the Room, but we need to be clear about what we would be spending that 3% on.
Defence procurement is clearly one of the issues. The questions raised about our defence industrial base are hugely important. My noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield was one of the Peers who mentioned that we need to strengthen our defence industrial base and to work with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have found that the uncertainty pending the SDR has created issues with their balance sheets and cash flow. Will the Minister tell the Committee what work is being done with small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly those that have dual-use capabilities? Equally, we need to be working with our European partners. As several noble Lords mentioned, interoperability is vital. Defence spending of 3% may or may not be enough. We need to make sure that we have the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time, not just as the United Kingdom but with our NATO partners and allies.
My final question is on the size of the Armed Forces. For years, these Benches have been saying that we need to restore the 10,000 cut to the Army. We also strongly believe that we need to strengthen the reserves, but the other important point that was raised is about total defence or civilian defence.
Taking the lessons of our Finnish and Swedish partners is important. What are His Majesty’s Government doing not only to think about civilian capabilities but to talk to the United Kingdom? At the moment, we are, to an extent, talking to ourselves. We will have people watching online. There will be people from the Armed Forces or veterans listening in. There might be people from the Russian embassy or the American embassy listening in; maybe even the Chinese embassy has an interest. What we really need, however, is to be saying things that reach out to the ordinary citizens—in particular, not people of our generation, because most of us will be over the average age of the UK population. The noble Baroness, Lady Fall, pointed out that she lives with some Gen Z people. We need to be reaching out to them, to schools, to universities and to our young people to explain why defence and security matter.
This is not just about the past; it is about the present. It is about the defence of democracy and standing up not just for Ukraine but for what it stands for. We are doing it for Europe and for a future that is for Gen Z, their children and grandchildren.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure, albeit a sombre one, to listen to this debate. I first pay tribute to my noble friend Lord De Mauley for his tireless work in chairing the committee and to all the noble Lords involved in the production of this report.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, observed, committee chairs sometimes feel aggrieved at the sluggish progress from a report’s publication to the actual debate on it. However, recent events have certainly thrust this report into stark relief, emphasising how timely some of the warnings were and, at the same time, flinging us into new territory, which was probably not at the forefront of the committee’s thinking. Unchanging is that Ukraine is of critical importance. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister’s sure-footed diplomacy and his unwavering support of Ukraine. I suggest that we can support his endeavours by reaffirming our political unity for that support, so that the clearest possible message of unity is heard from this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly reminded us of the brutal and repugnant reality of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Saliently, the report takes head-on the post-Cold War role of NATO and the distinction between a defensive alliance ready to come to the aid of each other and the need to develop that into a deterrent alliance. It is fair to say that the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin galvanised a NATO rethink about purpose, resilience and kinetic responsiveness. If we consider recurring NATO exercises, JEF and the enhanced forward presence, a lot of that was actually there and was already happening. As a Defence Minister, I saw that collaboration in practice.
Where I think the committee report compels serious reflection is on the need for coherence between nuclear—the ultimate and ever-present deterrent—and conventional deterrence. I commend the Government’s recognition of that in their response and of the clamant need to deny our adversaries the chance to perceive deterrence gaps in which they may operate. This requires forensic military analysis, intricate strategic planning and a committed response from, if I may say so, principally European NATO members. My noble friend Lord Soames is absolutely right beyond doubt: Russia is, and will continue to be, a threat. I realise that the Minister will be limited in what he can share with us about this new future but, if there is encouragement on that front that he can offer, we should be very pleased to hear it.
The committee was clear about the need for increased defence expenditure; numerous contributors have spoken on that. From my perspective, the Government’s recognition of and response to that is very welcome. Although the strategic defence review has been operating as a pause button on procurement, crystal clear to everyone is how the pace of increased defence expenditure will have to accelerate post 2027. That has been a clear message from this debate, and I hope that the Government are receptive.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is absolutely right to call for clarity about rearmament and to emphasise a potential real cost. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is absolutely correct that this threat environment and the rearmament imperative must be shared with the public. There is an urgent need for re-education of what it means to live in an age of live threat and to understand the implications of that.
Let me just clear my throat; this Room, unlike the Chamber yesterday, seems to be very warm. Specifically in relation to Ukraine, events are fast-moving and unpredictable, but there are some certainties. Whatever happens in the near future, I think that these are the following certainties. Ukraine’s long-term security requirements require us to be not reactive but anticipatory. Can the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s long-term thinking for supporting Ukraine’s military capabilities, economic resilience and, of course, reconstruction efforts. How do we maintain that commitment beyond the immediate crisis, ensuring that Ukraine is safe and can defend herself in future?
The report rightly highlights:
“Developments in Ukraine are relevant to UK national security and, in particular, the protection of its critical national infrastructure”.
It also highlights the importance of resilience within our own society. Hybrid warfare, cyberthreats and disinformation campaigns are tools that we have seen be used by hostile states to undermine democracies. We must enhance our national resilience by countering disinformation, securing critical infrastructure and strengthening cybersecurity.
My noble friend Lord Soames’s suggestion of a dedicated civil resilience unit—whether that is a ministry of civil defence or not—is, at this point in our affairs, a very serious suggestion meriting close attention. I hope that the Minister will feel able to respond to that. Can I also ask the Minister to elaborate on what measures are being taken to specify and fortify our national resilience against such threats?
My noble friend Lord De Mauley mentioned the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations. The RFCAs are a strong British tradition with a deep connection and sense of service to our Reserve Forces and cadets, much of it emanating from voluntary activity. I commend my noble friend on his excellent work in this field. I agree that the Ministry of Defence should be very cautious about doing anything to jeopardise that underpinning voluntary ethos. I have to say, this is a classic case of there being a high risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That would not be good; indeed, at this geopolitical time, it would be very bad. I say to the Minister that, if this NGU concept is being promoted from within the department as a box to be ticked somewhere in the depths of Whitehall, I think that it will face a very rocky road in the House. There are far more pressing defence priorities demanding our attention.
If we have learned anything else from the war in Ukraine, it is a stark reminder of certain things. The international rules-based order cannot be taken for granted. If we wish to deter future aggressors, we have to learn the lessons of a conventional deterrence failure and transform that into an effective deterrence future. We have to invest in our defences at pace. We have to stand unwaveringly with our allies. We must not allow the practice of principled, professional and decent diplomacy—very much manifested by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, both today and, if I may say so, in his day—to be traduced by aberrant transgressions.
The Prime Minister has been an exemplar of the former. He demonstrates how to do it and why we need it. It is very important that, in whatever lies ahead, the Prime Minister’s example is supported by us all, because a world without that decent, professional, principled diplomacy—this goes back to the point about communication made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton—would be a poorly informed world. It seems to me that, if we can take away these lessons and look at much of what the report suggests, we have the solution for how to create a safer world—and, perhaps most importantly, how to send a message to any potential bullies and say, in the words of the Scots, “Wha daur meddle wi’ us?”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
Well, I hope I do not have to answer the last question.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Anyway, I first declare an interest: my son-in-law is in the Mercian Regiment in the reserves, and it would obviously be inappropriate for me not to mention that, as I will mention reserves in much of what I say.
May I also say what a pleasure and privilege it is to be in a debate? I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned that not many people may watch these debates; I can assure her that they are read far and wide, and the importance of what we say here should not be underestimated by those who are part of our great family, but also by others who perhaps do not have the same intent. It is important for us to remember the significance of the remarks that are made here.
I just say to the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Skidelsky, that it is of great significance and strength that, in this Parliament, within the legal framework of our country, anybody is free to make the comments that they wish to make without fear or favour. Although I did not agree with some of the points that they made, I am proud to be part of a Parliament where they can express those opinions.
It is also important to remind ourselves, before I come to the report of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, of the significance of the debate that we are having, as it reminds us all that our country, virtually unanimously, has been proud to support and continues to support Ukraine. That is great, and something that our country can be complimented on. I know that, across Europe and beyond, other countries look to us with that pride as well.
It is also important to restate that the vast majority of our country understands that the fight in Ukraine is our fight as much as theirs, and that their front line is our front line. With that, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for the significant support that she gave to me when she was a Minister and I was in His Majesty’s Opposition, and in speaking for the Opposition now; and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; and all those from the Cross Benches and across Parliament for their general support for what we are doing in Ukraine. For those who read our debates, it is of huge significance and reminds them that there is no weakening of our resolve to continue with that struggle. Whatever the debate on the level of defence spending, we continue to spend billions of pounds a year to support that endeavour. That is really important context.
I take absolutely the point by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, in his interesting and challenging speech, that, whatever commitments we make, we should make sure that we see them through. Wherever that leads us in the future, that is a very real and proper challenge to make to Government and Ministers. I take that very much on board and thank him for his comments.
What an outstanding report this is from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. We will come back to its title, Ukraine: A Wake-up Call, because it speaks to not only our nation but Europe as a whole. It makes all sorts of points—far too many for me to address—but the fundamental point is that, whoever had won the US election, Europe would have had to do more. Although we can look to the election of President Trump and some of the comments that have been made, if Kamala Harris had won then she would have been demanding—maybe not in the same way or to the same extent—that Europe do more as well. That is why this title is so important, because it reflects a growing reality on the continent of Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, so aptly put it, the committee could have called it “An Alarm Call”. The events of the past couple of months have demonstrated the need for greater urgency, speed and determination to take the necessary action.
One of the most important things that comes through in the report, which I have discussed with the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in other debates, is that we have to rebuild deterrence. We need to understand that stopping war often means having to prepare for it. That is an unwelcome and difficult truth but, in today’s world, it is the reality.
The report also recognises, in a way that has not always been apparent, the changing nature of war and that we need to wake up to that. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the committee—many of whom are here—and those who have worked with it should be commended on this, given that the whole country is starting to wake up to that too. It pointed out the need, as many noble Lords have done, for homeland defence, defence of critical national infrastructure and the importance of the reserves. All those things are really significant. Many noble Lords have heard me say in the Chamber that, if anyone had been saying this two, four, six or eight years ago, they would have been looked at with disbelief for talking about the need for us to understand how we develop homeland defence. That is a criticism of all of us, but it is a fact. The report seeks to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked me about the strength of the reserves. The official figure I have, from 1 November 2024, is that there are 32,080 trained and untrained reserves. He also mentioned the importance of the defence industry. The wake-up call is not only for the military but for the defence industry. We are seeking, through our new defence industrial strategy, to include SMEs and some of the businesses that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords mentioned, to set up new structures and to try to ensure that we do not have a situation where our stockpiles are not big enough and, frankly, we cannot restock them quickly enough. We cannot be satisfied with that. Part of our response is to work with industry and to upskill, but we are also making an organisational change in the Ministry of Defence to set up the new National Armaments Director to accelerate the changes we need.
We are also trying to become a closer partner, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned, on the European defence industrial strategy to rebuild relationships there. That is not being met with universal approval from every European country, although many see the advantages of it. It is in Europe’s interest and ours; I know that we are not in the European Union, but co-operating on the defence industry in a way that allows interoperability is in both our interests and, strategically, the right thing to do. We have to find a way of overcoming that.
I say to my noble friend Lord Liddle that, yes, we are working to 2.5%. Another really important figure is the 3% in the next Parliament. There will always be debate about defence spending, as we have heard today. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made points about a whole-of-society response and homeland defence. I agree with him on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about the importance of alliances across the world. I agree with that. Notwithstanding the debate about ODA money being used for defence, she will no doubt be pleased that I, as a Minister with some responsibility for defence and diplomacy, have been to Africa and South America. We are seeking to go to those countries to further develop and maintain our relationships with them and to establish and develop relationships in other parts of the world. Notwithstanding overseas development assistance, those countries are asking for our military assistance—not necessarily with divisions or thousands of fighter aircraft but with the doctrine, training and the confidence we can give them in tackling the terrorist threats and destabilising impacts in their own countries.
The most incredible example of that which I have seen recently is the work that we are doing in Nigeria, a close ally of ours. I saw a small number of personnel working with its people to help and support them, with the threat that they face from Islamic State West Africa and Boko Haram, to try to stabilise their country. That was helping with development and security as well; the noble Baroness is right to make that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talked about the size of the Army. Obviously, the defence review will have something to say about that. We are really trying to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis that he mentioned; we implemented straight away the recommendations of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body and we recognise the skills agenda. There are a significant number of vacancies in the existing defence budget for skilled workers. We must find a way to tackle that, including by improving conditions, changing childcare arrangements and improving housing. We have changed the contract—I had better get this the right way round—from Capita to Serco to try to improve that. This will not have an immediate effect, but we are trying. The noble Lord asked in particular about the cyber route. We are creating a new cyber route for people with those skills because, without being rude, we are not sure that the current route would be open to some of those recruits if they were trying to get into the Marines, but we need those people.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the importance of the reserves. He is absolutely right to make the point about the importance of the interconnectivity between different regions of the world and how conflicts in different parts of the world impact on each other. I saw this when I went to Vietnam; it has been very unsettled by the closer relationship between Russia and China, which has changed its view.
I very much support the points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about NATO and the importance of the US relationship. Whatever our view, that relationship is really important. Taking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, this is really difficult as a Government seeking to bring about a meaningful peace as soon as possible in Ukraine—working with Ukraine to deliver that, so that it is at the table, and then trying to get the US to support that. As the noble Lord pointed out, you cannot do that simply by responding to every single headline in the paper, every single tweet that is put out or every single comment that is made.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, the US relationship is absolutely vital to us. Of course it is changing, and we see what is taking place, but it should not be taken as weakness or as not understanding what is happening. Diplomatic solutions sometimes have to be sought carefully, constructively and quietly. That is real leadership. The easy thing would be just to join in with everything that is being said, and no progress would be made, but I take the point by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on that.
I understand the point by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about rearming and spending: the need for rearmament is very important. My noble friend Lord Anderson made the point about the US and the importance of that relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, talked about the importance of NATO; whether or not we have a Minister for Civil Defence, we understand the importance of homeland defence and the need for us to step up. It is really important.
My noble friend Lord Sahota mentioned changing geopolitics, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, mentioned the importance of resources and reserves. I am going to meet the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who I think is a major-general in the reserves—I hope he is not a lieutenant-general—in due course with respect to that. I congratulate the noble Baroness’s daughter on her service.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton: we are seeking to accelerate what we do about frozen Russian assets. We are using £2.26 billion as a new loan to Ukraine which, as he knows, is the profits of the assets and he is talking about the actual assets. We will do what we can with respect to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, was right to point out the need to think about the rebuilding of Ukraine. I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic: as she knows, I was in Bosnia recently, trying to show that the UK Government understand the importance of what was happening in Bosnia, the undermining of the Dayton agreement and our need to consider what to do with respect to Operation Althea and all the various other things, as she well knows.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. He will be pleased to have noticed that the single intelligence account, which is the money for the services, went up by £340 million between 2023-24 and 2025-26 to try to tackle some of the very real points that he made.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for the points that he made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, on the importance of SMEs.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, used Churchill’s words to inspire us. We need to continue to remind ourselves that Churchill, Ernie Bevin and all these people from the past must be looking down on us and thinking, “I hope they rediscover some of the spirit that we had,” to deal with the challenges that we face.
On the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and the need for Europe to stand up and the EU and the UK standing together, I say absolutely. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, for the points she made about working across the world and Generation Z. I am sorry that I am going on, but I ask noble Lords to stay with me for a minute or two. On Generation Z, I agree with the points she made, but the only thing I would say is on the contradiction that every single remembrance and military event I go to is packed with young people. Cadets but also other people are attending remembrance services, walking around and being involved. Through that they understand the value of service.
It is great that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, as well—says what he did. I understand the points he made and the challenge he made to all of us to understand it and what it means for our policy.
I have said what I did about the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton. I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, very much for the overall support that they have given.
I am going to read out just one thing on nuclear, and I do not want to get this wrong for obvious reasons. It is a very important point. I will read from the actual notes because it is carefully phrased. The conflict in Ukraine is not a nuclear matter for the UK. However, we have assigned our nuclear deterrent to the defence of NATO since 1962, and we remain ready to deter threats to the UK and against our NATO allies.
The UK’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. Only the Prime Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons, even if they are deployed as part of a NATO response. The UK has a long-standing close relationship with the US on all defence nuclear issues, which has endured through many changes of government in our two nations. That is all I wish to say about that particular matter, but I hope it is helpful to the noble Baroness, the Committee and everybody else.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, again for his report. It has made a great contribution to the defence and security of our nation and beyond. Thank you very much.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords all want to rush away and catch their trains, so I will only be a couple of minutes. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. There was an unusual convergence of views among the vast majority of those who spoke, which I think should be encouraging to His Majesty’s Government and to us all. I do not have time to give credit to all noble Lords who have spoken but, save for the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, there was little I heard that I disagreed with. Even with them, I am sure there are things that we can find to agree on.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others, concurred that increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP will not be enough. As we said in the report, it is not just that we spend more, but that we spend more astutely. I agreed strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the need for the MoD to sort out recruitment. The Minister told us a bit about how that will be done.
My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford spoke specifically about reserve numbers. He is right that it would not be difficult to increase reserve numbers dramatically, and we should. I will not go into detail, but I have the experience of recruiting reservists based on 50 years of close involvement. I joined the Territorial Army in April 1975, and I am the honorary colonel of the reserve unit that I joined then. I know exactly what needs to be done. It does not need to be hugely expensive. I am available on call to the Minister. I beg him not to rely entirely on the counsel of regular soldiers in the MoD; I respect them hugely, but point out that reservists’ motivations are different to those of regular servicepeople who have shown, time after time, that they misunderstand the motivations and needs of reservists.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gently chided us, pointing out that we forecasted a gradual shift of US priorities. I hope the Grand Committee will forgive us our optimism. I think the views expressed by most noble Lords today suggest that the vast majority of the report is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, as valid today as it was when we wrote it. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friends Lord Soames, Lady Fraser and Lady Goldie, for echoing my concerns about the future of the RFCAs. I say to the Minister that we want to help; please do not tie one hand behind our back.
I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. I am pleased that we agree on so much. It is often said that we always plan and prepare to fight the last war, rather than the next. We must break that mould.
Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges for Non-UK Residents
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for introducing admission charges to museums and galleries for non-UK residents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The introduction of universal free admission to national museums and galleries was a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government which we do not currently have any plans to change. These museums attract huge numbers of national and international visitors, and they support jobs and investment across the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. We continue to support these museums in their efforts to broaden access to national collections. That is why the DCMS Secretary of State announced a 5% increase to their funding and £120 million for critical estates maintenance in 2025-26.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and warmly welcome the £270 million announced by the Culture Secretary in her Jennie Lee lecture, including £20 million for renewal of museums across the country. I am glad to hear that there are no plans to change the free admissions policy, a landmark policy of the previous Labour Government. I wonder what the Minister can say about the approach to individual museums which, like the Louvre, the Acropolis and the Met, want to pursue the possibility of charging non-UK residents. Would they be allowed to do it? If so, has the DCMS looked at how they would check for the identities of UK citizens? Would they be checked at the door?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am unclear whether I can respond as to how the Louvre is going to do this in practice. I understand that it has a way of checking eligibility. The decision in respect to the Louvre is clearly a decision for it, as it is for other museums—my apologies if I have misunderstood the question. As I said in my initial Answer, we remain proud of the landmark Labour policy, which means that everyone is able to enter our national museums free of charge.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Answer given by the Minister, but the question I want to ask concerns the £270 million announced to help the arts most in crisis, including our civic museums. How will that money be allotted and distributed? A test case is surely Cannock Chase’s Museum and Prince of Wales Theatre, which from next year will receive no funding at all from the local district council. Will these institutions and others in similar positions be saved from closure, and how will this be done?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
DCMS is committed to working in partnership with councils and local leaders so that residents’ needs are met, but we are also reviewing wider funding structures and addressing challenges across the entire sector. This includes through the review of Arts Council England and the Government’s commitment to restoring stability to local government finances. We really do understand the issues that a number of cultural institutions are facing.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if you start to exclude people from museums, you start to remove their spending in museums’ cafés and gift shops? Can this be an official part of any review of charging structures for entrance to those institutions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I said in my initial Answer, we currently have no plans to charge for entry to national museums, but the noble Lord is right about what happens when people visit those museums, particularly those which would potentially see lower visitor numbers if they were not free to enter. I am not going to do a league table of which ones I think that might be. There has currently been no impact assessment or any sort of feasibility study on this, because we do not currently have such plans. However, I entirely anticipate that the huge benefit to museums and galleries of visitors’ spend on retail and hospitality when they go to these museums would be considered.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. I welcome the Minister’s caution. To me, the biggest challenge, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of a charge in the first place, would be the logistical challenge of separating visitors as they came into the gallery. How on earth do you decide who has to pay and who does not? I suspect that the cost would outweigh any benefits, so I welcome the cautionary notes. However desirable it might be in theory, I do not think it would be realistic in practice.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the caution that the noble Lord expressed. We would have to consider a whole range of issues. This is not to say that we are not always looking at how we can bring more funding into the sector, but anything we do needs to be measured against the disbenefit of any action we might propose.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, this nation’s cathedrals, while not museums, are among the gems of our heritage—treasure troves of memory, architectural masterpieces, and places where prayer has been valid for centuries. The majority do not charge anyone for entry, because they believe in a theological principle that places of prayer should be free for all. Will the Minister confirm that, when cathedrals that do not charge an entry fee apply for grants from public money, His Majesty’s Government will not penalise them?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate with the specifics. It is really welcome that people can go into places of worship for quiet reflection as well as to see the most magnificent structures in the country. I do not have a specific answer to his question, and I will endeavour to write to him.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Across the world, charges are made on audio-described and in-person tours. If we were to think about major museums and art galleries charging visitors from outside this country, we would be able to pull together the plethora of existing different identifiers into a proper identity system.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There are an awful lot of hypotheticals in this debate. I go back to my initial point that this Government do not currently have any plans to charge for entry to museums and galleries that are currently classed as the 50 national museums covered by the Labour Government scheme from 2001.
Baroness Bull (CB)
The UK’s cultural and heritage assets are indeed a massive driver of inbound tourism. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, there is spillover spend not just in the museums but in the accommodation and hospitality that these tourists need. However, we know, and a DCMS Select Committee report from the other place in 2022 revealed, that a lot of that tourism is focused on London, whereas the entire UK has an enormous amount of cultural heritage that could be shared. What are the Government doing to work with VisitBritain and others to raise awareness of and promote venues and opportunities around the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Funding for national museums supports museums and sites across London. The noble Baroness is correct that a large number of these museums are in London, but we do have national museum sites in Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, York and St Ives. The Government have announced a new £20 million museum renewal fund, in addition to the more than £44 million a year that Arts Council England currently invests in museums. As the noble Baroness is aware, there is an ongoing review of Arts Council England, led by my noble friend Lady Hodge.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the answers that Minister has given, although a few ears will have picked up the word “currently” in her first response. But there are many downsides to reversing the legacy of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury. It cuts against the excellent work that the sector has done to widen access, and it erects new barriers. Like other noble Lords, I do not want to see people turned away because they do not have their ID, or people from ethnic minorities challenged about their citizenship. Most of all, it lets politicians, local and national—of all parties—off the hook, when they should value and fund our museums. So might the Minister look at the VAT 33A scheme that her department runs and perhaps give it a more user-friendly name to help promote it? Might she even look at the 1964 Act, which gives local authorities a duty to deliver comprehensive and efficient library services, and widen that to museums as well?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I find myself having to defend giving good news to your Lordships’ House. I will have to write to the noble Lord on the specific VAT rule that he referred to.
Lord Polak (Con)
The previous Government committed to giving free entry to the national Holocaust memorial next door in Victoria Tower Gardens. Will the Minister commit to the same?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As the noble Lord is aware, this Government are very supportive of the memorial. It is an MHCLG scheme, and I will have to write to the noble Lord following Questions. He will note that this Government are currently taking the legislation through this House.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation to address ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and note my other interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling SLAPPs. Our immediate focus is on implementing the anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and their operation will inform any future action. We are determined to take the necessary time to consider this complex issue carefully and ensure that we do not risk upsetting the delicate balance between access to justice and free speech.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, SLAPPs are an unacceptable infringement on free speech; their sole purpose is to empower the powerful and corrupt to silence journalists and bloggers and to shut down legitimate scrutiny. In opposition, the Prime Minister and the Government strongly backed legislation to end their continuing abuse, but now they have gone back on that commitment and said that changes to civil procedure rules will be enough. Is the Minister aware that free speech campaigners such as Article 19 and Transparency International, backed by studies from the universities of Birmingham and Leeds, have said that these rules will be wholly ineffective in stopping pernicious lawsuits and that what is needed is full-throated legislation? Rather than hiding behind piecemeal legal tweaks, will the Government look at this again, stick to their unequivocal promises and set out a timeline for the development of a robust anti-SLAPP Bill?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the statutory definition of an economic crime SLAPP was within the previous Act, and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has introduced rules. My honourable friend Minister Sackman signed the rules to come into law in January this year, and those measures will be implemented later this spring. The Government want to see how those measures will work before deciding on more legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in 2023 the Conservative Government formed a task force to deal with SLAPPs under the direction of DCMS, with a wide representation of government officials, solicitors, barristers and journalists, and with terms of reference requiring bi-monthly meetings. Four reports were produced, the last in March 2024; there has been nothing since. Have the current Government abolished the task force? If not, what is it doing, and how and when will we hear from it?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord’s question, so I will write to him.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I had quite a lot to do with getting a SLAPPs element into the economic crime Act as a beachhead, but it was always seen as just that: a beachhead. A far more comprehensive law was to follow, covering all the other sectors beyond economic crime. Why have we not seen anything further? Will we see something further during this Parliament to cover the other areas? I am sure the Minister will be aware that law firms that profit from this will be lobbying hard against it. I hope he will resist that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I remember the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in the debates on that Act, in which I took part as well. I am going to give the noble Lord the same answer as I have just given. We want to see how the changes to the rules will change the actions of the courts. SLAPPs are covert and they need to be identified. We want to enable the judges to identify them appropriately.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too am concerned that this is slipping down the legislative agenda, because this issue is serious. Whistleblowers in the Post Office scandal, for example, were silenced early on when they wanted to go public and received letters telling them that they would be sued for defamation if they pursued their claims. We have seen many journalists being silenced and intimidated with expensive lawsuits by the rich and the powerful. It is identifying those cases and having specific legislation that is effective.
I remind the Minister that a lot of these cases are directed against women, often exposing things to do with powerful men misbehaving and their conduct towards women being highly concerning. Those women are silenced. Given that the Government have committed to protecting women and girls, are they going to do something to protect those who are most vulnerable in this area?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I absolutely recognise all the points my noble friend made in her question. We do not believe that this issue is slipping down the legislative agenda. We want to see how the 2023 Act will work in practice. That will be happening imminently. The new rules will become active later this spring. The point my noble friend makes about intimidation through this procedure is absolutely right. Women, journalists and women journalists are all victims of this, and it is something we will certainly keep an eagle eye on.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should not confuse the issues surrounding non-disclosure agreements, which can be pernicious in themselves, with the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation? Does he also agree that because the public profile of SLAPPs has so increased recently, regulators have taken a far more positive approach to dealing with the matter, as recent evidence from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board illustrates? It might be better to see how the civil rules implement the perception against SLAPPs and allow those regulators to discharge their functions with regard to the legal profession.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question, and I agree with the points he made. It is indeed true that non-disclosure agreements can be pernicious in themselves, and they are not to be confused with SLAPPs. The new regulations will come into place imminently, and we should see how they go before considering future legislation.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, then from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I think the Minister is aware that the Council of Europe has done a great deal on this matter, particularly the parliamentary assembly committee on culture, media and sport. I think the Minister said in a previous exchange that he would look at the Council of Europe recommendations and take account of them in taking action on this. Has he had the opportunity to do this yet? If not, will he do so soon?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Yes, I remember our previous exchange on this matter, and I have looked at the work done within the Council of Europe, the parliamentary assembly and its culture, media and sport committee. This is a cross-Europe issue. There are groups measuring attempts at SLAPPs across European jurisdictions. We will continue to look at how legislation is developed across Europe. We will keep an eye on this within the UK. The point that my noble friend makes is a good one.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Minister to the letter from the SRA, which it sent me this week and I have published on X this morning, detailing why it has not taken action against the lawyers representing Yevgeny Prigozhin, who pursued the journalist Eliot Higgins for tweeting that he was a Russian mercenary and the leader of the Wagner Group. In that letter the SRA is clearer than it has ever been that, in its view, legislation is needed to prevent SLAPPs. Can the Minister please think again about the urgency of this matter? What with not moving on this, yesterday’s complacency on the Telegraph and the Government’s position on copyright, there needs to be a different kind of response from the Government on matters concerning the freedom of the press.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of that letter yesterday. The first point to make is that it is for the courts to decide whether a case is indeed a SLAPP. The second is that the case referred to in the SRA letter preceded the legislation that is now in place. The focus of the Government is to see how the new regulations will bed down before we consider new legislation.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may not be aware that the Georgian oligarchy is introducing SLAPPs laws into its own country now, justifying that by saying that they are British laws. Is the Minister not embarrassed that this is being used to suppress the press and protest in Georgia? Does he not understand that we need to take this out of our laws so that people are not using it as justification elsewhere?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord has just made, but of course there is a balance to be struck between Article 6 rights of access to justice and Article 10 rights of freedom of speech, and it is very important that we get that right.
Migrants: Indefinite Leave to Remain
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of migrants expected to apply for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the Parliament, and of the related cost.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Some 162,000 migrants were granted settlement in the year ending December 2024. The Government intend to produce a White Paper later this year on migration policy and will tackle high net migration by taking a different approach, linking migration and broader labour market policies together.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
I thank the Minister for the reply. Using ONS and OBR data, it is possible to project that over 800,000 recent migrants could apply for ILR over the course of this Parliament. Some 54% of those are on non-work visas, and those on work visas are predominantly non-net tax contributors. Furthermore, each ILR migrant will have full claim to all benefits, and the right to bring in more dependants on non-work family visas. Does the Minister agree that the coming societal and fiscal impacts are simply unsustainable? Will the Government consider revising the current five-year eligibility rules while there is still time to do so?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The five-year eligibility rule is currently in place, as the noble Lord has mentioned. I have to say to him that I am a sort of hors d’oeuvre ahead of the main course, which will be the net migration White Paper, which will be published very shortly and will address what we need to do in this Parliament in respect of net migration, skills development, producing local skills here and tackling illegal migration. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me: there will be examination of all those issues in the White Paper, which will be before this House in relatively short order.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My son-in-law, Jair, came to this country more than 20 years ago. Since his arrival here and his obtaining right to remain, he has been permanently employed in various capacities, including as an assistant in a school for deaf children. Latterly, since he obtained UK citizenship 16 years ago, he has been serving as a police officer in Scotland. He has never been a financial burden on the state. Does the Minister agree that, in considering the cost mentioned in the Question, it is also essential to include the benefits that such migrants bring to our society in providing essential public services and giving us practical examples of the benefits of cultural diversity?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord. We need to value those individuals who come here legally and via legal migration routes. They make a contribution to our society and fulfil many employment roles. They pay their taxes, put a range of cultural improvements into our society and help to improve the mix as a whole. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord will still recognise, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that that needs to be managed and examined. That is what the White Paper will do: examine the potential pressures and issues. But I want to emphasise that those who are here are welcome and contribute to our society positively.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, there are some 175,000 Ukrainian migrants in this country, who arrived more than three years ago and are running out of their three years’ leave to stay. What is their status now?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have recently issued a statement revising and extending the Ukrainian scheme, and anybody who is here currently under that Ukrainian scheme will have been notified of the requirements under that. Their status will be regularised as long as the illegal occupation and invasion of Ukraine by the Russian state pertains.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
What progress has been made in closing asylum hotels, in line with the Government’s manifesto commitment? How will the Government ensure that those granted indefinite leave to remain contribute to the economy, rather than becoming dependent on state support?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have closed a certain number of asylum hotels—it is in the low teens at the moment. The Government have a commitment to closing such hotels because they are a waste of taxpayers’ resource, and there are better ways to manage what we inherited from the previous Government. Since July, we have removed 19,000 people with no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom. Of those, 5,100 were enforced returns and, since July, we have also tackled 5,400-plus visits on illegal working, and we are improving the situation with removal of foreign national offenders. There is a record that the noble Lord has to defend, and we are trying to unpick that record—and those hotels are his legacy. We will meet our manifesto commitment during this Parliament.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, are the Government satisfied that UKVI is providing good or, at any rate, reasonable service to applicants for indefinite leave? If you are paying the standard fees rather than for priority or super-priority service, is that one of the services for which you have to provide your credit card details and pay to hold on the phone, listening to a robot—possibly telling you that “Your call is very important to us”—before getting a formulaic and uninformative reply about the progress of your application?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that that is not the experience—and if it is, I hope that the noble Baroness will send me details of the specifics of the experience that she relates. The Home Office does not make a profit from applications; where the fee is higher than the estimated unit cost, there is no profit element. The Home Office keeps all fees under review, and it is its principle to ensure that those who have a potential legal right to apply to stay in the United Kingdom have the facility to do so in a simple and effective way. I hope that the noble Baroness will supply me with the information if there is a specific case to which she wishes to refer.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, might my noble friend talk with his boss, the Home Secretary—I ought to declare an interest, because I am still involved with higher education—on whether we could in the White Paper at least discuss the critical issue of not getting into the farcical position of trying desperately to recruit full-time higher education students from across the world and then counting them in the net migration figures?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend tempts me to go into the main course rather than the hors d’oeuvre, which is today’s Question. I cannot trail for him matters that may or may not be in the immigration/net migration White Paper that we will produce in the very near future. We are intending to look at the inheritance that we had from the previous Government but also at the economic needs and training needs of the United Kingdom and how we can upskill the UK workforce, as well as at the impact of net migration students on university places—and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, mentioned. I hope that my noble friend can have patience, as that will be before this House in relatively short order.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It should be the noble Lord, Lord Alton, next.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister will have seen the letter that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has sent to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the plight and fate of those children who went missing from asylum accommodation, overseen by the Home Office at the time. What can he tell us about the numbers still involved, their plight or fate, and what more is being done to identify their whereabouts?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is a priority for the Government to track down and provide safeguarding measures for those children who went missing under the regime of the previous Government. There are approximately 80 to 90 for whom we do not have records of where they are now. It is priority to understand where they are. The responsibility for that lies not just with the Home Office but with local authorities, such as Kent, which had initial responsibility and now has responsibility for safeguarding issues. It is a priority to find them, and I shall update the noble Lord in due course.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, will the Government’s White Paper abandon the doctrine proclaimed by Tony Blair, and to which subsequent Conservative Ministers, sadly, succumbed, that mass immigration is necessary to promote growth in this country, given that in the ensuing 20 years we have had the highest rate of immigration in our history and the lowest rate of growth? Will they go back and look at the record of Mrs Thatcher—
Lord Lilley (Con)
During Mrs Thatcher’s 12 years in office, net immigration was precisely net zero, but we moved from being the slowest-growing economy in Europe to the fastest-growing major economy in Europe.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I spent most of the period from 1979 to 1990 trying to make sure that Mrs Thatcher was not in office, I cannot really give much comfort to the noble Lord on his request to endorse the policies she undertook. He will have to wait for the migration White Paper that will be coming shortly. Among its key aspects—I can give him a slight taster—will be the ability to develop homegrown skills, to look at skill shortages, and to look at how we upskill individuals to fill those vacancies. I very much value the people who, historically, over many years, before Mrs Thatcher and beyond, have come to the United Kingdom to work and to make their lives. They are valued members of our community, but we need also to look at how they can upskill to meet future challenges.
Schools: Mobile Phones
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their position on the use of mobile phones in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we know that using mobile phones in schools can lead to online bullying, distraction and classroom disruption, which can lead to lost learning time. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance supports schools on how to develop, implement and maintain a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break time and lunchtime. Head teachers are rightly responsible for the implementation of guidance within their schools.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I understand the tension between a clear national policy on the one hand and an element of local discretion on the other, but I was struck by the reply of the noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, in a recent debate on this subject in your Lordships’ House, in which she said that
“last year, around a third of pupils reported that most of their lessons were disrupted in some way by a mobile phone”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 895.]
Is that not just unacceptable? Should the Government not consult on some stricter options, one of which would include a ban on mobile phones in primary schools and, in secondary schools, making them inaccessible during school hours, except where they are needed for medical reasons?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, it is clearly unacceptable if lessons are being disrupted. That is, in many ways, a broader issue than whether mobile phones are being used and goes to the behaviour policies that every school has a responsibility to have and to develop with their parents. I think it is important that we look at the way in which schools are already taking action to limit mobile phones. Actually, schools are moving towards developing many of the things that the noble Lord has suggested should be in place. This comes back to the point he raised about whether we believe that, with clear national guidance, including examples of how phones should be controlled in schools, we should nevertheless allow a determination at school level by head teachers of how that is actually implemented. I think that the balance is broadly right at the moment, although it is of course important that we keep this under review and that we encourage schools to do what is necessary to enable all classrooms to be purposeful and calm and for every child to be able to learn.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is right that there is a place, I suppose, for phones in schools in terms of learning. Equally, parents think that, if the child has a phone, they are far better safeguarded, particularly on long journeys home. However, there is the other side, where phones can lead to bullying, to pupils taking inappropriate photographs, to such photos being sent, as well as to well-being and mental health issues. It is not a clear-cut situation we face. It is also disruptive for classes when schools have to ask teachers to collect the phones, hand them out, et cetera. Technology might be the answer. For example, in Ireland they have spent €20 million on giving schools what is called a Yondr wallet, into which the phones go and they cannot be used during that period: it cuts off all the connections. The Minister said we must look at ways: how will we look at those ways and how will we come to a final conclusion?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are schools in the UK that are already using the Yondr wallets that the noble Lord refers to. On the whole, schools are not using the approach of making individual teachers collect phones at the beginning of classes. The most recent evidence suggests that the most commonly used way of controlling mobile phones is to collect the phone at the beginning of the day and give it back to the child at the end of the day. The broader point, however, that the noble Lord makes, relates not just to how mobile phones are used in schools but to broader issues of how children are using their phones, with high levels of screen time. Sometimes, we seem to think that what happens in schools solves all problems. Actually, I think we need to look more broadly than simply at a relatively blunt legislative proposal.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister had any discussions about the innovation that is going on in mobile phones? I am particularly struck by “smart dumbphones” that do not have access to social media and allow children only to text and to keep out of danger. I think that there is a huge opportunity here for the UK to increase the supply of a different kind of phone. Will the Minister explain some of those discussions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I have not had those discussions myself, but I have heard about some of the innovations. I would make a broader point about how parents, for example, who might be concerned about how their children are using phones, feel. That type of technological development may well help to provide some of the answers. With respect to schools, the department provides technological advice for schools on such things as, for example, how to ensure that filtering provisions are appropriate. Sometimes, there is an opportunity to use good technology to counter the detrimental impacts of technology. That may well be something that is appropriate in this area.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any work has been done in speaking to young people about their use of phones in school? I have been a youth worker for over 38 years now and most of the best innovations in dealing with young people and their issues come from asking the young people. Many schools have discussions with their own young people and they give up their phones willingly. It creates a culture in the school that is much kinder. Has that kind of conversation been had with young people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a really important point. I suspect that where schools are implementing this most effectively is where they have engaged not just parents but pupils in thinking about how mobile phones should be controlled, not only within the school but also to address concerns about what is happening to young people using phones outside school. I do not know whether the department has done that, but I will go back and check and perhaps follow that up with the noble Lord.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, to follow up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about school classes being interrupted by telephones, I merely observe that all of us are aware that proceedings in your Lordships’ House are occasionally interrupted by people furiously trying to control their devices. When it comes to mobile phones in schools, it is fine to give guidance to schools: we put so much burden on teachers and on head teachers to manage a whole variety of issues. In the experience that we have had of talking to schools, the issue they have is actually with parents. Will the Government try to ensure that part of the guidance they give to schools will be about how best to have a dialogue with parents, because it is often parents who are the most against their children not being able to take phones into school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point, but sometimes parents are right. Perhaps, for example, there are circumstances where there is a long journey to and from school and parents want to be able to be in touch with their children. I take the point that one of the things that we could do is support parents to understand how their children’s use of screen time might impact on them, both positively and negatively, and to encourage them—particularly those with younger children—to engage with that screen time, to understand what their children are watching and doing. That is certainly something we are looking at in some of the early years and family support work that the department is doing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we are not in a good place in relation to children and phones and social media. We heard from my noble friend Lord Young the evidence of disruption in classes. Parentkind has just published evidence which confirms that and shows that only one in seven pupils have an effective ban in place. Yesterday, we saw the watering down of the honourable Member for Whitehaven’s Private Member’s Bill on the protection of under-16s from social media and smartphones. Surely, with our children, we should be pursuing the precautionary principle. There is so much evidence of a correlation between the rise in mental health problems among young people and the advent of smartphones and social media. Until we know that that is not causation, surely the Government should be acting and not delaying.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are of course in a place that reflects the guidance issued by the last Government—probably by the noble Baroness, actually—less than a year ago. On other occasions, quite rightly in this House, the Government are challenged on the approach that they take to the autonomy and decision-making of head teachers. With respect to schools, it is clearly important that we continue to monitor this issue. I know it is of concern to parents, but we also need to be in a position where we trust head teachers to make appropriate decisions within the guidance about what happens in their schools. Some of the points that the noble Baroness rightly identifies come back to the point I made earlier about the impact of phones and social media way beyond what happens in our schools. There, our cross-government approach, which focuses on the implementation of the Online Safety Act, for example, and other issues, is really important in helping us to address this issue of great concern, which I accept is complex and does not exist only in schools.
Human Rights Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Hong Kong Democracy Activists
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a gross infringement of British sovereignty. The Chinese Communist Party and its repressive regime have arrested over 100 people in Hong Kong on politically motivated charges. In the other place, the Security Minister claimed that
“concerns have been raised at every opportunity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 184.]
Can the Minister confirm whether this specifically has been raised with Chinese officials? Will he confirm whether the Government have made formal diplomatic representations to China regarding this blatant extraterritorial threat? Will he commit to placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s first two questions is yes. Representations have been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at the highest level, and Ministers who have visited China have also made representations. We will continue to make representations on this matter because it is a serious issue, and the Government need to ensure that the Chinese know that there is widespread concern among the populace and the Government. On FIRS, the noble Lord will know that we announced yesterday that the state of Iran is being included in FIRS. The scheme will become live during the summer. We will keep all nations under review but at the moment our announcement has only been in relation to Iran.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have met someone who has a bounty on them. This is clear transnational repression because it not only seeks to intimidate the person who has the bounty placed on them, which is a clear breach of our law, but is designed to intimidate family members and the wider community back in Hong Kong. Transnational repression needs to be rooted out totally from the United Kingdom. Therefore, there should be no encouragement to any of the state bodies that currently could have preferential access to key parts of the British economy, especially financial services. Will the Home Office Minister make sure that those Ministers who will visit Beijing seeking wider trade and investment with China are fully aware that any state enterprises that have any involvement, especially in a potential new embassy in London, will be committing not only a domestic legislation offence but transnational repression, which is an international crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. He will know that the UK Government will challenge the Chinese authorities where we think there are transgressions; this is one of those occasions. We will also co-operate with the Chinese authorities when we believe that we can work together and trade with them when we believe it is appropriate. However, his points are valid.
On the embassy, a planning application is in and will be determined under planning laws like any other planning application. It will be with my colleagues in the department for local government. The Home Office have already submitted a security note on it, as part of the planning application, and that will be considered in due course. I reassure the noble Lord that we take this matter extremely seriously and representations have been made, and will continue, at the highest level.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am patron of Hong Kong Watch and an officer of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong. The inconveniences and irritations experienced by the seven sanctioned parliamentarians, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and me, are nothing in comparison with the bounties placed on the heads of pro-democracy advocates such as the young woman Chloe Cheung. Letters delivered to their neighbours offer £100,000 for information on the pro-democracy activists or their delivery to the PRC embassy.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently conducting an inquiry into transnational repression. We are interested to know from the Minister what laws will have been broken if a dissident, or someone sanctioned or targeted by the CCP, is dragged into a PRC embassy or consulate. That has already happened in Manchester so this is not simply academic. What action, if any, would be taken? Would it be illegal? Would the diplomats be immune? What powers would be used to recover those who were seized?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reiterate what I said to the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Bench: we condemn this action. We have also seen the reports of letters being delivered to neighbours. We are trying to verify the source of those reports and of that information, but the police are certainly looking into this matter and are liaising with those who are in receipt of the letters. The police will assess, independently of government, whether action needs to be taken under any legislation we have to date.
I hope to reassure the noble Lord that, in the event of the circumstances he has described, the police and the Home Office would investigate whether illegal acts have been undertaken. It would be for the police, not the Home Office, to investigate independently in that event. I hope that our representations have been made very forcefully, and that the Chinese authorities will recognise them. We will monitor that situation accordingly.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I fully understand the balance that there has to be between protecting British citizens under British law and the need for good diplomatic and trading relations with China. It is a difficult balance and sometimes it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. However, in the event that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has indicated, Chinese diplomats break the law and then hide behind diplomatic immunity, will this Government, through either the Home Office or the Foreign Office, make it abundantly clear to the Chinese Government not only that their behaviour is wholly unacceptable but that they will be publicly condemned by our Government so that our citizens know how much we disapprove of it, and that the individual diplomats from the Chinese embassy who misbehave will be promptly expelled?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is tempting me to look at scenarios that may or may not occur. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass and harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This Government will reflect on any actions like that, over and above the representations we have already made.
Lord Walney (CB)
But is there not a tension between the robust words that the Minister rightly uses and that the Home Secretary delivered to the Chinese nation and, for example, the Government’s decision, on returning from Beijing, to relax planning restrictions on China’s intended new embassy, which presumably houses and certainly plays a role in much of the malign activity that the Government are complaining about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will already know—but I will tell him anyway—that a final decision has yet to be made on the Chinese embassy. The Secretary of State for Local Government has an independent quasi-judicial role in making the final decision. The noble Lord will also know that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary sent a joint letter to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January, and the Home Office has considered the breadth of national security issues in relation to the planning application. I cannot determine that application, but I assure the noble Lord that the points he raised are being considered in that mechanism by government officials who have to make the decision.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been receiving evidence in relation to transnational repression. Is the Minister aware—it is widely known—that the lawyers acting for Jimmy Lai on the international issues that arise out of that case are receiving the most incredible intimidation? They are receiving threats of rape and threats towards their children. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, the King’s Counsel who acts for Jimmy Lai, has been exposed to the most appalling forms of intimidation. Is this something that the Government are aware of? If so, what are they going to do about the intimidation of legal representatives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am concerned to hear what my noble friend has said. I reiterate to the House that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. If my noble friend wishes to supply details, we will examine them.
Iranian State Threats
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House today and I welcome the Government’s recognition of the growing threat posed by Iran to our national security. The escalation of Iranian state-backed plots against UK residents and the targeting of dissidents, Jewish communities and journalists is deeply concerning. I join Ministers in paying tribute to our intelligence services and law enforcement officers who work tirelessly to thwart these threats.
While we welcome the measures outlined today, I must ask whether they go far enough. The danger posed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, is clear and escalating, as Iran has supported Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Are this Government acting decisively enough on proscription? The Foreign Secretary has ruled it out, despite overwhelming evidence of the IRGC’s involvement in malign activities. Does the Minister now acknowledge that proscribing the IRGC is a necessary and overdue step? If not, can he explain how the measures announced today will be as effective in tackling this threat?
I welcome the decision to place the entire Iranian state on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. However, given Iran’s well-documented use of proxies, how do the Government intend to enforce these requirements effectively? Can the Minister provide assurances that those who fail to register will be swiftly identified and prosecuted?
The role of Iranian-linked organised crime networks is another crucial issue. The Government have pledged further sanctions and action against these networks, but we need clarity. Will the Minister commit to a specific timeline for additional sanctions and further crackdowns on the IRGC’s financial networks in the United Kingdom?
Finally, while it is right that we strengthen our domestic resilience, we must work closely with our allies to counter Iran’s destabilising activities internationally. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government will take to enhance security co-operation with our Five Eyes partners and European allies in tackling Iranian aggression?
The threats we face from hostile states require more than just words—they require action. The Government must match their rhetoric with decisive steps to protect Britain from Iranian intimidation and ensure that those responsible for such threats face the full force of the law.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, just last week in the Chamber we debated the unacceptable practice of the Iranian regime holding joint nationals in detention. My noble friend Lady Brinton spoke powerfully in that debate. Therefore, these Benches support what the Government are doing and how they are doing it. We join others in giving thanks for the work of our intelligence services and our law and order community, the men and women who work every single day to keep us safe.
However, we need constant vigilance. We have seen the unacceptable practice of the intimidation of BBC journalists, and individuals within this country who have been targeted by the Iranian regime, as it continues to do. Placing Iran on the enhanced tier scheme is welcome.
We are all aware that, given the economic crisis and tense political situation in Iran, it is likely that the regime will seek to export further attempts to destabilise and disrupt neighbouring countries, and countries such as the United Kingdom. The persecution of individuals in Iran is heightening, especially that of women and girls. As the Minister taking the Statement is from the Home Office, I ask him not to have a closed mind with regard to potential safe and legal routes for those who are persecuted within Iran, for whom we can provide refuge in the United Kingdom. There is currently no safe and legal route, but it would be a very strong signal of support for the human rights of people within Iran.
Of course, however, the first duty of government is to protect those within the United Kingdom. We have seen the use of proxies: we have seen the use of agencies and we have seen the use of other countries’ nationals. So I also wish to ask: when it comes to the implementation of the enhanced scheme, as well as the policing, how vigilant are we about those from other countries who are paid by the Iranian regime to carry out actions on its behalf? It is, of course, not the case that it will always be Iranian nationals who will be carrying out this work.
We have a country-wide Iranian sanctions regime, which is welcome, but the question I asked when we scrutinised that regime was about other bodies whom the Iranians are paying and who are nationals of other countries. That is a grey area when it comes to our legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that nationals of other countries acting on behalf of the Iranian regime will also be covered by the enhanced tier element.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will try to answer them as best I can. First, it really sends a strong signal that His Majesty’s Government, the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats all broadly support the actions taken today. That support means that, actually, Iran is the first country we placed into the FIRS scheme which, as I said in earlier answers to an earlier Statement, will be operational from the summer of this year. The signals that we have sent by placing Iran on the enhanced tier and announcing that yesterday, via my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis, and today is extremely important.
I can give comfort to the noble Lord that those who subsequently are proved not to have registered when the scheme goes live in the summer will face the potential penalty of a five-year jail sentence for the failure to register. That is a stiff sentence which, again, is outside my gift—it will be for the criminal justice system to pursue—but it is a very stiff sentence which, I hope, will send a very strong message to those who wish to do this country harm and who are sponsored by the Iranian regime.
I should also say to both noble Lords that there will be significant new training for all front-line police officers. We are going to explore further sanctions against criminal groups linked to Iran, and this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, mentioned. The Zindashti criminal gang has already been sanctioned, and that has therefore sent a strong signal, but we will look at further sanctions against criminal groups linked to Iran. That could include a number of other potential measures such as travel bans, which are key. We want to make sure that not just Iranian interference in the United Kingdom, in whatever form it takes—be it by the state or by proxies—is examined and clamped down on. We will certainly be taking those measures. The points that the noble Lord has mentioned are certainly ones of which we are cognisant.
The noble Lord also mentioned safe and legal routes. There are safe and legal routes which, again, are potentially operational, but, again, this country is a haven for asylum, and if individuals wish to claim asylum, that will be considered along with the position that government asylum policy has in place as a whole.
We are also looking at the issues with Jonathan Hall, the terrorism reviewer. We have asked him to look at both counterterrorism laws and the question of proscription, which, again, is an option we never rule out but on which I cannot comment in detail today. It is always an option for government in these areas.
I welcome the broad support and hope that we will monitor this. Obviously, as this scheme goes live in the summer, we will be able to monitor its impact on both those who register and, in the event of anybody who does not register, those who do not. We can monitor the effectiveness of this, but it is put in place for the simple reason that we cannot accept the level of activity by the Iranian regime in the United Kingdom against both Iranian citizens here and British interests. That is why we introduced this measure yesterday and I am pleased it has the support of the two main Opposition parties in this House.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I know that it will be particularly welcomed by my noble friend who, like me, was on the Intelligence and Security Committee when we produced our Russia report in 2020. The FIRS scheme was one of our major recommendations from that. My noble friend said he would work with local police forces to roll out information around the FIRS scheme, but what work is being done with the diaspora in the UK, which is based not only in London but throughout the UK, to make sure that they are aware of, and can be protected from, the Iranian influence that is out there?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right that the genesis of the FIRS scheme came out of the investigations undertaken by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was a proud member from 2015 to 2019. We are now developing at pace the implementation of the FIRS scheme, which requires significant infrastructure investment. It was delayed under the previous Government, but has now been given added energy by my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister, and myself to make sure it is on stream for the summer of this year. It is, therefore, important that we send out two strong messages: first, that we are standing up to intimidation and criminal activity by the Iranian regime, and, secondly, that people in the diaspora need to know that the scheme is in place. We need to put some efforts behind ensuring that those who qualify for registration under the scheme are aware of it. That will be a major part of the communications strategy in the post-Easter period of this year.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and I are the two people proscribed by the Iranian regime, and have been for the past couple of years. I pay tribute to the authorities who have helped and advised us.
I welcome this important Statement. I do not speak on behalf of the Jewish community, but I want to thank the Government for their continued support for the protective security that the community needs.
The Statement says that the National Crime Agency will target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money. I fail to understand what more the IRGC needs to do to be proscribed. We have raised this many times: my noble friend on the Front Bench raised it today. I even voted with the Labour Party on the Trade Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had an amendment to proscribe the IRGC, which he did in Opposition. I supported him, as did others. What does it have to do to be proscribed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We keep proscription under review at all times. It is an option for the Government at any time, in relation not only to Iran but to other agencies and countries as well. It is not a silver bullet: the organisation does not disappear just because proscription has taken place. What we have done—I hope that the noble Lord will bear with us on this—is ask the independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall, to look at the legislation generally and at issues to do with proscription in the wider context.
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments on the Jewish community. One of the drivers for this is to ensure that members of the Jewish community have security from any state threats that are made to them. He would wish to know that around £18 million is being provided up to 2027-28 for security measures where members of the Jewish community feel they need them for places of worship. That is, again, a secondary, but very important, measure that the Government are putting in place to ensure that people feel safe in their communities.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, it has been reported that President Putin has been making overtures to the Iranian regime to act as a broker in the relationship with President Trump. May I therefore urge him to talk to his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that our Five Eyes partners and all those who work together to defend democracy do not ignore this new threat?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, with whom I shared time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The situation with President Putin is one that the Government continue to keep under review. I will draw her comments to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is extremely important not only that we understand the Iranian threat, but that we assess and understand the threat from Russia. Therefore, I take on board her comments and will feed them into the system.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, in asking a question of the Minister, I do so respectfully, and I commend the Government for the steps they are taking just now; it is a move forward. If we were to proscribe the revolutionary guard, would we not be able to maintain an embassy in Iran? Sweden, Canada, the United States and Bahrain—a whole set of countries—have proscribed the revolutionary guard. Is the reason linked to the presence of an embassy or to intelligence—the things Governments always have to think about? Secondly, if it is not possible for us, for all manner of very sensitive reasons, to proscribe—we may be the conduit for difficult conversations—can the leadership of the revolutionary guard not be placed on our targeted sanctions lists?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I assure her that the decision to undertake any proscription, at any time, is a matter for the Government at that time, based on intelligence, security threats and a range of other matters that they will take into account. I am not in a position today to confirm or deny that proscription could happen; it is a matter for us to make a judgment on. We have already brought charges against those conducting activity for, and on behalf of, foreign states acting within the UK. We are continually keeping this matter under review; it is not something we advertise ahead of proscription. I hope my noble friend can accept that point.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
May I make another point? Am I not allowed to? Do the rules proscribe me from—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend raised the issue of safe and legal routes. One particularly pernicious act of the Iranian authorities is that they continue to go after the families of people they have executed. They are fleeing abroad as a result and now find themselves under extraterritorial reach. Can the Minister say whether people arriving after the execution of one of their family members will be given immediate support by the police and security services? It is clear that they are still being targeted.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will keep that support under review. We will certainly ensure that any evidence of threats against individuals resident in the United Kingdom will be examined by police forces. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated and will be thoroughly investigated. As the noble Baroness would expect, Home Office officials will work closely with other government departments to ensure that UK residents are safe and secure. Separately, we also have the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is currently reviewing the UK’s response to the issues of transnational repression to develop our understanding and ensure that we have strong system-wide responses. It is vital that people are allowed to live their lives in peace. Safe and legal routes, as with other issues, are determined on a case-by-case basis. The Government will look positively at the circumstances the noble Baroness mentioned.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the Minister said that he cannot confirm or deny that proscription of the IRGC could take place. If he cannot confirm that it could be proscribed, what does “keeping it under review” mean?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
What I was trying to say to my noble friend—which I repeat now to the noble Lord—is that proscription is continually under review. It is possible to proscribe any organisation, and Governments have done that. If we do seek to proscribe, we bring orders before both Houses of Parliament to confirm that. The matter is under continual review. What I do not want to do is to give an indication to this House on whether or not the Government would take that step. However, with this Statement the Government have, for the very first time, sent a very strong signal to the Iranian regime that we will not tolerate its behaviour, by including it in the new FIRS scheme—the very first country to be included. When this scheme goes operational towards the end of the summer, there will be severe penalties for individuals who should register but do not. That is the general thrust, which, as with everything else, is still kept under review, and which I hope sends a very strong signal about the behaviour of the Iranian regime in the United Kingdom and internationally.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the possible proscription of the IRGC, but can he give us any idea how long it will be before Jonathan Hall’s report reaches the Home Office—is there a timeline for that? On transnational repression, the Minister knows that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is working with the Home Office on examining examples of Iranian transnational repression, and we have received evidence from BBC journalists and others who have been personally affected, including pro-democracy advocates. Last week, the Iranian regime’s court rejected the appeal of Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, who were both at risk of imminent execution. Hassani is a father of three; he was arrested in 2022 and taken to Evin Prison ward 209, where he was subjected to severe torture. Following his death sentence, he sent a message to the people of Iran:
“This execution-driven regime knows nothing else. I will not bargain over my life. I am prepared to give my humble life for the freedom of the Iranian people”.
In combating this terrorist state, will the Minister liaise with his FCDO colleagues to ensure that we co-ordinate our efforts to raise those cases with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the UN special rapporteur, in order to challenge the grossly wrong, unfair verdicts that have been delivered?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I am not aware of whether representations have been made in the specific cases he mentioned, but it is a matter I will look into after today. I will write to him with a response from the Foreign Office on those matters; I understand that they are of an urgent nature, so I will do that for him today.
On transnational repression, let me be clear, as I have said already, that it will not be tolerated and it will not be supported. We will take action on these issues. If anyone is concerned for their safety in the United Kingdom, in the first instance they should contact the police, who have had training to ensure that they are aware of the potential threats and dangers. As I have already said, the police are raising both the awareness and capability of front-line officers and staff across the United Kingdom to include an understanding of how threats from foreign powers are presented and how to respond to reports made by members of the public to police forces about potential areas of local concern. The National Security Act, which had cross-party support, strengthened UK legal powers to counter foreign interference, including actions on what would amount to transnational repression. I assure the noble Lord that it is a matter of concern for the Government that we keep citizens safe in this United Kingdom, whatever their nationality.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I want to press my noble friend the Minister further on the question that has been raised repeatedly on the IRGC. It is clearly a bunch of clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who specialise particularly in the rape, torture and murder of women, among others. They will not stop perpetuating their poison and using proxies to do the same, whatever we do. Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I realise that the Minister cannot make a commitment today, but what does the IRGC have to do to lead to it being completely proscribed—not just the proscription of individuals but complete proscription?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid that I may sound like a broken record, but the Government keep under review, at all times, the option of proscription. We will not publicly speculate in the House about the line that needs to be crossed to have proscription. However, I hope that my noble friend can be reassured that it remains an option that the Government can consider and can bring before both Houses.
Irrespective of proscription, the National Security Act, which this House passed in 2023, specifically bans assisting foreign intelligence services, such as the IRGC. The Act also criminalises receiving material benefit—such as payment—from these types of organisations. The maximum penalty for transgressing that Act is 14 years in prison, the same maximum as a proscription offence. Although proscription remains an issue for the Government to consider, there are now specific powers to ensure that individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the National Security Act face severe penalties and jail.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in working for freedom and democracy in Iran. I welcome the Statement made in the Commons on Tuesday on increasing Government action against the Iranian regime. In that Statement, we received information about 20 identified potentially lethal Iran-backed threats to British citizens and UK residents, and its targeting of dissidents, of which we are all aware.
I listened carefully to the Minister respond repeatedly to the questions about the proscription of the IRGC. I had a Written Question about this issue in January. I am delighted to hear that Jonathan Hall is reviewing the situation. We ask him to make it an absolute priority, given the appalling situation in Iran, with 800 executions since last July. Action is definitely necessary.
Finally, I ask the Government to engage directly with Iranian pro-democracy groups and dissidents, so as not to legitimise the regime by refusing to engage with them, and to support Iranian civil society and opposition movements advocating for a democratic, secular republic. In particular, I ask the Government to permit Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, to visit the United Kingdom? She currently lives in France.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first part, I will not repeat what I have already said on proscription, but it is helpful to say—as the Statement does—that Jonathan Hall KC was asked to review the parts of our counterterrorism framework which could be applied to modern-day state threats, such as those from Iran. This includes giving specific consideration to the design of a proscription mechanism for state and, importantly—going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said earlier—state-linked bodies, providing more flexibility than is offered under the existing powers. I cannot give a timescale for that review but we are encouraging it to happen speedily. We have Bills before the Commons and Lords that it could be added to downstream if required. I noted what she said about civic society and leaders. I will take that away and reflect on it.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, not only do we not proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist group, we allow Iran Air flights into London daily, which is astonishing. By all accounts, the Home Office has issued around 200 visas to Islamic clerics during the last 18 months, despite the regime’s involvement in the 7 October attacks on Israel. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether this is accurate information?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Statement said that we will strengthen the enforcement of our immigration laws and examine, on a case-by-case basis, the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. For that very same reason, we need to examine who requires transport to the United Kingdom. We also need to look at people who we do not wish to enter the United Kingdom. That is why strengthening our immigration laws, irrespective of the other measures, is an important consideration.
Lord Walney (CB)
The leadership being shown by the Government on this is highly welcome, but I noted the approving reference in the Statement to the investigations by the Charity Commission. Does the Minister share my concern that the Charity Commission, despite having a staff of 500 people and a budget of £32 million, has so far been unacceptably reactive and slow in looking at these issues? I think there are 130-odd live investigations—some of which are into Iranian-linked charities—that are not moving quickly, firmly or proactively enough.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I share the noble Lord’s concerns around Iranian-aligned centres in the United Kingdom and the malign influence Iran might be projecting through them. I hope I can assure the House that that is on the Government’s radar. We are examining them and will continue to assess the potential threats to the United Kingdom.
The Charity Commission is undertaking inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust. Ministers are closely tracking progress. My officials and others in the Home Office are now reviewing whether any Iranian interference is being conducted in the United Kingdom. Crucially, I hope that the specification in the Statement that Iran is in the enhanced tier of FIRS will, when it comes into place in summer, shine a considerable light on the Iranian state and the UK institutions and individuals involved in it. In my final comment, I remind the House that breach of the FIRS legislation for Iran, when it is introduced in summer, will result in a potential five-year prison sentence.
International Women’s Day
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology in the United Kingdom and internationally.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I first say how pleased I am to open this International Women’s Day debate on my first full day as the Minister for Women and Equalities. In doing so, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Anneliese Dodds, for the enormously important work that she did in this portfolio.
I also wish the House a very happy—almost—International Women’s Day. The theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Accelerate Action” because, right now, the pace of change just is not fast enough. In recent years—and, I am afraid, with recent Governments—we have seen far too many women left without the safety, security and opportunity they need. That is why the Government are determined to deliver for women through our plan for change, where women are central to all of the Government’s missions: from halving violence against women and girls to kick-starting economic growth, fixing the NHS and breaking down the barriers to opportunity. Through our plan for change, we are making the changes needed to make sure women’s equality becomes a reality. It will be an ambitious agenda for a decade of national renewal, and women will be at the heart of it. This International Women’s Day, we want to celebrate the achievements that have been made towards advancing women’s equality and redouble our commitment to deliver lasting change for women.
There is much that we—and I—could say about the achievements of previous Labour Governments and our plan for change. Today, we are focusing our debate on science and technology. We may not think of this place as a bastion of gender equality—we touched on that just yesterday in an Oral Question—but percentage wise there are more women in the House of Lords, a 1,000-year-old institution, than there are women in tech in the UK, a sector not much more than 100 years old. That gives us a sense of the size of the challenge. If our current trajectory continues, the world will not achieve gender parity until 2158. In the worlds of science and technology, those numbers could be gloomier still.
Our rate of progress will not see women making up an equal share of the tech workforce in the UK for another 283 years. That is an ocean of time—283 years ago, women in the UK could not vote, own land or property if we were married, go to university or enter most professions. Fortunately, we are not willing to let the current pace of change continue. This is a mission-led Government, squarely focused on creating a new era of opportunity and economic growth and a fairer society for all, and gender equality is imperative to that. So today I want to talk about how the Government are accelerating action in the UK and internationally.
First, I will just give a reminder of why this is so important. We should care about all forms of equality in science and technology for their own sake, but we should also care because this drives the betterment of our society and the strengthening of our economy. When women and girls are equally involved in shaping science and tech, the world gets faster breakthroughs, products that work properly and better returns.
We get faster breakthroughs because experts have told us time and again that diverse teams pursue new questions in new ways, leading to better research.
We get products that work because there is a long history of technologies built without women that do not work properly for the whole population. These are set out brilliantly by Caroline Criado Perez in her book Invisible Women, which I am sure many noble Lords have read. Crash-test dummies based on male bodies do not adequately protect women in cars; life-saving drugs, mainly tested on male animals, have a question mark over how they will work for women; and when the first voice assistants were created, they found it harder to recognise female voices because they had been tested only on the all-male developer team who built them. For some of us, that might explain why our phones and speakers do not take any notice of us—or it might be for other reasons.
Finally, we get better returns because businesses and economies stand to gain hugely here. Research consistently finds that gender diversity and ethnic and cultural diversity are both good for business. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity in their exec teams are 25% more likely to outperform their peers on profit than those in the bottom quartile. Looking at the bigger picture, if women were to start and scale businesses at the rate that men do, we would see a potential £250 billion boost to the UK economy. Without gender equality, our growth mission is stunted.
Let us turn from the why to the what: what this Government are doing to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology. “Participation” takes in women as citizens of the digital world as well as creators of it, so we must think about digital exclusion, which disproportionately affects women, as well as online harms that women and girls are up against. My noble friend Lady Jones, closing this debate, may well go into those topics further. With the excellent range of speakers we have today, I am sure there will be plenty for her to respond to.
For now, I will focus on three pillars of improving diversity in science and technology. Skills: how do we make sure that women and girls have the know-how to participate in these sectors and pursue careers in them? Entrepreneurship: how do we support women to start and scale science and tech companies? Industry: how do we protect the rights of women employed by firms in this sector?
On skills, the Digital Poverty Alliance has estimated that if we help everybody currently in work to get essential digital skills, we could see a £17 billion increase in yearly earnings. But if we are to get that boost to the UK economy, we cannot afford to have such a big proportion of our population missing out. Globally, women and girls are 25% less likely than men to have enough digital skills to use technology.
As with everything we discuss today, we must recognise the experiences of the whole range of women in the UK. Women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are much more likely to lack digital skills, as are women with disabilities. The good news is that STEM education is growing. In the 2022-23 academic year, there were 35% more STEM A-level entries from women and girls than in 2010.
Breaking down opportunities is one of the core missions of this Government, so here is how we are making sure that this trend continues in the right direction. Across the board, the curriculum review is considering how to modernise education and qualifications to fit with work in the 21st century. Skills England is reviewing what courses can better fill the digital skills gap. Our new levy-funded growth and skills offer, with apprenticeships at the heart, will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers in England, aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries. We promote STEM apprenticeships to girls in schools through fantastic volunteers such as STEM ambassadors and apprenticeship ambassadors.
Women’s participation in STEM has improved, but challenges remain. Women now make up 24% of the STEM workforce in the UK, surpassing 1 million for the first time. However, representation remains disproportionately low in certain fields, highlighting ongoing challenges. Higher education is playing a key role in driving change. Universities are implementing mentoring schemes, outreach programmes and gender-balanced research funding to support and retain female talent in STEM.
Early engagement is key to growing that pipeline of women into STEM. Government, employers and education providers are working together to inspire more girls to pursue STEM careers, including through the STEM ambassador programme and industry outreach initiatives. Here are just a couple of further skills programmes of which we are particularly proud. The CyberFirst Girls Competition invites girls aged 12 to 13 to crack codes and solve coding challenges, all to encourage them to pursue a career in cybersecurity. In 2024, 14,500 girls from more than 800 schools took part. On science, the CREST Awards, funded by UKRI, give young people the chance to run their own research projects aimed at solving real-world problems.
Another area where it is crucial that we build up skills is AI. The AI Opportunities Action Plan, launched by the Prime Minister in January, sets out how we will seize the enormous opportunity that AI presents to boost growth, raise living standards and transform our public services. But this opportunity must be open to all. Only 22% of those employed in AI right now are women. Women are also less likely to use AI in their day-to-day lives.
The Government will continue to back AI and data science conversion courses, allowing STEM graduates to gain an AI master’s. It is wonderful to see that 72% of students on these courses so far have been women, far higher than for comparable STEM master’s courses. With support from the DfE, DSIT will explore how to scale up extracurricular activities for girls in schools to cover AI, building on the National Cyber Security Centre’s successful work on cybersecurity skills.
The UK is also opening up opportunities for women and girls around the world. The Girls’ Education Skills Partnership is an £8 million collaboration between the UK, UNICEF and companies such as Unilever, Vodafone and Microsoft. Giving women everywhere the right skills helps them to see new avenues that are open to them, from working as a code breaker to being part of the AI revolution or founding a business of their own.
That takes us to entrepreneurship. Here, let us take a moment to share the story of just one of the brilliant female-founded science and tech companies. Nu Quantum was started by Dr Carmen Palacios-Berraquero as a spin-out from Cambridge. Quantum computing could be our most powerful tool to fight climate change, design better medicines and transform every industry. But to do that, quantum computers need to be 1,000 times more powerful than they are today. That is the challenge the team is working on. It is a team with diversity at its heart. Almost half its employees are women. It has more than 20 nationalities represented and is an LGBT-friendly workplace. Companies such as Nu Quantum are essential for women to look up to, because women are still starting science and tech businesses far less than men do.
When we look at funding challenges, it is little wonder why. Overall, female-founded businesses got just a 1.8% share of total equity investment in the first half of 2024, and that number shrinks further still when we look at the experience of women of colour. In tech, the average deal capital raised by female-founded AI companies is six times lower than that by raised all-male teams.
This Government are supporting female founders across our economy to get the finance that they need. The Women in Innovation programme, run by Innovate UK, has awarded over £11 million to female entrepreneurs since it started, and women now make up one in three successful bids to Innovate UK, up from one in seven. We also back the Invest in Women Taskforce, whose Women Backing Women Fund connects female investors with female-led companies. Specifically in science, the Future Fund invests in R&D-heavy companies in life sciences and deep tech, many of which are headed up by female founders.
As well as helping entrepreneurs find funding, we are supporting the finance sector as a whole to reckon with its role in this. Over 280 companies, including most major retail banks, have now signed up to the Investing in Women code, committing to improve access to finance for women. It is not just a piece of paper. Companies that have signed up are shown to outperform the rest of the market in giving equity to female founders.
The proportion of female-founded businesses around the world has increased steadily in recent years, but we must continue to give them the environment they need to fly, to create new role models for the next generation.
Finally, I turn to industry. We will keep working with science and tech firms to boost gender equality at all levels, particularly in senior roles. The Employment Rights Bill will be a cornerstone here. The Bill will make sure that women, no matter the workplace, are empowered, represented, protected and able to pursue meaningful careers, regardless of whether or not, for example, they plan to start a family. It expands gender pay gap reporting requirements, gives more rights to pregnant workers and new mothers and puts tougher duties on firms to prevent sexual harassment. It also introduces equality action plans, whereby large employers will have to set out what they are doing to improve gender equality. By making sure that science and tech firms foster inclusive working environments, we can make sure these are places where all kinds of people get to succeed.
I am delighted at how popular a debate this is to speak in today and that several Members of this House are about to make their maiden speeches, so I will make way now for them to share their perspectives, and look forward to my noble friend closing our debate, with invaluable insight from her joint roles as Minister with responsibility for science, innovation and tech, and for business and trade. Let me wrap up by reiterating that we do not just improve the participation of women and girls in science and technology because it feels like the right thing to do. We do it because we stand to unlock new realms of scientific advancement, technological innovation and economic growth—the key to everyone being better off—when more women and girls are at the table.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak in our International Women’s Day debate and to reflect on the steps being taken to promote women’s participation and leadership, both here in the United Kingdom and internationally. I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch and Lady Bousted, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I warmly welcome them all to their places and look forward to working with them. I also congratulate the Minister on her new role; I hope she enjoys it as much as I did when I did it.
At the heart of our Conservative values lies the belief in opportunity, creating a society where talent and hard work determine success, not background or sex. I am particularly proud to be a member of my party on a day such as today. As a party, we have had four female leaders, including three female Prime Ministers. We are a party that recognises the immense contribution women make to society, and I am proud to say that I have never felt or experienced that being a woman ever held me back. The acceptance I have felt throughout my career is thanks to the contribution of women throughout history who stood up for themselves and fought for women’s rights. It is thanks to them, quite literally, that we are here today. Women could not take their seats in your Lordships’ House until 1958, some 40 years after the other place. Are not we grateful that we were not around then?
My first job was working for the Salvation Army. I am proud to have worked for an organisation which has done so much for women. In 1865, when William Booth started the Salvation Army, its foundational document affirmed that women have the same rights to minister and preach as men, setting a trail that other Christian groups have chosen to follow. Today, the Salvation Army offers refuge for women and children fleeing or at risk of domestic abuse. From its inception to the present day, it has been fighting for women. General William Booth was ahead of his time—he was ahead of everybody. I am really sorry that we do not have any bishops with us today, because I had a great one-liner for them: “It’s taken you a long time to catch up.”
Like so many other noble Lords, becoming a member of your Lordships’ House was not something I ever expected in my earliest years; of course, women could not be Members when I was born. My earliest experiences of life were not that simple, and I owe a great deal to one great lady who set me on a path that has led me to a successful—I hope—and fulfilled life. I have to tell your Lordships that I was quite a handful when I was younger. I know noble Lords will say I am now, but believe me, things have only got better. I was doing something I should not have been doing, and she said to me, “You shouldn’t do that.” She took me to the Salvation Army; she took me to my technical college every day and picked me up. I did my homework, passed my exams and owe her everything to be where I am today.
When I had the honour of opening our International Women’s Day debate in your Lordships’ House in 2022, I had just returned from the 66th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. That year, the commission was focused on achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women in the context of climate change. Working with our international partners and reflecting on our role in the international community in pressing for women’s rights was one of my proudest moments as a Minister.
The United Kingdom has come so far on women’s rights in the last 150 years, and now we have to show ourselves as a role model for women everywhere who are struggling for their rights. We are a society they look up to as a model, where women can do any job: whether that be serving in the Armed Forces; running a FTSE 100 company, as my noble friend Lady Morrissey and others in this House have done; being an MP or Member of your Lordships’ House—or even Prime Minister.
Indeed, for most of our lives we had Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to look up to. She was a model to us all, both here and abroad, calmly and effectively steering our country through over 70 years of tumultuous change and progress. I know Her late Majesty was an inspiration to another great lady who was so close to her and has done so much for women, and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Duchess of Edinburgh. She has been absolutely outstanding in her focus on and championing of women, women in the workplace, equality, and action against sexual violence. I am pleased to see so many strong women contributing to our debate today. Women in public life bring different perspectives and speak up for the rights of us all. I am proud to be a Member of your Lordships’ House alongside so many noble Baronesses who have committed their lives to the service of others.
However, that public service sometimes comes at great cost. Women who are elected to another place or who serve in your Lordships’ House face the most appalling abuse and threats—abuse that is so hateful, simply because they are women. We must all stand together in calling it out. We must stand together against misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head.
It is on days such as this that I am reminded of Jo Cox, the former Member for Batley and Spen in the other place. She gave her life, literally, to public service, and her life was tragically cut short while she was doing her duty as an elected politician. Her loss will be keenly felt by so many in this House and by those who had the privilege of working with her. We must continue to call out this terrible abuse.
The theme of our debate today is promoting women’s participation in science and technology. I am not denigrating teachers—please do not start me off; I am not—but I remember a young lady I spoke to who had filled in her forms to be an apprentice. She took them to her teacher and said, “Look miss, I want to do this”. The teacher put them in the bin, saying, “No, you’re going to university”. We cannot have that. I am committed to apprenticeships, and I know that the Minister is too. We want to make sure that we get the right advice and guidance to our women in particular, so that they can follow the right path. I understand that there are plans to merge Jobcentre Plus and the careers service. It would be good to know how the plans are going and whether there will be enough resource to provide educational and work advice to women.
Talent is equally distributed. Opportunity should be as well. It is our duty to ensure that every young girl who dreams of being a scientist, an engineer or a tech entrepreneur has the tools, encouragement and confidence to make that dream a reality. The late Lady Thatcher had a successful career in chemistry before turning to public service, and it is our hope that many more women can follow in her footsteps. By continuing to promote policies that empower women in STEM, we strengthen not only our workforce but our economy, our society and our global standing as a leader in science and technology. Let us mark International Women’s Day not just with words but with continued action, ensuring that the future of innovation is diverse, inclusive and driven by talent from all backgrounds. This is something that all noble Lords on all sides of the House can agree on.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to this important issue. I am very much looking forward to hearing the maiden speeches today.
While the participation of young women in certain A-level STEM subjects is increasing steadily, physics and computer sciences remain slow compared with biology, chemistry and maths. Biology and maths, by the way, are the second and third top choices for females at A-level. Some 25% of candidates in physics are female, which is a considerable improvement. Unfortunately, for computer science it remains low, at only 15%. The expressive arts are still the top female choices for A-levels. I wonder whether perhaps our education system is at fault—it is too easy when choosing A-levels to abandon the sciences and go for either arts or sciences.
I start by celebrating three extraordinary women I have had the privilege of knowing, who have made their mark over the last 100 years and were extraordinary leaders of women in STEM in their day, because we need to understand how the world has changed.
Dr Anna Bidder graduated from Cambridge in 1926 with a degree in zoology. She could not receive that degree or her PhD in 1934 from Cambridge University because she was a woman. Only after 1948 did Cambridge permit women to receive the degrees that they had qualified for. Despite that, Anna Bidder secured senior research and teaching roles from the moment she got her PhD and for the rest of her academic life, at Newnham College and the Department of Zoology, where she was teaching young men who got their degrees. Even more shockingly, it was not until 1998 that she and other female alumni from before 1948 were, believe it or not, finally allowed to receive the degrees that they had been awarded. By then, she had founded and been the first president of a college for mature women students in Cambridge, Lucy Cavendish College, which thrives today.
Dr Lucy Slater was a mathematician who worked on hypergeometric functions and was one of the very few women present at the birth of computing in the UK. Her stories, over cups of tea, about the size and slowness of EDSAC astonished my children when they were at school. She graduated in 1944, and, as a post-grad in the 1950s, developed the precursor of modern computer operating systems, later working on computer programmes for econometrics. Lucy, a friend and neighbour, was an invisible giant on whose shoulders many successive women have stood.
However, the places of excellence were sometimes not even open to women to start with. Despite exceptional female scientists applying in 1900 to join the Royal Society, it took the extraordinarily named Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 for it to become illegal not to consider women in STEM as members of the Royal Society. It was that same Act that enabled women to get their degrees—Cambridge University was not the only university that was a little slow to catch on. I say this as an alumnus of Cambridge University and a former bursar of Lucy Cavendish College, and I really support what Cambridge University does for women these days. It was not until 1943 that the Royal Society promoted two women, Kathleen Lonsdale and Marjory Stephenson, to be elected. Now, over 200 women have been elected as fellows, and the numbers are rising fast.
Dame Athene Donald, a fellow of the Royal Society, is a brilliant physicist and a champion for the future of girls and women in STEM. She said:
“As a young researcher I was judged on my science, but when I became a potential player in organisational strategy, that’s when I really noticed it”.
That is how hard it was for women to succeed a mere couple of decades ago. What has she done to change it? I really recommend her latest book, Not Just for the Boys: Why We Need More Women in Science. It does what it says on the front of the book; it really explains the problem. She tells of her granddaughter’s description of the construction corner at primary school: “Oh, we have a construction corner, but the boys play there”. Athene has determined to change that. She roots this in our cultural assumptions from birth, the toys we give to our babies and small children, and what happens to children at nursery and even at primary school.
Even worse, I am afraid that there is still a perception that some parts of STEM are too hard for girls. Katharine Birbalsingh, the head teacher at the Michaela Community School, said two years ago:
“Just from my own knowledge of these things, physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy … There’s a lot of hard maths in there that I think that they would rather not do”.
She was criticised for saying that at the time; there may be some truth in what she said, but the evidence shows that it is wrong. The Institute of Physics said that the overall proportion of women studying physics at university has increased from 21% to 25% over the decade to 2021. Over the same period, the number of women professors in physics has more than doubled, from 55 to 140. To show that this is not just chance, we see that women academic staff members in physics increased by 52% and now make up 20% of academic contracts. Change is on the move. The Institute of Physics’s Project Juno provides grants to increase the representation of women among physics and astronomy undergraduates.
We need to reach girls in primary school too. I was lucky—my children went to primary school in Cambridge and, when my daughter was in the junior age group, every single class had female maths undergraduates coming to help at maths lessons. As a result, my daughter, a natural historian, went on to take chemistry and maths as part of her IB, and she uses both every day in her job.
I want to end on a practical, positive and brave note. The Mines Advisory Group, or MAG, highlights that women play a leading but overlooked role in tackling conflict and building peace. MAG has trained women—50% of them in Ukraine—and, in Angola, has the only all-women armed violence reduction team. As de-miners, they are trained in technology in one of the most dangerous roles on earth. Their skills also build relationships with farmers and local communities. De-mining means, of course, that farmers can sow crops once more. That is one of the main problems in Ukraine, where Russia has mined so many farmers’ fields.
These heroines across the world are saving lives and building for the future. No teacher says to them that there are things they cannot do. That is something we should hear—encouraging our young girls to find their love for STEM early by learning coding through Turing Tumble, as my eight year-old granddaughters do with my husband. They too might change their world for the future. The girls of today, the young women of tomorrow, are moving apace. May Athene Donald’s vision become reality.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her masterful introduction to this important debate, but I have to say that I am angry. I am not a person prone to rage and fury, but I am angry. I am angry because this is an urgent and important question that I fear we are ignoring at our peril.
I have now worked in or around the technology sector for over 30 years, and I have seen no change in the relationship between the sector and women or in the numbers of women. In fact, I have seen a degradation, not just in culture but in the absolute numbers. It is very clear—many people have already spoken of it, and I am sure we will have many more numbers today. Only 26% of the global tech workforce are women. In leadership roles, the figure falls again, to around 15%. In the UK, there are varying numbers on this, but the last figure I saw showed that just 6% of leadership roles in the tech sector are filled by women. This matters because, as we know, software is eating the world. We know that it is not an optional to digitise; it is happening. These are the jobs of the future—the jobs that create the services of the future and the jobs that will be paid the most amount of money. It is about power, justice and fairness.
I am dismayed when I see the numbers, and I keep going back to the disconnect between what I see happening and the benefits and the bonus of employing diversity in your teams and putting it at the heart of a company strategy. I just cannot understand this disconnect. That is why I am angry.
We know that 85% of consumers care that their products come from diverse teams. We know that employees care about diverse teams. I am president of the British Chambers of Commerce, and we have seen numbers showing that upwards of 80% of future employees care about what the future workforce looks like in the companies they are in. Yet we see the numbers stalling and, worse than that, if you believe, as I do, that the sector is going to be eaten again by AI, Quantum and deep tech, the numbers fall off even more considerably.
We are in a perilous position, and it is extremely disappointing to see the enormous influence of the US technology sector being integrated into the culture of our own companies here. I cannot believe that there is a single person who looks like me, who has worked on the edges of the digital sector for so long, who did not feel like crying as they watched the inauguration and the six men who have completely and totally committed to a President who at the same time has degraded the role of women so substantially. It matters—culture matters, character matters, value of companies and leaders matter—and yet I do not see this being played out in an industry that is also so full of innovation and the wonderful history that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, so brilliantly described.
We have to take this issue seriously and make substantial change. I suggest two important areas to focus on. The first is around innovation and entrepreneurship. As the Minister has already said, and I am sure others will go into the numbers again as well but I am going to reinforce it, just 1.8% of venture capital funding goes to women. It is marginally better if you look at cofounding teams of men and women, such as I was in with my business, lastminute.com. That 1.8% is partly explained because just 9% of venture capital partners are women—if you have teams of people who do not look like us giving out money, of course it will look more risky to give it to people who might talk about products for the menopause, babies and periods. The assumption is, “Who knows if it’s going to be successful when I cannot imagine that product myself?”
So, the funnel is clear. We have to shift it across the board, putting the onus not just on the entrepreneurs but on the finance structures around them. There are changes and brilliant things happening, such as the work of Debbie Roscoe, who I am proud to call my friend and who is raising funds for Women Supporting Women. But those funds are small: they are about £200 million, when they need to be closer to £2 billion, or £20 billion if we are really going to shift the dial. We must not give up the focus on finance—it is fundamental—and, within that, on entrepreneurship.
Secondarily, we have to keep a focus on culture—it is more difficult, more existential. I had never used the words diversity, equality and inclusion, or DEI, in my life until the last two months, yet I find myself defending the very notion of equality to journalists, people I work with and companions in the sector and outside it. Again, I cannot understand the disconnect between what seems like good business practice—as the Harvard Business Review said in 2015, if you have mixed and diverse teams it will lead to a 20% increase in your profit line—and what we now face, which is a fundamental row-back in the belief and priorities of substantial programmes. Just yesterday, I heard of Google’s edict from on high, rowing back on a huge number of projects that it works with here in the UK, in charities and the civic sector, that look at diversity, equality, inclusion—AI for Good.
This is a very significant issue, so I end by imploring you to feel the peril and urgency of this moment. I want to celebrate the amazing women in this Chamber. I am looking forward to the maiden speeches. But I am angry and nervous, and we have to keep fighting.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I rise to make my maiden speech. I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. It is an honour to participate in this debate and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and I look forward to my noble friends’ maiden speeches today. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their warm welcome. I pay tribute to my sponsors, my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, and I thank the officers of the House and all the Palace of Westminster staff for their unerring kindness.
A maiden speech traditionally offers some personal insight. My early life moved between inner-city Glasgow and the isle of Iona. To reprise the ecclesiastical theme from earlier, my father was a Church of Scotland minister who worked for the Iona Community, an ecumenical organisation dedicated to social justice.
My Argyll connection cultivated one youthful STEM skill—the physics of coastal splash netting. I became an accomplished salmon poacher, which we debated this week. At school, I studied STEM subjects. I was planning to follow my maternal grandparents into the medical mission field. It was an ambition that did not survive contact with the reality of rural medical clinics in Malawi.
By the mid-1990s I was working in international consultancy, but in May 1997 I joined the Blair Government to support the late Donald Dewar to deliver devolution. And the Holyrood Parliament, as we have heard, is an outstanding example of visionary leadership overcoming entrenched occupational segregation. My noble friends Lady Harman, Lady Liddell, Lady Armstrong and Lady Curran, with many others, delivered a parliamentary Labour group equally balanced between men and women—and once the dam was broken, Holyrood could never be a boys’ club. The Benches opposite are graced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Davidson, who both led their party with distinction.
In 2008, after briefly leading Scottish Labour, I departed to spend more time with my children. And beyond that familiar cliché, like so many women I had totally underestimated the impact of toddlers and other caring responsibilities on my career. Today women still disproportionately exit STEM careers to manage family life.
I have spent the last 15 years in international education, including as a Scottish trade envoy and working alongside the UK’s international education champion. Wherever we visited—Pakistan, Nigeria, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil—what most animated the Education Ministers we met were not lessons from the UK education system but how they might build effective skills systems. Hence I am delighted to see Skills England taking shape.
It is customary for a new Member to signal their areas of interest without exciting controversy. I confess to some discomfort because all those sermons that I imbibed as a child demanded that the listener engage with the dominating issue of the day, so I sought out the wisdom of the House in recent maiden speeches, all delivered BC—before Christmas. How seismic the changes are since then.
In his maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the former Lord Chief Justice, eloquently eulogised the rule of law—a principle now seemingly questioned by leading voices in our closest ally. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Peach, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, issued a rallying cry for the western alliance, arguably now in intensive care, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, grappled with why so many have lost hope. That was before the transatlantic leaders embraced the narratives of the far right. Like all sides of the House, I admire the Prime Minister’s masterful diplomatic stewardship, but these developments weigh heavily on my conscience, as they must for many noble Lords, as we look ahead. Populism thrives when citizens lose faith that politicians can bring about positive change in their lives, and yet this debate challenges that counsel of despair. All parents still aspire for their children to prosper.
I have the privilege to chair the body that certifies every electrician in the country. It is a vital STEM skill. There are too few women, and yet a high-quality apprenticeship is a route out of low wages, insecurity and unstable work. It is a source of pride, hope and opportunity, so my first passion in this place will be ensuring that the power and prosperity that come from secure skills are available to all. My second passion will be tackling the regional inequalities that scar our country. Earlier this week, as a House we wrestled with our own size and shape. I hope that we find equal passion for passing power out from here back to the beating heart of Britain. My final passion is international. As vice-chair of the British Council, I assure noble Lords that we are engaging with the challenges of populism, strongman politics and escalating conflict. We are rethinking our place in the world and our support for democracy and equality. These are precious principles.
We live in extraordinary times, but as a child, listening to those sermons, I learned that life’s purpose is not simply to critique the darkness but to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly. So, as one of the newbies, I will endeavour to walk humbly and, in my case, to walk more slowly along these venerable corridors. I want to close by recalling here, on the threshold of International Women’s Day, that each one of us stands on our mother’s shoulders. If we dwell on that, we will be headed in the right direction.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords—and Ladies; come on, it is International Women’s Day—it is my great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Alexander and welcome her to this House along with so many other great women, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bousted, Lady Hunter and Lady Rafferty, who are also making their maiden speeches today. I do not want to forget the noble Lord, Lord Jones, even though he is a man. He is taking part in the International Women’s Day debate, so he is now an honorary member of the sisterhood. In the rather alarming era of the global strong man, it is heartening to see the arrival of so many strong women to this Chamber, and I look forward to them all standing up, questing for change, causing a wee bit of trouble and speaking much sense.
As a fellow Scot, I am a long-time admirer of my noble friend Lady Alexander. She played a key role in the Scottish Parliament from its creation in 1999 until 2011, and she is a woman who gets things done. Her achievements include the first social justice report, tackling homelessness, fighting the pernicious Section 28 and announcing the first Scotland-wide fund to tackle violence against women. She also helped shape a more modern and more equal Scottish Labour Party when she was an adviser to Donald Dewar, and she was instrumental in making it more inclusive of women and less of a boys’ club. It is fitting that she went on to become the party’s first female leader in Scotland and paved the way for so many others. I look forward to the rich contributions she will make to this House and wish her well.
I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith on her new role as Minister for Women and Equalities. Podcasting and Iain Dale’s loss—he is still bereft—is very much our gain. I know that she cares deeply about these subjects and will do an excellent job for the many.
This is such an important debate. Technology has shaped so many aspects of our lives for the better, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, we have to be honest: there are winners and losers. The winners seem to be the very rich, powerful tech bros, now some of the most important people on the planet, and women often seem to be the losers. Women and girls are often at the mercy of a savage, rapacious thirst for online pornography, which is getting ever more violent, dark and dangerous. The online world is becoming a harder place and making our tech bro friends a lot of money, but I think we are all losing out. Young women are being told to just be cool with a bit of sexual violence such as strangulation or choking during sex. Young men are being taught that what they see on their phones is normal and necessary to be a man. It is not, and it is harming them too. We are numbing a generation. I pay great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her review into online pornography, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her important work on deepfakes. I hope the Government can work with them to make the online space a wee bit safer for women and girls.
What happens online is not abstract; it shapes what happens in real life. Violence against women and girls is at a terrifying level. It is just four years since the murder of Sarah Everard. Do we honestly think that things have changed that much? The landmark Femicide report delves into the epidemic of violence against women. The latest report, just out, has found that it is not just young women who are the victims of male violence. One in eight women killed by men in the last 15 years was over the age of 70. Can the Minister update us on what is being done to better protect older women, often ignored in the media and wider society?
I used to feel very optimistic about International Women’s Day. I used to look forward to all the celebrations, parties and gatherings, but like many women right now I feel pretty depressed about how things are going. Things are going backwards, with a rise in misogyny here and all around the world, the anti-abortion laws in America, women being erased in Afghanistan, and the effects of war on women and girls all over the world. It feels as if there is very little female representation in the room when these new global powers meet.
We have to be honest: the power structures in the world right now are once again very male, and technology is playing a huge role. So I make this plea to the Minister: we understand that technology and AI are here to stay, and that they are important to growth and the evolution of society. However, as we heard so eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, this is a sector dominated by men, from the new global overlords who can make or break Presidents and leaders, right down to the engineers and the coders. So, yes, let us harness the power of this exciting technical revolution, but please let us not worship at the altar of the tech bros at the expense of women and girls. We must not be the sacrificial lambs at this pivotal moment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and I pay tribute to all those doing their maiden speeches today. The first time I spoke in an International Women’s Day debate, which was 14 years ago, I caused a bit of a frisson around the Chamber because I announced to the House that I had never actually heard of International Women’s Day until I came to the House of Lords. I am conscious that, for a lot of women, International Women’s Day still does not feel that relevant, and I am going to try and draw that theme together with the theme of the debate.
When I saw that this year’s debate was on technology, I felt compelled to speak, having just finished chairing the Communications and Digital Select Committee and, while holding that role, spent quite a bit of time examining the tech industry. But, when I looked at the list of speakers today, I felt confident that other noble Baronesses—and, indeed, noble Lords who are joining us—who have distinguished careers in the tech and science sectors would be much better placed to talk about women leaders and innovators and to stress the importance of women having equal opportunities to succeed and having their talents properly rewarded and their achievements recognised. I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses in this House who have had distinguished careers in the tech sector. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox; I listened very carefully to what she had to say.
I was pleased the other week to be at a dinner with other female tech people and I was very inspired by listening to them around the room. However, today, using the time I have available, I want to pay tribute to the women who worked at the technology factory at the end of the street where I grew up. As children we knew it as Plessey but it had previously been Ericsson’s and, before that, the National Telephone Company. It had stood on the same site in Beeston Rylands throughout the 20th century, and it designed and built telecommunications and electronics. As far back as World War I, the factory manufactured wireless technologies, and even in the 1930s there were reports of robots being made on site.
My mum started work at Ericsson’s in the 1950s and, except for the years between her having me and my brother and us starting school, worked there until she was made redundant in the mid-1990s. At its height, Plessey employed about 8,000 people at the Beeston site. I do not know how many were women, but most of my mum’s friends today, all in their 80s now, worked at the factory. To name a few, alongside my mum Margaret Stowell, I highlight Iris Herbert, Brenda Stone, who sadly recently died, Shirley White, Marg Smedley, Sheila Reece, Theresa Ward and many more.
I did not really understand what my mum did in the factory, but words like “transducers” and “printed circuit boards” got mentioned a lot. For those women, equal pay meant literally that—getting the same money for doing the same job on the line as the men, or getting the same opportunity as the men to do overtime, which was vital for my mum during the years she was alone. During the 1980s the factory was developing digital technologies and thriving, but, by the late 1980s, competition from the Far East triggered its decline. Bits of it existed under different firms, but it eventually closed completely in 2008.
The demise of Plessey was a big blow for all of us who lived in Beeston Rylands, whether we worked there or not, because it was the heart of our community. That sense of loss is one felt by many of the towns that suffered from de-industrialisation, but I feel now, as I have become more interested in tech, that it is almost criminal that we lost such a massive tech firm from a provincial town. It is vital that the AI industry—or revolution, which I firmly believe AI represents—and other tech innovations create opportunities for new businesses in all parts of the country. Clearly there will be disruption, and sadly not all former industrial sites will be reversioned. Incidentally, I should add that the Plessey site is now a housing estate—a genuinely nice one. There is much more to be optimistic about if the Government can create the right conditions for inward investment and scaling of UK tech firms, including those firms led by the women entrepreneurs whom the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke of.
So I pay tribute today to my mum and the Plessey women who are the technologists of the past, and I salute today’s young female innovators and tech entrepreneurs who are vital for our nation’s successful future.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by cautioning the Chamber that I may sound slightly Pollyanna-ish, if not naive, in the remarks that I offer today. It strikes me as curious that, each year, across the world and here in your Lordships’ Chamber, we meet to celebrate women, yet almost invariably we hear an extensive list of how women and girls continue to struggle, face harm, endure worsening inequity and economically recede. Of course, as policymakers we should not wish to see the lack of access and limited opportunities for women further entrenched, and we should be seeking and listening to lasting solutions. In this sense, clear and accurate articulation and problem identification have their part to play in achieving the best and highest policy outcomes.
However, we must also celebrate success and thus highlight some sectors where women continue to progress. In politics, the share of women in parliaments globally has increased from 24.3% in 2019 to 27.2% in 2025. In the United Kingdom, both in the other place and here in your Lordships’ House, we now have the highest proportion of female representation ever recorded, at 40% and almost 30% respectively. Dare I say it? We are in the room where it is happening. We need to do more.
Around the world, several countries have achieved even higher levels of female representation in parliaments. In what is clearly a win for women in politics globally, at least 20 countries, including from Africa, Latin America and the Middle East, have a higher proportion and representation of women than the other place here in the United Kingdom. On that list are countries such as Cuba, Rwanda and the United Arab Emirates.
Meanwhile, in business and finance, the Cranfield University annual survey notes that women now make up 43% of directors on FTSE 100 boards, compared with 5.8% in 2000. The number of women CEOs in the Fortune 500 has risen more than sixfold in the past two decades to reach a paltry, but nevertheless notable, 10.4%.
Yes, even in science and technology, the narrower fields picked to be highlighted in today’s debate, we see some progress. It is sadly true that women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and that women-led start-ups, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned, find it hard to secure venture capital for technology. Of course, there is a well-known concern that AI contains an intrinsic gender bias that continues to harm women. However, there is also good news worth stressing.
First, according to the Government’s statistics, over 29% of STEM roles are now held by women. It is crucial for long-term economic growth that women form a greater proportion of the technological workforce. It is thus encouraging to see total numbers of women in STEM roles having reached 1.3 million in 2023, according to the WISE Campaign, up from estimates of 800,000 nearly a decade ago.
Secondly, there are visible improvements showing that the gender pay gap in wages and compensation is closing, albeit slowly. According to a 2024 report by Outsource UK, the tech pay gap has improved. It was at 15.6% in 2024, compared with 17.3% in 2021.
Thirdly, in terms of leadership, there is no doubt that there are prominent women making a mark, thereby inspiring a new generation of young women and girls. Here in the UK, we have standout examples in these important trends, such as Dame Emma Walmsley, the chief executive of the global pharmaceutical company GSK, which in the run-up to the 2020 pandemic was the largest vaccine producer in the world. She is also a member of the board of directors of Microsoft, one of the magnificent seven technological companies. Dame Kate Bingham, the prominent venture capitalist specialising in health, was instrumental in the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccine and was at the intersection of business and government efforts in the face of that pandemic. Here in the Chamber, the noble Baronesses, Baroness Gustafsson and Baroness Lane-Fox, count in the ranks of successful entrepreneurs in the fields of technology, which is why we must listen to them, but let us also celebrate them. Of course, there is also Hannah Fry, the Cambridge academic who has made maths fun again.
There is no doubt that significant and even unfair inequities between men and women remain and persist. However, we are policymakers—we are in the room—and if we are not the ones pushing to advance and scale progress in Britain and beyond, then who is? We need policies that can deliver more women working and leading on science and technology, together with greater pay and equity, which is why it is very interesting and helpful to participate in this debate. Clearly a lot more needs to be done, and at pace, but we must celebrate this year’s International Women’s Day by at least taking note of the progress being made in science and technology. After all, the more that we celebrate successes today, the more likely we are to have inspiring examples of success in the future.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, for introducing this debate. We were colleagues in government and I am delighted to be speaking today on a subject that matters so much to us both.
I thank those of you in this House for the warm welcome I have received. I am very grateful to the exceptional people who make this place work, from my first rather sobering moments with Garter and Lyon King of Arms, for Scotland, to the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod and their excellent teams, especially, of course, the doorkeepers. As I was introduced only on Tuesday, I am afraid they will have their work cut out guiding me around for some time to come. I also thank the Prime Minister for conferring this great privilege on me.
I know it is customary to give a flavour of oneself in a maiden speech. It may surprise some people in this House that I am of Scottish stock: born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to a second generation rubber plantation manager, Mac Hunter—a garrulous man and war hero—and to Joy Ferguson, who worked in the Force 136 cypher office during the war effort, in what was then Ceylon. They instilled simple values in me: to behave oneself, work hard and look after others. I hope they would be proud of their little girl today. My rather idyllic childhood was altered dramatically by the death of my mother in a car crash, when I was 11. My father then settled with my formidable grandmother at Auchenreoch, our family home in Angus, where they raised me and from where I take my title.
I am delighted to follow a fellow Scot and friend, my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden, and I congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech. I am also looking forward to the other maiden speeches from my noble friends.
In 1987, I went to work for the then unknown Tony Blair in Westminster, at the very same time as my recently ennobled friend, my noble friend Lord Wilson, did in Sedgefield. I asked our boss what he wanted from me. He replied, “Alliance building”. This has been a large part of my life in politics and beyond, in business and academia, including with Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House.
On this celebration of International Women’s Day, I trust that your Lordships will not mind if, in the brief time I have left, I concentrate on my female influences. I thank my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, the Leader of the House, for her leadership and her warm welcome. She is in the great tradition of female leaders in this House, such as my dear and noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Ashton, Lady Amos and Lady Jay.
After my time in government, I went into industry at BP and Anglo American, both companies run by enlightened leaders. I worked on many programmes to increase the numbers of female scientists, technologists and engineers around the world. I welcome the Government’s commitment to encouraging more girls to study STEM subjects, thereby increasing the pipeline.
I am also delighted to be speaking in this debate with former political colleagues: my noble friends Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Gale, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and many other remarkable women across this House. My noble friend Lady Donaghy and I are long-standing advisory board members of the University of Birmingham Business School, where we encourage research and teaching in women’s enterprise. I have declared this in the register of Members’ interests, as well as my shareholdings in BP and Anglo American.
At the Royal Academy of Engineering, I was the founding director of the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering. I collaborated with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bertin, to ensure that all three party leaders—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, Sir Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband—spoke at its launch. This year, we celebrated our second female joint winner, Fei-Fei Li, for the development of modern machine learning. Academy colleagues and I promoted participation in STEM by young people, especially girls, speaking in schools and working with the Science Museum. I look forward to learning from the many experts in this House.
I thank our Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, a fellow pupil of the Margaret McDonagh school of politics—as nice and firm now as he was then. I also thank my sponsor, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my inspiring boss at BP, and then again when he was president of the Royal Academy of Engineering. I have been lucky to have him as my friend, mentor and guide—and a lifelong advocate of women in business, science and engineering. My other sponsor I have left to last. I thank my noble friend Lady Nye for being an utterly reliable friend and a constant political ally. I owe them both a lot. I look forward to building alliances with all noble Lords.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords and my Ladies, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Hunter and to congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech. I think all of us who know her would expect nothing less than such a great speech, and I thank her. I got to know my noble friend during my time as general secretary of the Welsh Labour Party. By then, she was working for the leader of the Labour Party, Tony Blair. After the general election in 1997, she became director of government relations and has been described as
“the most influential non-elected person in Downing Street”.
I can believe that.
My experience of working with my noble friend was a very good one, and I believe that I can speak for other members of the Labour Party staff in saying that we all felt the same about her—there are some in the Chamber today who worked for the Labour Party when my noble friend was in No. 10. I can think of a number of occasions when, if I had a political problem, I could ring her up and discuss it with her. I know my noble friend will recall that, occasionally, there could be some difficulties in Wales. I knew I would always have good advice from her.
Whenever the Prime Minister visited Wales, we would have many conversations on the visits—all positive, I may add—and the visits were always successful. So one thing I can say about my noble friend is that she was always approachable and cheerful, she would always have time for a chat and she was always reliable, and that made for some very good relationships. I always regarded her as a friend in No. 10, and I certainly look forward to working with her again in a new role in your Lordships’ House, to which I know she will make a great contribution.
Today’s debate focuses on how to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology. The International Day of Women and Girls in Science was held on 11 February this year. To mark the day, the general secretary of UNESCO said:
“On this International Day of Women and Girls in Science, let’s reiterate this fundamental message: women need science, and science needs women. Only by tapping into all sources of knowledge, all sources of talent, can we unlock the full potential of science, and rise to the challenges of our time”.
I so much agree with that view.
But if we look around, we see the same problems that women encounter if they want to succeed in many walks of life. I see it in politics and public life, where women can be held back not because they are not good enough but because the barriers placed before them are very high. I know how difficult it is and what the barriers are—I think most of us here know. There are many: they talk about the glass ceiling, the brick wall, discrimination and the leaky pipeline, which is a new one to me and which has come about for women in STEM. There is also misogyny, which is a very difficult problem, especially these days. It seems to me that there is very little difference in what women in any area of public or professional life experience, and the barriers to overcome. There has been some progress, but it is very slow.
According to data from the World Economic Forum, it will take until 2158 at the current rate of progress to reach full gender parity, as my noble friend mentioned in her opening remarks at the Dispatch Box. That is an awful long time to wait, is it not? So what action can be taken to increase the rate of progress? Where positive action has been taken, there have been some great results, for example in politics. Following the general election of 2024, 263 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons are held by female MPs. This is the highest number of women ever to sit at the same time in the House of Commons.
Now this did not happen by accident. Over the years, much campaigning has been done to highlight the need for positive action. Positive action in any field can cause big discussions, disputes and arguments. I am so aware of this in politics, especially when all-women shortlists were introduced to address the underrepresentation of women in politics. Labour was the first to use all-women shortlists in 1997, and that did increase the number of women MPs. Later, other parties used positive measures to ensure that there was a good number of women candidates. So, gradually, the numbers have increased and there are now 263 women MPs, the largest number ever. By 2024, all-women shortlists were not used by the Labour Party, as this policy had been so successful that there was not any need for it. This is one example of where action was taken and worked.
Another piece of good news that I saw in the newspapers today is that there are now, for the first time, more women doctors than men. This is women in medicine. So I feel there are some hopes for women in science and technology. I was very pleased to learn that the Government have set out policies on how to encourage women to study STEM subjects. My noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills and now the Minister for Women and Equalities, on which I congratulate her, said that the Government continue to support the take-up of STEM subjects in girls and women in higher education. She said that such skills
“are crucial for the delivery of the government’s missions. This is why the department is building a coherent, flexible, high quality skills system to break down barriers to opportunity and drive economic growth, underpinned by a new Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy”.
I believe that that strategy may be published soon. This positive approach by government is to be welcomed and I await the outcome, which should benefit all women and girls who want to progress into a career in STEM subjects. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak today. There are two debates I always enjoy. One is the Archbishop of Canterbury’s debate. Well, there are no bishops here today, so we cannot go any further with that. But there has been a lot of progress on female bishops since my time first in the House.
The other debate I always enjoy is this particular one and I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness: it is indeed true that there is a dramatic number of female MPs and Peers now. When I joined, I do not need to remind noble Lords that one MP in 25 was female. It was quite a tricky time. I commend the party opposite. I do not think it has been so successful on female Prime Ministers. We have had three. I will not comment on all of them—but I will comment on the first one.
What noble Lords need to know is that Margaret Thatcher used to say, “People turn round to me and say, ‘You’re the first woman Prime Minister at No. 10’. I turn round and say, ‘I’m the first science Prime Minister at No. 10’”. Of course, she was deeply influenced by Dame Janet Vaughan and Dorothy Hodgkin, most distinguished Fellows of the Royal Society, who, for a long time, were principals of Somerville College. A colleague just now challenged me and said that Lord Salisbury was a STEM man. He took maths, but I am not sure he should really be allowed to undermine Margaret Thatcher’s claim.
While we have more women in the House, we still do not have anything like enough people who come from a science, engineering and medical background. I think it was 78 in the House of Commons at the last count, which is an improvement. The House of Lords has always been better for distinguished scientists and Fellows of the Royal Society. How thrilled we are to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, and how thrilled we are that his successor is the first female Chief Scientific Officer. In the Lords, we have the noble Baroness, Lady King, a fellow of the Royal Society, and many men. I pay tribute to my kinsman, and the kinsman of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: Lord Julian Hunt, Fellow of the Royal Society, who is no longer with us but is a most distinguished scientist.
I am not entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about rage and anger. I enjoy rage and anger, but I am quite celebratory today, because we have a great number of Cabinet Ministers who are women. I pay tribute to the Minister who is speaking and ask her to pass on best wishes to the delightful previous holder of her office. It is the bittersweet nature of political careers, but Anneliese Dodds is a lovely woman and was doing a very good job—and I am sure will do more.
I have been looking through the names of other extraordinary women scientists. There is Dame Ottoline Leyser, the first female head of UKRI, again a Fellow of the Royal Society and a plant scientist. We have Hayaatun Sillem, the CEO of the Royal Academy of Engineering, from Oxford and UCL and a biochemist. Then there is Irene Tracey, the first female scientist vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, who is a neuroscientist and formerly head of Merton College. There is Dame Angela McLean, who has just taken over as Government Chief Scientific Adviser, and Dame June Raine, the first woman to run the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—absolutely tremendous—and so many others. The Campaign for Science and Engineering, which does so much for us, now has a female chief executive.
I pay tribute to those women, but I share the desire that more needs to be done. I pay respect to those who have suffered so much and worked so hard in the past. We should read the biography of the first woman physician, in 1847, Dr Blackwell, and the persecution, poverty and prejudice that she faced.
In my professional life, I do a great deal to help women develop their careers in different sectors. The other day, I was in India, and I was reminded of a particularly remarkable woman who studied engineering then insisted on going to work at Tata, where they had a men-only policy. At Tata then there were no female lavatories, so she had to go home to go to the lavatory. That very remarkable woman is called Sudha Murty: she is the mother-in-law of the former Prime Minister. It is an extraordinary reminder of how recently people have led lives of sacrifice, discipline and determination.
I am sure that we need to do more to encourage STEM at an early stage. There are so many initiatives, with Teach Now bringing in science people, and with many of the policies that the Minister outlined following on, frankly, from the policies of the previous Government on how we can build that pipeline and avoid the leaky pipeline.
I want to pay tribute, finally, to the many maiden speeches. They are noble Baronesses, but a great number of them are my friends and I am absolutely delighted to see them there.
The Minister knows about the health service and education. The role of research in the National Health Service is critically important, and it is all too easily squeezed out. Dame Sally Davies, the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, who should be in this House, recently hosted a magnificent conference on life sciences and health innovation and what we can do together by collaborating. I commend her findings to noble Lords for further study.
Baroness Casey of Blackstock (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, newly appointed Minister for Women and my former and very esteemed boss, for opening this debate on International Women’s Day. I also thank, in anticipation, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who is also a good friend. Both my noble friends have a lifelong commitment to tackling men’s violence against women, for which they should be respected and thanked by the whole House.
I thoroughly enjoyed the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Alexander of Cleveden and Lady Hunter of—wait for it—Auchenreoch. I did it. Okay, good. I would just comment that I am very glad that I did my maiden speech a year ago, so I did not have to follow them, because I feel that the quality just went up quite significantly. I wish well the three maiden speeches to come, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bousted and Lady Rafferty, and from a new member of the Labour sisterhood, I understand, the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
Each year in the other place, my dear friend and colleague the honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley names the women killed in the last 12 months where the principal suspect is a man. With your kind support and agreement, this year we in this House will also honour those women and their families.
I take this opportunity to read the names, collated by the Femicide Census, of the women and girls aged 14 and above, mentioned earlier by my dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the four children included in that list this year, who have allegedly been killed by men in the past 12 months: Zhe Wang; Pauline Sweeney; Carol Matthews; Ursula Uhlemann; Tiffany Render; Francis Dwyer; Ruth Baker; Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche; Samantha Mickleburgh; Rachel McDaid; Dora Leese; Lisa Welford; Karen O’Leary; Sonia Parker; Tarnjeet Riaz; Anita Mukhey; Bhajan Kaur; Kathryn Parton; Emma Finch; Margaret Parker; Amie Gray; Maria Nugara; Patsy Aust; Veronica Chinyanga; Delia Haxworth; Joanne Ward; Lauren Evans; Maxine Clark; Scarlett Vickers; Sophie Evans; Joanne Samak; Carol Hunt; Louise Hunt; Hannah Hunt; Jenny Sharp; Alana Odysseos; Laura Robson; Kulsuma Akter; Rebecca Simkin; Olivia Wood; Courtney Mitchell; Nina Denisova; Alberta Obinim; Stephanie Marie; Sophie Watson; Vicki Thomas; Eve McIntyre; Montserrat Martorell; Cher Maximen; Brodie MacGregor; Zanele Sibanda; Bryonie Gawith, plus her two children, Oscar Birtle, aged five years, and Aubree Birtle, aged 22 months; Davinia Graham; Barbara Nomakhosi; Christine Everett-Hickson; Juliana Prosper, plus her two children, Giselle, aged 13, and Kyle, aged 16; Rachel Simpson; an unnamed woman who died on 29 September aged 70; Mary Ward; Christine Jefferies; another unnamed woman who died on 8 October, also in her 70s; Luka Bennett-Smith; Anita Rose; Mashal Ilyas; Rhiannon Slye Whyte; Catherine Flynn; Sandie Butler; Rita Fleming; Cheryl McKenna; Carol James; Phoenix Spencer-Horn; Harshita Brella; Alana Armstrong; Margaret Cunningham; Kristine Sparane; Margaret Hanson; Karen Cummings; Astra Sirapina; Mariann Borocz; Gemma Devonish; Joanne Pearson; Teohna Grant; Heather Newton; June Henty; Leila Young; Julie Buckley; Jamelatu Tsiwah; Dianne Cleary; Claire Chick; Margaret Worby; Carmen Coulson; Rita Lambourne; Meghan Hughes; Lisa Smith; Ana Maria Murariu.
Once again, as I did this time last year, I beg the leave of the House to also remember, for personal reasons, Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, both murdered in 2020, and, as mentioned earlier, Sarah Everard, murdered in March 2021. May they, the 95 women and four children mentioned here today, rest in peace.
Baroness Bousted (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on her sombre testimony of the tragic roll-call of women murdered by men. It makes me realise, yet again, that we should never forget that misogyny is an evil force with—far too often—lethal consequences for women and, as she has reminded us, children. I thank her for her testimony.
I feel greatly honoured to be in this House making my maiden speech—and on the subject of women. I was born in Bolton, the seventh of eight children in a large and loving Catholic family. My father was the headmaster of the local Catholic primary school and he had a saying: “You won’t inherit money, but you will get a good education, which will give you the means to make your way in the world”. All his eight children made their way in the world. My mother, as well as looking after her eight children, was a teacher, so perhaps it is no surprise that I became a teacher and that my professional life for the past 40 years—over 40 years now—has been in education as a teacher, an academic and, for the last 20 years, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, and the joint general secretary, with Kevin Courtney, of the National Education Union.
Unions fight for rights and dignity in the workplace, and I pay tribute to the doorkeepers and all the staff who work so diligently to support the smooth running of this place. I have a terrible sense of direction and I am finding that this House is rather a rabbit warren, but all my requests for guidance and direction have been met with nothing other than courtesy and kindness. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, my supporters in my introduction to this House, and the Leader of the House and the Whips, who have been so helpful in making us new Peers feel a little less strange and a little more competent—only a little more—day by day.
When I was 23, I read a book by Eva Figes with the title Patriarchal Attitudes. It changed my life. From that time on, I was determined to be self-reliant, to speak what I believed and thought, and to walk more confidently in the world. I stopped saying, “I’m not a feminist, but”, and started saying, “As a feminist”. That is a profound change.
There has been some implied—and some more than implied—criticism of teachers today. It is a bit too easy to criticise teachers, who work more unpaid overtime than any other profession to care for their pupils and educate them. As a teacher, I worked to inculcate in my pupils a profound sense that the sexes are equal and that no one, and in particular no girl, should have her potential constrained through attitudes, beliefs and actions designed to humiliate them.
I feel that the progress we made in the 1980s has been reversed. Perhaps we thought we had won the battle for equality. We were sadly mistaken. In 2017, the National Education Union published a report with UK Feminista, entitled “It’s Just Everywhere”. It detailed the sexist attitudes and behaviours endured by girls in school. It found that sexual harassment, sexist language and gender stereotyping are commonplace in school settings, but teachers reported feeling unsupported and ill equipped to respond. Over a third of female students reported that they had experienced some form of sexual harassment, and almost a quarter had been subject to unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature.
I believe that the sexual harassment endured by girls translates too often into subject choices at GCSE and A-level, which can have a negative effect on their future careers and earning potential. We should note that the take-up of subjects that are portals to high-wage careers in IT and science remains too deeply divided on gender lines. In 2022 only 21.4% of computer science GCSEs and 14.7% of computer science A-levels were taken by girls, a number that has halved since 2015.
In 2024 a report by King’s College, funded by the Nuffield Foundation and titled The Future of Computing Education, found that girls are more likely than boys to say they do not enjoy computer science GCSE because it does not align with their career plans, or it seems more difficult than other subjects. The report calls for the reform of GCSE provision for computing to create a qualification that covers a wider range of topics, appealing to a more diverse student population and the needs of society.
This Government will shortly be announcing the results of their curriculum review, led by Professor Becky Francis. I hope that this review will consider the current gender imbalances in computing and other science subjects that are so heavily male dominated.
I will finish with a cautionary tale. In 2016 I spoke out about the sexist school bullying that prevents girls participating fully in the classroom. The Department for Education, on hearing of my concerns, issued a tweet. I will read it now:
“Story from @ATLUnion with no evidence is why sexism still exists. We should be celebrating the achievements and talents of women and girls”.
I and many others found the implication in this tweet, that speaking out about the sexist harassment endured by girls perpetuates the problem, to be utterly bizarre.
Of course we should celebrate the achievements of women and girls, but I am clear that we must also examine the barriers faced by girls—including the prevalence of sexist bullying in the classroom—to their participation in the full range of the curriculum. Like all young people, girls deserve the right to make choices about the subjects they study based on their talents and abilities, whatever these may be and wherever these may take them in their future lives.
I will continue to further the equality of women and girls in education and in the workplace during my time in this House. The struggle for equality is not over: we are just on the nursery slopes, and we must take up the cudgels and continue the fight.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow that wonderful maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Bousted. We have all been given a taste of her fierce intellect and education policy expertise, which will no doubt enrich this House.
As we have heard, my noble friend comes from a big family. In fact, if she had wanted to, she had enough siblings to form her own netball team and have a sub on the bench. I suspect that is one reason why she grew up to become a warrior for women and girls’ equality, and for dignity for all working people. My noble friend championed the TUC’s Unionlearn initiative, along with being an outstanding co-leader of the National Education Union. When she was TUC president, she also took responsibility for chairing the TUC General Council. As noble Lords can imagine, keeping order in a room full of union leaders, each with our own strongly held views, is no easy task—but it is perhaps excellent training for chairing a House of Lords committee in the future.
International Women’s Day originates in the struggles of working-class women and their unions. In my personal experience, not only is my noble friend Lady Bousted on the side of women but she will speak up and get stuck in, and she does so with intelligence, wit and real sisterly kindness.
Today’s trade union movement has incredible talent and expertise within its ranks: educators, engineers, coders, climate scientists and a growing number of members in new technologies and the gaming industry. Meanwhile, we have seen an extraordinary shift in the organisation of capital, with technology companies dominating the league table of the wealthiest corporations in the world. As well as wealth, big tech has enormous power to shape not only our material lives but our emotions, behaviour and politics. When Elon Musk provides a megaphone for alleged rapist and people trafficker Andrew Tate and known far-right agitator Stephen Lennon—aka Tommy Robinson—we all have an interest in how this industry is run and regulated. Let us be clear: in this country we absolutely support freedom of speech, but we draw the line at hate and incitement to violence.
I have always believed that technology has the potential to be a liberating force that can transform society. Think about the difference it would make if the estimated multibillion-dollar productivity gains were shared fairly in the form of decent universal childcare, shorter working hours or higher pensions. Imagine if the priority for developing work-based technologies was eliminating boring and dangerous tasks, and making every job safe, skilled and satisfying.
Women’s equality is not just right in principle; it matters because it is about who gets to decide on tech design, rules and priorities, and in turn how that impacts on all our daily lives. For example, one reason why we have seen race and sex discrimination baked into facial recognition technology is the very unrepresentative group who designed it. The tech bros would benefit from having more tech sisters.
Too often, technologies are designed to make working lives harder: tracking and monitoring staff oppressively, hiring and firing without a human review, and casualising employment contracts. Women, and black and ethnic-minority workers, are at the sharp end of these high-exploitation technologies in anti-union companies such as Amazon. We do not just need to change faces in the industry; we need to change systems of power.
According to a recent survey of its members working in tech, the professional trade union Prospect found that over 60% agreed that their employer’s pay system is opaque and likely unfair. Is the Minister confident that Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will tackle pay secrecy once and for all, so that women tech workers—in fact, all women workers—can win equal pay for work of equal value? When purchasing technology services, will the Government use their procurement power to lever up equality standards so that more tech apprenticeships go to young women, and so that rights to fair treatment and a union voice at work are enforced?
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, I thank this House for its tradition of having an International Women’s Day debate. This year it feels especially important to keep the spotlight on the contributions so many women make if we are to continue to make progress towards gender equality around the world. I agree that it is vital that women and girls are given every opportunity to study sciences and technology if that is what they dream of, as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott expressed so eloquently. It is clear that there are very many women who do, as we can see from today’s news that there are now more female than male doctors for the first time ever in this country.
As colleagues—noble Baronesses—have already shared, there are many examples of the amazing contributions that women have made and, I am confident, will continue to make in the fields of technology, science and medicine. As has already been pointed out, we need more women at the technology table, which may well be a virtual one these days, to help avoid bias and bring women’s perspectives to the fore as the digital revolution gathers pace.
I want to add a further point to today’s discussion: while we must continue to enable and encourage girls to study STEM subjects, we must also encourage those very many girls who want to study the humanities to pursue their interests. For a start, real progress for women and girls is surely about having more choice, and not about being channelled down a certain path. I also believe that the role of humanities is more important than ever in an AI world. As AI continues to develop rapidly and take on many of the tasks currently done by human beings, including many of those done by people now working in technology, we will need good judgment, strong ethics and high emotional intelligence to ensure that AI is a positive force. We will need the perspective that comes from studying mistakes made in history, the sensitivity found in the finest literature, the empathy gained through understanding psychology, a strong ethical compass that might be helped by a study of theology and the creativity that many arts and humanities disciplines foster.
I studied maths, further maths, physics and English at A-level, and then philosophy at university. Of all those, the philosophy has been the most useful in my long City career—yes, even in finance. Maths has of course been helpful, but in helping me manage money successfully or run a business well it has not been as critical as being able to analyse logically, challenge conventional wisdom, apply ethical judgments and have some understanding of the frailties of the human psyche, which are the enemies of successful investing. Those were all things that my philosophy degree taught me. My degree choice has also helped me to lead, largely because it showed me clearly that I do not have, and could not have, all the answers; in fact, when studying philosophy, you quickly learn that you do not really know anything at all. I was acutely aware that, as Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II put it so beautifully, leadership is often about finding ways of encouraging people to combine their talents to work together. I suggest that a history degree and a study of current affairs would also bear that out.
For decades, as has been noted, boys have dominated computer science, physics, and further maths at A-level, while girls have dominated many arts subjects, including psychology, sociology and English literature. The world, our country and many industries need both, and they do not need girls to feel that they need to emulate the boys to succeed. Women bring our own skills to the table. I always tell young women that they are not second-class men; they are first-class women. It would be ironic if, just as the world desperately needs more “soft skills”, as we say, we asked girls to become more like the boys by taking STEM subjects, and so they missed their moment, both to shine and to change the world for the better.
As others have already stressed, we now face a very significant threat. We cannot assume that we will have ongoing progress for women and girls, but we do have agency. Surely, one of our strongest arguments to convince the naysayers is that we bring additional talents and different perspectives to the table which can improve diversity of thought and business performance and help solve today’s complex problems, which perhaps require empathy and emotional intelligence. In short, women should be able to succeed as women.
Huge kudos should go to the brilliant women scientists, technologists and doctors, but let us also encourage STEAM—adding an “A” for the arts to STEM; celebrate the achievements of women in every field; press on for progress with huge determination that no one can take away from us; and look forward with hope. I wish everyone, men and women, a very happy International Women’s Day.
Baroness Rafferty (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in academic nursing as professor of nursing policy at King’s College London.
My heartfelt thanks go to my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the House, for her incredible support up to and during my introduction and her generosity throughout. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, who is also my friend and a fellow nurse and academic, has been exemplary as my second supporter and introduction agency to the House throughout. My noble friend Lady Thornton—Glenys—has been so kind in shepherding me around the House and easing me into its ways.
I come to this House as a nurse and academic. Reading the brilliant biography by the late Baroness Patricia Hollis of Jennie Lee, one of my heroines, I could never have imagined speaking to you today. Like Jennie Lee, I was brought up in Fife, Kirkcaldy in fact, birthplace of Adam Smith and constituency to my other hero, Gordon Brown. Both Jennie Lee’s father and mine worked in the coalfields of Fife. It was a tough life. I remember my dad cycling to Seafield pit in all weathers, coming home for a rest and a bite to eat before going out again to his second job in a local pub. My mother trained as a nurse in the 1930s and during World War II in the Civil Nursing Reserve. She inspired me to enter nursing through her stories of nursing prisoners of war in Bridge of Earn military hospital in Perthshire. I loved delving into her textbooks, devouring the gruesome details of disease. I also became fascinated by the practices of the past, firing my imagination both for nursing and its history.
Nursing is a science as well as an art, and I have been fortunate to work in a variety of roles as a clinician, academic and policy researcher, but I did not get off to a good start. Like my noble friend Lady Levitt, I spent rather too much time outside the headmaster’s office, skipping classes and preferring the pool hall—in which I became very proficient—to homework.
Today’s debate is highly relevant to nursing. Not only was international nursing forged in the crucible of the international women’s movement at the end of the 19th century but the rationale for doing so was, in part, to combat the prejudice surrounding women’s education by setting nursing on a scientific footing.
While nursing in England has become a graduate subject since 2013, its fate remains precarious, a situation made much worse by the increasing financial frailty of the university sector. The Office for Students estimates that over 70% of our universities will be in deficit this year. UCAS data shows that nurse recruitment in the UK has fallen by 4% since its pandemic peak. In Wales, nurse recruitment has fallen by 14%, yet a recent announcement by Cardiff University stated its intention to close the school of nursing. Particularly concerning is the steady downward trend of mature applicants to nursing. These numbers just do not compute in a scenario of chronic shortage of nursing staff. A landmark study that we published from King’s College London in the Lancet in 2014 demonstrated that bachelor’s-prepared nurses have better outcomes for patients in terms of mortality rates. A further study demonstrated that senior nurses contributed more than twice the benefit to patients, compared with their more junior colleagues.
Investing in nurse education and staffing across the career span yields clinical and economic benefits, reduces hospital length of stay and facilitates return to work. I am grateful for the excellent 2016 report —of which the noble Baroness, Baroness Watkins was also an author—from the all-party parliamentary group in global health, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which identified the triple impact of growing nursing globally. These include strengthening health systems, universal health coverage, gender equality and women’s participation in the workforce, and skilled employment opportunities.
However, the engine room of the academic workforce is not in good shape. Council of Deans of Health estimates that more than 50% of the workforce is, like me, over 50—can you believe it?—with many universities struggling to recruit. In contrast, applications to engineering are booming. Could it help to boost the standing of the profession by designating nursing as a STEM discipline? I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that we cannot deliver the refreshed long-term workforce plan or the 10-year NHS plan to come unless we support nursing education to secure the students, nurse scientists and clinicians of the future. I thank my noble friend the Minister for raising this debate, and I hope that these points might assist with the planning the Government are undertaking.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Rafferty on her wonderful maiden speech. She is as qualified to speak about women succeeding in science as I am unqualified. She has done so many pioneering things in nurse education that I must confine myself to but a few of them: the first nurse to graduate with a doctorate from Oxford University—a DPhil in modern history; in 2008, she was seconded to the Department of Health to work with the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, on the Next Stage Review of the NHS; a member of the Prime Minister’s Commission on the Future of Nursing and Midwifery between 2009 and 2010; and a member of the Parliamentary Review of Health and Social Care in Wales, which reported in 2018. She is a past president of the Royal College of Nursing, and in 2017 was nominated as one of the 70 most influential nurses in the 70 years of the NHS. She was a member of the Times Health Commission in 2023-24, and she holds degrees and honorary degrees from a range of universities.
Closer to home for me, my noble friend was dean of the Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care at King’s College. I was a non-executive director at King’s College Hospital in the 1990s, and I was proud to chair appointment panels for the first consultant-level posts in palliative care, so I hope my noble friend Lady Rafferty does not mind if I bask in her reflected glory. Her analysis of what has happened in nurse education and training has some remarkable parallels with what has happened in teacher education and training—a subject which I know a bit about.
I thank my noble friend—Nurse Rafferty, Professor Rafferty, Dame Anne Marie Rafferty, Baroness Rafferty—for her maiden speech and in anticipation of the distinguished contribution she will make in this House.
On the subject of today’s debate, I wish all participants a happy International Women’s Day for 8 March and thank the five maiden speeches made or to be made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, who has just finished her term of office as a distinguished chair of the Science and Technology Committee, recently called for the Government to review what she called the high upfront burden of current visa fees, which are higher than those in any comparable country. The noble Baroness, herself an engineer, said that the barriers faced by postgraduate students and early career researchers amounted to
“an act of national self-harm”.
Since 2022, the cost of a five-year skilled worker visa has increased by 22% to almost £12,000, and the upfront immigration health surcharge, which they also have to pay for, has risen by 66% to £1,035. Is the Minister able to tell us what steps the Government are taking to attract much-needed scientific talent to this country?
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, talked about a strong pipeline of qualified students into HE and careers in STEM areas, and said that the programme included strategies to raise girls’ participation in mathematics post-16. However, on 29 January, an announcement was made about changes to the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme, meaning that, from 1 April, there will be a reduction in the number and type of events available. Similarly, the Government are cutting the Stimulating Physics Network and computing hubs. MEI, which runs the Advanced Mathematics Support Programme, has been forced to terminate the 40 area co-ordinator contracts. I appreciate that we have taken over an education service with a history of underfunding and neglect, but is the Minister able to give more information about how the Government will mitigate the effects of these cuts?
The UK has the largest female health gap in the G20. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated that the upcoming 10-year health plan and the spending review 2025 are a good opportunity for the Government to deliver on their manifesto promise that never again would women’s health be neglected. For every £1 pound additional investment in obs and gynae services, it is estimated that there is an £11 return on investment. Absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is estimated to cost £11 billion per year to the UK economy. As the royal college says, supporting women’s health is vital for the UK Government’s targets of economic growth and increasing the UK workforce.
The PwC Women in Work analysis said that, if sustained until 2030, continuing progress on female participation rates could contribute to a productivity uplift of 0.3% per annum, an appropriate UK GDP increase of £6.2 million a year. Can the Minister update the House on the steps the Government are taking to increase women’s participation in the workforce?
Finally, it has been an absolute privilege to take part in this debate, not just to celebrate International Women’s Day but to hear our five maiden speeches.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for drawing attention to this timely issue. I declare an interest as founder and CEO of a biotech company, Neuro-Bio Ltd, having previously been a professor of pharmacology at Oxford University. Back in 2002, I was asked by the right honourable Patricia Hewitt to prepare for the then Department of Trade and Industry a high-level report, subsequently entitled SET Fair, outlining the difficulties of recruitment and retention of women in science. Sadly, over 20 years later, I feel that many of the difficulties that we discussed then still remain.
The question of women in science and technology is not just about fairness; it is about progress. Studies consistently show that diverse teams drive innovation. Research from McKinsey finds that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 25% more likely to outperform their competitors. In science and technology, diversity translates into better problem-solving, faster discoveries, and products that serve society more effectively. From Rosalind Franklin’s work on DNA to Sarah Gilbert’s leadership in developing the Covid vaccine, history proves that, when women thrive in STEM, humanity benefits.
However, systemic challenges remain. In UK higher education, only 31% of professors are women. In the UK’s STEM workforce overall, only 29% of employers are women, and in the private sector, the number of female founders in biotech companies remains disproportionately low, hovering at around 10%. Even more disappointing, women founders such as me receive only 2% of venture capital investment, funding that is critical in commercialising one’s innovation.
One of the greatest barriers to women in STEM is bias, both conscious and unconscious. In 2012, in a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, faculty members rated male applicants as more competent and hireable than corresponding female candidates. More recently, a 2023 report found that women in STEM are less likely to be promoted than their male peers. This is not an issue of merit; it is one of perception. Blind recruitment processes and structured promotion criteria should surely become the standard. Institutions that have implemented these measures report fairer hiring outcomes and more diverse leadership.
A second challenge is a career break due to parenting responsibilities. The years when scientists must publish their most ground-breaking work coincide with the time when many are starting families. The current system offers a discouraging range of options for women: delay parenthood, risk career stagnation or leave research altogether. Here we could take a lesson from forward-thinking companies in the private sector offering “on-ramping” fellowships for women returning to research after career breaks. Government funding bodies could introduce similar schemes in academia—for example, grants specifically designed to support those re-entering the field after maternity leave.
Such initiatives would ensure that women can get back to progressing their research without the undue and unfair hurdles that arise from contributing to the next generation. Meanwhile, in industry, tax incentives could encourage companies to offer more flexible career paths for women in STEM.
Then there is the lack of visibility and networking opportunities. Women, particularly in male-dominated fields such as biotech, often lack the mentorship and sponsorship that help to propel careers forward. Every major research institution should have a formal sponsorship programme where senior figures actively champion the careers of promising women scientists. We could introduce a “national women in STEM talent bank”—a centralised platform where women in science and technology can access mentorship, funding opportunities and leadership training, in the spirit of the Athena SWAN charter, but much wider and encompassing the private sector.
The root of all these challenges is early engagement. If young girls do not see themselves in STEM, they may never consider it as a viable path. Research shows that gender stereotypes about science start forming as early as primary school. Schools could partner with female scientists and engineers to provide visible role models. Critically, we must change the narrative by making the aforementioned solutions as prominent as we can. Rather than framing STEM as an uphill battle for women, we must present it as a field where women are thriving and driving the future.
International Women’s Day should be not just a moment of reflection but a call to action. We know what works: transparent hiring, structured return-to-work programmes, active sponsorship and early engagement. It is time to implement these solutions at scale. The talent is there. The ambition is there. It is now up to us—policymakers, industry leaders, educators and female scientists—to break down the barriers that remain. By doing so, we will not only achieve equality but unlock the full potential of science and technology to change the world for the better, and ensure that the UK continues in its role at the forefront of driving the technologies of tomorrow.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, as I rise to make my maiden speech, it is my misfortune to follow four excellent maiden speeches. I just hope that I can maintain the high standard that has been established.
Before moving to the subject matter of this debate, I thank all those who have made my first month here so easy to navigate. I thank the doorkeepers, who have been patient in guiding me around the building and through the numerous corridors that can bewilder the new Member. I thank the parliamentary staff, who have supported me through my induction, and my party colleagues and the Front-Bench team, who have been so willing to explain the rules and regulations of this noble House. I have been particularly struck by the kindness of so many who work here and the welcome that has been extended to me. At my introduction on 27 January, I was supported by my noble friends Lord Murphy and Lady Wilcox of Newport, people I have known and respected for many years. It was an honour to have them by my side.
I am grateful for the support I have received from my family. Most of them were here at my introduction, but my father was unable to attend because of illness. I know he would have been delighted to be here, as would my mother, had we not lost her some 15 years ago. I thank my children, Seren and Ruairí, who have had to put up with their father being away so much during their childhood. Now that they have grown into adults, they have been hugely supportive of everything that I have done.
Of course, I thank my wife, Lisa. During 30 years of marriage, she has been a great source of support to me, even when I was away so much when the children were younger. She has enabled me to develop a political career, and I do not think I would have done that had it not been for her steadfast love and support.
I count myself as a member of a fortunate generation compared to those who went before. My family before me consisted mainly of four generations of Welsh-speaking mining families, a legacy of which I am proud. It was the miners’ strike that brought me into politics, and I think of my family today as I stand here, having enjoyed many opportunities that were simply not available to them.
I still live in the town of Bridgend—or Penybont in Welsh, hence my title—where I was brought up. When I was 18, I went to study law at Aberystwyth University, where I am now a professor of law: a development that would have stunned my student self and those who taught me at the time.
I practised at the Bar in Swansea for 10 years. Then, in 1999, I had the honour to be elected to represent my home area in what was then called the National Assembly for Wales. In 2000, I began a term of 18 consecutive years in government in various ministerial roles, as well as serving as First Minister for nine years.
It was a privilege to be part of the 2011 referendum campaign, when the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of primary powers for their Assembly—powers we used to create legislation that I would argue is ground-breaking. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I will not list all the Acts passed during my time as First Minister, but I will draw your attention to one: the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act, which changed the law on deemed consent, introducing a soft opt-out scheme. That has led to more organs being available not just in Wales but across the UK for transplant patients. There are literally people walking around alive today because of that legislation. It is the one piece of legislation of which I am particularly proud.
I am, as far as I am aware, the first Head of Government in the UK to have come from a comprehensive school. That is a matter of pride for me, but it must also be one of concern, because we know that the schools attended by the vast majority of pupils have not contributed as they should have to government in the UK.
Turning to the subject matter of the debate, I mentioned earlier the opportunities I had that were not available to my grandparents. This afternoon, I think of my grandmother, who died 12 years ago at the age of 98. This is a cautionary tale for those who claim that grammar schools are the pathways to opportunity by themselves. She lived at a time when opportunity for women and girls was strictly limited. She passed what was then called the scholarship, in 1925, and went to a grammar school. But the reality was that, as the daughter of a haulier in a pit, she had no option other than to leave school and get married. She lived a long and happy life, but I cannot help but think what she might have done, had she had the opportunities I was afforded. Which STEM subjects might she have studied?
It is my grandmother’s example that drives me to ensure that as much opportunity as possible is afforded to as many people as possible. Her story is one of many, and I aware that, while some progress has been made in encouraging women to take up STEM subjects, there is still work to do. Progress has been made in the natural sciences, but there is a glaring gap between men and women in maths, engineering and computer science. The difference is stark: according to the Office for National statistics, five times more men than women are employed in IT. That gap increases to a ratio of 10:1 in engineering.
I know there are schemes to encourage more young women to study these subjects. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the work of the Engineering Education Scheme Wales, originally set up to encourage young people between the ages of 16 and 18 to take up engineering-related subjects. It pairs young people with businesses that work with them on projects, giving them a taste of engineering as a career. Its work is also focused on encouraging more young women to study engineering, in order to bridge that huge imbalance in the sector.
It is clear there is more to be done. More needs to be done to remove those barriers to women entering and staying in STEM-related employment and I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s words in this debate. She outlined the steps the Government are taking to address this issue, but it still seems to me that there is a cultural bias in our society that sees engineering and IT as male jobs. The steps the Government have outlined will help to overcome this problem.
In conclusion, progress has been made, but any country that wishes to maximise its talent pool must provide help to overcome barriers that hinder that objective. If I could use an idiom from the Welsh language, which I will translate into English so as not to cause panic among those recording my words today, the situation is “da, ond nid da lle gellir gwell”, which translates into English as “good, but not so good that it cannot be improved on”, especially compared with the recent past. We have heard stories within this debate about the disadvantages and barriers that so many women experienced in past decades. We must overcome those barriers. That is the challenge for the UK and it is one that all of us in society must play a role in meeting.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Diolch i chi am yr araith ragorol honno—an excellent speech and a sign of things to come. Congratulations to all my noble friends. What a wonderful bunch we have now. I am so glad to be part of this group. And I am delighted to be able to add my own observations on the immense dedication of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, to public life in Wales—and he is now able to make contributions to the whole of the UK from a seat in your Lordships’ House.
Carwyn and I first met by chance when we sat next to each other in the audience of “Question Time”, which was being filmed in Cardiff in October 1998. He was a councillor in Bridgend at the time and we discussed politics as we waited for the programme to begin. Little did I think that, almost 20 years later, we would be sharing challenging discussions over the future of Welsh councils when I was the WLGA leader and he was First Minister. However, we always resolved those matters through such talks because of the openness and transparency local government found when dealing with the Welsh Government. This was in direct contrast to what my LGA colleagues in England were experiencing.
We also had similar starts in life. We both became politically active during the miners’ strike of 1984-85. In Carwyn’s autobiography, he says:
“What drove me into politics was the determination that whole communities of workers up and down the UK should never be treated that way again”.
He has put that sentiment into practice time and time again through his dedicated leadership of Wales in all of his roles, culminating in almost a decade as our First Minister.
I was sitting behind Lady Jones, or Lisa as I know her, and the children, Seren and Ruairi, when out of the blue Carwyn announced at the Welsh Labour Party conference of 2018 that he was stepping down as FM. There was an audible intake of breath from the delegates as it had been an exceptionally well-kept secret—not an easy thing to do in Wales. I could not commend more highly the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont, into this House. He will make a valuable contribution in the years ahead. I am proud to call him a colleague and my friend. Croeso mawr, Carwyn.
In thinking about my contribution to this important International Women’s Day debate, as a lifelong educationalist, a former teacher and a member of the NEU, I believe strongly in the importance of women’s participation in science and technology—the STEM subjects—but I am absolutely passionate about this Government’s mission to extend STEM into STEAM with once again the inclusion of arts into the curriculum and a much greater focus than the absence of creative and artistic learning that our children and young people have had in the state sector in England. I know that this Labour Government’s mission is high standards for all and to break down barriers to opportunity, committing to ensure that art, music and drama are returned to their rightful place within the curriculum. In Wales, we have had the opportunity with a devolved education system not to be driven into the narrow focus of the English EBacc and Progress 8, which have effectively restricted creative arts subjects for the majority of young people.
In Wales, our new curriculum was published in May 2019. Expressive arts became one of the six areas of learning and included dance, drama, film and digital media, music and visual arts, linked by a common creative process and transferable skills. By contrast, in England, GCSE and A-level entries for arts courses have plummeted in the state school sector since the EBacc was introduced in 2011, yet they remain buoyant in the private sector as public schools can devise a curriculum that suits their individual school without fear of the performance tables measures and Ofsted inspections that are based on them.
It is therefore to be greatly welcomed that the Government’s current curriculum and assessment review will seek to deliver this broader curriculum. I urge my noble friend to look at how we have done this in Wales. The Budget put a welcome £2.3 billion uplift into school budgets next year, delivering on this Government’s commitment to put education back at the forefront of national life.
I turn to the focus of the debate: women’s participation and leadership. I had no idea that my noble friend Lady Rafferty was going to talk about Jennie Lee, but I am going to talk about her too. Last Tuesday, 25 February, marked 60 years since Jennie Lee, Britain’s first ever Minister for the Arts, published A Policy for the Arts—First Steps, a remarkable achievement of participation and leadership in our political life that, despite the setbacks, has endured to this day. She insisted that the arts should be central to everyday life and publicly supported that for the benefit of all. In her words:
“In any civilised community the arts … must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be regarded as something remote from everyday life”.
Last week the Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, delivered the inaugural Jennie Lee Lecture. In it, she said that Lee’s White Paper stated unequivocally the Wilson Government’s belief in the power of the arts to transform society and to transform lives. She also announced over £270 million of investment that will begin to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector in communities across the country—the green shoots of recovery. However welcome this investment is, though, it is evident that women are still underrepresented and undervalued in the creative industry workforce. It is up to all of us, women and men alike, to challenge the status quo and push for change.
That is so reminiscent of the struggles that we faced in the political world when looking for equality of opportunity at elected level. It would be remiss of me not to take this moment to mark the incredible achievements of my noble friend Lady Gale, of Blaenrhondda, who faced enormous barriers when establishing the concept of all-women shortlists and a balanced cohort to the first Welsh Assembly. It was her strength and tenacity that pushed these changes through and made political representation in Wales change from inequality to equality. That has remained steadfast for the past 25 years.
Let us learn from this great example and, within the creative industries, demonstrate the need to amplify the voices and talents of women and recognise the incredible contributions they make. With a diversity of roles, we can create a brighter and more vibrant future for that industry—one that truly values and represents the incredible range of talent, experience and perspective that women bring to the table.
Creativity is all around us, both within ourselves and others. It influences and shapes our lives from beginning to end. The promotion of women within all spheres—scientific, technological, creative and political—makes for a better world when we see ourselves around the table. As someone once told me, if they do not give you a seat at the table, bring a folding chair.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, my Ladies—or can I just say “Colleagues”?—I am very pleased to take part in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend and, of course, all five maiden speakers, whom I have listened to with great interest. It has been an extremely interesting debate. I do not think I have ever taken part in a debate with five maiden speakers before and I think, from what we have heard, that they will enrich the House for years to come.
It is also a pleasure to take part not because I have not spoken in this equivalent debate in past years—I have done so in every year that I could—but because the official title of today’s debate is exactly the subject I have sought to raise ever since I have spoken, which is the role of women in science, and I gladly now do so again.
I start with a simple question: who was the first British person in space? I have been asking this question of people I meet in casual conversation in the run-up to this debate for a reason, and the answer I get is “Tim Peake”. People may remember Tim Peake floating through the International Space Station a decade ago, being chased by somebody dressed up as a gorilla. That is all fine and there is nothing wrong with it, except that it is wrong. The first British person in space was Helen Sharman, who on 18 May 1991, then aged 27, became the first British astronaut to travel into space as part of Project Juno. She was chosen from 13,000 applicants.
I start with this example because still, in 2025, women’s scientific achievements are too often not sufficiently recognised. Women have been overlooked, underrepresented or even erased from history. Take, for example, Ada Lovelace: for years she was ignored and unknown. Her work with Charles Babbage’s analytical engine in the 19th century had been forgotten, yet it was she who realised that the potential of the device extended far beyond mere number-crunching and hence is now considered by many as the world’s first computer programmer. The programming language Ada is named after her and her image is on our passports.
I am grateful to all the scientific societies that have sent me briefings for today’s debate. I cannot deal with all the information I have but would like to mention that the Institute of Physics, the Society of Chemical Industry, the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, the Physiological Society, the Society for Radiological Protection and even the Mines Advisory Group have provided me with some very helpful briefing. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful brief, which means that I, for one, do not have to belabour the House with the pertinent statistics that your Lordships will find the Library has provided.
I should declare an interest as the president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is Parliament’s oldest all-party group, founded in 1939 to utilise the experience of boffins—a term of endearment in those days—for the war effort. The first report that it issued was on the nutritional value of brown bread. I mention this because the Nutrition Society has written to me to say that shortly after that a group of people—all men—got together and founded that society, but its position has now been transformed. I am told that 75% of its members are now women and it has identified seven significant women in the field of worldwide importance, so there has been some progress. The Society for Radiological Protection wrote to me to say that having a visible female leader supported by women in key leadership roles has been
“instrumental in encouraging more women to be active”
and its own council is now 50:50, so that is also some progress.
Having more women involved in mathematics in the UK brings a wide range of benefits, including different perspectives in problem-solving, increased innovation in research and tackling potential biases in algorithms, which is particularly important in the field of AI. However, the Council for the Mathematical Sciences says that there is chronic underrepresentation of women at every level of mathematics education. Women account for under 40% of A-level students, 37% of graduates, 21% of PhDs, and only 12% of professors. This is a familiar pattern across the sciences. As a matter of fact, the Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, had a special session on maths on Tuesday this week.
Take physics: Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel prize, and she won it for two separate subjects—the only person ever to do so. The Institute of Physics says that there is a significant and well-known problem with girls being underrepresented. Too many girls miss out on physics because they think the subject is not for them. They hear outdated stereotypes about the subject from family members and teachers. In her evidence to Parliament, the distinguished Professor Athene Donald of Cambridge, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised:
“Stereotyped behaviour directed towards a child will tend to lead to that child developing those stereotypical responses. A parent or teacher who says ‘girls can’t do maths’ will be providing a message that children internalise … These actions are not neutral; the implicit expectations will be imbibed and are likely to be material to decisions a child makes about what is ‘appropriate’ for them to … do in later years”.
The IOP reports some improvements. That the proportion of women studying physics has increased has also been mentioned. The Society of Chemical Industry says that gender balance in science is “improving”, but that women continue to be underrepresented in graduate jobs—a very similar pattern to mathematics. The Physiological Society has provided a helpful brief covering a wide range of subjects that I cannot mention.
So what can we do? First, we must encourage young girls to explore STEM without fear or hesitation. Although my time is technically up, I must say that I am a grandparent and I have been watching a lot of “Peppa Pig” recently. Mummy Pig is, in fact, pregnant. I think this is important because there is something to be said for getting in touch with programme makers of this kind to help ensure that, in the development of their storylines, young people—or pigs—are given every possible encouragement to do whatever they like. This idea that somehow it is not for them can be ruled out. We must invent an environment that supports women in science.
Finally—I really have run out of time—I invite everybody to the Attlee Suite next Tuesday, where the STEM for Britain event is being held. Early-career researchers from all the major subjects are coming to the House, and they will bring their research work. It is very competitive. These are the crème de la crème of the new generation, and it would benefit everyone in this Chamber if noble Lords just walked along in order to encourage them. Seven out of the last 10 winners of the top medal have been women, so I hope there is some progress to be made.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to take part in this debate to mark International Women’s Day. I congratulate all those who gave their maiden speech today. In particular, I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont, to further devolution. Llongyfarchiadau, a dwi’n edrych ymlaen i gydweithio—I look forward to working with you both.
As a Welsh woman, I feel compelled to begin by reflecting on a key historical contribution of Welsh women internationally. Five years after the First World War, a group of courageous women in Wales embarked on a campaign for peace that would become a symbol of hope and unity. The Welsh women’s peace petition, which began its journey in 1923, was the brainchild of a group of determined women. This petition spanned seven miles in length. It was signed by 390,296 Welsh women and carried across the Atlantic to the United States in an oak chest by four remarkable women: Annie Hughes-Griffiths, Mary Ellis, Elined Prys and Gladys Thomas. Among those signatories was my great-great-grandmother, who was from Neath Port Talbot. It is remarkable to think that, in 2023, 100 years after it was first signed, this petition returned to Wales and was digitised for the world to see at the National Library of Wales. I look forward to visiting an upcoming exhibition about the petition at Storiel in Bangor.
This campaign and the women who initiated it highlighted the long history of Welsh women engaging in global causes. It is fitting, therefore, that we reflect on their example as we discuss the role of women in the world today. As we mark this International Women’s Day, we must consider the current state of global affairs. Just last week, while the defence budget received a significant increase, we learned that the international aid budget is set to be reduced by £6 billion a year. This is a troubling shift—one that disproportionately affects women and girls around the world.
We must carefully consider the impact these cuts will have on some of the most pressing challenges that women face globally, including in sexual and reproductive health and rights. When we discuss the rights of women and girls, particularly their sexual and reproductive health, we cannot ignore the role that STEM has played in improving women’s lives. Innovations in these fields have allowed for advances that not only benefit women’s health but provide greater autonomy, allowing women to make informed choices about their reproductive health.
The development of contraceptive methods, fertility treatments and safe childbirth procedures has given women more control over their reproductive choices and their futures. In addition to medical breakthroughs, the role of technology cannot be overstated. Telemedicine, for example, allows women in rural areas to access reproductive health services remotely. Mobile apps help women track menstrual cycles, fertility windows and pregnancy progress, further empowering them to make informed decisions. I must emphasise that the health data that women share on these apps must be protected by tech companies and not sold on, as I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, about the anti-abortion laws in the USA. Tech companies must not be allowed to weaponise fertility tracking apps to vilify women getting abortions. Data science has also played a crucial role in predicting and controlling the spread of STIs and in shaping public health policies that guide sexual and reproductive health education.
Despite these remarkable advancements, significant challenges remain in many low-income and rural areas across the globe. Access to sexual and reproductive health services is still limited. Cultural stigmas continue to hinder open discussions, and gender disparities in STEM fields restrict the contributions of women in reproductive health research and innovation. To overcome these barriers, we must invest in STEM education for young girls and women, ensuring that their voices and perspectives are represented in the research and innovations that shape reproductive health policies. STEM has already transformed sexual and reproductive health, making it safer, more effective and more accessible. It has given women greater autonomy and allowed for the development of life-saving medications. We must continue to harness this power of STEM to alleviate poverty and contribute to economic and social development globally.
As we see the cuts to the UK’s overseas development assistance budget, I urge His Majesty’s Government to recognise that investing in sexual and reproductive health and rights is not only morally imperative but highly cost effective. Research in these areas has the potential to yield substantial returns—£100 for every pound invested. Will His Majesty’s Government consider ring-fencing sexual and reproductive health and rights funding within the aid budget? Women and girls across the globe deserve the chance to thrive, and it is our responsibility to make sure that they have the tools and support they need to do so.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Ministers on making it possible and pay tribute to my noble friends who have given their maiden speeches today and really have, as somebody said earlier, raised the bar. It has been a real pleasure to hear so much about their history and what has brought them into the House of Lords.
I want to pay tribute to three remarkable groups of women who I believe play a vital role in promoting women’s participation in science. The first and most important group has to be those women who teach STEM subjects in primary and secondary schools. I will go on and pay tribute to the women who lead our medical research charities, then I will close by talking a little about the patient advocates, almost entirely women, who have campaigned tirelessly for funding and a focus on scientific research of interest to women.
We have heard a lot about Welsh women in this debate, so it is a pleasure for me to build on that and talk about my mother, who was a science teacher. She also came from Neath, and she grew up in a very strong, close, working-class community there. She had real issues trying to get the funding she needed to get to university so that she could go on and become a teacher and teach her beloved science in some of the toughest schools in the UK. She inspired me and my sisters to go into science-related careers. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, I would definitely classify my sister, who became a specialist nurse, as a scientist. The research that she supported was really quite incredible.
I pay tribute to those women who have been teachers in those difficult classrooms and in wonderful educational settings, who have been role models and encouraged girls to go into science, do science A-levels then go on to university or apprenticeships to take their careers further. We know that role models are really important here, and still today we see a situation where, at tops, 40% of STEM subject teachers are women. So there is much more to do but, if we get that level up, I believe that we will spark the interest of young girls to become the scientists of tomorrow.
Inspired by my mother, I went on to study science at university after a dalliance with student politics during the miners’ strike—yes, tick, that fits the list. But my career took me into the medical research charity sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, emphasised, we have to think about the financials and the funding. It is important to note today that the medical research charities in this country contribute about £1.7 billion to medical research; they fund about 60% of the UK’s public investment in cancer and cardiovascular research, and they are led by women in many cases.
Around 40% of the members of the Association of Medical Research Charities, including the AMRC itself, are led by women. Those are really important funding bodies for science. Notable leaders include Charmaine Griffiths, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation; Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK; and Claire Rowney, my successor at Breast Cancer Now. These charities engage in really practical activities to support women in their science, in programmes involving funding, recruiting and helping women to return to science after they have taken time out to have a family.
We know that it is a vital part of what medical research charities do, but they can do what they do only because of the incredible support they get from so many patient advocates. I pay tribute to the role of patient advocates. One of our own number, who is sadly no longer with us, Tessa Jowell, campaigned in her last weeks of life to improve the focus of research on brain cancer. I have seen thousands of women at first hand campaigning to raise funds to establish a breast cancer research centre that has now become the best in the world.
We know that women want to work in areas of science focused on areas of concern to women themselves. By enhancing the resources made available for those areas, I believe we will also encourage the greater participation of women in science.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and congratulate her on being made Minister for Women and Equalities in addition to her other activities. I know that she will be fantastic on this issue. I also congratulate my colleagues on their maiden speeches today—in particular my two good friends, my noble friends Lady Alexander and Lady Hunter. It is not that the others are not my friends, but I have known those two for a lifetime. They are my friends and they know all my bad points; they all have good points, but they have known me too long.
I declare an interest relevant to today’s debate, in that I am a founder and member of the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security and an activist in Global Women Asia, which I helped to found, and which, among other things, represents women engineers who work in AI and other areas. It has now been going for about three years.
Turning to International Women’s Day, I congratulate everyone on this great day and I hope we will have more speakers next year from around the House, celebrating the initiatives that enhance women’s participation and leadership in science and technology, both in the United Kingdom and around the world. This occasion is not only a celebration of achievement but a reminder of the critical role women play in securing peace and shaping the future, especially as we transition into the AI age.
For centuries, women have been the bedrock of peaceful communities, acting as mediators, caregivers and advocates of justice and inclusion. Their involvement in peace processes has been shown to result in more durable and sustainable peace. In conflict zones across the globe, women are increasingly taking on roles traditionally reserved for men. They are clearing landmines, neutralising unexploded bombs and destroying weapons. Women are instrumental in helping communities recover and rebuild following the devastation of war. Their roles as peacebuilders, decision-makers, wage-earners and caregivers demonstrate that when women lead, peace is more resilient.
At the same time, we are witnessing a transformation in technology. Digital and AI innovations are reshaping every aspect of our lives: from the way we communicate to how Governments serve their citizens. Yet, as these systems grow ever more influential, there is a danger that they might perpetuate biases if not designed with care. It is imperative, therefore, that women are not merely participants but the engineers and architects of this digital revolution. Their insights, honed through diverse lived experiences, are essential in ensuring that technology systems are fair and serve all citizens equally.
Consider the pioneering work of Dr Joy Buolamwini at MIT Media Lab, whose research on algorithmic bias has exposed how technology can inadvertently reinforce gender and racial prejudices. Similarly, the work of Kate Crawford in critically assessing the societal impacts of machine learning has challenged us to rethink our ethical frameworks. Here in the United Kingdom, leaders such as Dame Wendy Hall have been at the forefront of promoting inclusivity in computer science, laying a strong foundation for a digital future that reflects our shared values.
The statistics underscore the urgency of our mission. Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, as analysed by the Government, shows that while men dominate most STEM subjects in higher education, women lead in natural sciences, psychology, medicine, dentistry and allied medical subjects. Yet women are less likely than men to start an apprenticeship in STEM fields. Engineering UK analysis of Department for Education data reveals that women account for just 17% of engineering and technology-related apprenticeship starts in England. We must put more pressure on schools to tell more pupils about STEM, and have more visits to schools from people from these backgrounds, through Speakers for Schools and other organisations, including the education organisation in this House. This is vital. That 17% figure compares to 52% across all subjects. UNESCO’s figures for 2016-18 indicate that women represented 28% of engineering, manufacturing and construction graduates and 30% of ICT graduates, compared with 57% in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics. Furthermore, STEM Women highlights how the lack of representation of women in STEM higher education impacts the workforce, and it calls for more initiatives to encourage women to study STEM, transition into the workforce and emerge as future leaders.
The rapid progression of technology offers a unique opportunity to level the playing field. Digital platforms and AI can dismantle traditional barriers, broadening access to education, employment and civic engagement. In every community, from conflict zones to urban centres, women have shown exceptional resilience and an innate ability to foster dialogue and empathy. Their participation in building the digital future not only enhances innovation but ensures that the systems they create are both equitable and compassionate.
In conclusion, promoting women’s leadership in science and technology is not merely an issue of equality; it is essential for peace, justice and prosperity. As we stand on the threshold of the AI age, we must commit to a future where both men and women co-design the digital world. The House must champion policies that foster gender equality in every sphere of innovation, ensuring that the benefits of technological progress are shared by all.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this International Women’s Day debate, and I welcome the Minister to her new role. I should perhaps declare an interest, since I contributed several chapters to the two-volume series The Honourable Ladies, short biographies of all the women MPs up to 1996, which she edited with Iain Dale.
This is my fourth International Women’s Day speech in your Lordships’ House. In previous ones, I have uncovered buried, silenced voices of women from the past, and I was terribly tempted to do that this time. For women in science, there are myriad possibilities: from Aganice, an Egyptian princess during the Middle Kingdom who worked on astronomy and natural history, through to the 17th-century scientific illustrators Giovanna Garzoni and Maria Sibylla Merian—particular favourites of mine, both of whom, atypically for their time and centuries hence, treated insects as independent actors and agents rather than stiff, dead subjects to be pinned for the human gaze. It is possible to draw a direct line of ecological thinking by women from them to Suzanne Simard, the discoverer of what has been dubbed the “world-wide wood” of interrelationships between various species in woodland environments.
However, I could not focus on history today, not in the world of 2025. Instead, my speech will be, if I may humbly say so, a companion to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho. The official theme of this International Women’s Day is “Accelerate Action”, but, rather than that, we need, as the noble Baroness said, to feel the perilous nature of the moment. To put it in one verb, I would say our theme should be “Resist”, for what we are seeing is a dual and interconnected attack on women and on science by the leaders of the world’s most powerful state, the United States of America, which was, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, responsible for 32% of global science and research funding in 2021.
It is not like we were not warned, for the destructive ideology of the Trump Administration was constructed in plain sight, in the form of Project 2050. I give a local woman’s voice—from the US National Women’s Law Center—to explain what is now being implemented in Washington. She says that this project
“seeks to impose a hierarchical, gendered, patriarchal vision of society … focused on enforcing a vision of the family that relies on fixed and narrowly defined gender roles, and in undermining protections that enable women and LGBTQIA+ people to thrive outside of a male-dominated heterosexual family. It also seeks to reinforce racial hierarchy”.
We have to note that this is a world envisaged without democracy. If noble Members have not read The Sovereign Individual, I would urge them to. It was republished in 2020 with a preface from Peter Thiel, co-founder of the tech company Palantir, a name I recognise particularly from my time in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme due to its pervasive presence across our military. The book claims that the “information revolution” will bring about the “death of politics”, for which might be read the death of human rights, the rule of law and what so many women and men have fought for over decades and centuries.
That attack on women and girls, a desire to restrict their human potential, is all too evidently part of a broader attack on science. I note an article in the journal Nature today stating the US National Institutes of Health has begun mass terminations of research grants that fund active scientific projects. The aim is to cancel grants in any way related to gender identity, diversity, equity and inclusion in the scientific workforce, environmental justice and climate change. Those ongoing projects are all to be cancelled.
I finish with some questions to the Minister. Of course, sitting in this Chamber we have limited influence on what happens in the United States—perhaps no real influence at all as it increasingly aligns itself with Russia rather than its traditional allies. However, this Government have a responsibility for what happens here in the UK.
I note that on Bluesky today there was an advert from a French university seeking applicants for a “safe place for science programme” that was explicitly directed towards US researchers. Will the Government work with UK institutions to similarly provide a refuge for researchers now based in the US?
Companies such as Google, Amazon and Meta, and firms with tentacles right through the UK Government such as KPMG and Deloitte, are all withdrawing, cancelling or reversing what are known as diversity, equality and inclusion programmes. Will the Government ensure that wherever they operate in the UK, particularly but not solely in the UK Government, British values and laws on diversity and inclusion will be upheld here on our soil?
To pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the slashing of budgets has had a huge impact on global efforts against polio, HIV, malaria and particularly tuberculosis. Are the British Government going to try to pick up the slack? I note that, with TB, there is great concern about antimicrobial resistance.
I want to finish by being a little positive. Final plans are now being made for 32 co-ordinated “stand up for science” rallies across the US and affiliated walkouts and protests around the globe, put together on the initiative of five early-career researchers. Will the Minister join me in supporting that call to stand up for science and agree that UK institutions, such as the Royal Society, should be doing just that?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I spoke in this debate last year about the gender pensions gap. It is still there, but I am going to speak more broadly this year, following the theme—quite clearly set out—of how to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology.
Before moving on, I need first to congratulate my noble friends Lady Alexander of Cleveden, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, Lady Bousted, Lady Rafferty and Lord Jones of Penybont on their excellent and germane maiden speeches. They will all clearly be major assets to the House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern on her appointment as Minister for Women and Equalities.
I welcome this debate. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be here and to listen to what has been said. It is also a pleasure to contribute, despite the ever-present inevitability of mansplaining. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Jones and Lord Stansgate on their skill in avoiding that danger, but the only certain way to escape falling into the trap is simply to listen to the experience of women, particularly women with lived experience of success in science and technology. We have heard about that with great pleasure in this House today.
I also asked my older daughter. Not only is she a great friend and companion; not only is she a mother of a brilliant grandchild but I am immensely proud that she is an engineer. I have to emphasise that the credit is all hers that she is a professor in the engineering department at the University of Cambridge. I asked her what key point she would like to see raised in this debate. She mentioned in essence—I paraphrase—family-friendly policies that enable her to participate fully and deliver the work in which she is involved undertaking research, with that support both social and in employment. The specific issue she mentioned was support through maternity, through periods when, inevitably, women have children. Support for people in their careers through periods of maternity is obviously important to the individuals concerned and their families but it is also important to all of us, because it avoids the loss of the tremendous talent that is available, which we have to exploit—that is not quite the right word—or employ to the full.
In summarising the challenges and future directions, we have to understand that, despite the undoubted progress that there has been, women in STEM still face barriers, including unconscious bias, workplace discrimination and lack of representation in leadership positions. We have to foster sustainable change: efforts must go beyond entry-level recruitment and focus on career retention, leadership and policy reforms, not least addressing the issues that arise with maternity. We must recognise that women’s participation and leadership in science, technology, engineering and mathematics are vital for innovation, economic growth and social progress. The Government have made it clear that their number one goal is growth, and mobilising the full talent of women and girls is a crucial element in achieving that aim.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in today’s International Women’s Day debate. I congratulate all the noble Lords who made their maiden speeches.
Artificial intelligence represents one of the greatest opportunities for growth and advancement since the industrial revolution. We should rightly be very excited about its potential. It is reshaping the world as we know it: powering our industries, aiding our scientific discoveries, and redefining how we live and work. However, as noble Baronesses have highlighted today, the people shaping AI do not reflect the diversity of those it serves. As of 2024, women are significantly underrepresented in the UK AI workforce, making up only 21% of its employees. The Alan Turing Institute warned:
“This is not only a fundamental issue of economic equality, but also about how the world is designed and for whom.”
Multiple studies have raised concerns that, without a diverse set of voices shaping the AI models we build, we risk creating an inbuilt bias. AI systems trained on biased data can replicate and amplify discrimination.
I am concerned that a recent Answer from the Department for Education said that, in 2023-24, just under 18% of STEM apprenticeship starts were by women. We must encourage girls from an early age to take up STEM subjects in school so that not only can we improve the diversity of those in AI but the UK will have the skills and talent necessary for an AI future.
It is incumbent on us to ensure that the social biases that are currently being inflamed and entrenched by misogynistic influencers do not become embedded in the systems that look to be so intrinsic to our future. We have the responsibility to do everything in our power to help remove the obstacles faced by our next generation of young women to allow them to flourish and reach their full potential. Sadly, I fear that they are now facing greater barriers than ever before, due to the increasing prevalence and acceptance of misogyny in our society.
The poison of misogyny undermines our values and fuels harassment, discrimination and violence. The agenda is aided by algorithms that are pushing content to young boys at an alarming rate. A UCL study set up sample accounts on TikTok representing typologies of teenage boys with varying interests. It found that, while the content initially suggested to the boys was in line with their stated interests, it increasingly focused on anger and blame directed at women. After five days, the TikTok algorithm was presenting four times as many videos recommending misogynistic content on sexual harassment, and discrediting and objectifying women.
The study found that social media algorithms that amplified extreme misogynistic content were normalising harmful ideologies for young people. This is having hugely damaging repercussions on real-life social interactions. A University of York study found that 76% of secondary school teachers and, even more shockingly, 60% of primary school teachers were strongly concerned about the influence of online misogyny on their pupils. The study highlighted shocking examples of secondary school pupils espousing the views that women should not be in leadership roles and that they were too big for their boots. When teachers questioned where they got these ideas, they informed them that they liked to watch Andrew Tate.
Even more disturbingly, teachers in primary schools cited examples of where girls as young as primary age were told that women should not have careers and that they belonged in the kitchen. One informed his teacher that it is
“ok to hurt women because Andrew Tate does it”.
I am sure that many noble Lords will agree that, unless we tackle this appalling rise in misogyny in schools, these attitudes present a very real threat to the progress of young girls, who should not have to run the gauntlet of this abuse, especially during their formative years. If we do not take action, we risk creating a future where discrimination is automated and prejudice is coded into the very systems that are supposed to aid our advancement, not hinder it. We must not allow our future to be shaped by those who seek to do us harm.
We owe it to the next generation of young women—who may be aspiring scientists, doctors or engineers—to stamp out this vile form of abuse and give them every opportunity to flourish. In doing so, we are not only helping them but safeguarding the future of our society. The future of AI must be built by all of us, for all of us. Let us ensure that women are at the heart of this progress.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to participate in this debate. As is almost customary—it happens year after year—the debate has an overwhelmingly large number of female speakers; at a rough count, they are at least 24 out of 33. It goes to show how women continue to fight for their share of equality and that men are perfectly happy to allow them to do so.
I will ask three questions. First, what do we want to discuss in the name of STEM subjects? Secondly, why are we worried about fewer women going into STEM subjects, and why should it be a matter of concern to us, except because of some notion of abstract justice? Thirdly, assuming that it is a matter of concern to us, can we do something about it? Is it not a natural phenomenon, as the former president of Harvard University said, which got him into trouble?
I will address these three questions, in that order, very quickly. It is very well known that 30% of girls in higher education take STEM subjects, as opposed to 75% who go on to do study health, education and others. It is obvious. We need to be careful not to overgeneralise or homogenise girls. If you look at STEM subjects, girls tend to take more interest in algebra and chemistry than in physics and higher mathematics. There is a trend. That trend is global, it is not limited to one particular country. It appears in different forms. In some subjects it is more pronounced than in others. There is a global trend of girls not going for STEM subjects.
That leads me to my second question. If so, why should we worry about it? I can imagine lots of areas that girls do not go into. We do not regard that as a matter of serious concern. Why is this a matter of serious concern? First of all, there is a pool of talent which is being wasted, and, secondly, a pool of distinctive talent—not just intelligence and imagination, but imagination tuned in in a particular way, and seeing problems in a certain way. This is what women bring to the study of the natural sciences. If they are studying physics—or biology, or whatever—they bring to the subject a certain perception of what human needs are.
One example is what kind of car one should have. I read an article—I shall not rehearse it here—about car design. It did not occur to men to design a seat that would allow women to relax. It would simply not occur to men, not because they do not want to but because it is not a natural part of their daily experience. Whereas, when you put women in the driving seat and they design things, they begin to explore these requirements. So in that sense it is not only that we are wasting a pool of talent, we are wasting a pool of distinctive talent and imagination, which is not otherwise available.
If that is so, the next question is, “Can we do something about it?”. As I said earlier, some people seem to think that if a phenomenon has gone on for a long time, there must be a natural basis—a basis in human nature or some other form of nature—and that it cannot just be spontaneous. I tend to disagree. It is not a natural but a cultural phenomenon. It is not that girls accidentally choose not to go for STEM subjects. There is a cultural pressure—but a cultural pressure of what kind? That requires an elaborate analysis. There is a cultural pressure of two kinds: pressure from outside society, which channels their expectations, hopes and ambitions in a certain direction, and pressure from within those girls, who have internalised those beliefs and who, therefore, tend to move in that direction.
So you have a situation where the pervasive culture says that there are difficult subjects—such as physics or higher mathematics—and these will be too strenuous for girls to get in to and we should give them some rest. It was these expectations—shaped by our culture over a period of centuries—that shaped these girls’ minds and got them to move in a certain direction. If you want to tackle them, we can certainly tackle them with more scholarships and more this or more that. But the greater concentration has to be on undermining this pervasive culture.
How do you counter a culture which shapes expectations and gets women not to go in certain directions? It is a long story but, to undermine that culture, there are several factors we need to take into account. When girls are growing up, from the age of two or three—or whatever—do they associate themselves with science and higher mathematics, or is it seen simply as a male phenomenon? Similarly, if you have mentorships and scholarships, more and more girls can be attracted to them. In short, can one create an environment in which a space is carved out where girls can flourish?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, we commemorate International Women’s Day at a time when commitments to development aid and to diversity, equality, and inclusion programmes face unprecedented strain. Supporting education for women and girls, particularly in STEM subjects, remains a vital lifeline for millions who are disproportionately affected by poverty, gender-based barriers, and systemic discrimination, which restrict their ability to harness their talents for a better future.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling this Motion and for its focus. This year’s International Women’s Day theme
“For ALL women and girls: Rights. Equality. Empowerment”,
is particularly pertinent as we examine the participation and leadership of women in science and technology.
Women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics worldwide. UNESCO reports that women make up only 35% of STEM graduates—a figure that has shown little progress over the past decade. In sub-Saharan Africa, socioeconomic barriers, institutional biases and cultural norms further hinder women’s participation in STEM.
Taking Mozambique as an example, the gender gap in STEM presents a significant challenge. Although gender equality in education has seen some improvement, women remain underrepresented in STEM disciplines. This disparity is not merely statistical but indicative of deeper systemic challenges that limit opportunities for women and girls.
The 2024 UNESCO report, Women’s Participation in Higher Education in Southern Africa, highlights these challenges. Across nine southern African countries, including Mozambique, women hold only a fraction of leadership roles in higher education institutions. In Mozambique, women occupy just 24% of senior academic positions, and in Zambia the figure is slightly higher, at 28%.
The barriers extend beyond education into professional STEM careers. Women in Mozambique and the region face obstacles such as limited mentorship opportunities, gender biases in hiring and promotion, and a lack of supportive networks. These challenges contribute to the broader issue of gender disparity in STEM fields.
Addressing these gaps requires co-ordinated efforts at multiple levels. Educational institutions must actively implement policies that encourage women’s participation in STEM, including scholarships, mentorship programmes, and a learning environment that challenges gender stereotypes from early education through to higher education.
International support has played a crucial role in empowering women and girls in STEM. The United Kingdom has been a long-standing supporter of educational initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa, including Mozambique, through its overseas development aid programmes. However, recent reductions in aid funding raise serious concerns about the continuity of these essential efforts.
In this light, I ask the Minister, first, what programmes focused on education for women and girls that are supported by British overseas development aid have been or will be disrupted by the recent reduction in funding? Secondly, how do the Government plan to fulfil their commitment to support education for women and girls in Mozambique and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in STEM subjects, amid these funding challenges? We must reaffirm our commitment to gender equality in STEM, not only as a matter of social justice but as a catalyst for innovation and economic growth. By empowering women and girls in science and technology, we unlock a wealth of talent and perspectives that are essential for addressing the complex challenges of our time.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, whose courageous and determined work in support of widows worldwide is known to many of us in this House. I am delighted to hear him speak up again here today. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Smith on her appointment as Equalities Minister and on her excellent speech opening this debate. At the same time, I hope it will be appropriate for me to pay tribute to Anneliese Dodds MP for her dignified and principled conduct last week. I hope that she will remain a very active member of the other place and join us in campaigning in the months ahead.
I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches, including my fellow ex-First Minister, my noble friend Lord Jones, whose introduction to the House is very welcome. I am so pleased to welcome in particular two Scots: my noble friend Lady Alexander, who—let me get this right—is the second former Labour Minister in the devolved Government in Scotland who was not a Member of Parliament in the House of Commons to have entered your Lordships’ House. I have long argued that those who served only in Holyrood—or in the Senedd, for that matter—should be welcome in this House, and I am delighted that she has now joined me here. She will make a fantastic contribution.
I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hunter. We have been friends for a very long time, and her contribution to the modernisation of this country in the election and the running of the first four years of the 1997 new Labour Government is not widely enough celebrated and recognised. She was a pivotal individual at that time. I remember many illuminating moments, not least, perhaps, on the day when the then leader of the Opposition was about to try to persuade me to persuade the Scottish Labour Party to support a referendum on devolution before the new Government legislated, when the then Anji Hunter presented me with a glass of wine, at 10.30 am, to prepare me for the meeting and try to make sure that I was calm enough to hear the news that I was about to hear. She is a very welcome addition to your Lordships’ House, and today’s speech showed that her contributions will be outstanding.
As a former maths teacher, I have enjoyed the theme of today’s debate. I have been very lucky to be inspired and mentored by many women throughout my life, including, perhaps in a similar way to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, by Mrs Craig, who was my first primary school teacher. She came to seek me out on the day I left primary school to tell me that if I could learn when to keep my mouth shut and be a little more disciplined, I could do absolutely anything I wanted to. To this day, I credit her with much of the incredible moments I have been able to enjoy in my life and career.
Almost all of my entries on the register have a link to today’s topic, including the McConnell International Foundation, which currently sponsors 200 girls in rural Malawi to go to secondary school. These girls live in rural villages, where no one from their family has finished secondary school before. Last year, one of the girls went to university—the first from her village ever to do so. Of the 200, in a country where very high numbers of girls become pregnant in their teenage years or are forced into early child marriage, only one girl became pregnant last year, and she hopes to go back to school after the baby is born. The potential for education to transform those lives is shown in all my interactions with them. Girls’ education transforms not just the lives of the individual girls but communities and families, going far beyond the individuals who personally benefit.
Many Members of your Lordships’ House have today commented on the international aspect of International Women’s Day. In Afghanistan, incredibly in 2025, girls and women are being held back from going to school and into higher education and from many other basic liberties. There is also the persecution in Iran—as we heard in the Statement earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—the cynical, planned rape of women and girls in Sudan and elsewhere as part of violent conflict around our world, and the casual acceptance and encouragement of violence throughout our supposedly progressive, developed world since the Covid pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of girls are not returning to school to complete the educational opportunities that would give them a fairer chance in life. Throughout the world today, women’s and girls’ rights are going in reverse. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, we should be angry about that and certainly not complacent or complicit in it.
While I absolutely endorse the Government’s decision to increase defence spending, I believe, as I said last week, that it is short-sighted and counterproductive to reduce overseas development assistance to its lowest level since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister to fund it. There will be fewer girls finishing school, fewer health programmes giving young girls choices in their early adult years, fewer women entrepreneurs and more conflict, violence and famine as a result.
Will there be an impact study on women and girls before these cuts are implemented? Will programmes on sexual health, girls’ education and conflict prevention, particularly the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, be protected?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, has made it almost impossible to start a debate by saying “My Lords” any more. We will obviously have to change our conventions.
It is a great privilege to take part in this debate. We have heard a brilliant and insightful set of maiden speeches today. I particularly valued the weight of the Welsh and Scottish representation here. It is not always present in the force that it should be. I declare an interest as chair of Queen Mary University, which, relevant to this debate, has a very distinguished biomedical engineer at the helm of our School of Engineering and Materials Science, Professor Hazel Screen. I envy the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for having an engineer daughter to consult with on his speech today. I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her introduction today and for moving the Motion. I congratulate her on her new appointment. I do wonder how many hours in the day there are, as I know the weight of her current post.
I was chair of the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee, whose 2018 findings revealed a deeply troubling picture. Globally, over three-quarters of AI and data science professionals were male. In the UK, women’s representation was even lower at just 20%. Seven years later, despite numerous initiatives, the needle has barely moved. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is angry—we all should be. This is not just about fairness, crucial though that may be. This is not to undervalue the importance of the humanities and the arts. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and others, it is about the quality and safety of the AI systems being developed.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said, when teams lack diversity, the technology they create reflects those limitations. We are in danger of building tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s biases. The implications are profound—from facial recognition systems that fail to properly identify women and ethnic minorities to recruitment algorithms that perpetuate gender bias or medical diagnostic systems trained predominantly on male data, as well as the proliferation of deepfake pornography, misogyny, threats of violence and trolling online, as illustrated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hazarika, Lady O’Grady and Lady Owen.
The wider picture of STEM is equally concerning. As we have heard, women comprise only 29% of the UK’s tech workforce. In engineering and technology apprenticeships, women account for just 17% of starts. Only 8.5% of active spin-outs had all-female founding teams, and just 16% had mixed founding teams. At leadership level, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, women make up a mere 6% of STEM leaders. These statistics represent not just inequality but a massive waste of talent at a time when these skills are crucial to our economic future and medical research, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, pointed out.
The digital divide compounds these challenges. Women are 40% less likely than men to adopt technologies and there is a striking gap of 21 percentage points between junior men and women in adopting AI tools at work. This creates a vicious cycle—underrepresentation leads to technology designed without women’s input, which in turn makes technology less accessible to women, as the Minister said.
We have seen some laudable initiatives. The previous Government’s investment in AI and data science conversion degrees with scholarships for underrepresented groups was welcome. Organisations such as WISE, the Tech Talent Charter, which sadly closed down last year, and Women in AI have done valuable work. The Tech She Can charter, with more than 170 companies committed to increasing women in technology roles, shows industry recognition of the problem.
We must ask why, despite all these efforts, progress is so slow. The education pipeline remains a critical challenge and, although we have seen some improvement, with an almost 30% increase in girls starting STEM A-levels between 2009 and 2020, this has not translated into proportional workforce representation. Something is clearly going wrong in the transition from education to career and in career progression thereafter.
The persistence of the leaky pipeline in STEM education and careers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, remains deeply concerning. While we see encouraging numbers of young women taking STEM A-levels and entering undergraduate programmes, the sharp decline at postgraduate level and into academic careers suggests systemic issues beyond mere time lag effects. I was very interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, said about the culture in schools.
It is particularly striking that many capable female students report never having considered advanced STEM careers, not because of active discouragement but because they simply had not envisioned themselves in these roles. I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, set out a number of really interesting suggestions for action in this area. I would suggest another few areas where government action could make a real difference.
First, we need a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of current initiatives. While individual programmes show promise, they often operate in silos. We need a coherent national strategy that co-ordinates efforts across education, industry and government. This should include early intervention in schools, support through higher education and workplace initiatives.
Secondly, we should consider mandatory reporting on gender diversity in STEM roles for larger companies, similar to gender pay gap reporting. What gets measured gets managed. This would provide crucial data to inform policy and hold organisations accountable. Companies should report not just on overall numbers but on recruitment, retention and progression.
Thirdly, we need targeted support for critical transition points, particularly in returning to STEM careers after career breaks. What happened to the pilot returners programme in the Midlands and the north of England, known as STEM ReCharge? This should include expanded training opportunities, flexible working arrangements and structured return-to-work programmes.
Fourthly, we must address the persistent barriers in workplace culture. This means tackling unconscious bias, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, ensuring fair promotion processes and creating inclusive environments. The Government should lead by example in their own STEM workforce and require diversity initiatives as part of public procurement, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.
Fifthly, we need specific focus on emerging technologies. With AI and quantum computing shaping our future, we cannot afford to repeat past patterns of exclusion. This means ensuring women’s participation in this field from the ground up.
More fundamentally, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and many others in this debate, we need to address the cultural barriers that persist in STEM fields. We should celebrate the prominent women in STEM, as we were asked to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Moyo and Lady Bottomley, but the very fact that we can name all these individuals—as role models who show what is possible—and their very exceptionalism, highlights the systemic problem we must address. That surely is self-evident.
This underscores the critical importance of visible role models and intentional mentorship. We need to move beyond passive representation to active engagement, ensuring that young women not only see themselves succeeding in STEM fields but are actively encouraged to see themselves in these roles. It is not just about technical skills; it is about creating an environment where girls see themselves as natural problem-solvers and innovators. Too often, this fundamental confidence-building is missing from young girls’ experiences, creating invisible barriers long before career choices come into play.
Time is short, but I want to mention the international dimension, which was raised particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Loomba and Lord McConnell. Our leadership in science and technology gives us both the opportunity and the responsibility to set global standards for inclusion. In this context, the announced cuts to the UK aid budget cast a huge and unwanted shadow over STEM development globally, particularly for women and girls. Are the Government still committed to the international women and girls strategy of 2023-30, launched only two years ago on International Women’s Day? It set important goals. Given the Government’s commitment to STEM education and gender equality, will efforts be made to protect these areas from the worst impacts of these cuts?
Looking ahead in the UK, we see that the stakes could not be higher. AI and other emerging technologies will reshape our society. If women remain underrepresented in the development of such technologies, we risk embedding gender bias into the architecture of our digital future. This is not just about equality; it is about ensuring that our technological development serves our entire society and not just half of it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to speak in this debate today, and to have listened to so many exceptional speeches that have highlighted the extraordinary achievements of women and, sadly, the oppression that too many still face. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on finding another way to fill what little she had left of her free time.
We have heard five excellent maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Clevedon, talked about her pioneering work in the Scottish Parliament, and in listening to her I felt that Malawi’s loss was Holyrood’s gain. The noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, talked about alliance building. I felt that the tone of her remarks was welcome and very much the way that we all aim to work across all sides of this House.
Of the five, the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, is the only one who I had the pleasure of knowing in a previous life—my previous life, but hers too. I recognise the way that she talked about herself in terms of self-reliance and walking with more confidence. She is warmly welcome here. There is lots of work to be done in the areas that both she and I are interested in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, talked about being inspired by her mother. For the first time in several years, I have managed to resist talking about my mother in this speech, but, in listening to the noble Baroness, I felt that she will inspire many here. I am not sure there is a pool table anywhere in the House, though others might know, but there is plenty of homework.
I want to note other women on my Benches who have been influential. Quite rightly, the noble Baronesses who I mentioned talked about their political careers, and on these Benches my noble friends Lady Jenkin of Kennington and Lady May were influential in their work on Women2Win, which has changed the shape of our party.
Last, but definitely not least, was the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. It was a privilege to listen to the humanity that he expressed in talking about the Act that he chose to highlight to the House today, which was literally, in his words, life-saving.
It is a double privilege to be standing here today, because I am taking the place of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who is unable to be here. Like many of us, she had a strong woman in her life—again, her mother—who paved the way for her to do a science degree. Her mother was a pioneer, going to University College Cork in the 1960s to study medicine alongside a small number of women, including several nuns. Apparently she was so talented that she was given full marks in an exam that she did not actually sit because she was busy having her son at the time.
As we have heard today in the speeches of many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, women have had to fight and campaign for the right to contribute economically in general, and in science and technology in particular, including for the stepping stones along the way of education, reproductive rights, childcare, health education and of course the right to vote. As we have heard, progress for women has not gone in a straight line, and in some cases it has gone backwards.
International Women’s Day itself, 8 March, has seen major demonstrations calling for change, such as in Tehran in 1979, where women protested in their thousands against the mandatory wearing of the hijab. International Women’s Day in 2012 saw the opening of the first women’s internet café in Kabul. I wonder if it is still there—sadly, I think we can guess the answer.
Thinking about those stepping stones, the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, talked rightly about the importance of online safety. There is so much more to be done in all areas of gender-based violence. She mentioned the plight of older women, and it was striking that in the humbling and troubling list read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, two of the ladies over 70 had no name. Such women are not traditionally recognised as victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, talked about the sexual harassment of children in classrooms, which of course happens in this country and internationally. My noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge talked powerfully about the changing shape of misogyny online and how that impacts behaviour offline. Rightly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lords McConnell and Lord Loomba, expressed their concerns about the impact of aid cuts, particularly on girls’ education. Of course, education has been a crucial way for women to gain their economic independence, exercise their rights and fulfil their potential. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, painted a vivid picture of the 200 girls in Malawi and the change that education can make to their lives.
Turning to the technology sector itself, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly said that this is an issue of power, justice and fairness, sentiments that were echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. My noble friend Lady Stowell gave us the strong sense of the community of women in the Beeston Plessey factory and how that became the heart of the local town.
Just to bring a little ray of hope, in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Moyo, there is, as many noble Lords have said, fantastic work in diversity going on around the country, including from the other Professor Sue Black—not the noble Baroness in your Lordships’ House—at Durham University. She is best known, perhaps, for her work on Bletchley Park but also with Tech Up Women, ensuring that we have more diversity in AI in particular.
We have heard about remarkable women from the global north. I would just like to mention a few who stand out from the global south, including Dr Asima Chatterjee from India, whose groundbreaking work in organic chemistry led to treatments for epilepsy and malaria, Dr Segenet Kelemu of Ethiopia, who transformed agricultural science, and, in Latin America, Dr Adriana Ocampo of Colombia, who has led NASA’s New Frontiers Program.
Looking forward, it feels like we are at a particularly perilous time in our history, as we look at some of the geopolitical shifts that are taking place. The conversation about the need for more defence expenditure and more investment in AI to drive the defence systems of the future has been dialled up, perhaps unimaginably, when compared to just a few weeks or months ago. As others have observed, much technological talent has been focused on consumer innovations in social media, food delivery apps and other services that can thrive only in a stable and peaceful world. It feels inevitable that more investment needs to, and will, go into critical areas of innovation, particularly in relation to defence and, within this, AI.
Defence in particular remains an area with low representation of women—where women’s voices, insights and skills are vitally needed, exactly as my noble friend Lady Morrissey and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, to create the strong ethical framework and organisational culture that this sector needs, perhaps almost more than any other. We need women to be part of the solution and not just the voices left behind as men suffer the ultimate price of warfare. We must not lose sight of the absolute imperative to protect our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, without which opportunities for women will evaporate.
As we close this debate, we remember the brave women all around the world fighting for their freedom, their right to go to school and their right to develop their talents and potential. We celebrate the extraordinary achievements of women in science and technology, without whom so many advances would not have been made. Many in this House have been role models to and champions of younger women. So, on this International Women’s Day, I particularly wish that our daughters and granddaughters, in the widest sense, seize the opportunities that life presents them. In the words of the late, great Maya Angelou,
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better”.
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, I wish a very happy International Women’s Day—nearly—to all noble Lords. We have had an absolutely fabulous debate. I congratulate my noble friend on her new ministerial appointment, and I thank her for setting out the size of the challenge before us, the progress made so far to accelerate action, and where we want to get to.
I thank all noble Lords for their wisdom in this debate—some have of course made their maiden speeches today. First, I thank my noble friend Lady Alexander of Clevedon, whose leadership in Scotland and work in the education sector will add another strong voice championing women in higher education. I thank my noble friend Lady Bousted, who brings her expertise from a world I hail from too—the trade unions, given her role as the joint general secretary of the National Education Union—to help us analyse how to improve the lives of working women. It is wonderful to have another strong voice from Wales in this House, and I thank my noble friend Lord Jones of Penybont for becoming an honorary member of the sisterhood, and for the perspective he brings from his political experience as First Minister of Wales.
It was an honour to hear from my noble friend Lady Rafferty, whose extensive experience in the nursing world—as the president of the Royal College of Nursing, for example—can help us continue to focus on the experience of women working in health and, I hope, improve it. Finally, I thank my noble friend Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch—I will pronounce that right eventually—whose political experience is very welcome, as is her continued support for women in business through her role as a senior adviser at Edelman and her other business roles.
One of the many things that the civil rights activist Marian Wright Edelman gave the world is the words:
“You can’t be what you can’t see”.
She meant that it is hard for people to imagine themselves in fields where they do not see people who look or sound like them. So let me begin by paying tribute to some pioneering British women in science and technology. They are not always the ones whose names are attached to the Nobel Prize, and they are not always the ones whose pictures are hanging on the walls in hallowed spaces. They are often the ones whose legacies go unrecorded, but without whose essential work we would not have achieved half the scientific and technological progress we have.
Without Mary Somerville, the 19th-century queen of science, we may not have discovered the planet Neptune. Without Karen Spärck Jones’s work in computational linguistics, we would not have the tech that underpins search engines. In her words,
“Computing is too important to be left to men”.
Without Professor Jocelyn Bell Burnell, we would not have uncovered the existence of radio pulsars, a by-product of exploding stars that allows us to test some of the most fundamental ideas of physics.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Greenfield and Lady Bottomley, reminded us that women have had to overcome sexism and obstruction in some of our many respected academic institutions. Often, that continues today. Thankfully, at the same time, girls have many new role models to look up to. Some of them are paving the way for more people to enter these fields.
I am grateful, for example, to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for reminding us that Helen Sharman was the first UK astronaut. Anne-Marie Imafidon passed her A-level in computing at just 11 years old, and now runs Stemettes, an organisation which gets more women and non-binary people into STEM. Sheridan Ash and Claire Thorne founded Tech She Can to improve the pipeline of women in technological roles. So far, their work has reached 130,000 children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and my noble friends Lady Alexander and Lord Jones also reminded us that role models can often be nearer and closer to home, since we stand on our mothers’ and our grandmothers’ shoulders. We often reflect on what they could have been and what they could have achieved with the right support. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, reminded us, we have come a long way here in the House of Lords since 1958. My noble friend Lady Hunter reminds us of the excellent women leaders that we have had in this House, including our outstanding current Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
We have other outstanding scientific leaders here. For example, in co-founding Darktrace, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, built one of the fastest-growing companies in Europe, achieving unicorn status in just four years. One of the noble Baronesses we heard from earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was hugely influential in starting the dotcom boom and has dedicated much of her career to digital and social inclusion. She also now co-chairs an advisory board set up by DSIT to steer our new digital centre of government. I thank her for bringing her expertise to bear here.
My noble friend Lady Gale reminds us of the fight we had to increase the number of women MPs and the success that we can see in the latest intake. As she quite rightly says, this happened not by accident but through very hard and determined work by a number of women.
Like all of us, my own journey shapes how I see these issues. I started my career as a trade union official, representing many low-paid women in the public sector and campaigning for better rights at work—rights that I am pleased to see protected further in the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill. In the nearly 20 years I have been a Labour Peer, I have seen the political environment around me grow more collegiate and more equal. When this Government came into power in July, I was thrilled to be appointed as a Minister for both DSIT and DBT. I can now officially call myself a woman in STEM.
My dual role means that I get to see all the facets that shape women’s participation in science and technology up close, from the subjects girls are encouraged to pick at school, to the investment gap when female entrepreneurs seek funding, to the faces you see around a boardroom table or behind goggles in a lab. What surprised me most when I took office was the mismatch between the talent our science and tech sectors need and how few girls ever see that career as an option. On the one hand, you have top firms struggling to fill vacancies; on the other, many of the girls I meet in schools do not know about the opportunities in these fields or why they should care. Yet these are exciting, creative, well-paid jobs. Globally, tech salaries are more than two-thirds higher than the average. That is a message we must keep shouting about, as it shows girls that people like them work in these worlds because there are opportunities there. To flip Marian Edelman’s words: if you can see it, you can be it.
As my noble friend Lady Smith made clear, we have a long way to go, but we are making progress. Women are progressing in the percentage of STEM sectors that we encourage them to be in. This point was reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo. There have been 35% more STEM A-level entries by women and girls since 2010; there are STEM ambassadors in 80% of state schools, 48% of whom are women; and women apprenticeship starts have increased by 7.5% on the previous year. So we are making progress, but of course we have further to go. As my noble friend Lady Bousted pointed out, and I share her hope, the curriculum review will address the unacceptable gender gap in, for example, girls taking GCSE computer science. So I hope that we will address those issues fairly quickly.
Of course, I also take the point made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, that it is not just about science and technology; we also need the insights and judgments that a grounding in the arts and humanities can bring. I absolutely agree that STEM needs to be redefined as STEAM.
So many noble Lords raised the issue about diversity and the challenges that we face. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said that she was angry that we need to shout about this issue again, and I absolutely understand why she feels that why. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, echoed those concerns in her call to resist, in terms of the attacks on women’s rights across the pond. It is such a short-sighted approach in so many ways. As my noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—he is my noble friend—made clear, that attitude means that we are missing out on a distinctive pool of talent, which we could all use and utilise. It is a blind policy in many ways.
I have to make it absolutely clear that in the UK, increasing diversity across all sectors, including science and tech, continues to be a priority for this Government. It is a priority reflected in legislation and which we will continue to uphold. Firms with over 250 employees have had to report on their gender pay gap every year since 2017. As part of the equality Bill being introduced later this year, they will have to report on pay gaps for ethnicity and disability too. Under the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, companies will also have to publish equality action plans to show what they are doing to improve gender equality. So I can assure my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lord Davies that the Government are committed to delivering on diversity and on equal pay for work of equal value, as well as to giving women the tools to challenge any secrecy where that occurs. Family-friendly policies are, of course, at the heart of our Employment Rights Bill. We will continue to hold companies in every sector up to a high standard here, and support them as they reap the rewards that we know that greater diversity will bring.
Diversity is vital in its own right, but—as the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, and other noble Lords have pointed out—women also have to be at the table when technology is designed, or we risk inbuilt biases and distorted algorithms. Those are issues that the AI Security Institute and the implementation of the Online Safety Act are determined to address. The noble Baroness illustrated why that is such a challenge and so important to us.
My noble friend Lady Rafferty also made the important point that bias and stereotypes continue to blight recruitment and enhancement in the nursing profession. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Donaghy for highlighting the need to improve women’s health, which is important in its own right, of course, but it also ensures that women are fit, healthy and able to participate fully in the workforce. I reassure her that we are overhauling our policies on women’s healthcare. For example, we are committing an extra £57 million to the Start for Life services for new and expectant mothers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the important issue of the challenge of sexual and reproductive health. She is right that technology and AI applications can play a hugely important role in transforming women’s health in those areas. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for highlighting the huge contribution that medical research charities play in improving health outcomes, particularly those for and mainly run by women. Those will continue to be important priorities for this Government.
When we think about women’s participation in this world, we must look at two angles. First, we must look at women as shapers of science and technology, making discoveries, founding start-ups and working in industry—a point made by many noble Lords. We must also look at women as users of technology, because there are plenty of issues that disproportionately affect women here. Women around the world are more likely to be excluded from digital life. Where they are included, the online world can be weaponised by abusers to make women and girls feel unsafe. If women do not feel safe online, or do not have the devices, connections or skills to get there in the first place, they are fundamentally left out of the conversation.
My noble friend Lady Hazarika reminded us that women are often the losers as sexual abuse and misogyny become rife on online sites. I can assure her that we are moving at pace to implement the Online Safety Act, but also to identify what more needs to be done. Like her, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her groundbreaking report on pornography, which we will now take steps to implement. I remind the House that we are committed to halving violence against women and girls in a decade and moving at pace to achieve that ambition.
I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey—I would say “my noble friend”—whose very moving testimony to the 95 women and four children murdered by men pulled us all up short and was a very stark reminder of the challenges we still face in tackling violence against women. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for reminding us of the important role women play globally as peacekeepers and helping to rebuild shattered communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for raising the continued global challenge of women’s participation in education and STEM initiatives.
My noble friend Lord McConnell quite rightly raised concerns about women’s rights going into reverse globally. These are challenging times. However, I remind noble Lords that, for example, we are funding UNICEF’s Girls’ Education and Skills Partnership, the Strengthening Higher Education for Female Empowerment programme and the AI for Development Diversity programme in the global South: so a number of these initiatives are continuing.
It has been a privilege to hear from so many in this House today, including many who are themselves role models for women and girls in science and technology. We must continue to give women and girls the tools and skills to make sure that they are not locked out of the digital world. We must continue to make sure that there is a world where they feel safe and we must continue to give women in the UK and around the world more paths to found their own firms, to get into research labs and to reach senior levels in businesses, because we cannot move forward when half the world is held back. Societal progress and growth depend on all of this.
So, I am grateful to noble Lords for all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. I am sorry if I have not managed to pick up every point, but noble Lords will have seen that I have been scribbling madly. All points were extremely well made and I think we have had an excellent debate today. I thank all noble Lords for that.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Thursday 6th March 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberSupply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill 2024-26 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing free trade agreements with India and countries in Southeast Asia.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, trade is the bedrock on which successful economies are built. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU has given us the opportunity to pursue an independent trade policy, ratifying and implementing new trade agreements with other countries.
Last week, the Business Secretary said:
“Securing a trade deal with what is soon-to-be the third biggest economy in the world is a no-brainer, and a top priority for me and this Government”.
I welcome the Labour Government’s decision to resuscitate the free trade talks with India, which were initially launched four years ago by Boris Johnson and Narendra Modi—but we are not alone in the race to get a deal. The EU is also knocking on India’s door. Last month, Ursula von der Leyen visited Delhi and said that the EU and India were pushing to get a free trade agreement this year. Is that timeframe the same for the UK Government?
In a time of increasing global disruption, it is more important than ever to maximise our opportunities for international trade. There are both challenges and opportunities when negotiating trade agreements—of course, there always are. The trade talks begun by Boris Johnson were not concluded by the time of the general election last year. The BBC and newspaper reports suggested then that the sticking points included high tariffs in India on Scotch whiskey and relaxing fees and visa rules for Indian students and professionals coming to the UK. India was also reported as requesting an exemption from the UK’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism. Do the Government plan to make concessions on all those issues? Do they have any red lines? If so, would they include the protection of sanitary and phytosanitary standards?
An FTA with India could indeed offer the UK both economic and geopolitical advantages, and give us better positioning in one of the most economically dynamic regions of the world. The wider geopolitical considerations could bring greater collaboration on issues such as security and climate change—matters that are in our minds every day in this House.
If tariffs and trade barriers were reduced, or indeed eliminated, UK companies could reach Indian consumers at more competitive prices, particularly perhaps in sectors such as technology, machinery, pharmaceuticals and financial services. The UK has a strong tech industry, about which we have just heard in the previous debate, and India has a large and growing demand for technology, engineering and digital services.
India’s expanding middle class creates more demand for a variety of products and services. The UK could tap into this growth, especially in consumer goods, education and healthcare sectors. India is a significant player in global supply chains, especially for sectors such as IT, textiles and pharmaceuticals. An FTA could improve collaboration between UK and Indian companies, creating far more efficient supply chains, and of course reducing costs thereby.
However, there are obstacles, stemming from economic and political challenges, which require careful consideration. For example, how do the Government plan to overcome the complexity and risks in resolving the difference in regulatory standards, particularly in industries such as pharmaceuticals, food safety and digital services? I am sure we all recall that India’s approach to intellectual property protection, particularly in the fields of pharmaceuticals and software, is far less stringent than in the UK. Seeking improved access for UK agricultural exports could meet resistance from domestic producers and stakeholders in India, who are currently heavily subsidised.
There is also the significant matter of human rights standards in India. We have heard much of that earlier today, and quite right too, because in two days’ time it is International Women’s Day. The FCDO’s most recent annual report on human rights refers several times to the human rights abuses in India, particularly of women, marginalised groups and religious minorities. Can the Minister give a commitment that, when the Government negotiate with the Indian Government for a trade agreement, it will include discussions on human rights? In particular, will they raise the importance of protecting women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights?
I would like to refer briefly to Indonesia. It has become one of the world’s major emerging economies. Members of this House and another place used their February Recess to go on a British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Indonesia to learn more about its governance and economy, and the impact of UK soft power. They were impressed by the establishment there of the Deakin University Lancaster University Indonesia, which provides high-quality business and tech education. It means that Indonesian students can gain degrees there which are not only accredited by a UK university—Lancaster—but accepted by the Indonesian Government as being equal to a sarjana degree from a local Indonesian university. It is the very first international joint campus of its kind. Does the Minister agree that innovative work, such as that by Lancaster University, is to be welcomed and enhances the UK’s soft power?
In conclusion, I certainly hope that a trade agreement with India could be highly advantageous to the UK. It could increase market access, trade diversification and services expansion, and strengthen our geopolitical relationships. That would, I hope, contribute to long-term economic growth and strategic influence. I hope that closer involvement in soft power ventures in Indonesia could raise the profile and expertise of the UK there.
Both India and Indonesia, together with China, are members of the BRICS intergovernmental organisation. In trade, we know that the economic heft of China casts a shadow over all negotiations. Securing FTAs and other trade agreements in India and south-east Asia is not an easy task; I recognise that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, now and in the future, on what progress the Government are able to make.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this very important debate. I wish it was longer than one hour, but we are where we are.
The buzzword these days is trade. If noble Lords do not believe me, ask President Trump. It is trade that makes the world go round. These days, when it comes to a healthy relationship with another country, it is a healthy trade agreement that counts the most. Everything else comes after—mostly everything, and not always.
The UK and India have long historic and cultural links, going back hundreds of years. Every year, thousands of students come to the UK to study. Some of the Indian Prime Ministers have studied in UK universities. Dr Manmohan Singh was one; he is credited with opening up the Indian economy to the world—some even say that he is the saviour of the Indian economy. Then there is a large Indian diaspora, contributing not only to the UK’s economy but to academia and, dare I say, politics.
India is on the move. Its GDP is now the fourth-largest or fifth-largest in the world, ahead of the UK, and is on track to surpass Germany and Japan in the next decade. It is growing at over 70% annually, a pace that most developed countries can only dream of. Its ambition is clear: India wants to become a developed economy by 2047, when it marks the 100th anniversary of its independence. That means massive investment in infrastructure, technology, manufacturing and so on. It means a growing middle class of some 800 million people, hungry for British goods and services.
Where are we, then, on securing a free trade deal with India? I understand that negotiations have been ongoing for more than two years, and that they are not getting anywhere. It is my understanding that it is India that is dragging its feet. In today’s world, trade is not just about goods and services: it is about relationships, influence and shaping the future of our economy. Can the Minister tell us what the current timeline is for concluding a UK-India free trade agreement? What concrete progress has been made on resolving key sticking points? Trade is about growth, jobs and opportunity. If we get this right, we can shape the UK’s economic future for decades to come, but, if we get it wrong—or worse, do nothing—others will fill the gap. I urge the Government to move swiftly, be bold, and ensure that Britain is at the heart of the fastest-growing region in the world. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the India I was brought up in as a child was an inward-looking, insular, protective economy with a low level of growth. Since 1991, India has emerged as the fastest-growing major economy in the world, an emerging global economic superpower, and the fifth-largest economy in the world, soon to be the third-largest economy in the world. I predict that, by 2060, it will be the largest economy in the world.
I have been privileged to be at the forefront of UK-India relations for 22 years as co-chair of the India-British partnership, a member of the UK-India roundtable, the founding chair of the UK India Business Council and, currently, co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for leading this debate at this very important time.
India is only the UK’s 11th-largest trading partner, and yet it supports 600,000 jobs between both nations. The goal, of course, is that we get this to increase to over $100 billion of trade by 2030. We have been negotiating this free trade agreement since 2022, when I was president of the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI. Three years have gone by. The benefits of an FTA are lower trade costs for businesses, greater consumer choice, lower prices and the maintenance of standards.
There was a pause in negotiations because of the elections last year in both countries. There are sticking points. We all know about India and Scotch whisky. We know about the greater mobility that India would like for professionals and students—I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students. Why, I ask the Minister, can we not take international students out of the net migration figures? That would help so much. Of course, India wants faster visa processing and concessions on national insurance for temporary workers. Are the Government considering this seriously?
From the UK’s point of view, we would like access, including for cars, where the duties are very high in India, and for Scotch whisky, where the duty is 150%. It has been reduced from 150% to 100% for bourbon, and we would like Scotch whisky duty reduced to 30%, if that is possible. Then, of course, there are financial services. The total trade in goods and services between our countries grew by 10%, and is now at £42 billion.
The diaspora is the living bridge; its members include people like me. I am proud to be part of the largest ethnic-minority community in the UK—and the most successful by far, reaching the very top in every field, whether it is politics, business or any other area.
We have talked about trade, but there is also investment. If we look at the Grant Thornton India Meets India Tracker report, we see that there are almost 1,000 Indian companies in the UK, turning over £50 billion and employing over 100,000 people. There are 635 British companies in India, with a revenue of £51 billion and employing almost 700,000 people. The amount of, and potential for, collaboration on technology and innovation is huge. Security and defence are important in this uncertain world in which we live, yet, over the last decade, only 3% of India’s defence acquisitions came from the UK. As India seeks to advance its defence industry and diversify away from Russia, the British defence sector could emerge as a key collaborator on technology transfers and support India’s “Make in India” efforts.
Then there is India’s membership of the Quad. I have said for a long time that the UK can join the Quad; does the Minister agree that we could have Quad Plus? Of course, we are already members of AUKUS. The Indian Minister of External Affairs, Dr Jaishankar, is in the UK as I speak. At Chatham House yesterday, he said that he was “cautiously optimistic” about the UK-India free trade agreement negotiations and that he hoped that
“it doesn’t take that long”.
I say to the Minister: three Diwalis have gone by since we started these negotiations, so please let us set a deadline, let us not have the best being the enemy of the good and let us conclude this free trade agreement. Let us get it done.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bilimoria and his focus on India, reflecting the huge amount of work that he does promoting UK-Indian relations. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on securing this debate—she obviously has a distinguished record, having served as a Minister in the Foreign Office covering south-east Asia, and knows of what she speaks.
I speak as the chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, a post I have been proud to hold for the last two years, having also been the trade envoy to Vietnam under the premiership of Theresa May. It is a region that I have got to know very well, and it remains a huge source of opportunity for the UK. Trade between ASEAN and the UK stands at around £50 billion a year. The UK is slightly ahead on exports against imports. On goods and services, there is roughly a 50-50 split in what we export.
If we go through the members of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, it will give a flavour of where those opportunities lie, with professional service companies, financial services companies, universities and education companies. We recently had the Premier League join us, which reflects, as it were, the new economy and the new businesses, especially the tech businesses, that can make huge inroads in this area.
Noble Lords do not need reminding that we have fantastic ties in the region. Malaysia and Singapore are both Commonwealth nations, with very visible investment in the UK—you have only to look across the river to see the incredible regeneration of Battersea Power Station. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam are also huge and growing economies where we do a lot of business. There is prominent investment from Thailand. My noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned her visit to Indonesia. I was lucky to sit down with the President of Indonesia when he visited the UK recently as well as the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who was also in the country recently. We are constantly visited by high-level politicians from all those countries, all of whom want to engage with us.
We are very lucky to have some first-class officials based in the region, not least Martin Kent, our trade commissioner, and Sarah Tiffin, our ASEAN ambassador. There is everything to play for. We have a free trade deal with Singapore, as well as a digital economy agreement. We have a free trade deal with Vietnam; we piggybacked on the EU deal. Minister Alexander negotiated an enhanced trade partnership with Thailand, which we signed in September. We have an economic growth partnership with Indonesia. They are not very sexy names, but they are important agreements.
We are the first dialogue partner with ASEAN for 25 years. Of course, we are members of the CPTPP, which includes four ASEAN members, with three more knocking on the door. The CPTPP is already delivering significant benefits—we can now of course export chocolate to Malaysia without paying any tariffs. The CPTPP has given us, in effect, a free trade agreement with Malaysia by the back door.
I conclude simply with two to-do points for the Minister. First, Malaysia is currently the chair of ASEAN. I cannot emphasise enough how engaged Malaysia is with the digital agenda and how much it seeks to engage with the UK on digital, not least on artificial intelligence. Many new institutions have been established in Malaysia which quite openly mimic ours, with imitation being the sincerest form of flattery. They look to us for guidance—not in a patronising sense—on how they should develop their tech policy and tech infrastructure. Secondly, I was flattered to be asked to the Indonesian embassy to meet the Minister for Eurasian affairs, who simply put his cards on the table and said: “We are very keen to have a free trade agreement with the UK”. It is sitting on the table. I do not know if it is quite oven ready, but we have an enthusiastic partner in Indonesia. We recognise that the Government have priorities in terms of their free trade deals, not least with India, but Indonesia is a very willing partner.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate, which is extremely timely. As many noble Lords have noted, the attempt for a UK-India free trade agreement started in January 2022 and restarted just last month.
I am concerned chiefly with one issue of transparency. The Government have apparently inherited the negotiating objectives from their predecessor Government, but they have given no indications that they plan to seek any alteration or to reopen any concluded chapters. I hope that this is a different Government from the Johnson Government, so we might expect a different approach. One of my chief areas of concern is ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement. The position of both this Government and their predecessor on ISDS has often been ambiguous. It was exempted from the UK’s first, from- scratch, post-Brexit free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, but, in other contexts, Ministers have publicly defended the continued use of ISDS. In December 2023, the then Investment Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, was asked during a session of the International Agreements Committee whether the UK would press for ISDS in the India negotiations, to which he responded that he did not know. This Government have yet to set out their position. My chief question to the Minister today is what the Government’s stance is on ISDS in the India deal and the south-east Asian deals?
Why am I so concerned about ISDS? Coincidentally, the Guardian is running a large series of articles that set this out very clearly. One of those highlights the case of Greenland, where the world’s largest financial litigation company, Burford Capital, is backing a case against it—population less than 60,000. It is demanding that, despite the population democratically agreeing that they did not want uranium mining in Greenland, either uranium mining is agreed or £11.5 billion is paid to the company that was going to mine it, and of course, that litigation funder. Litigation finance used to be focused on claims about car accidents and similar, but the Guardian highlights that more than 1,400 cases have been launched against Governments and they have become far more common and lucrative. Far more than £120 billion of public money was awarded to firms through ISDS courts, including at least $84 billion to fossil fuel companies and £7.8 billion to mining companies. These have become an increasingly popular investment class for hedge funds and other investors. We have the democratic decisions of Governments, for which the peoples are being forced to pay by what are essentially financial gamblers. It is therefore obvious why we should not have ISDS in the India trade agreement.
Very briefly, I have a couple of other points to raise, about the labour and environmental chapters in the India deal. A leak in September 2023 reported that trade negotiations had already led to the conclusion of the climate and labour chapters. That will not include legally enforceable commitments on labour rights or environmental standards. Can the Minister say whether the Government are truly happy and are proceeding on that basis of no legal commitments?
Finally, I note the lack of democracy in the situation we are now in compared to when we were a member of the European Union. All this is incredibly opaque and non-transparent. Surely the Government want to turn over a new leaf and start doing this in a democratic and open way when we are talking about free trade deals.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for this debate, which is incredibly timely and important. I have been involved with business-to-business with India for over three decades. I was a non-executive of the Leicester Asian Business Association as my first dip into business-to-business.
A fast-moving geopolitical movement is going on around us, so it is critical that we secure deals with India, the country with the largest population on the planet: 1.4 billion people. Both countries are well-respected convenors for many other nations, as we have seen—India in its own region, in the south-east Asia region, and the UK with its convening powers across Europe, as recently seen by Prime Minister Starmer, and with our allies such as America and others. At this critical moment, we know that by securing this FTA we will start to leave some of the extra dependency that we have had on a very few countries and engage with a much wider region. Therefore, we really need to encourage this deal to be done as quickly as possible.
I want to address the strengths of why the UK is best placed to be with India on this deal. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, said, the relationship goes back many years. It is now also a relationship that is coming together because we have a diaspora here that is incredibly important to both India and the UK. I do not think the diaspora of nearly 2 million people that we have in this country is fully utilised for its soft power strength. I urge the Government to look at how they can further engage with the diaspora links to get some of those nuances, which sometimes become stalling blocks, to unlock.
I am president and founder of the India APPG. It has been one of the most popular APPGs in Parliament, because India recognises the importance of our parliamentarians as we recognise the importance of engaging with India. There are so many areas where I think we can strengthen our relationship outside the FTA. Some of those are the defence sector, tech, research, developments in space, higher education and, of course, sustainable green technologies.
We have so many envoys in other countries; it is beyond my understanding why we do not have dedicated envoys for a country as big as India from the UK. I know that Ministers have a big job, and our high commissioner and deputy high commissioners are brilliant, but they are tasked with a lot to do in a large country. Trade envoys are therefore critical. I am sure my noble friend Lord Vaizey will say that it is the soft power that you take with the trade envoy role that helps to continue cementing this partnership—this relationship. I said it over and over again when my party was in government; I do not know why it did not happen. I now ask this Government to see whether they can take a leap and a jump and please encourage trade envoys there. We are a country at the front line of convening; let us utilise our strengths.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for bringing this important issue before the House. I approach it as someone with many decades of experience at the heart of UK-India trade relations. Indeed, I had the privilege of playing a central role in the twinning of London and Delhi in the early part of this century. Through this, I have seen at first hand how trade has strengthened the relationship between our two nations, reinforcing our bonds as equal partners with deep ties.
At a time of increasing global uncertainty, such ties matter more than ever. A well-structured free trade agreement between the UK and India will create jobs, open new markets for British businesses and enhance investment flows between our economies.
The much-anticipated free trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom stalled for over two years in the midst of political shifts and economic uncertainties. It was brought back into focus with the British Business and Trade Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, meeting his Indian counterpart, Piyush Goyal, in New Delhi on 24 February and kick-starting two-day discussions. I hope it progresses fast and for the good of the two countries.
The latest round of talks has been marked by a renewed sense of urgency and ambition, as both nations work to iron out the differences and finalise a mutually beneficial agreement. We are aware that there are many complexities, and one impediment to reaching such an agreement has been the UK Government’s reluctance to reform visa rules for overseas students, including from India. It is clearly in both our countries’ interests to encourage academic exchanges, which in turn foster innovation, business partnerships and cross-cultural understanding. It is therefore counterproductive to count overseas students, who bring substantial revenue to our universities and economy, within the immigration statistics unless they seek to remain beyond a reasonable period, such as two years after graduation. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will adopt a pragmatic approach to student visas, recognising their mutual benefit, and ensure that this issue does not impede progress towards a free trade agreement?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this debate to us and the very sensible way in which she opened it. It is a regrettable fact, notwithstanding the excellent work of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to UK-India and wider regional trade, that we are punching below our weight when it comes to seizing the opportunities for trade in this area. It is just three years since the boosterism of what had been claimed would be a five-star agreement by Diwali in 2022. The reality of trade policy is such that there are difficult trade-offs—literally—and hard choices to be made.
In that regard, I wish the Government well in the talks that are under way. I believe there is now a sense of reality, not of boosterism. Even under the previous Administration, the anticipated 15-year gains to UK GDP of an FTA with India were forecast to be between 0.00% and 0.08%. Nevertheless, in the very sectors that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned, we can see sector-by-sector growth.
One aspect that has not been mentioned in the debate so far, which I raised in the debate we had in 2022, is trade diversion. We have to be very mindful that if we have an FTA with India, which I would support, then even on the previous Government’s figures almost all of the potential gain in extra trade with India would be off-set by reduced trade with other countries in the ASEAN region through trade diversion. Any tariff benefits for one nation could well be at the cost of others, especially for Bangladesh. I hope that the Minister can say that trade diversion is a key part of the discussions that we are having with India.
It has also been raised that there are areas of complexity in our relationship with India, whether it is India in BRICS, the war-games with Russia that they have been carrying out over the last year or the rupee-rouble swap, where certain sectors of the Indian economy have profited from sanction circumvention on Ukraine. There are also the barriers that many noble Lords in this House have worked hard to reduce over many years, especially within the financial sector, FDI, lack of consensus on greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy, farming subsidies and policies, et cetera. I hope all these areas can be addressed in the talks.
Finally, regarding the wider area, just before the February recess I and other parliamentary colleagues visited Singapore and Malaysia through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The Minister is held in very high regard. At every meeting we had, people asked us to pass on our regards to him. That leads to one of our observations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, touched on. We are not sending a sufficient number of Ministers, high-level officials and delegations to this region. Human-to-human discussion is very important when it comes to facilitating trade and soft power, and we should be doing more of it. I am very pleased that Minister West will be in the region; I wish her luck for the visit. It was also very clear to us that Malaysia’s presidency of ASEAN and its green vision for renewable energy and green technology are an enormous opportunity for the UK.
I close with an appeal to the Minister. I suspect that he will not be able to respond to me today. There is an economic integration programme that the UK Government fund, looking at how we promote trade within ASEAN. That is scored as official development assistance because it is technical assistance. I very much hope that with the decisions to cut official development assistance by more than half, those areas of technical support—for trade promotion, for the very growth that we wish to see—will be protected and not cut.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns for tabling this short debate, which I am sure all noble Lords would agree has been most fascinating.
As she said regarding the progress of His Majesty’s Government in securing free trade agreements with India and countries in south-east Asia, this is the bedrock. It is a matter of enormous significance. After leaving the European Union, the previous Conservative Government pursued an ambitious and outward-looking trade policy. They secured agreements that unlocked new opportunities for British businesses and consumers, and our commitment to the Indo-Pacific region was steadfast, as I am sure all noble Lords would acknowledge. We recognised its growing economic dynamism and strategic importance. I gently say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is not boosterism but common sense.
In May 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Modi agreed to deepen trade co-operation between the UK and India via the enhanced trade partnership. The noble Lords, Lord Sahota and Lord Bilimoria, made compelling observations about India’s spectacular growth, which makes the case for this deal and obviously a future FTA extremely attractive. The strategic approach under that agreement outlined the following benefits of such a deal: a potential increase in UK exports to India of between £8.8 billion and £16.7 billion by 2035 and a boost to UK GDP of potentially up to £6.2 billion by 2035, depending on the final terms. The Government’s strategic case is surely unarguable. It is to develop the UK’s status as an independent trading nation that seeks trade and investment opportunities and champions free trade. Surely that is even more pertinent in a world where such principles are currently under threat.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a very interesting question on trade diversion. I look forward to the Minister’s answer on that.
I appreciate that any agreement reached must be beneficial for both countries, and that can take time. That being said, British exporters in financial services, technology, life sciences and manufacturing have much to gain. Will the Minister give us an update on progress for the benefit of our ambitious British businesses seeking more certainty for their exporting future, particularly in light of the competition from other areas and countries that were pointed out by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota? Perhaps the Minister might also comment on the comments of my noble friend Lady Verma and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about the wonderful advantage we have because of our diaspora population in this country.
Our trade relationships with ASEAN nations, which is a region representing the world’s fifth-largest economy —I do not need to tell the Minister anything about that—are in danger of stagnation. The majority of the work behind the UK’s accession to the CPTPP was done under the previous Government and we of course welcome the current Government’s accession, but we must now capitalise on this advantage. The previous Government’s agreements with Singapore and Vietnam set a strong foundation. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to advance new partnerships with Indonesia, which is a fabulous opportunity, as my noble friend pointed out, and with Thailand and the Philippines? What is the Government’s strategy for this region, which is so ripe with potential benefits for this country?
As my noble friend Lord Vaizey so articulately explained, the trade benefits are substantial. Given his position as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I think the Government should seriously consider enlisting his services in that part of the world.
Free trade has long been a driver of prosperity, innovation and economic growth. The Conservative vision was one of openness, dynamism and ambition, but, under this Government, we are concerned that we are seeing signs of drift. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are still steadfastly aligned with the previous Government’s strategic vision, as outlined under the previous Indian deal?
Negotiations of this scale require leadership, vision and determination. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and our global partners need confidence in Britain’s commitment to free trade. So, finally, what specific steps are the Government taking to accelerate trade talks with India? How do they intend to build on the CPTPP and partnerships in south-east Asia. Perhaps most importantly, do the Government still believe in the previous Government’s strategic vision?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this QSD. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on securing this debate and thank all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. I will aim to respond to as many points raised as I can and, if I do not, I promise to write to noble Lords on their unanswered questions.
First, I want to briefly touch on the close relationship between the UK and India. The UK and India have a deep and vibrant relationship, building on the living bridge between our two countries. Some 1.7 million people with Indian heritage call the UK their home, including many of our colleagues in this House and my wife. Our two countries are deeply interwoven through our shared values as democracies committed to the rules-based international order, our cultural ties and—it would be remiss of me not to mention—our shared love of curry and cricket. Our relationship also includes the millions in India who follow the Premier League and the huge market for Bollywood movies in the UK, which I and my wife enjoy most weekends and whose music we occasionally dance to.
Of course, these ties are also visible in our mutual championing of trade—free and fair trade, and investment —which is what we are here to discuss today. This Government’s core mission is to deliver economic growth. Boosting trade abroad is essential to delivering growth at home. That is why this Government are committed to negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement and bilateral investment treaty with India—one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
Securing a deal with India is a top priority for this Government and it is easy to see why. India is expected to be the third-largest economy in 2028, with 60 million middle-class consumers by 2030. But UK exporters currently face substantial tariffs, including a 150% tariff on whisky, as one noble Lord mentioned earlier.
Our trading relationship with India was worth £41 billion last year. Our investment relationship already supports close to 600,000 jobs across both economies, with Indian FDI projects in the UK creating more than 7,500 jobs in 2023-24. But there is more that we can do. That is why, on 24 February, my right honourable friend the Business and Trade Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, travelled to India to relaunch negotiations towards a free trade agreement. The bilateral investment treaty that liberalises the trade of goods and services between our countries upholds the UK’s high food safety and environmental standards and protections, and facilitates easier temporary movement of businesspeople to provide their expertise. I am pleased to say that good progress was made and negotiations continue to move forward at pace towards a deal that delivers on our mutual ambitions of economic growth.
I will touch on a couple of points raised by noble Lords before I move on to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. We are aware of India’s ongoing talks with the EU and their stated ambition on a timeline. Although our focus is on delivering a quality agreement rather than any agreement that may be achieved at pace, securing a deal is a top priority for this Government, as it is for India, so we are pleased that progress was achieved in the Secretary of State’s recent visit towards our shared commitment to progress these negotiations at pace.
I hope Members of this House will appreciate that, in order to secure the best deal, I cannot compromise the UK’s negotiating position by getting into the specifics of a live negotiation. In any trade agreement, one of the main ambitions is to reduce the tariffs that UK exporters face. This is particularly important when Indian tariffs can exceed 100% on goods such as whisky, as I mentioned.
On visas, which several noble Lords mentioned, our negotiations consider only business mobility, so they cover only relevant business visas, which are, by their nature, limited, temporary and for specific purposes. This is also beneficial to UK exporters delivering services abroad. Student visas are not part of the trade deals.
The Government have made clear that we are willing to negotiate at pace towards a deal in the best interests of the UK. Although I recognise and agree that we would all like this deal to be speedily signed, the Government can sign only once we have secured the right deal for the UK, so we will prioritise the quality of the deal rather than the haste with which we can secure it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether there are any red lines and, if so, what they are. To achieve the best possible deal for the UK, we need to protect our negotiating positions. That is why we cannot go into details of live negotiations. What I can say is that this Government will seek a deal that drives economic growth for the UK as a whole while respecting key UK sensitivities, such as those in the NHS, our food, and health and safety agreements, which will not change under this or any UK free trade agreement. Any free trade agreement will not undermine the UK’s high sanitary standards, which are not and will not be decided in any trade agreements. The Government are firmly committed to upholding these high standards.
On post-study work visas, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Loomba, mentioned, I remind all noble Lords that this Government’s position on net migration has not changed, and I make a plea for them to wait for the government White Paper on migration. I am not going to be drawn on this at this stage.
We remain committed to the protection of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. This engagement is undertaken separately from negotiations of any free trade agreements, although they are part of building on open and trusting relationships with important partners.
On the issue of CBAM, we will not compromise our high food standards, as I said earlier. We will also not undermine the effectiveness of our CBAM when we are implementing any trade deals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about trade envoys to India. The UK-India trade relationship is a top priority, as I mentioned. The Government will consider the noble Lord’s suggestion. I put on record that we currently have an excellent UK trade commissioner to India, and he is doing a fantastic job.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about ISDS. The Government consider ISDS on a case-by-case basis, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of any further negotiations. The noble Baroness also asked about the environment and labour. We cannot use an FTA to change a partner’s domestic legislation, but an FTA builds on a closer relationship to have honest conversations. On intellectual property, I will have to write to the noble Baroness, as that touches on some very complex areas.
I turn to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. I was born and grew up in Malaysia, in the ASEAN region, which has 10 member states with something close to 670 million people and a combined GDP of some £3.6 trillion, and is growing at a rate of 5% annually. It is a big market and we should consider it. The UK recognises the importance of south-east Asian markets to UK businesses and to the global economy. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right: more Ministers should visit the region, and I encourage my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to consider visiting Malaysia, Singapore and the wider region. I am really pleased that the Minister, Catherine West, is visiting Malaysia this week.
Total trade between the UK and south-east Asian markets is worth about £50 billion, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I want to place on record my thanks for all the work he has done as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council. He has done a fantastic job.
South-east Asia can be a valuable source of investment and growth for the UK. As we have seen recently, the Malaysian company YTL announced £4 billion-worth of investment in the UK over the next five years, including transforming the Greater Bristol area and delivering something like 30,000 jobs across the UK. The UK has secured bilateral free trade agreements with Singapore and Vietnam through the CPTPP, as mentioned, and it secured an agreement with Brunei and Malaysia for the first time. In February 2022, the UK and Singapore signed a digital economy agreement.
Outside of the formal free trade agreements, the UK has strong trading relationships with south-east Asian countries. The Department for Business and Trade has regular trade and economic dialogues with Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. The UK and Thailand recently signed a UK-Thailand enhanced trade partnership. The UK engages regularly with ASEAN as a dialogue partner, and I think we are the first European dialogue partner to ASEAN. The UK and Indonesia will work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, which is normally the precursor to any formal conversations on a free trade agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about trade diversion. The Government carefully consider the impact on the wider region when negotiating a free trade agreement, and will do so as part of any deal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about Indonesia and the potential for economic growth. Recognising the importance of Indonesia to the global economy, the Prime Minister and President Prabowo agreed to work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, as I mentioned earlier. The UK values projects such as those that the noble Baroness mentioned, and transnational education is one of the fastest growing sectors for this country.
The noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Sharpe, asked about future trade agreements. While we cannot currently commit to seeking new FTAs with partners in south-east Asia, it is important that we find ways to enhance our bilateral co-operation and economic ties, and to maintain our trade relationships into the future. That is what we have been doing with enhanced partnerships.
In conclusion, the Indo-Pacific region remains a key and ongoing area of interest for the UK. Its dynamic and developing economies represent opportunities for the UK. I am pleased to see strong progress in our discussions with key partners in this region, ensuring that our future relationships remain mutually beneficial, forward-looking, and supportive of prosperity and economic security.