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 Rugby Union: Governance
(1 day, 17 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
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the governance of English rugby union.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, for what I hope is the first of many times. I come to this place as a rugby union fan, an ex-coach and ex-referee. I also declare an interest—my brother is a long-standing director of rugby at London Cornish rugby club. I am delighted to see the west country, an excellent servant of English rugby union, well represented here today.
As a Cornish MP, it is hard for me to adequately express just how important our grassroots rugby clubs are to the fabric of our communities. Some of the communities in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in my constituency suffer from extremes of poverty and deprivation. Life for many is a day-to-day struggle to feed the kids, heat the home and balance challenging working hours. For many, it is a case of muddling through. The one constant is our grassroots rugby clubs, offering children from all backgrounds that life-enhancing schooling in discipline, respect, teamwork, the joy of winning and how to bounce back from defeat. For many children, our clubs offer a vital controlled outlet for pent-up frustrations from challenging home and school lives.
I have used the word “grassroots” several times so far, and I do so intentionally. While others may wish to contribute by voicing governance concerns relating to clubs in higher leagues, I am focusing largely on the concerns that have been expressed to me from dozens of clubs below the first two tiers of the English men’s game. I am focusing on the men’s game because, in my view, the health of the women’s game—although still under-represented in terms of grassroots facilities—has come a huge way over the last 10 years. Credit where credit is due—those responsible for its development should be commended, although there is still much work to be done to support the women’s game.
I am acutely aware that while there are profound concerns with the financial state of some clubs in the premiership and the championship, grassroots rugby is facing an existential crisis. I will focus on three areas: governance, player welfare and funding. Although I refer to examples, the entire focus of the debate should be on how we work together, cross-party, looking forwards, to create the sustainable environment for our great game to not just survive, but thrive.
On governance, I noted with interest the recent Rugby Football Union consultation and the resulting document, “Our track record and areas of focus”, which was circulated to RFU members. I have to admit that it left me slightly bemused. It seemed to be suggesting that all is pretty hunky-dory with English rugby—a little bit of tinkering here and there, and we are all good. There was not the slightest hint of contrition or even an acceptance that many clubs are on the brink.
Maybe I have been talking to the wrong clubs, but in my conversations—admittedly, considerably fewer than the 400 that are reported to have been consulted for the RFU document—there are profound concerns about the direction of grassroots English rugby, the voices of which have for too long been drowned out by muscular lobbying from vested interests. There is no better indication that all is not well than the number of grassroots clubs right across England that I spoke with that, although happy to talk to me in detail about their own club’s circumstances, wanted to remain anonymous.
Let us look more specifically at governance. Part of the problem is the almost total lack of recent grassroots men’s coaching or administration experience on some of the key governance bodies. Of the nine members of the RFU board, only one has had experience in the past five years of either coaching or administering an adult men’s 15 side. On the RFU council, only a handful of members have recent experience of the adult men’s game below the national leagues. That means the largest single group of clubs is simply not adequately represented on either of those bodies, which are essential to the health and wellbeing of the game nationally. There is a community game board, although it is very hard to work out who they are, but I very much hope that they are taken from the current administrators and coaches of clubs beneath the national leagues. Their remit and responsibility should be made much clearer to all stakeholders.
Why is the representation so important? Let me give Members a couple of graphic examples. Three seasons ago a league reorganisation was imposed by someone that did not have a rugby union background. The failure is perhaps best demonstrated by the 12-team Counties 1 Surrey/Sussex league where seven teams could go down at the end of the season. If a team was promoted, they could land in one of four different leagues, stretching from Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire to Thurrock in Essex and Bournemouth down on the south coast. This is for amateur clubs, where players have to balance work and family life. With no clear lines of promotion or relegation, club administrators simply cannot plan ahead and nor can the amateur players who are also, as I have mentioned, trying to balance the day job and family commitments. I talked to one club that is already in its fourth league in four seasons, having been relegated during that time just once.
Turning to player welfare, I would like to cite the contentious changes to the tackle height law, which was introduced in July 2023 for the start of the 2023-24 season, just two months later. It allowed almost no time for amateur players to adapt from lifelong tackling habits. It should be deeply concerning to all of us who love the game to learn that no data has ever been made public that acts as a baseline against which to measure success. Perhaps even more worrying still is that data is not routinely collected from across the grassroots game to provide proof as to whether the change is helping in terms of concussions, with only a voluntary submission being rolled out.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about welfare, but there is a wider issue when it comes to rugby union in terms of participation. If the rules are constantly changing and the game is different every time we watch it every season, why would people join if there is a risk of the rules changing and of injury? As a rugby enthusiast, I want to see young people joining because of what it gave me. Does he share the same concerns about the wider implications of not understanding the game being played?
Perran Moon
Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Member for that point. It is absolutely the case that the rules and laws of rugby are constantly being reviewed. I can understand to a certain extent that the game is trying to find a formula that is as attractive as possible to ensure that more and more people come to watch, but it makes it very hard for players, administrators and coaches to manage when there is a constant change in the rules. He makes a very good point—I should say the laws, not the rules.
Anecdotally, some clubs are experiencing an increase in concussions. Worse still, the concussions are more severe than previously, because players are now required to put their heads against knees and hip bones, and the tackle area has been much reduced. Two-player tackles mean head-on-head collisions appear to be increasing. As I say, because we are not routinely collecting data, this is anecdotal, so we must start routinely collecting that data. The situation would be significantly mitigated through competent and sympathetic implementation and governance from people with experience of the grassroots game.
On funding, I was pretty shocked to learn that our grassroots rugby clubs are largely left to fend for themselves while funding is held at the very top of the game. There is a massive financial premium placed on the success of the England rugby team. This is a high risk strategy over which the grassroots game has no control. If the last 14 years taught us anything at all, it is that the theory of trickle-down economics has been debunked. Poorer organisations that are required to value every single pound are far more likely to spend wisely than bloated and complacent functions at the top of the game. The crumbs from the captain’s table approach of providing tickets to England matches as a means of raising revenue is simply not one that provides the financial security that grassroots clubs need.
The only point I will raise about championship clubs is the deeply concerning issue of the covid loans. Over the last five years, championship teams had funding unilaterally cut from £625,000 per championship club, to the current level of £103,000. In plans introduced in the weeks before the first lockdown, a reduction to £288,000 by the beginning of the 2022-23 season was imposed, but a one-year emergency cut to £150,000 was imposed later in 2020 because of the impact of covid.
Championship clubs fully expected and were promised a reinstatement of the pre-covid phased reduction, but that funding has failed to materialise, with authorities claiming a lack of available cash. Championship clubs were not consulted on those changes, despite the severe impact on the chances of survival for many. Having spoken with several championship clubs, there is now a clear and present danger that several of them will not survive.
Competent governance is essential to the safeguarding of the game that we all love. That includes proper consultation and communication; relevant experience at the top of the game; a coherent and transparent funding model; and sympathetic implementation of law changes, which consider the practicalities of the amateur game and the safeguarding of players.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Member makes a powerful point about the impact of the way in which the covid loans were provided to championship clubs. He will be aware that many of those clubs are calling on Ministers to intervene on Sport England to ensure that the repayment schedule for the loans is rescheduled to enable those clubs to achieve viability in the years ahead. Without that, many of them are on the precipice of bankruptcy.
Perran Moon
It is a delicate one, because the governance of English rugby sits largely with the RFU, outside of the Premiership. I am not sure that it is the role of national Government to intervene in areas such as this, if we have competent governance at the top of the RFU. I completely accept the hon. Member’s point—it is a delicate one, but it is a problem that was created at the top of the English game, and it is there that it should be fixed.
I ask the Minister if she agrees with me on three separate areas. First, does she agree that the RFU board should have increased representation from the grassroots game, and that changes to that should be made as soon as possible so that it more closely represents its core membership? Secondly, there is an entry on regular match cards for concussion data to be collected: it should be mandatory for three seasons for it to be completed, so that we can gather the information we need to make a reasoned judgment on whether we have a tackle-height problem. Until we do that, it is my view that we are failing in our duty of care to players, as revisions to the tackle-height law may be required.
Thirdly, an immediate review should be undertaken of the implementation and impact of the covid loan fiasco, with a view to an emergency package of support being made available to championship clubs. Additionally, a multi-year funding pot should be made available to RFU-registered clubs below the top two tiers of English rugby. That should be reviewed annually, and its objective should be to support grassroots clubs in planning and developing their clubs for the long term, rather than the current crumbs from the captain’s table approach with ad-hoc funding plans.
Those of us who love the game across the political spectrum cannot hope to protect our game for the long term, ensure that our grassroots clubs remain at the heart of our communities, and support youngsters coming into the game, without profound and urgent change. I look forward to hearing the views and experiences of other Members here today.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for raising the issue of the state of governance of rugby union in England.
I have some wonderful rugby clubs in the constituency I am proud to represent—Tiverton and Minehead—including Tiverton, Minehead Barbarians and Wiveliscombe, who punch well above their weight. Rugby has been a large fixture throughout my life. My father donned the famous red rose at international level, and also captained both Harlequins and Northampton. It would be a struggle to find a stronger supporter and lover of rugby than me. But it is safe to say that English rugby union has changed a great deal since my father’s playing days. The governance of rugby union in this country is on shaky ground, and although recent success in the Six Nations has provided some immediate buoyancy among the England rugby faithful, it is clear that there are serious structural issues at play, many of which the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned.
At the grassroots level, rugby is really suffering. The community game is collapsing under the weight of insufficient finances. The RFU is not sufficiently supporting the wider rugby ecosystem in this country. Most notably we have seen—and it has been well documented by hon. Members this morning, and will continue to be—English clubs, great and historic rugby institutions, go under in recent years, such as Wasps and London Irish. All that is while C-suite salaries and bonuses have continued to be very handsome indeed. That is financially unsustainable, and a travesty.
We must take note from our competitors because—aside from the fact that I am a bit of a Francophile, and as a Liberal, have a natural orientation towards Europe—the French model is quite clearly geared towards cutting-edge club rugby. In England the national team’s success dominates the story. However, in recent years it has become apparent that the lofty standards of the French national team are a natural by-product of a strong top 14 league. Put simply, they have the best of both worlds, because their strong international outfit is downstream from their thriving club rugby scene. Here in England, we seem to be struggling with both—we are seemingly stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The club rugby model in France has guaranteed a much more stable financial climate, attracting the biggest stars, driving competition, and developing a certain watchability and commercial security that we do not quite have on this side of the channel. It tells us something when some of our brightest prospects—guaranteed mainstays for years to come—have retired from international duty to play in France. I think it is reasonable to suggest that, had circumstances beyond their control been different, most—if not all—would still be representing England.
Change must come. For the good of the game, the governing body must adapt. Right now it is proving to be outmoded; it must move with the times. I associate myself with calls for an independent review into RFU governance, suggesting a need for structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club engagement. If that happens, no one will cheer louder at Twickenham than me.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the MP for a constituency with not one but two rugby union clubs, the governance of English rugby union is of particular importance to me and my constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this debate, and for sharing his expertise, passion and love of the game as well as his beautiful community and constituency.
Rugby plays such a vital role in local communities. It fosters camaraderie, discipline and opportunity for people of all ages and backgrounds. There is nowhere in the country that knows this more than my constituency of Weston-super-Mare, where rugby union is part of the very fabric of our town. As I mentioned, we are lucky enough to have two incredible grassroots rugby union teams in Weston—Weston RFC and Hornets RFC, both of whom do an incredible job of representing our town and supporting our community. Both clubs serve as vital hubs of activity and work, and they both work incredibly hard to use rugby as a vehicle to drive positive change. They help to bring us together, offering spaces where people can belong irrespective of their background or ability. That is particularly true for the young people in the town who, thanks to our two clubs, have the chance to engage and excel in sport, learn teamwork and develop resilience. In fact, Weston Rugby Club was home to the first minis section in England almost 50 years ago.
Both clubs do a lot of work to raise awareness of mental health issues in the town. In particular the Hornets work with the phenomenal charity Talk Club. It is an incredible initiative where people across the town come together every week to talk about their mental health in a safe, secure environment. Steve Barnard leads Talk Club in Weston-super-Mare and North Somerset. I pay tribute to him and his leadership and vision to support men’s mental health and knowing where to find the men—go to where the men are if you want to talk about men’s mental health.
I also pay special tribute to the work of Steve Worrall, former head coach at Weston RFC, who sadly died earlier this year, not long after coming back to the club. Ben Milsom at Hornets RFC is an unsung hero, whose contribution to the club has been invaluable. Both men are absolute legends in Weston-super-Mare.
This debate is about how we ensure that clubs like Weston and Hornets can continue to be pillars of the community in the face of mounting challenges. Many English rugby union clubs are facing huge financial problems. Rising operational costs, economic pressures and unsustainable funding models mean that many clubs are struggling to survive. There is a pressing need to protect and improve the financial sustainability of our clubs to ensure they do not just survive but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, thrive and grow.
While investment at the elite level is crucial in order to grow the game’s wider popularity, we must also prioritise financial support for grassroots clubs. We must see greater transparency and accountability from the RFU to ensure a fairer distribution of resources. It surely cannot be right that RFU executives receive huge bonuses to the tune of millions, while grassroots clubs like Weston and Hornets struggle to get the funds they need to truly thrive and deliver on their potential. Financial support should be targeted to safeguard the future of smaller clubs and the essential work they do for our communities. Initiatives such as improved revenue-sharing mechanisms, enhanced sponsorship opportunities and targeted grassroots funding must be explored.
Rugby has always been a game for the many, not just the few. It thrives when we support clubs at every level. The sustainability of grassroots clubs is not just a matter of sport, but of community and national and regional identity. All stakeholders in English rugby union must work together to build a future where every club, from the grassroots to the top tier, is financially secure and able to flourish for generations to come. If we fail to address these issues, we risk losing not just clubs and the huge benefits they bring to our communities, but the heart and soul of rugby itself.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on raising this issue. He also represents Hayle, where I live and which used to be in the St Ives constituency, where it should be, really. Nevertheless I congratulate him on securing this debate, and on the manner in which he presented the issues. I strongly endorse everything that he said, although I want to take a couple of the points that he made a little further.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I make no great play of my involvement in the game itself, although I have been a very keen sportsman and have played rugby in the past. I did turn out for the Commons and Lords rugby team. I kind of gave that up because I kept playing at weekends, and if you represent a constituency as far from London as mine it becomes a logistical challenge. During my playing days, being a back, I always found it very frustrating because I never quite understood what forwards were there for, other than to grab the ball, wallow around in the mud and grunt a lot, and we had to keep demanding the ball back. That became very frustrating for me. That is about as far as my playing ever got.
As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, rugby is in Cornwall a pre-eminent sport, in which we feel enormous pride. Indeed, the heritage of the game in Cornwall is one that we can look back on—we can also look forward, we hope—with an enormous amount of pride. Despite the deprivation that our constituents experience, the game has been able to flourish. Because of the market area that it covers, at the end of a long, thin peninsula, it has not been able to generate the crowd numbers that perhaps other areas and more populous places can generate. Nevertheless, it has an enormous following in terms of the proportion of the local population who follow the sport. It is vital to the spirit of the local communities and the pride of our local communities. It provides mentors for our young people to emulate and aspire to become themselves. So, it is an enormous source of inspiration in communities that otherwise do not have a great deal available to them, hence its real importance.
The other thing about Cornish rugby is that of course in Cornwall—as the hon. Member who represents Camborne, Redruth and Hayle knows very well—we have an uneasy relationship, in terms of our identity, with English rugby. Certainly some Cornish players have preferred to play for fellow Celtic nations—examples are Andy Reed for Scotland and Colin Laity for Wales— rather than for England. The English connection has sometimes been uneasy, but that is not an issue in itself, or one that I wish to pursue today.
In my constituency, we are very proud to have excellent local clubs: St Ives, St Just and Helston. Many of our players go to play for Hayle, Redruth and Camborne as well. Perhaps pre-eminent among all the clubs in Cornwall is what used to be known as Penzance and Newlyn and is now renowned as the Cornish Pirates. For the last couple of decades, the Cornish Pirates has been a predominant club in championship rugby, competing for promotion on many occasions in recent years, and certainly in the top half of the table of championship rugby. It has set standards of which we feel enormously proud. It has also been the nursery ground for many players who have gone on to great things in English and, indeed, international rugby. The Cornish Pirates is an important case in point in presenting the kind of solutions to local community issues that sports clubs very often do by providing inspiration to young people and something for local people to be encouraged by and to look up to.
The club has had not only strong local backing, but a benefactor, who used to play in his younger days for Penzance and Newlyn. Sir Dicky Evans has been a benefactor and supporter of the club for many years. He is not able to do that now, but certainly for two decades has provided enormous support for the club.
I want to bring the debate back to the risk posed to a large number of clubs, including the Cornish Pirates, by the way in which too much resource is being siphoned into premiership rugby, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth described, with the result that all other tiers of rugby are suffering. The precipitous way in which decisions have been made in recent years about the covid loan, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, has created an unexpected debt for many clubs, and the Cornish Pirates is certainly not immune from that. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that—the Minister very kindly responded to me—because the impact of the covid debt is very significant indeed, and I hope the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach to it, or intervene with Sport England to look at ways to reprofile those loans.
If the Cornish Pirates were to fold tomorrow, the club has no significant assets of its own and does not own its own ground, even though it does not have many debts. I fear there could be significant consequences if it falls into significant debt now as a result of the covid loan. Reprofiling that loan would be a win-win for everybody: not only would that great club continue, but the debt would in time be repaid. I hope Ministers look at this issue much more closely. I hope they do not simply stand aside and keep this thing at arm’s length, but intervene to support such clubs.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this really important debate. His important work as a rugby coach and a key stakeholder within his community is to be commended. I come from a football and track and field background, but I have always respected rugby: the organisation of the clubs, what the sport does to the community and how it empowers young people. Coming from my background, I have always had significant respect for that community.
I am extremely proud to be here to talk about grassroots rugby. In my community, we have some strong local rugby clubs, including Westcliff, Southend rugby football club and Rochford Hundred rugby club, which I want to talk about today. Rochford Hundred has a positive impact across Southend and Rochford. I have had the pleasure of meeting Ray Stephenson, the president of the club, and Steve Maguire, the chairman. When I have been down to see the team in action on club days, I have noticed how collegiate it is and how many people in the community come together across various age groups—young and old, male and female. That is a true representation of what a sporting club does and what it means to a community. I cannot commend enough the passion and enthusiasm that these guys have shown in how they run the club and have faced the challenges that they have conveyed to me, so I want to say a massive thank you to those two gentlemen for their hard work.
Not wanting to remain anonymous, Rochford Hundred has brought to my attention its deep concerns about the disconnect between the RFU, community clubs and the council. As hon. Members will have seen, the RFU chief executive received a sizeable bonus of £353,000 as part of an executive-approved long-term incentive plan, on top of their basic salary of £742,000. However, the RFU also suffered a loss and had to make redundancies so, on the face of it, that organisation is not flush with cash. Clubs such as Rochford Hundred continue to struggle during difficult times. Had the clubs and the council had more oversight, there would have been sufficient checks and balances to stop that decision. This is just one example where the RFU executive has made decisions that do not align with or support grassroots rugby clubs like Rochford Hundred. I urge the Minister to review the governance structures of the RFU, so that it is compliant with the statutory bodies that regulate it, and better support grassroots rugby clubs.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
If you were to come to Hinckley to watch the rugby, Sir Desmond, I would suggest going to the Union Inn. When you walk in, especially given it is Six Nations weekend, you will see lots of rugby quotes along the top of the room. The first that catches my eye is:
“The relationship between the Welsh and the English is based on trust and understanding. They don’t trust us and we don’t understand them.”
I am able to say that because I am half-Welsh and half-English. The fight that will ensue this weekend will be interesting.
I should declare an interest: until recently, my brother was the sports and exercise doctor for Bath Rugby and had been there for many years. I should also declare that my father is a Bath Rugby season ticket holder. I too am a Bath Rugby fan, which makes it all the more difficult to represent a constituency in Leicestershire—especially during the pandemic, when I was hit with 150 emails from Leicester Tigers fans asking for support. What I love about rugby union is being able to write back to those constituents and say, “I will give you support, provided that Bath are above you in the table when it comes forward.” I am pleased that at this time Bath is sitting pretty at the top of the premiership, above Leicester. Long may that continue.
This Saturday, I am heading to Hinckley rugby club, which is a fantastic community club and a great feeder for some of the great players we have seen in Leicester and also in England colours. The club has done an incredible job of bringing multi-sports places together. That is a testament given the travesties we have seen with the pandemic and what it has done to the sport.
It becomes more personal and professional as a MP, given that Wasps was just down the road from me. As has been mentioned, we have lost Wasps, Worcester, London Irish and the Jersey Reds. The question is why. What is going on? As has rightly been talked about, this storm has been brewing for a while. It is a combination of how to grow the game; player welfare; where the revenue comes from; who will buy clubs, and in the case of Worcester, why they have bought it and what they will do with it; and what the future of our game will be.
In the light of the storm that has been brewing, I asked the Government in December whether they would conduct a review into the governance and finances of rugby. The Minister answered that, while rugby union
“has a vital role to play in our national identity”,
there was no intention
“to conduct a review into the finances or governance of rugby union at this time.”
Fast forward to this year and, on 9 January, the BBC reported on grassroots representatives of rugby calling for a petition to sack the RFU board chief executive. According to the BBC article, this resulted from concerns about the £1.1 million compensation package for the chief executive, record financial losses for the governing body, job losses, perceived leadership failings to save liquidated clubs such as London Irish, Wasps, Worcester and the Jersey Reds, the calamitous roll-out of new rules on tackle height in 2023, money spent paying out contracts to fire England coaches, and a climate of lost confidence and trust from thousands of volunteers in the game.
The RFU initially rejected the calls for a summit meeting because the no-confidence petition lacked the required signatures, but it was later reported that a special general meeting will take place on 27 March. Strikingly, I attended a similar debate last week about football governance. When the Minister spoke—I have picked out a few bits—she said:
“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.”
She went on to say:
“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.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 228WH-229WH.]
If anything, the RFU is seemingly in an even more precarious position than our football colleagues. I am not trying to pit one against the other; I am simply saying that there is a similarity when it comes to managing sport.
If Members do not believe me, they only have to look at the proposals by an American company for a touring premiership or touring clubs. A breakaway league is a serious proposition. What would happen then to the domestic game? What would happen to the regional game, including the competitions across Europe? How would that fit? I am not saying it is right or wrong; I am simply saying these are the realities. People are trying to make sport profitable, but at what detriment? If it is good for the goose, why is it not good for the gander?
There is an argument for looking into what is going on. It seems like the grassroots do not trust or understand the chief executive and the RFU team, and vice versa. Therefore, it seems paramount that the Government ask for a review of the governance and finances to ensure that the game we all love in this room is on a sustainable footing.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this important debate. It has been a pleasure to hear the passion across the room for this wonderful sport. Few activities have the power to bring people and communities together in the way that rugby can. It instils passion, pride, respect, teamwork and determination, bringing people together from all different walks of life. It teaches young people that, when they persevere, they can achieve so much more as a team than they can alone. It is also a huge contributor to the UK economy. England Rugby estimates its value to be around £20.3 billion during 2023-24, and that includes £770 million to help people to improve their physical and mental health, and for community activities, crime reduction and economic growth more generally. It is an important part of our economy as well as our communities.
Saturday afternoons during the Five and latterly Six Nations were protected time in my household growing up, often with one match being shown on the television while another fixture was simultaneously listened to on the radio. The tournament is part of our national story—a celebration of the United Kingdom through passionate but good-natured competition between each of its constituent parts—but watching the likes of Maro Itoje, Dafydd Jenkins, Sione Tuipulotu, or Caelan Doris will not be possible if the talent pipeline from the school playing field or the community club to Twickenham, Murrayfield, the Principality or Aviva stadiums is not secured.
That talent pipeline was fostered through the years when rugby union was an amateur game—a far cry from other sports that, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) hinted, are run as franchises or closed shops for shareholders, rather than for fans and those playing for the sheer love of the game. However, the concern of many amateur clubs across the country is that money that is generated at elite levels is not filtering down to community clubs, leaving those community clubs struggling to invest in future talent and to maintain ageing clubhouses or well-used pitches.
Many of us will have an active rugby club in our communities, backed up by dedicated volunteers, and it has been a joy to hear about some of them this morning. In my constituency, Belper rugby club is well loved by local people and has 250 playing members aged five to 55. I am particularly pleased that local businesses have thrown their support behind the club so that it can continue to bring people together through the power of sport. Morrisons kindly donated £5,500 to the club to part fund the excavation and installation of approximately 250 metres of filter drains along the length of the pitches to mitigate flooding, which is a big local issue. Morrisons said:
“We recognise the importance of the rugby club to the local community, and we understand the impact the flooding has caused. We hope that these works will have a positive effect and mitigate future flooding.”
I thank Morrisons for its support.
Belper rugby club is keen to see more professional input at community level. It has talked to my office about a New Zealand model, where professionals go into schools in the community to support the development of the grassroots game. I strongly support that and urge the Minister to throw her weight behind the proposal in her engagement with rugby’s leaders.
I am pleased that the new Government committed in their manifesto to get more children active by protecting time for physical education in schools and supporting the role of grassroots clubs in expanding access to sport. People’s enjoyment of rugby will be further enhanced by the Government’s commitment to putting fans back at the heart of sporting events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.
As the Government do their bit to bring communities together and support people’s health and wellbeing through sport as part of their plan for change, I encourage all rugby stakeholders to do whatever they can to get behind the grassroots game and fund it appropriately. If we want to see tomorrow’s Will Carling or J. P. R. Williams leading the sport and inspiring the next generation, rugby’s leaders must ensure that the spoils of the elite game are shared with community clubs. Failure to do so would mean the sport faces an existential threat, and we would all be the poorer for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for leading today’s debate. It is fantastic to listen to Members’ representations on the governance of English rugby union. The hon. Gentleman has close ties with the game, and I think he has been a poacher and a gamekeeper, both a referee and a player—well done.
It is important that we do more to protect local sport and listen to local perspectives. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) referred to the ambitions of Bath and Leicester. I have a Leicester Tigers rugby shirt. I was given it many years ago. Believe it or not, I sent away for a Leicester City football shirt and received a Leicester Tigers one. I was not quite sure—I knew the colour scheme was not quite right. I still treasure it, even though it was not what I originally wished to have.
There is an ongoing debate in England about how rugby clubs are regulated and sustained. The game has faced financial challenges, and some clubs in England have gone into administration or have been on the brink of doing so. We must ensure that provisions are in place so that does not occur.
Rugby union in Northern Ireland is governed by Ulster Rugby, which has responsibility for the sport’s oversight and development. It is doing a fairly good job, and I give it credit for its work. Ulster Rugby is responsible for all levels of rugby in Northern Ireland, from schools and the grassroots level to professional rugby.
I went to boarding school for five years, and the school game was rugby. We could not play football—well, we could play football, but we had to play it down the bottom, near the river, where nobody could see. That was the way it was. It was a long time ago, in the ’60s and early ’70s. It is probably very different today, and pupils can probably play football or any other sport they want. Rugby was the game. I played out-half or wing forward, and I enjoyed it. It is quite a physical game, and maybe that was the attraction.
Ulster Rugby oversees the Ulster rugby team, which competes in the United Rugby Championship and European competitions such as the champions cup. Rugby is incredibly popular in Northern Ireland, and its following is incredible. It is promoted through schools and clubs across Northern Ireland. So many schools in my constituency play rugby regularly—High School Ballynahinch, in particular, and Regent House school have done incredibly well in the schools competition and still play great games of rugby. Glastry college is another example, and I sit on its board of governors. Although it was not originally a rugby school, a couple of teachers came in and rugby has become one of the college’s games.
We have Ballynahinch rugby football club and Ards rugby football club, and what they do for the participation of children and people of all ages is ginormous. Some 300 children take part in rugby every Saturday morning, and sometimes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays too. Women’s rugby is also promoted, and it is gathering speed in Northern Ireland. The Ulster schools’ cup fosters competition for so many young men, and their love for rugby stays with them all their lives. Northern Ireland’s many rugby league clubs are enjoyed by people of all ages, and Ulster Rugby’s women’s team is going from strength to strength, which is wonderful and tells us that the sport is reaching beyond its previous parameters.
As with any sport, finances are an issue. There are many cases where the sport’s financial sustainability has been brought into question, and it is clear that effective regulation is needed to protect the clubs, the players and the supporters, and to ensure the future success of rugby unions across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We must ensure that, for all rugby unions, there is an even spread of finances from the top tier of United Kingdom rugby right down to local teams and schools. There must be better regulation and support to ensure that we do not witness more well-known clubs going into administration.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and other hon. Members have called on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to engage further with counterparts across the United Kingdom. I always ask these questions of Ministers, but I ask because it is important to do so. We want to continue the tradition of great rugby in Northern Ireland, but this debate has raised some of the challenges to rugby and what needs to be done. Does the Minister intend to engage with Gordon Lyons, the responsible Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, to relay the outcomes of our discussions so that we can go forward together?
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the hon. Member who, as always, is making a fantastic speech. He is always a champion for the Union, and rugby union is also suffering in Wales and Scotland. Does he have a view on whether we should have a sit-down discussion? Rugby union is devolved, but it is important to ensure sustainability across all four nations so that there is an abundance for future generations.
Jim Shannon
Rugby is loved everywhere, across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. It is unfortunate that Ireland did not do better against the French on Saturday. It was a bad game, but we look forward to better games ahead. The hon. Member is right that we need to work together to share those experiences.
Again, will the Minister engage with the Minister in Northern Ireland on the proposals and recommendations raised by this debate so that we can all learn together? Our love for the game brings us all together, and as we love the game, we want to make it better for everyone.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate. He speaks with great passion and knowledge, and I commend his recommendations.
Nothing can beat rugby as a gladiatorial spectacle, from the high-scoring, ping-pong, side-to-side and end-to-end champagne rugby played in the sunshine, to the grinding, no-tries, mud-fest battles for the purists only. The genius playmaker, able to see and exploit a gap for a game-changing individual try. The 16 phases of pick-and-go forwards grinding out the inches—or doing the hard yards, as I would describe it. The last-minute drop goal that wins or loses a match. Rugby is a game of wonder and joy. It is a sport built on discipline, respect and unity, which defines the game at every level, from local grassroots clubs to the highest of international competitions.
While I would love to spend some time lauding my own playing abilities, I am afraid there is too much evidence to the contrary. As a lifelong fan, I watch as many matches as my new schedule allows. And every weekend I take my son to play at one of our brilliant clubs in West Dorset, because it is not just a game but a community, and it is enjoyed by thousands up and down the country every weekend.
Rugby union, which according to legend was born in 1823 when William Webb Ellis picked up a ball at Rugby school, is one of Britain’s finest exports, and it is important to so many, not just in the UK but around the world. In the English premiership, we have one of the best and most competitive leagues in the world, and if the Chair will allow me a moment of self-indulgence, it is great to see my club, Bath, back at the top of the league, where it belongs. If the Chair will allow me a further moment of indulgence, I will annoy my political researcher by saying it is great to see Northampton so far down the league.
This year, we are proud to host the women’s rugby world cup, which will be a fantastic celebration of sport and an opportunity to see the Red Roses hopefully triumph. The growth of the women’s game is an extraordinary success story, with record-breaking attendance and a surge of participation. The Red Roses’ domination on the international stage, with their groundbreaking winning streak, has inspired a new generation of players and showcased the strength of women’s rugby. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Impact ’25 funds from the Government, with £28 million of investment to support England hosting the 2025 rugby world cup, including £14 million of legacy funding, which is needed to grow the women’s grassroots game.
However, while there is much to celebrate on the pitch, English rugby also faces a governance crisis off it. The financial state of the game is deeply troubling. Since rugby in England turned professional in 1995, the business model has remained unsustainable. Many premiership clubs operate at a loss, dependent on wealthy owners who can withdraw their funding at any moment, leaving clubs in financial ruin. In 2023, we saw the historic and legendary clubs of Wasps and London Irish collapse, as well as Worcester. The consequences have been devastating. Players and staff lost their livelihoods, and fans lost their beloved teams. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the time called it
“a stain on the reputation of the RFU”.
Despite these failings, successive Governments have taken a hands-off approach, hiding behind the excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body and allowing financial mismanagement to continue unchecked. The RFU receives significant public funding. Since 2020, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided loans through the sports survival package amounting to more than £123 million for premiership and championship clubs, with little oversight of how that money is used. Worcester received the largest loan, borrowing £15.7 million, but its administrators repaid just £9.8 million. Wasps’ administrators returned just £300,000 of its £14.1 million loan, and London Irish is yet to repay any of the £11.8 million that it received. Across the English game, we know that a staggering £30 million of these loans remains uncovered, with a further £11 million in unpaid interest. The RFU itself posted a record operating loss of more than £40 million last year and made more than 40 staff redundant while, as has already been mentioned, its executives awarded themselves £1.3 million in bonuses. How do the Government justify such recklessness when clubs are struggling to survive?
Premiership clubs collectively lost £30.5 million in 2022-23, and have net debts in excess of £300 million. Despite some financial reforms and a new £3.3 million per club funding deal, concerns over clubs’ sustainability persist. Seven out of 10 clubs are financially insolvent, surviving only on owner handouts. Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it was only a matter of time until another premiership club goes bust.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech about the financial impact, but with all these clubs it is about the fans and the jobs that go out into the community. Does he agree that when we saw this situation in football, we had the fan-led review? Would it not therefore be wise for the Government to consider doing something similar in rugby? By having a look, they could lift the stones, pull the cover back and see what is actually going on with the state of rugby union in England.
Edward Morello
I 100% agree with the hon. Member. It is incredibly important that the Government step in and start looking at the governance of the game, otherwise there will not be a game to govern.
Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it is only a matter of time before another premiership club goes bust. That is an appalling state of affairs for a sport that should be thriving, and it has been confirmed that London Irish will seek a place in the United Rugby Championship. A team’s decision to prioritise the URC over the premiership serves as a damning indictment of the mismanagement within the premiership and the broader state of our amazing sport. If a normal business operated in that way, it would have been restructured years ago.
I have received responses from the Government stating that the governance of rugby union is a matter for the RFU, referring to the RFU and Sport England as their arm’s length bodies. Yet, despite the substantial public funding it receives, the RFU appears to operate with little oversight or accountability to the Government. If a private business was in receipt of that much taxpayers’ money, there would be demands for a public inquiry.
We have also seen injustices in the league system, as has been outlined. The championship contains strong clubs such as Ealing Trailfinders, which have proved their quality by excelling in the premiership cup. Yet, due to outdated capacity rules, they are denied promotion, while some premiership clubs fail to sell out their stadiums week after week. The entire system must be reformed to reward financial prudence and on-field performance rather than the entrenched and unfair status quo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) has already outlined the alarming fact that rugby’s biggest stars are leaving for more lucrative contracts abroad. The loss of players such as Courtney Lawes to the French second division is a damning indictment of our commercial model. The RFU must do more to retain our talent and create a financially competitive environment.
At the same time, we face the threat of losing the Six Nations from free-to-air television. The proposed £100 million deal to move the tournament behind a paywall would be disastrous for the sport and net the competition just £10 million more than the existing deal. A TNT Sports subscription costs up to £30 a month, pricing out many fans and reducing viewership. The Government must ensure that the Six Nations remains free to air, to inspire the next generation of players and supporters.
Despite these challenges, rugby’s future can be bright. The upcoming women’s rugby world cup will showcase the extraordinary growth of the women’s game, with record-breaking ticket sales at Twickenham. Research in Scotland has shown that grassroots rugby delivers an economic benefit of at least £159 million a year, with a social return of £7.71 for every £1 spent. Investing in grassroots is not just morally right, but economically sound, yet funding cuts, declining participation and referee shortages have led to nearly 300 match walkovers in a single season.
The RFU must do more to support community clubs, which are the bedrock of the sport. The RFU’s leadership has lost the confidence of both grassroots and professional rugby stakeholders due to financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency. The Liberal Democrats call for an independent review of the RFU’s governance, with structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club representation. A more democratic system, or even an external regulatory body, would restore trust and stability to the game. It is time for the Government to step in. The governance of English rugby is at a crossroads. The RFU must address the concerns of clubs and stakeholders to ensure the sport’s long-term sustainability. The Government must ensure that public money is spent wisely and intervene when financial mismanagement threatens the integrity of the game.
The travesty of this mismanagement of the game is not just its current state; it is the missed opportunity—the failure to realise the premiership as a premium global product, create superstars of our best players, fill stadiums, grow participation and monetise the game. Rugby is a national asset. We cannot allow it to be undermined by poor governance. The passion of players, coaches and fans remains unwavering. However, unless decisive action is taken, we risk further financial crisis and erosion of the game we love. The excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body cannot be sanctioned any longer. We can argue over whether the RFU deserves a red or a yellow card, but I hope we can all agree that it is time for an off-field review.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate.
Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community.
Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months.
I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport.
Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead.
First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years.
The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage
“a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.”
I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that.
We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.
Edward Morello
I have also heard the RFU explain its four-year business plan. It is nearly impossible to imagine a business running on a four-year plan under which it makes a loss three years out of four. Given how long the RFU has been in charge of the game, I find it staggering that it has not found a way to create a business plan with a more even distribution of income and outgoings. If it is ever going to get on to a sustainable footing and provide cash to the game, it needs to find a way to be profitable in every single year.
Mr French
I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead.
Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure.
The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows.
The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish.
The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup.
From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that.
I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address.
Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility?
What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be responding to the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing it. He also represents Hayle, as I understand, and he speaks with great experience on this issue.
Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), I start by saying that rugby—both union and league—makes a huge contribution to our country. I congratulate England and Scotland on their success in the men’s Six Nations this weekend, and my commiserations go to Wales and Ireland on their hard-fought defeats. The Six Nations is a jewel in the crown of international rugby union. As we approach the last weekend of the Six Nations, I wish all the home nations every success.
Besides the international level, professional and grassroots rugby clubs are often at the heart of communities. It is right that we take a moment to celebrate the sport and the volunteers who keep clubs running across the country. The huge contribution they make has been outlined by Members across the Chamber today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) and the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who spoke about the heritage of the game and the importance of aspiration for young people.
I will discuss some of the concerns that have been raised about the governance of rugby union, in particular in the context of grassroots rugby, which is how my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth framed his opening contribution. Good governance is an important bedrock on which the sport sector stands, and I have been pleased to see steps taken in recent years to address governance issues in the sector.
Governance is vital to ensuring transparency, accountability and fairness in the sport and physical activity sector. The revised code for sports governance sets out the levels of transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability and integrity that are required from sporting governing bodies—including the RFU—that seek and are in receipt of DCMS and national lottery funding from UK Sport and Sport England. The code has proved successful in setting clear expectations around good governance and diversity. Indeed, 88% of organisations funded by Sport England and UK Sport have said that the code has tightened their governance.
Turning to the governance of rugby union specifically, I am aware of some of the recent challenges that the sport has faced. I met with the RFU and Premiership Rugby in early November to discuss the future of the sport. It was valuable to hear about the actions that the sport is taking to address some of the challenges that have been discussed today. I am committed to continuing to work with the sport to support its long-term financial sustainability. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about devolved Governments. I am hoping to visit all the devolved Governments in the coming weeks, so I will reach out to him when I do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth rightly raises the importance of good governance in the sport at all levels, and he specifically raised grassroots representation on the RFU board. I note that there is a board member with responsibility for the community game, and he is one of the nine representatives on the board. I am not able to comment more specifically on the board arrangements of the RFU, as that is a matter for them, but I note the concerns that my hon. Friend has outlined, and I am sure that the RFU will have heard the argument for greater grassroots representation.
Central to good governance is the effective communication between a governing body, its members and grassroots club. It is imperative to a healthy sport. It does, however, mean suitable independence of decision making on any publicly funded board. I am aware that, after a period of engagement between the RFU and grassroots clubs, the RFU has said that it will take action to improve communications with the rest of the sport, including by proactively communicating and seeking input from members on key issues. The shadow Minister spoke in detail about that, so I will not repeat him, but the points he made were correct and welcome. I welcome this work and encourage the RFU to continue to focus on engagement with its community and grassroots clubs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth raised the issue of tackle height in the community game. The safety and wellbeing of everyone taking part in the sport is paramount. The Government understand that there are ongoing concerns about this important issue. National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of their sports. Although DCMS cannot comment on individual cases, we do expect NGBs to make the health and safety of players their top priority.
I understand that the RFU council approved lowering tackle height in community rugby in England after the RFU analysed other international case studies, including from South Africa, New Zealand and France, but my hon. Friend makes a valid point that changes to rules, particularly around tackle height, must be based on the best possible evidence. I will take away his specific question about concussion data on match day cards. The Government will continue to advocate for sports to consider how safety can be best approached, but I am sure that the RFU will have heard my hon. Friend’s specific points today.
The first national guidance for concussion in grassroots sport was introduced in 2023, and was developed by international experts on concussion and acquired brain injury to better identify, manage and prevent the issue. We continue to encourage national governing bodies to adapt the guidance to their own sport where appropriate. We recognise the important work done recently on UK-wide grassroots sport concussion guidelines, which were produced to support sports, players and parents across the country. The Government will continue to prioritise participant safety to ensure that everyone can take part in sport as safely as possible.
I recognise the financial difficulties faced by many clubs involved in rugby union. I recognise the positive contribution that clubs such as the Cornish Pirates RFC and many others make through the community and school sports programme, which the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned. During the pandemic, organisations could apply to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for loans through the sport survival package to support the sector. Those loans were provided to ensure the survival of clubs during the pandemic, but it remains the clubs’ responsibility to ensure the longer-term sustainability of their funding.
The Government monitor the financial situation of rugby union closely, but we also have a responsibility to the taxpayer. That includes the recovery of moneys loaned during the SSP.
Andrew George
Surely the Minister understands that if a club such as the Cornish Pirates were to fold, that responsibility to the taxpayer would not be served, because that debt would be unpaid, so it is far better for her to intervene and assist those clubs to overcome that problem.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that, and that is why the Government continue to monitor the situation. I am not able to comment on the repayments of individual borrowers or leagues, given the commercial sensitivity, but we encourage any SSP borrower with concerns about repayments to speak to the Sport England team dedicated to managing the loans.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth raised concerns about the levels of funding from the RFU to grassroots rugby clubs. I appreciate that some rugby union clubs, and many members and fans, feel that grassroots funding is not sufficient. The Government recognise the importance and value that a financially sustainable rugby pyramid offers to players, fans and the wider sporting community. Following the collapse of several premiership clubs in 2022 and 2023, the previous Government appointed two independent advisers to produce a plan to stabilise rugby union. The independent advisers worked with the RFU, the premiership and the championship on the Men’s Professional Game Partnership, and we welcome the progress made on a funding framework for the future of the sport.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister is right that the last Government appointed two people to look at this issue, but we are three years on and still the clouds are coming. Will she commit to a review of the finances and governance, a bit like the fan-led review, to ensure transparency and open up this debate so that the fans, the volunteers, the players and the Executive can all see the state of play? We as a country can then make a judgment about the best way to handle that.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of and interest in this subject. I noted that he quoted extensively from my speech on the Football Governance Bill. I gently remind him that we have been in many a debate together in which he has been less than enthusiastic about that piece of legislation. If he is now in favour of a similar thing for rugby—
Stephanie Peacock
He says “a fan-led review” from a sedentary position. I suggest that he speaks to his leader, who has obviously U-turned on football governance. As I said in my written answer, my Department does not intend to conduct a review at this time, but we keep everything under review. I will now make some progress.
The RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the governance of the sport at all levels, including how it distributes funding. I understand that it has now committed to £120 million to support grassroots rugby over four years. It is worth noting that it has said that it is exploring offering sizeable loans to clubs for critical projects, including infrastructure, to support the financial sustainability of grassroots clubs for the long term. Supporting grassroots sport, including local rugby clubs, is a key priority for this Government, and that is why we are investing in grassroots sport. The DCMS provides the majority of funding for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body, Sport England, which annually invests more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money to support people to get active.
Sport England has awarded the RFU, the governing body for rugby in England, £13 million for the period 2022 to 2027, as one of Sport England’s long-term system partners, to invest in community rugby initiatives that will benefit everyone. We continue to work with the RFU, representatives of premiership and championship clubs and the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby union.
That support for grassroots rugby union, as well as other grassroots sport, is vital to helping people get active. Sport and physical activity are central to delivering the Government’s health mission, which is why we are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter their age, background or ability, has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities.
In addition to men’s rugby, we should celebrate the growth of women’s rugby union in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth acknowledged how far the women’s game has come. I am delighted that England will be hosting the 10th edition of the women’s rugby world cup this year between August and September. The tournament provides a significant opportunity to showcase women’s rugby, provide a world stage for female athletes and drive the visibility of the women’s game.
In January, I met with the chief executive officer of the women’s rugby world cup to understand the long-term impact of hosting this exciting event. The record-breaking ticket sales, which already top 220,000—double those sold at the previous tournament—highlight the massive appetite for women’s sporting events in this country. The tournament’s Impact ’25 programme has already had a transformational impact in cementing rugby as a game for all, with funding being allocated to 850 clubs across the country.
This debate has been a fantastic opportunity to highlight the contribution that rugby makes across our country. Some real questions and concerns have been raised, but I hope that, through collaboration and rebuilding faith, the RFU will listen and move forward. I thank all hon. Members for taking part.
Perran Moon
First, I thank you, Sir Desmond, for your expert chairmanship of this debate; it has been a sight for sore eyes. I only have a couple of minutes, so I would also like to quickly thank the hon. Members who have contributed.
I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who mentioned the importance of Cornish rugby to Cornish society, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who referenced the French model, which we should be looking at, focusing on that kind of adapt-or-die approach. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who talked about the importance of mental health to our communities, and mentioned Talk Club; he also referenced financial sustainability, on which so much of what we have talked about is based.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) mentioned Rochford Hundred rugby club and the passion there is there. I wish the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) good luck with his Bath-Tigers dilemma—I cannot really help him with that one. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) talked about the talent pipeline, and that is why we need to invest in these grassroots clubs: to ensure that talent is coming through that pipeline.
The omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Ulster Rugby, women’s rugby and the lessons to be learned there. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) gave us an important insight into the history of rugby, as well as the financial challenges and why we need to look at this issue in much more detail.
We were doing so well in making the debate apolitical until the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), stood up, but I guess that is his job. I agree with him that we have to focus on the community side and ensure that it is open to all.
I thank the Minister for responding directly and focusing on the grassroots game. I am conscious that hon. Members needed to talk about their local clubs as well as the higher-level clubs, and I was thankful that the Minister talked specifically about the grassroots.
My view, for what it is worth, is that this is our game, and our mess; it is for us to sort out, not for Government to take control. Government can express a view, but I am hopeful that we can sort out our problems within the confines of the game itself and ensure that grassroots rugby remains on a stable footing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the governance of English rugby union.
Local Government: Nolan Principles
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Alberto Costa to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up,.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Nolan Principles in local government.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This year marks the 30-year anniversary of the Nolan principles, which are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those seven principles embody everything that we, as elected representatives, should strive for on behalf of our constituents. They are the guiding principles for anyone in elected office.
MPs and elected representatives at all levels of local government are overwhelmingly public-spirited and dedicated people who always embody the Nolan principles in their work. Having served on the Privileges and Standards Committees for the last five years, which I am honoured to now chair, I have seen at first hand that elected representatives do, at times, sadly fall short of the principles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Does he agree that for most honourable people, the desire to live up to the highest standards of the Nolan principles is inherent? For people who do not live by those principles, however, there must be more than a suggestion—indeed, there must be a requirement—to stand by them.
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome intervention, with which I entirely agree. Not only should publicly elected councillors—at parish, town, local authority, district and county level—be obliged to follow those principles but, importantly, a code of conduct developed and underpinned by those principles should have teeth. What he is ultimately saying is that there must be appropriate sanctions, as there are for us as Members of this House.
For some of those Members who fall short, sometimes those are cases of minor lapses—moments of frustration or poor judgment—while other times they are severe errors, with devastating consequences for colleagues, staff and the reputation of elected office. Such errors are not unique to elected representatives; to err is human, and no human being is without flaws. That said, it is right that elected representatives, while undertaking their public duties, are held to a higher bar. That is not about their private lives, but about the work that we, and local authority councillors, do in the course of our public duties.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate on the Nolan principles, which I have been very interested in for a long time, working in public service. In a digital-first world, with so much of our lives documented and undertaken online, does he agree that there is a greater necessity for a reimagination of the Nolan principles?
Alberto Costa
That is an interesting point. I must confess that I have not considered it, so I would welcome any further information or a further briefing from the hon. Member on what he means by that, particularly in my role as Chair of the Standards Committee.
The Nolan principles must ensure that elected representatives are held to account properly, at every level of local government. In Labour’s plan for local government reorganisation and a new structure, the way that standards are dealt with must not be neglected. I hope that the Minister will say a few words on local government reorganisation, and how he thinks the Nolan principles and any code of conduct might underpin that.
I think we can all agree that the current regime is failing. Issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment in local government—parish, town, county and district—have become worse. I know of parish councillors in my constituency whose lives have been made a misery through months and, in many cases, years of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment from fellow councillors.
In Leicestershire, one instance of constant harassment and relentless, vexatious complaints resulted in a parish council officer dramatically resigning during a parish council meeting. I have no doubt that hon. Members have witnessed or heard similar stories in their constituencies. Those bad apples make up only a small minority of councillors but even so, according to a 2017 report by the Society of Local Council Clerks,
“15% of parish councils experience serious behaviour issues… 5% are effectively dysfunctional as a result of them.”
So where does the current regime fall short? First, there is no clear definition of bullying or harassment in the Localism Act 2011, which leaves it to monitoring officers to interpret vague codes of conduct inconsistently. What is serious in one district area is dismissed in another. Town and parish councils have no internal mechanism to investigate breaches of conduct. At the same time, principal authorities are also powerless to enforce meaningful sanctions, except in cases serious enough for criminal referral.
The 2018 Ledbury town council case exposed a major flaw in the system. The council was forced to pay more than £200,000 in legal fees for trying to sanction a councillor through an internal grievance process. That highlighted a fundamental problem: parish councils lack the power to act independently, while principal authorities have no real enforcement mechanisms. Accountability falls into limbo unless there is clear criminal conduct. My speech is not about criminal conduct; it is about the issues that we as Members of this House are familiar with—bullying, sexual misconduct, harassment and the like.
If the public were able to hold rogue councillors—the minority—to account properly at the ballot box, I would be less concerned, but the gaps in legislation are made worse by the democratic deficit, certainly at the parish level, where elections often lack enough willing candidates to ensure true accountability. In the May 2015 elections, for example, only 20% of eligible parishes contested their vacancies. The ballot box rarely holds councillors to account, and even if it does, it can often be too late.
We know that accountability problems will be more pronounced in areas that have a unitary authority, which is the direction of travel under this Government, as parishes may be given even greater powers due to the abolition of district councils. I hope that the Minister can comment on what consideration the Government are giving to that specific point or, if he is unaware, that he will write to me after the debate.
For now, I encourage the Government to consider the following steps to strengthen accountability, and to protect town and parish councillors and those who work for town and parish councils. First, I suggest amending section 27(3) of the Localism Act 2011 to give a clear definition of bullying that explicitly covers persistent verbal abuse, intimidation or behaviour that causes significant distress to other parish or town councillors or those who work for parish or town councils. That would give monitoring officers of principal authorities a firmer basis on which to act, and would set a threshold for escalation, distinguishing heated debate from harassment.
The next step would be to mandate standards committees in all principal authorities, which would be tasked with impartial investigations, deciding on allegations and imposing sanctions. Those committees, supported by truly independent persons, would bring consistency, credibility and impartiality into an appropriate disciplinary system. Here in the House of Commons, as part of the Committee that I chair, we have seven lay members alongside seven Members of Parliament, and as the Chair, I do not have a vote other than in the event of a tie. That means that the seven lay members provide the impartiality that the House wants when disciplining its own Members.
Dan Norris (North East Somerset and Hanham) (Lab)
The Nolan principles also apply to officers working in the public sector. I am a regional mayor, as well as a Member. I am aware that a regional mayor in the east of England is currently talking with a chief constable about officers under the previous mayor making decisions that should have been made by politicians—in other words, the normal rules and policies seemingly being circumvented.
It troubles me that the interim officers who work for local authorities or regional authorities move on quite quickly. They do not stay very long, and if something questionable is subsequently found, they are not bound to take part in any inquiry. That means that the Nolan principles can be completely circumvented; it drives a coach and horses through the good principles. I agree with everything that the hon. Member has said so far, but does he think there should there be a special circumstance or a modification to the rules to allow those officers, who keep moving around and carry on working in local government, to be held to account?
I also ask the Minister what the Government will do to make sure, where questionable things have happened, that the local authorities to which those interim officers go are alerted about that. Those local authorities should know that irregularities have taken place.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. Can we have shorter interventions in future?
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Member for his welcome intervention, which highlights another issue that I am not entirely familiar with. Although this debate is concerned with elected officials, he rightly asks about what happens if people charged with the oversight of the Nolan principles as independent officers move on to other jurisdictions. There is, of course, the contract of employment that underpins the individual’s duties, but there may well be a lacuna in that area. Again, I would welcome the hon. Member writing to me with a further briefing so that I can ascertain whether there is a link to ensure that that would not damage the mechanism that I am proposing to the Minister, which is for independent officers to have more appropriate oversight.
As I have indicated, mandating in all principal authorities standards committees, tasked with impartial investigations and deciding on allegations, would bring consistency. Thirdly, I suggest amending legislation to make parish councils formally accountable to their principal authority, which currently is not the case. That could include annual governance reports, direct intervention powers for serious breaches, and the provision of training to prevent issues from arising.
Those are basic, bread-and-butter issues in which we as Members of Parliament are encouraged to take a more active part, particularly when it comes to training. Parishes should retain autonomy, but the principal authority should act as a backstop for serious failures, reinforcing local governance without reverting to a centralised control such as the standards board.
Finally, we must address the absence of robust sanctions. There is a total lack of sanctions when councillors at parish, town and local authority level have been found wanting, with the exception of criminal conduct, which is dealt with separately. The power to suspend councillors —say, for up to six months—for proven bullying or harassment is essential. Currently, a counsellor can shrug off the consequences and return to the next meeting unchecked. Instead of facing the consequences, effectively nothing is done. That has an impact not just on the proper functioning of the parish or town council, but on the staff working for that parish or town council, who may themselves be the victims of the bullying or harassment. Worse still, I have heard of cases where entire councils have resigned in despair, powerless against a single disruptive individual. Suspension would offer immediate relief to victims and signal that misconduct has a cost, as it does here in the House of Commons, and as we have proven over the past few years.
Much of what I am saying echoes the 2019 review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which called for councils to suspend councillors without allowances for up to six months. The Government rejected those proposals in 2022, citing risks to free speech, and I sympathise with that, but the new Government’s 2024 consultation on sanctions suggests a welcome shift. Perhaps the Minister can say a few words about that.
We must not return to a time of bureaucratic excess and politically motivated complaints threatening freedom of expression. That is not what I am arguing for, and that is not what we see in the House of Commons. But with reports of bullying rife at parish levels and changes to local government structure in the pipeline, it is time to reconsider the recommendations of the 2019 Committee on Standards in Public Life report. I encourage the Government to take the opportunity they now have with local government reorganisation to make a positive impact by ensuring that what we see applied to all of us here in the House of Commons is mirrored in some form to other valued elected public officials.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to attend this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing it.
A key commitment of this Government was to strengthen the standards regime and integrity in public life. Specifically, that means a very active commitment to working together to create a fit, legal and decent local government sector that is equipped to rise to the challenge and opportunity of increased devolution of power and resources from Whitehall. Our proposals to achieve that were set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper, published in December last year, which included measures to fix our broken audit system; improve oversight and accountability; give councils genuine freedoms to work for and deliver in the best interests of their communities; and, with particular reference to the theme of this debate, improve the standards and conduct regime.
We are wasting no time in getting on with the task. The day after the “English Devolution” White Paper was published, we launched a 10-week consultation on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The consultation, which closed on 26 February, sought views on reforms to the standards and conduct regime so that the public can have trust and confidence that all councils in England can be effective and well governed.
Although he did not go as far as I might, I think the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was hinting that the previous Government, in the early part of that Government—with the removal of the standards regime and the audit regime, and measures such as the removal of councillors’ pensions in England—engaged in what many of us now reflect were, in large part, acts of municipal vandalism. They took away the architecture that allowed local government to thrive. The challenge is big, but we understand that we need to take significant steps to improve the situation.
All of us here today know the seven principles of public life—honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership—which have underpinned the ethical standards of all public office holders for the last 30 years. They are, and have been, the foundation of the code of conduct for Members of the House, the ministerial code and all who serve in local government and the wider public sector.
Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech at the Institute for Government in November last year on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of that committee. In that speech, he reflected on the three golden threads that Lord Nolan had set out that need to be delivered alongside the Nolan principles—first, the code of conduct; secondly, independent scrutiny; and thirdly, education.
As Lord Nolan acknowledged, the Nolan principles were not a code of conduct, but the values that would underpin a code. An effective code needs to clearly detail the behaviours that those in public office must observe to repay the public’s trust and confidence, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred to. The principles are a foundation, but the behavioural code is not quite there. There are examples in the councils that the hon. Member mentioned, and actually in some councils right across the country, of bad behaviour being far too common. That cannot stand.
While the standards proposals that the Government have been consulting on are for whole system reform, at their foundation is the proposal for a mandatory code of conduct. We believe that a mandatory code is vital to achieving consistency across all the various types and tiers of local government. The current regime simply requires all local authorities to adopt a code that is consistent with the Nolan principles. Some take the de minimis approach of simply listing the seven principles. Others have very detailed local codes. That lack of consistency is not helpful to the system overall. It is confusing and means that we cannot have confidence that all are judged to the same standard equally across the system.
That does not happen in the devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have mandatory codes of conduct in place, based on the Nolan principles but setting out detailed interpretation of the expected behaviours.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?
Jim McMahon
We have set out a very clear expectation about transparency and all authorities, whether they are local authorities or combined authorities, always acting in the public interest and being up front about information that they hold. That expectation is clear. I can respond in writing in more detail.
Steve Barclay
Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?
Jim McMahon
I will follow up after the debate on the example that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I commit to finding out a bit more information through the Department and will respond in writing. As a matter of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect that board members, as opposed to the wider public, are informed about matters of financial relevance to the operation of the board. That seems fairly self-evident to me. If he provides more information on the particular case, which I am not familiar with, I will certainly come back to him on that.
I am enormously grateful for the more than 2,000 responses that we received to the Government’s standards consultation. We are working at pace to analyse the results. We will think carefully about how to take into account the views that were expressed for each of the proposals that we have set out. The Government response will be issued in due course, and after its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing detailed implementation.
The hon. Member for South Leicestershire mentioned reorganisation, and although I completely acknowledge the examples of poor behaviour that he identifies—I have witnessed such things in some authorities, too—I would be careful not to attach local government reorganisation as an inherent risk to the standards and behaviours of councillors. I think this is cultural, and it is about a lack of framework and, honestly, slightly a result of a standards regime that has not got teeth.
There are some members who know that what they are doing is not right, and that that is not just about free speech, but about abusing the position they hold and the freedoms. We often see that relationship, where elected members who are holding court in the council chamber attack officials on the top table who have no power to respond themselves. We see that power imbalance taking place. I suspect that most elected members who are behaving in that way know exactly that their behaviour is not okay, but they also know that the standards regime has no teeth to deal with that, so what are the consequences? I would be careful not to attach that behaviour to the reorganisation point, because we want to rebuild the system from the ground up, so that every council in England—whether they are part of the 21 counties going through reorganisation or are among the rest—is subject to the same robust standards regime that does have teeth.
Let me return to the subject under debate by dealing with some of the points about not allowing the system to be used for political ends and how it has to be held up to all scrutiny at all levels. This is about having a proportionate system that can hold up to scrutiny and be tested, but it has to be mandatory. It must have sanctions that matter, including the power of suspension, the power to withhold allowances, if that is correct, and the power for premises bans, if there is a safeguarding risk at play. We have examples where councillors can be on police bail for sexual assaults, and during police bail, they can attend council meetings and attend the premises. That clearly would not be acceptable to most members of the public, but the current regime allows that, and that cannot be allowed to stand. Perhaps more controversially, the system should include disqualification in some cases for more serious breaches.
Dan Norris
Will the Minister address my point about interim officers, or perhaps write to me if there is not time today?
Jim McMahon
I will return in writing to the point about interim officers being able to move around and whether they are held to the Nolan principles as a founding principle. This debate is more about the standards regime that governs elected members in that context, and that is the consultation that we undertook.
I have no doubt that the Nolan principles will continue to be enormously influential in contributing to the effectiveness of local government. They are a prescription for the values to foster a culture of integrity and ethical behaviour. This Government are committed, at the heart of our ambition for the whole of local government, to creating a fit, legal and decent local government sector, and that is what the public have a right to expect. To be effective, local government must serve to foster vibrant local democracy. It must encourage a wide diversity of talented people to step forward to represent their local communities in that position, and we are committed to working to that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Anti-social Behaviour: East of England
(1 day, 17 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
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered anti-social behaviour in the East of England.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. As we go about our daily lives—shopping, working, socialising or simply enjoying a quiet evening in our own home—nothing has the power to disturb our experiences like antisocial behaviour. It can make people’s lives a living hell. I am sure that my colleagues from across the east will have inboxes full of concerns raised by constituents over antisocial behaviour. It differs in its form depending on whether it is in rural or urban areas, but examples include: fly tipping; littering; loud music played at all hours; nuisance neighbours; uncontrolled animals; and the menace of off-road bikes.
Last year, the police recorded 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour nationally. Estimates from the crime survey for England and Wales showed that 36% of people experienced or witnessed some type of antisocial behaviour in their local area. In Norfolk, my county, 8,800 incidents of ASB were recorded by the police between 2023 and 2024. The Library reports that from March 2023 to March 2024, 948 incidents of ASB were recorded in my constituency. I want to bring to life what that means for my constituents, because, as I have said, it takes many different forms.
Last year, our local paper, the Eastern Daily Press, reported that antisocial behaviour in Norfolk’s libraries had increased by almost 40%, with staff offered extra support to help deal with rising abuse from visitors. Last week, I held a meeting for residents on Britannia Road, who have been plagued by antisocial behaviour and speeding in their area for years. The imposition of a public space protection order has had little effect. I am determined to work with local councillors, the council and the police to finally get some resolution. One of my constituents has told me that antisocial behaviour in carparks has meant that public toilets are being permanently closed. Just a few days ago, the city council had to lock the gates of parks and cemeteries again overnight after antisocial behaviour and vandalism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and the point that she is referring to concerns me as well. It is always saddening to hear about incidents of antisocial behaviour across the UK. Examples include alarming incidents of graffiti, destroying public spaces such as children’s parks and inappropriate drawings on children’s slides. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be a better community police presence to take substantive action to ensure that parents do not have to worry about potential damage to park equipment and inappropriate graffiti that young ones may witness at a very early age?
Alice Macdonald
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I totally agree. I will come on to the importance of a visible police presence later in my speech. As I said, the city councils have had to lock the gates of parks. Just today, the Feed cafe, a brilliant social enterprise in Waterloo Park in Norwich North, spoke out because it had suffered vandalism again. The manager said that they felt targeted and intimidated. They called for CCTV, which is something that the local council and I will back.
Derelict sites have also become hotspots for antisocial behaviour. Very sadly, a huge blaze broke out a few weeks ago at an empty shoe factory in Dibden Road. Seventeen fire crews had to attend from across the county. Thankfully, nobody was hurt, but derelict sites such as this one are too often not properly secured.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, I get regular reports of antisocial behaviour in Pleasurefair Meadow carpark and Stanham Way, relating to the screeching of tyres from motorbikes, loud music until the early hours of the morning and constant instances of drugs and antisocial drinking. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take this sort of antisocial behaviour seriously wherever it is happening and that the local residents should not have to put up with it?
Alice Macdonald
I completely agree. Sometimes antisocial behaviour can be dismissed as trivial incidents, but we all know that they are not trivial and that they cause a real disturbance to many of our residents. I also know that my constituents are continually frustrated by antisocial and inconsiderate parking. I am sure that other Members here also have issues raised with them on that, whether it is obstructing pavements or blocking driveways. Indeed, research by the British Parking Association in the last few years has revealed that this is one of the biggest frustrations British people experience in their daily lives.
I want to be clear that Norwich is a great place to live; indeed, we have seen communities rallying round to support each other after antisocial behaviour. But a small minority can cause misery for many, so I welcome the measures that the Government set out yesterday in the Crime and Policing Bill. I particularly welcome the new powers for police to seize vehicles causing havoc in our city centres, removing the prior need for a warning to be given. Recently, e-bikes and e-scooters have been subject to a police crackdown in Norwich, with 12 of them being seized in just one day.
The new respect orders will also give the police and local councils powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres or from drinking in public places, such as high streets and parks. That will make a real difference in areas such as Prince of Wales Road in Norwich. It is home to a lot of vibrant nightlife, but businesses there have often made complaints about antisocial behaviour. I hope the Minister can reassure us that for serious and persistent offenders who affect our constituents day after day, respect orders will indeed give authorities the powers they need.
Of course, many of these measures will only be effective if we have police on the streets to enforce them. I pay tribute to the police and police staff in Norwich and Norfolk, and across the country, who work really hard. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers, with a named and contactable officer in every community. I have met many of the local officers in our area through safer neighbourhoods teams meetings and they work incredibly hard, but often they are stretched to cover the areas they are supposed to cover.
I welcome the fact that the Government have increased police funding by £1.1 billion, which is a 4.1% increase in real terms, including funding to kickstart the recruitment of new officers. Norfolk Constabulary is set to receive £235 million in 2025, which is an increase of £12.8 million on 2024. However, can the Minister reassure me that the recruitment of 13,000 neighbourhood officers and the funding package being provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk streets, so our residents can see and be reassured by their presence?
Under the Conservatives, neighbourhood policing was slashed in communities across the country, but I know that Labour is determined to change that. However, there are still real challenges. The chair of Norfolk Police Federation spoke out earlier this year about the difficulties facing the police forces in our county, including officers leaving or having to take time away from the workplace because of the huge pressures being placed on them. Could the Minister also talk about the action we are taking to support the police at work and address retention issues?
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene.
In my constituency of Southend East and Rochford, we share many of the same issues that my hon. Friend is experiencing in her constituency in Norwich. We have a high street that needs to be reanimated and low levels of antisocial behaviour. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend said of her community, there is also a great community in my constituency, so I wholeheartedly support what she is saying.
I also encourage people to visit Southend East and Rochford, because it is really important that communities are reanimated by people visiting the area and spending time in a community. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we create the conditions in our high streets, towns and city centres that enable them to thrive? And does she support the Government in their crackdown on crime?
Alice Macdonald
I do agree and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, I recently visited Southend and saw what a vibrant community it is. I believe that the new measures will benefit not only the east of England as a whole but the entire country.
I will just conclude my point about police and police financing. As the Minister will be aware, the chief constable of Norfolk is also the national policing lead for finance, and he has raised a number of issues with me, including some no-cost ideas that could be explored to relieve pressure on the police, such as the flexibility for the police to recruit the right workforce mix. I hope that in her response to the debate, the Minister will speak about that issue and perhaps outline some of her conversations with the chief constable.
As I have said, Norwich is a wonderful place to live and we can all play our part in ensuring that our fine city stays that way. It is vital that the fight against antisocial behaviour is carried out at all levels. I welcome the work of Sarah Taylor, the excellent police and crime commissioner for Norfolk. I also welcome the work of Norwich City Council’s excellent Love Norwich campaign, which aims to tackle environmental antisocial behaviour, with a range of measures to tackle fly-tipping, littering and graffiti.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about councils. In my area, Central Bedfordshire Council has just decided to remove all of its safer neighbourhood officers. The chief constable has said that there will be increased risks to the public because of that. These are uniformed people who go around our streets handing out fixed penalty notices for littering, looking at graffiti and generally making members of the community feel safer. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the council voted against an amendment to keep such officers in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that councils have a duty to make sure that they crack down on low-level antisocial behaviour, and that if they do not do so, there will be a real knock-on effect on local people?
Alice Macdonald
I totally agree. As I said, action needs to be taken at all levels, including central Government, local government and in communities, which do brilliant work. The Love Norwich campaign also includes a grant scheme where communities can apply for up to £2,500 to enhance and open all communal space near them. This is the best of our society in action.
I am sure we have all seen litter-picks led by local volunteers in action in our areas, which see people come together to keep our areas clean, safe and welcoming for all residents. I also welcome the investment of our Labour-led city council in new security doors, including at St James Close in Norwich North. Many of my constituents have told me that unrestricted access can contribute to long-running antisocial behaviour issues. Of course, we want to prevent those issues in the first place, but it is a good example of a local council responding to what it is hearing from local communities.
I will conclude with this message: antisocial behaviour is a blight on all our communities. It cannot and will not be tolerated. I applaud the Government’s efforts in taking actions to tackle it and to put more police on our streets, but there is still a long way to go. I know that the Government will continue to do everything they can to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour in all its forms.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing this important debate this afternoon. Some antisocial behaviour problems can be extremely localised down a single street, in a block of flats or between neighbours, ruining the lives of individuals targeted but sometimes going unnoticed by the wider community.
In recent months, many constituents have written to me and asked for help in dealing with antisocial behaviour problems caused by their neighbours in housing association properties. Research found that those living in housing associations are up to 30% more likely to experience criminal or inconsiderate antisocial behaviour compared with those who own their own property. That sort of behaviour ruins lives, and when it is happening in the vicinity of our own homes, there is often no escape.
The situation is made even worse when the victim is vulnerable due to their age or a medical condition. Sadly, it is far too common for me to hear that housing associations responsible are failing to take this issue seriously. As I have said before in the House, it is clear that, as well as the police, housing associations must play a full role in dealing with antisocial behaviour. While I welcome the Government’s rhetoric on tackling the scourge within our communities, it remains to be seen whether their new respect orders will be fully utilised by housing association providers. From my experience, they are not always interested in hearing about antisocial behaviour problems in the first place.
Previously in the House, I was told that
“existing civil injunctions will be renamed as housing injunctions, which will deal with that more low-level antisocial behaviour between neighbours.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 799.]
The explanatory notes to the Crime and Policing Bill state that housing injunctions can be applied for in the same way as the previous civil injunctions. How exactly will renaming something that already exists help to deal with this type of behaviour in our communities, when my constituents are telling me that the current system does not go far enough? I look forward to clarification on that specific point from the Minister, when she winds up this debate.
What has been proven to cut antisocial behaviour is hotspot policing, and I am pleased to say that the fruits of this can be seen in my constituency of Broxbourne, thanks to the efforts of our fantastic police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, and our hard-working local police officers. In January alone, Waltham Cross saw more than 682 hours of additional police patrols being carried out, eight arrests were made, and two weapons were seized. That increased visibility is reassuring to residents and prevents crime before it actually occurs. In some hotspot areas in Hertfordshire, antisocial behaviour has been reduced by up to 50%, which I absolutely welcome.
Our constituents, whether they live in social housing or are simply using their local town centre, expect and deserve to feel safe. As the Minister knows, driving down antisocial behaviour is crucial to achieving that, and I will be watching the Government very closely to see whether they follow through on their promise.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate on an issue of deep importance to our constituents. I start by acknowledging that Hertford and Stortford is a fantastic place to live, work and learn. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted the best start in life for me, and growing up I was lucky enough to benefit from the diverse offering of opportunity in our semi-rural community.
Our residents are deeply proud of our towns and villages and want our local area to thrive, but too often, instances of antisocial behaviour cause huge disruption to their lives and blight our communities. In the year ending March 2024, there were just over 2,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour in Hertford and Stortford. Those are not simply statistics. Each incident leaves residents who feel less secure on their way home from work, in our town centres, or even in their own home at night. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work being done by police in our community. I am pleased that tackling retail crime and antisocial behaviour in Sawbridgeworth is a priority for the police, with extra patrols and public appeals to identify perpetrators. Likewise, I welcome the use of regular speed checks on Hadham Road in Bishop’s Stortford to tackle antisocial and dangerous driving, with one driver issued with a traffic offence report after he was caught speeding at 54 mph in a 30 mph zone.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that when police set up patrols to catch people who speed, the news quickly gets on to apps to tell people coming down the road that there is a policeman standing there with a speed gun? Does he think the Government should explore whether to ban apps that do that, so that we can catch people who speed on our roads?
Josh Dean
I thank the hon. Member for raising that interesting point, which I will certainly consider. It is important that we tackle antisocial driving and speeding. We have a specific incident spot on West Street in Hertford, where residents have been campaigning to deal with antisocial driving and speeding not just since I was a councillor there a year ago, but for the past 25 years. I am sure Members will not mind me pointing out that that is longer than I have been alive.
We know that antisocial behaviour takes many forms, often going hand in hand with crime, and that means that our police have to fight on multiple fronts, but they will always have my support when they take positive steps to tackle antisocial behaviour in our community. We know there is more to do, and I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to cracking down on the antisocial behaviour that blights our communities, including through the tough new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill. Residents regularly disturbed by e-scooters and off-road bikes misused on our streets will welcome the removal of the requirement for police to issue a warning before seizing vehicles associated with antisocial behaviour.
Ours must also be a Government who tackle antisocial behaviour at its roots, so in the time I have remaining I shall talk about antisocial behaviour among young people. Too often in semi-rural communities like mine, young people are driven to antisocial behaviour by lack of provision and support. The famous image of the loitering youth only exists because there is so rarely anywhere else for them to go, such was the decimation of youth services under the watch of the previous Government for 14 years.
I pay tribute to the work of the charities and voluntary organisations filling gaps in youth services in our community, particularly the Thirst Youth Café in Bishop’s Stortford and FUTUREhope in Hertford, where I once volunteered. Their work not only deters young people from antisocial behaviour and the more serious crime it acts as a doorway to, but builds their confidence, so that they can find the path that is right for them and contribute positively to our community.
I warmly welcome the work that this Government are undertaking to introduce a network of Young Futures hubs to support young people’s development in communities like mine, to improve their mental health and wellbeing and to stop them from being drawn into a life of crime and antisocial behaviour. I am also encouraged by plans to develop a new national youth strategy to deliver better co-ordinated youth services at the local, regional and national levels, and to help all our young people to reach their full potential.
Jim Shannon
I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman says about the groups helping to give young people an opportunity to do something. Does he have in his constituency, as I have in mine, churches that reach out to help? For example, in Newtownards, the Salvation Army is developing a new centre. Those sorts of outreach efforts that people are doing individually and voluntarily will make a big difference. Does he agree?
Josh Dean
Absolutely. The groups I mentioned are supported by local churchgoers and religious groups in our community. I pay tribute to them, not least because I was supported by youth services as a young person. I would not be standing here as the Member of Parliament for Hertford and Stortford without them.
I am looking forward to engaging in coming months with young people and local service providers in our community, to ensure that they can contribute directly as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport develops the exciting new national youth strategy.
On that point, I shall be grateful if the Minister outlines how the Home Office is working across Government to ensure that tackling antisocial behaviour and crime prevention are wired into the national youth strategy. Also, how will the Home Office work with policing teams in semi-rural communities such as mine to continue to crack down on antisocial behaviour?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
As a former youth worker, I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend talk about the benefits of youth services. Does he agree that we have seen an erosion of youth services across the east? When cuts are made to council funding, children’s and youth services are often the first to go.
Josh Dean
I could not agree more. I often hear Conservative Members speak of their Government’s successes, but young people like me lived its failures. Too often, youth services, arts and culture—the things that help young people in our communities to find the path that is right for them—that were first for the chopping block. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and, on that point, I will conclude.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on securing such an important debate. My constituents have great pride in our community. The marriage of town and country was the vision behind Welwyn Garden City, and Hatfield is a new town that blends hundreds of years of history, such as Hatfield House, with a spirit of innovation as the home of the world’s first jet airliner. Antisocial behaviour is damaging because it chips away at that sense of pride in our communities. Instead of embracing public spaces, people are forced indoors, not looking outwards. They lock the doors to try to stay safe at home.
Like other hon. Members, I hear too many stories of how antisocial behaviour takes its toll on my constituents. I have heard of rocks being thrown at family homes, public urination on street corners, and a banned breed of dog locked up, rarely walked and behaving menacingly. Perhaps most powerful of all, a 10-year-old primary school student on a fantastic visit told me that they had seen a pensioner nearly knocked over by an off-road bike being illegally raced through one of our parks; the incident had made them worried to go to the King George V playing fields in Welwyn Garden City. It is time for action, and this Government get that.
Sam Carling
We have that problem with off-road bikes as well e-scooters on pavements. I receive regular complaints from my constituents about them being used improperly, often putting elderly people at great risk because they cannot move out of the way quickly enough when one whizzes up behind them. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take that sort of antisocial behaviour seriously? Does he welcome, as I do, the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that will help police seize those vehicles?
Andrew Lewin
I absolutely do. My hon. Friend is right to talk about older people being vulnerable to e-scooters, but I think also of young families, mums and dads with prams and babies. I have heard some horror stories about their experiences. I completely endorse what he said.
The Government are taking action. I was delighted to see the Crime and Policing Bill pass Second Reading yesterday. I shall briefly highlight three of its measures, some of which have already been referenced, that could make a difference in Welwyn and Hatfield. First, the Bill will give police the power to seize bikes or vehicles immediately, removing the need for a warning. That is an important change. If bikes or e-scooters are being ridden irresponsibly, let us get them straight off the road.
Secondly, respect orders will give local councils and police powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres, or from drinking in public spaces such as high streets and local parks. Crucially, failure to comply with a respect order will be a criminal offence, so police will have the power to arrest people in breach straight away. Finally and perhaps most important is the manifesto commitment Labour made to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police community support officers across the country, with a focus on targeting the most prolific offenders.
Welwyn Hatfield is at its best when the streets are bustling and people come together, feeling both security and pride in the place they call home. This Labour Government understand how much that matters to people, and why tackling antisocial behaviour locally and nationally is rightly a priority.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing forward this important debate. Antisocial behaviour and disorder is a blight on our high streets and town centres, and I hear all too often from my constituents in Thurrock about behaviour that is making their lives a misery, forcing them to avoid problem areas and, in the worst cases, making them too afraid to leave their homes. Through experiences that have been shared with me, I see how crime perceived to be low level leads to people worrying about themselves and their children, and feeling unsafe in their community. These problems can all too often feel intractable.
At a street meeting that I recently held in west Thurrock, residents told me that their peaceful lives had been made consistently miserable by the menace of dirt bikes. One resident told me that the noise is unbearable, sometimes continuing for hours at a time. Those who work from home have their working hours consistently interrupted by the noise of dirt bikes.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
There are many things about the Crime and Policing Bill that I welcome, but I particularly welcome the action that we are going to take on dirt bikes. I hope in the future that we also look at other types of vehicles, particularly those with modified exhausts. One of the problems that I often hear about from residents, and that I have come across many times myself, is boy racers at all hours of the day seemingly acting with impunity because the police and local councils often do not have the resources to act.
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend is right that powers introduced in the Crime and Policing Bill will go some way towards alleviating some of these problems. He raises a good point about how the noise itself is an issue which exacerbates people’s fear of this kind of antisocial behaviour, which makes some areas almost a no-go zone. That cannot be right. Another resident told me that when those bikes are out and about she is worried for her child’s safety. She approaches the distance between her house and the local park with fear, as she knows the bikes are being driven in an illegal and reckless manner. She worries that her child could eventually be hit by one of those drivers, having had a number of close shaves in the past.
I have held a number of coffee afternoons to bring residents together to discuss the issue of antisocial behaviour and crime in their neighbourhood. The problems I hear about are consistent, and ones that all Members in this Chamber will be familiar with—things like graffiti, disorderly behaviour, dirt bikes and fly-tipping. I know there are measures in the Crime and Policing Bill to give councils more powers to tackle fly-tipping. They are all things that add to the overall impression of an area that is run down and undesirable. Our area and places across the country deserve better than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North spoke about her area having much to offer and great civic pride. Thurrock also has a lot to offer, but we find that too often communities are afraid to come together in that spirit because of the behaviour they see on their own doorstep. One of the things that comes up time and again is the broken link between communities and their local neighbourhood and community policing force. The refrain, which will again be familiar to most of us in the Chamber, is, “You just don’t see a police officer any more.”
The Government’s switch to pushing for community policing is the right move. It allows police officers to get to know the area, the pinch points and the issues that residents have. It offers visible reassurance to people who are afraid to leave their homes that there are police available, and that they are on their side. Quite often residents say, “I haven’t got the time to sit and call 111, or to file a report that goes into great detail about what I saw and when, but if I saw a police officer on the street, I would go up to them and say that I saw this behaviour, at this time, at this place.” That builds an intelligence-led policing narrative that can only be for the best.
That is why I welcome the Government’s move to neighbourhood and community policing. It is the kind of preventive work that stops problems becoming larger, that allows people to feel safe on their streets, and that ultimately allows for the kind of society that we all want to see and live in. Of course serious crimes must be given priority, but in this era of competing priorities, what plans do the Government have to make sure that police forces prioritise community policing, and recognise the importance of a visible police presence on the street and people having a named police officer for their area? How can we encourage police forces to follow through with that?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald)—my Norfolk colleague—on securing this important debate.
Statistically, Norfolk is one of the safest counties in the whole country, but antisocial behaviour is still very much a concern county-wide, including in South West Norfolk. I am regularly reminded that statistics offer little comfort for those experiencing antisocial behaviour. Nationally, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, a record 24% of people believe that antisocial behaviour is very or fairly bad. I do not think it is unreasonable for people to expect to feel safe in their own communities and their own homes.
During the Conservatives’ 14 years in government, instead of delivering law and order, they did the exact opposite. They hollowed out neighbourhood policing and gutted and broke the criminal justice system, so that more than 90% of crimes now go unsolved.
Lewis Cocking
I remind the hon. Member that the last Conservative Government recruited 20,000 police officers across the country and the only force not to meet that target was the Metropolitan police under Labour mayor Sadiq Khan.
Terry Jermy
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. In Norfolk, there were fewer serving police officers at the end of the last 14 years than there were at the start. We have made that point repeatedly.
Some 240 police community support officers were scrapped entirely and not replaced on a like-for-like basis. The then Conservative police and crime commissioner cut all police community support officers—Norfolk was the first force in the country to do so. As a former youth worker in the constituency and a long-time councillor, I saw the immediate impact of that decision. PCSOs were able to make connections with the community; they met councillors and residents’ associations, and collected and shared information where possible. In Thetford, the largest town in my constituency, there was a PCSO based in the main high school, who built a rapport with young people that paid dividends later on.
Labour’s mission in government is to restore trust in our justice system as a key pillar of our society, and that mission has begun. I am delighted that just yesterday the Home Secretary highlighted the pledge to provide 13,000 more neighbourhood police and community support officers, alongside an extra £200 million of funding in the next financial year.
I am very proud to be a Labour MP in a rural constituency, and I am particularly pleased that this Government are looking to deliver a new rural crime strategy. We need a fresh approach to tackling crime in rural areas. We must recognise that crime and antisocial behaviour is different in rural areas. Crimes such as hare coursing and livestock worrying are major issues in my constituency and of great concern to residents.
I pay tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and its Freedom from Fear campaign, which seeks to prevent violence, threats and abuse against workers and protect them from antisocial and threatening behaviour by the public. I have spoken to staff in village shops across South West Norfolk who often work alone and in very remote areas. The abuse of retail workers is a huge concern to them. The Government understand the need for further protections and I was delighted that just yesterday, on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Home Secretary announced that we will introduce a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker.
I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the opportunities and the programme for delivery for rural communities in the east.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this important debate.
I will start with a quick stocktake of my constituency and the region. I am immensely proud of my community, as I know everyone in this room is of their own, and I do not want to be accused of doing my town down in any way, but we undoubtedly have some important challenges with antisocial behaviour. In January 2024, we were the worst major town in Hertfordshire for antisocial behaviour, with more than 200 reported incidents. The town centre, which should be—and is—a great place to meet friends and loved ones and do some shopping, is now one of the most dangerous in the county. Dacorum has the highest number of vulnerable children at risk of exploitation by drug dealers and county lines in Hertfordshire. Indeed, we have a long-standing issue with drugs. I do not talk about this often, for obvious reasons, but even members of my own family have in the past been affected by drug addiction issues due to scumbag drug dealers peddling horrible drugs.
In Hemel Hempstead, the overall crime rate in 2023 was 95 crimes per 1,000 people. Damningly, between 2014 and 2024, the crime rate doubled. I am proud of my community, but we cannot allow the thugs to win. People often ask why we are in this mess, and it is impossible to ignore the indisputable fact that, in the time that the Conservatives were in power—14 years nationally and longer locally—local crime skyrocketed. They ignored antisocial behaviour, cut our police force by 20,000 officers nationally and took 60p out of every £1 from local authorities. Objectively, that is why we are where we are; this is their mess, and people in my patch are the ones who have to deal with it.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I was delighted to speak last night on Second Reading of the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, and to vote in favour of it. It is at the heart of our Government’s safer streets mission, and I want to briefly touch on some aspects of the Bill that will help to combat antisocial behaviour in my patch and in the region.
Clause 1 will provide the police, local authorities and other agencies with a new power to tackle antisocial behaviour: respect orders. Like a stuck record, I will once again suggest that Hemel Hempstead should be considered for a respect order pilot. I believe that the orders will make an incredible difference to the hard-working local police force.
Clause 4 will make life tougher for criminals and thugs by increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices from £100 to £500. We must make sure that victims are prioritised and criminals face the full force of the law. There must be enough of a sting that they think twice before behaving in this manner.
Part 3 of the Bill will address retail crime, as others have mentioned. I will not repeat what I said in the Chamber yesterday, except to highlight the need to ensure that we are not letting people wander into our shops and steal what they want with impunity.
Clause 14 will introduce a new crime of assaulting a retail worker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for highlighting this point and I agree with him. I also put on the record my thanks to both USDAW and the Co-operative party for their hard work and campaigning on these issues over many years. We saw during covid that retail workers are not just hard-working, outstanding members of our community, but essential to our very survival, and I welcome the fact that the Labour Government will reflect that in law.
Labour is taking seriously the blight of antisocial behaviour, but so too have our police. As I have said before, I have been out with bobbies on the beat through a ride-along scheme. If any Member of this House has not taken part in such a scheme, I recommend that they do so—indeed, many police forces allow individual citizens to do so—because it is an eye-opening demonstration of the tough challenges that our police face. They are true heroes of our community.
Thanks to local police in Hertfordshire, we have seen some progress in tackling the blight of antisocial behaviour, despite the resource pressures that they have faced. I thank them again for their service. The force’s Operation Clear Hold Build in the Grovehill area of my town and Operation Hotspot in the town centre have brought significant uplifts in patrols and prevention.
I also thank the Minister for her engagement. I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to meet her recently to discuss some of the specific issues in my constituency, including antisocial behaviour hotspots such as Hosking Court, Livingstone Walk, Swallowfields. For too long, people in Hemel Hempstead have been let down, but this Labour Government are showing leadership. I look forward to continuing to do all that I can locally to ensure that the national changes that we make are felt in my town.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing the debate. I rise to share case studies that parallel those we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft), for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), among others.
Let me take Members all the way back to my time at secondary school, in the wonderful community of Haxby. Unfortunately, that community has declined thanks to the threat and disdain we have seen relating to ASB. We have seen shops’ doors smashed down and fires in parks, with people setting fire to crucial resources for the wonderful people in these towns and villages.
Let me give a more recent and striking example. With apologies to any Conservatives present, I will take Members back to the general election. It was a lovely day in beautiful Bishopthorpe. I had been walking up the street and called into a local shop. I saw two people running out of the front door each holding baskets full of instant coffee. Those, of course, were stolen—totally unacceptable—and they were harassing people through the village as they left. I reported that to the staff, but they said despondently that this had all become too much of a regular occurrence, and that abuse and shoplifting went hand in hand.
Shoplifting and abuse became commonplace under the Conservatives. They seemed to stop caring about low-level crime. As a result, antisocial behaviour in our constituencies spiked. If someone steals a couple of hundred pounds a few times a week, that is not a low-level crime for a small business; it could be a question of survival, but it also has ramifications for the wider community. Stories travel in closely knit communities such as the ones we represent.
Let me share another example of how antisocial behaviour has deeply affected my constituents. One wrote to me about his neighbour’s garden, which is seen as a source of pride by the community; it has been cared for and tended for years. However, a group of youths in the area ransacked the garden, undoing all that hard work, and then, shamefully, they refused even to apologise. I could not imagine how frightening that was for the neighbour, let alone how disheartening it was after he had spent so many years making his garden look so lovely.
This Government are all about restoring pride in our communities and in each other. I do not always blame the last Government, because it is more complicated than that. For generations, our young people have not had opportunities, which have been taken away, and they have felt disenchanted. But under this Government, opportunities for young people will change. That is the way we will tackle the root cause of antisocial behaviour.
I move on to another case. A constituent told me how his wife was left terrified after her car was followed and she had abuse shouted at her. It is critical that we stop such things happening as part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but the most heartbreaking thing for me was hearing her suggest that such incidents had become normalised in the community and that there was no clear end in sight. That must stop.
I will give a final example of antisocial behaviour, this time from Strensall. A father shared with me how his son’s beloved bike was stolen from him while the child was defenceless. This one is personal. As a young dad myself, I would be devastated to see my son upset at the hands of such cruel behaviour in my community. His son is now left without a bike but, more than that, he has lost his confidence. That is unforgivable. The stories we have heard today are just too many and they are all unacceptable. That is why I am pleased that the Government’s Crime and Policing Bill sailed through Second Reading yesterday as we start to get a grip on the common occurrences I have mentioned.
I pay special tribute to the Minister, who has been extremely supportive of tackling antisocial behaviour in my community of Haxby. In fact, she was so supportive that just yesterday I received a response from her, for which I am grateful. She is a fantastic Yorkshire colleague and, in our region’s spirit of directness, I want to make a small suggestion. In the community I represent, we find that some of those causing trouble are 15, 16 and 17 years old. The respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill are a huge stride forward in tackling antisocial behaviour, but they do not apply to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds. Is there a place for something like a junior respect order or some other pilot or tailored measure to root out antisocial behaviour in that age bracket?
I want to end by giving a brief shout-out to the neighbourhood policing teams in York Outer, and in particular to Sergeant Henderson, who I have worked with closely. I know at first hand just how committed he and his team are to serving our local community. Like me, he is determined to end the epidemic of antisocial behaviour.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North again on securing this debate. I hope all Members present can leave in agreement that now is the time to tackle antisocial behaviour once and for all.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Although I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for this debate, I also declare a strong interest in that I am the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford in Essex—for Members who do not know the geography, that is firmly in the east of England.
I will start by saying a few things about my constituency. Other hon. Members have spoken with pride about their constituencies and how important it is that antisocial behaviour is curbed. Chelmsford is a lovely urban constituency with lots of wonderful things going on—of course, I am slightly biased—but when I am out knocking on doors, constituents tell me about things that are not going quite so well. They worry about drug dealing, as several constituents told me on Saturday when I was in the centre of Chelmsford. They tell me about fly-tipping, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). They tell me about the noisy car meets around the constituency. I used to live by the Army and Navy, one of Chelmsford’s main junctions, and the noise used to keep me awake at night sometimes, so I know how frustrating it can be.
Structural issues can also lead to antisocial behaviour, including broken streetlights, which make people feel unsafe when they walk around the constituency. We need local councils to be much better at tackling such issues. Constituents are tolerant but understandably a bit fed up of antisocial behaviour, and we certainly need to do more to tackle it.
Antisocial behaviour can very low level, including people riding bikes on pavements—an annoying thing that happens in my constituency and, I am sure, across the country—and when new trees have been planted and somebody comes along and chops them in half overnight. Nobody is going to be very ill off the back of that, but people are understandably frustrated by it.
On fly-tipping, hon. Members mentioned the fabulous volunteers who help to make our constituencies better places. I would like to single out the volunteers of the Chelmsford Litter Wombles, who spend much of their free time going out and clearing up after littering and antisocial behaviour. I have joined them on various occasions to help them clear up.
Many hon. Members raised the important point that everyone deserves to feel safe when they walk around their neighbourhood. Well over half of hon. Members focused on the importance of policing, punishment and tackling crime, which I agree is important, but it is a shame that more of them did not focus on what is driving those issues in the first place, although some did raise it. It was heartwarming, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) be the first to substantially discuss the lack of provision and support for young people and the importance of youth services.
Youth services were slashed by the previous Government, which left gaps. The issue is not just about youth services as we think of them being provided by councils; it is also about funding for charities and other organisations that can help, and schools’ extracurricular activities. Schools simply do not have the budget for sports activities, music and drama—all the things that help young people to develop, give them an alternative to getting into trouble, and set them up for life.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see more focus on early intervention and on giving young people something to do. This debate is about antisocial behaviour, but knife crime, which has been mentioned, unfortunately fits into that. We would like to see a public health approach taken to the epidemic of youth violence—an approach that identifies and treats the risk factors rather than just focusing on the symptoms. There should be investment in youth services that are genuinely engaging and reach more people. We must give young people the support and opportunities that they deserve to help our communities and individuals feel safer.
The bottom line is that talk is cheap; it is action that really matters. We need to understand the driving forces behind some of the antisocial behaviour. That is not just about the lack of provision of youth services; we need to see why the people who are in our prisons are there in the first place. When we talk about tackling crime, the ultimate endpoint of that is people ending up in prison, but the endless cycle of crime and punishment, with more crime simply leading to calls for more police and tougher sentences, is just not working. Some studies suggest that 50% of the prison population may have dyslexia or other neurodivergent conditions. When that is the case, we are getting something very wrong, so we need to focus on what is driving antisocial behaviour in the first place.
Unnecessarily criminalising young people makes it only more likely that they will commit crimes in future. We know that high-quality youth work gets results: it has been proven time and again to help vulnerable young people to escape the clutches of gangs. As I said, however, the previous Conservative Government slashed youth services. Unfortunately, that robbed young people of hope and contributed to the rise in serious violence. I thank the hon. Member for Norwich North again for initiating this important debate and for its focus on the east of England.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), is busy on a Bill Committee, so it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. Like the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), and, I am sure, the Minister, I experience these issues in my own constituency as a constituency MP. Just this morning I was on a call with the local police to talk about a recent spate of antisocial behaviour in Bexhill. Again, it is a fantastic place to live, work and raise a family, but it is still experiencing these issues.
Hon. Members present will be aware that the east of England is not easily described in simple terms. As with my own region, its towns, cities and countryside create a diverse landscape, making policing challenging. The urban-rural divide leads to varied patterns of crime and offending, and to different demands on resources. Crime rates in the east of England are lower than the national average, and crimes excluding fraud have seen the rate per 1,000 people fall by 12.5% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, the antisocial behaviour crime rate is 4.6% lower in the east of England than it was last year. However, that is not enough. We must always be more ambitious in tackling crime; our constituents deserve to live their lives free from the burden of antisocial behaviour.
It is fortunate that in certain regions we have effective police and crime commissioners working hard to address the very issue that we are discussing today. I understand that antisocial behaviour accounts for 14.5% of all crime recorded in the region; it is second only to violent crime at 36.5%. It is essential that the Government work with local forces to implement effective strategies to reduce antisocial behaviour, recognising the damage that it causes in undermining trust within our communities.
The Government have said that tackling antisocial behaviour is a policing priority, and I know that people across the country will welcome measures to curb this behaviour, which does so much harm. Research conducted under the last Government highlighted its impact, with one Home Office study revealing that 66% of people changed their behaviour in at least one way because of antisocial behaviour.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge that Governments of both parties have sought to reduce antisocial behaviour over many decades—and, as we have discussed, over the lifetimes of some of the hon. Members present—but we have not yet been able to completely crack the problem. The previous Government produced an antisocial behaviour action plan and took steps to implement a zero-tolerance approach by banning nitrous oxide, by increasing fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and by delivering hundreds of thousands of hours of uniformed patrols targeting hotspots blighted by antisocial behaviour. Given my four years as a volunteer policeman, I felt that the immediate justice element of the plan had particular potential.
Data from pilot forces, including Essex, showed that over 100,000 additional hours of ASB-focused patrols were conducted in pilot areas. That led to a significant increase in enforcement activity, including nearly 800 arrests, close to 2,000 instances of stop and search, and nearly 1,000 uses of antisocial behaviour tools and powers.
Jen Craft
I am an Essex MP, and I am interested in the shadow Minister’s comments on enforcement measures over the last few decades. It is my understanding that the issuance of public notices for offences such as being drunk and disorderly, and other low-level behaviour, actually fell to zero in 2023, whereas such notices were consistently issued in 2010. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Dr Mullan
I am not familiar with the data about those notices for the hon. Member’s constituency. Of course, there is always a challenge in distinguishing between the focus of police and patterns of crime. For example, in this debate we have talked about shoplifting but we have seen, at the same time, a decrease in burglaries, car thefts and so on. The police must always be nimble and not allow themselves to be overly distracted by one particular element of crime, but I take the hon. Member’s point seriously.
Recently, the Essex police, fire and crime commissioner outlined the benefits of an additional £1.6 million for hotspot patrols to tackle antisocial behaviour in 15 areas. The first phase of that initiative, known as Operation Dial, resulted in 101 arrests and the issuance of 112 fixed penalty notices—in keeping with what the hon. Member mentioned—across 13 zones. It is welcome that Essex has not been alone in this practice: police forces in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk are also utilising targeted, visible patrols that have the dual effect of addressing antisocial behaviour and serious violence.
Marie Goldman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex recently proposed getting rid of all 99 PCSOs in Essex? Does the hon. Gentleman think that would ever be the right thing to do?
Dr Mullan
The hon. Lady must forgive me: as I explained, I am not the shadow Policing Minister so, although I have heard about that, I do not know the local circumstances in detail. I am sure that she has made representations to the police, fire and crime commissioner on behalf of her constituents, as is appropriate if she does not agree with that course of action.
Analysis conducted by the Youth Endowment Fund shows that patrols are particularly valuable. Its research, based on meta-analysis, found that hotspot policing has the potential to reduce overall offending by 17%, including reducing violent crime by 14%, property crime by 16%, disorder offences by 20% and drug offences by 30%. What did Labour come in and do? It scrapped the wider roll-out of the immediate justice approach, despite evidence of its clear benefits. Was Labour ready to go with its own ideas, after 14 years in opposition in which to come up with them? No: we faced a lull at a time when the programme we had been successfully delivering could have gone further. We now have to wait for further pilots and a wider roll-out of Labour’s different approach.
Behind the headline figures on police funding, the details reveal a different picture. The funding settlement for the police announced a few weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister increased funding by £1.089 billion, and they made a big play of that figure at the time. However, the funding pressures faced by police forces across England and Wales—including the £230 million extra that police forces will have to pay in national insurance—add up to £1.205 billion for the coming financial year, which starts in just a few weeks. That is about £160 million more than the funding increase.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s finance lead—the local chief constable of the hon. Member for Norwich North, as she mentioned—warned that those pressures would
“inevitably lead to cuts across forces”.
The 43 police forces across England and Wales may have to cut up to 1,800 officers to make up that funding shortfall, whereas we delivered the highest ever number of police officers on the country’s streets—149,679—and oversaw a 51% reduction in overall crime, excluding fraud. We should all be concerned about what may happen next.
I will also pick up on the points made about youth services and again refer to my experience as a volunteer police officer. We should always be cautious about supporting a narrative that excuses criminality. The vast majority of young people from all different backgrounds, with access to exactly the same services—whether those service levels are higher or lower than we might want—do not commit crime. We should never say that a lack of a youth club is an excuse for young people to turn to crime. What we actually know is that parental background, parental responsibility and families have an incredibly important role to play. When we support the narrative that excuses criminality, we talk down the many successful parents who are doing a good job of keeping their kids on the straight and narrow, regardless of what local services are available.
Jen Craft
The majority of young people do not commit crime or antisocial behaviour, and obviously there are parenting choices in there to be applauded; however, there is considerable data about, for example, the prevalence of special educational needs and undiagnosed disabilities among the prison population. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some people are at a disadvantage and predisposed to this kind of behaviour? It benefits us all to tackle the root causes of the behaviour rather than just look at its effects.
Dr Mullan
My point is that we have to be clear about the narrative we are all supporting. I did not hear a single Labour Member talk about the important role of parents. I am happy to acknowledge that there are risk factors, but when I talk about these issues I am always clear about the balance, and I did not hear any of that balance from any Labour Members.
I am confident that the Minister will highlight the Crime and Policing Bill, which as we heard was discussed at length last night. One of the provisions that the Government have emphasised is respect orders; however, questions remain about their impact and the extent to which they will produce different outcomes in reducing antisocial behaviour. The Government have stated that the rehabilitative aspects of the orders will make them more effective than the previous regime, and that they will include more robust powers when enforced. Can the Minister clarify what resources will be allocated to support the rehabilitative elements? I note the Government recognise that the success of respect orders is not guaranteed, which is why a pilot scheme is being introduced to assess them. Will she outline where they will be implemented and how their success will be measured?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), always a doughty champion for his constituents, talked about the importance of housing associations. This is something that I have also experienced as a constituency MP. Will the Minister confirm what engagement she has had with housing associations? In addition, has she had discussions with colleagues across Government to ensure that the approach to antisocial behaviour is co-ordinated across all Departments?
As I have said, we have heard repeatedly from police forces, including those in the east of England, about the strain on their budgets. In Norfolk, the local force has expressed concerns about its £4 million funding shortfall, which has been met with an inadequate level of supplementary funding. Additionally, in Essex, there are the challenges of funding PSCOs that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned—the very group of people that we expect to be able to work in this area. I ask the Minister to give us a clear set of measures and targets for how the Government expect to do so much better through delivery of this programme.
Alice Macdonald
We had quite a lot of consensus in this debate. When the last Government left office, were police numbers going up or down? I believe in June 2024 they were lower than in March 2024. I have heard quite a lot of criticism of our Bill. Can he tell us how he would pay for extra police officers, as I have not heard many solutions?
Dr Mullan
I can point to a number of things that we would not have done. We would not have invested the same level of money in settling public sector strikes at above-inflation pay rises. We would not have given train drivers what I think was a £7,000 pay rise. There are many different ways we would have spent the money. Police numbers ebb and flow, but the hon. Lady talks about the narrative of what we achieved in government; we achieved the highest ever number of police officers.
With the potential of fewer officers, we inevitably create greater risk, making it easier for the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to avoid detection and confrontation. If the Government are serious about reducing antisocial behaviour, they must ensure that their choices do not result in further cuts to police numbers. If they do not, their pilots and plans will not make the difference that our approaches were making and all our residents will be let down as a result.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and am very interested to hear of his role as a volunteer police officer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all the Members who have spoken passionately about their constituency and made reference to the antisocial behaviour blighting their areas, which needs to be dealt with.
I am a member of the group of MPs who represent the east of England, so I am pleased to respond to the debate as the Minister. I have direct knowledge and experience as an east of England MP. My hon. Friend made a number of important points in her excellent speech on antisocial behaviour. Like her, I pay tribute to the police and the work that they already do on antisocial behaviour in the east of England and all around the country. I will come to neighbourhood policing issues and the Government’s approach to them in a moment.
Today’s focus on the east of England has raised a number of specific local and regional aspects of the debate, and we have been fortunate to have a geographical spread across the east of England. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) spoke about the role of social landlords and tackling antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) referred to the Young Futures programme and the need to engage with young people. He talked about the Thirst youth café, which he said was a good example of the work that goes on with young people.
I am pleased to confirm that we have a cross-departmental approach to working on the agenda around young people. Our safer streets mission is across Government and not just for the Home Office or DCMS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) talked about problems that older people, pensioners and young children face and the menace of antisocial behaviour from vehicles, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about dirt bikes and the noise, fear and no-go zones. She specifically asked about the need for neighbourhood policing and making sure that police forces act on what the Government ask them to do. I will talk about that in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about not having any PCSOs in Norfolk. That was a decision taken by a previous Conservative PCC. It is interesting because in almost every other part of the country we know how important PCSOs are, and that they provide really important community-based policing.
The Government are working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on a rural crime strategy, recognising the particular issues that rural areas have. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) referred to county lines and vulnerable children. He also spoke about his police ride-along, to see for himself the vital work they do in communities. I will say something about drugs in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) asked about respect orders and the fact that they will apply only to over-18-year-olds. We want to deal with young people who get into bother and engage in antisocial behaviour through our prevention partnerships. They need support and encouragement to do more positive things rather than engage in antisocial behaviour, but of course there are measures that can be brought in if they fail to engage.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), that memories in this place can get very clouded. The Liberal Democrats were part of the Government between 2010 and 2015 during the years of austerity when councils saw massive cuts to their budgets, which then resulted in cuts to youth services. I welcome that the Liberal Democrats are now talking about the need to invest in youth services, but we have to remember that when they were in government they were part of the decisions to slash public services.
I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has a slight case of amnesia about what has actually happened over the past 14 years, with massive cuts to policing. Over 20,000 experienced police officers were lost, as well as many police staff, over the 14-year period, though I recognise that at the end of that time there was a mad scramble to deal with the realisation that cutting police officers had big consequences for all our communities.
Dr Mullan
I think memories are definitely being scrambled. The Government have talked a lot about the supposed £20 billion deficit in day-to-day expenditure. I remind the Minister that it was around £100 billion when we came in in 2010. The Government talk about difficult decisions they had to take; we had five times as many difficult decisions to take as they have.
Dame Diana Johnson
The black hole that the previous Government left this Government to clear up is actually £22 billion. As a Minister who has been in post for nine months, I am very conscious that the whole area of prevention was slashed under previous Conservative Governments, and we are now reaping the consequences. One of my hon. Friends referred to the prison population and the fact that preventive measures were not available; now we see what that actually means.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned a number of ways in which antisocial behaviour manifests itself at the local level in her constituency, including fly-tipping, littering, loud music and nuisance neighbours. She talked about derelict sites being set on fire, toilets being vandalised, and parking generally being used in an antisocial way. I share her concerns regarding all those examples, which are yet more evidence of the damage and distress caused by antisocial behaviour and the need to tackle it as a priority. ASB is especially damaging when it occurs around people’s homes and the places they visit daily in their communities. It is not merely a nuisance; it has devastating consequences, corroding people’s freedom, damaging their mental health and ultimately undermining their sense of hope and home.
My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s commitment to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood officers and whether the funding package provided will result in more police officers on Norfolk’s streets. The Government have committed to restore neighbourhood policing, which includes putting thousands more uniformed officers on the beat in neighbourhoods up and down the country, including in the east of England—visible and in all our communities, rural and urban. We have made £200 million available to forces in England and Wales for the next financial year beginning in April to support the first steps in delivering those 13,000 neighbourhood personnel. Every part of England and Wales needs to benefit from that pledge.
Our approach to delivery in 2025-26, which will be year one of a four year programme, is designed to deliver an initial increase in the neighbourhood policing workforce in a manner that is flexible and can be adapted to the local context and varied crime demands. That means that the precise workforce mix will be a locally made decision, including in Norfolk. That major investment supports the commitment to make the country’s streets safer, and reflects the scale of the challenge that many forces face and the Government’s determination to address it. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the PCC in Norfolk, Sarah Taylor, and the Labour council for the work that they are doing. It is crucial that police and partner agencies listen to the experiences of their communities and of victims.
Jen Craft
The Minister speaks about the excellent work of the police and crime commissioner in her area and in Norfolk; however, in Essex our police, fire and crime commissioner took the controversial decision to slash all 98 PCSOs—a decision he rowed back on after outcry from myself, my Labour colleagues and Opposition Members. Where does the Minister think we are in areas where police, fire and crime commissioners perhaps do not share our goal for neighbourhood and community policing? How does she see us working with them to encourage them that this is the way policing needs to go?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend raises a really interesting point. On the specifics of that example, we were very clear when the provisional police settlement was announced before Christmas that we wanted to listen to what policing had to say about the figures. One of the issues that was raised was about neighbourhood policing. That is why we put £100 million in the provisional settlement, which we then decided to increase up to £200 million in the final settlement. That assisted PCCs, such as the one we are referring to, to say that the proposals put forward in December could change. We are a Government who want to listen to and work with policing, and PCCs of all complexions are clear that neighbourhood community policing is something that the Government are going to drive forward. I think that almost all of them want to work with us on that.
The antisocial behaviour case review is an issue that needs to get a bit more attention. This is a tool—a safety net—that can support victims of persistent ASB to ensure that action is taken, by giving those victims the ability to demand a formal case review to determine whether further action can be taken. The Victims’ Commissioner has talked a lot about it, and wants to ensure that everyone is aware that they can ask for a review if they do not feel they are getting help from the statutory agencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North mentioned antisocial driving and speeding, which I and many other hon. Members spoke about extensively in a Westminster Hall debate last week. The Crime and Policing Bill, which was debated yesterday in the main Chamber, will give the police greater powers to immediately seize vehicles that are being used in an antisocial manner, without having first to give a warning. Removing the requirement to give a warning will make the powers under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 easier to apply, allow police to put an immediate stop to offending and send a message to antisocial drivers that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
I was particularly saddened to hear my hon. Friend’s examples of staff needing extra support to deal with antisocial behaviour in libraries. No one should face that kind of abuse in their workplace, especially not in a place set up to help the public. She also spoke about the public resources being spent on repairing vandalised property and fire crews attending arson. That is precisely why we are determined to intervene early to prevent young people in particular from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, and to put tough measures in place to stop persistent adult perpetrators of ASB.
Sadly, the sort of incidents that my hon. Friend and many others spoke about are happening in lots of areas of the country, so I want to touch on the national context. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour takes many forms: off-road bikes, nuisance neighbours, unruly gangs roaming the streets and creating intimidation and fear, or any other manifestation of this menace. It causes distress and misery in all our communities. The impact on decent, law-abiding people is undeniable: they are left feeling isolated and frightened at home, in their neighbourhoods or in their town centres. As we have heard, the enjoyment of parks and other public spaces is affected.
I have said this before, but fundamentally this issue comes down to respect—respect for our laws, our fellow citizens and our expectations as a society. None of us can accept a situation in which the actions of a selfish few blight the lives of others, but that is happening too often and in too many places. It needs to stop.
The response to antisocial behaviour has been weak and ineffective for too many years, and this Government are determined to put that right. As part of our plan for change, we are delivering a wide-ranging safer streets mission. A central part of that mission is tackling antisocial behaviour, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response, alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators. We are committed to restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson
I think that the shadow Minister—obviously he is not the shadow Policing Minister—
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I am sure he is doing his best. I would say to him that, over 14 years, the previous Conservative Government removed targets in the Home Office and removed the accountability structures that the Home Office should have set in place. We are going to have a performance framework in the Home Office so that we can hold police forces to account—something that was dismantled under his Government.
To add to that point, over the last decade, we have seen that decline in neighbourhood policing to such an extent that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been damaged. Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model. It is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe, and the public rightly expect their neighbourhood police to be visible, proactive, and accessible. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore those patrols to town centres and ensure that every community has a named neighbourhood officer to turn to.
Those working on the ground are best placed to understand what is driving antisocial behaviour in their areas and the impact it is having, and to determine the appropriate response. That goes to the point that hon. Member for Broxbourne raised about housing associations and their ability to use the law to tackle antisocial behaviour in housing. I believe that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. The Government will ensure that police, local authorities, housing providers and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour.
We will put that right—we have discussed this already—by introducing respect orders. Under these new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions such as bans on entering the areas where they have been behaving antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order could also face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially to ensure they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales, and this will be supported by a dedicated lead officer in every force working with communities to develop a local antisocial behaviour action plan.
Practitioners and antisocial behaviour organisations have also asked for additional changes, to enhance the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and improve the tools that local agencies have at their disposal to tackle antisocial behaviour. These changes include extending the maximum time limit for dispersal directions from 48 to 72 hours, increasing the upper limit for fixed penalty notices for breaches of community protection notices and public spaces protection orders from £100 to £500, and extending the power to issue a closure notice to registered social housing providers, among others.
We will also introduce a duty for key relevant agencies, including local authorities and housing providers, to report ASB data to the Government. Following commencement of the Crime and Policing Bill, regulations will be laid to specify which data the relevant agencies should provide, and the form and regularity of submission. This change will give the Government a clearer picture of local ASB and how the powers are being used by local agencies, which will inform future local and national activity. This measure will close a key evidence gap to ensure a strong and comprehensive national picture of ASB incidents and interventions. These changes are long overdue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford raised the Young Futures programme. We are very clear that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must work in a multi-agency way to reduce ASB and make communities safer. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime. An essential part of achieving this will be the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and Young Futures prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier to ensure that vulnerable children are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities, through the provision of open access to, for example, mental health and careers support.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister mentions a multi-agency approach. I think the public get frustrated with us when we have meeting after meeting about the same issue. What assurances can she give us that this multi-agency approach will lead to action taken on the ground to solve some of this antisocial behaviour in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very focused on delivery. Of course we want partner agencies to all be sitting around the table, but we want them to deliver, and that is why, for example, we are putting additional funding into neighbourhood policing, to ensure that there is a local presence. We are bringing in respect orders. We have introduced these new measures so that we can see what is working and where there may be problems that we need to address in a different way.
I want to mention shop theft, because a number of hon. Members also mentioned it. We know that it has a huge impact on town centres, where many small and independent businesses trade, and it is at record high levels and continues to increase at an unacceptable rate. In the last two years before the general election, shop theft went up by 60%, and more and more offenders are using violence and abuse against shopworkers. It is damaging business and hurting communities. It is vital that people feel safe in their local shops and in their local areas.
The police have given a commitment in the retail crime action plan to prioritise attendance where violence has been used towards shop staff, where an offender has been detained by store security, or where evidence needs to be secured by police personnel. Although retailers have indicated early positive outcomes, there is much more to do.
As set out in the Crime and Policing Bill, we will end the effective immunity, introduced by the previous Government, that was granted to the low-level shop theft of goods worth less than £200, to end the perception that those committing low-value shop theft will escape punishment.
We are also introducing the new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in shops. Everybody has a right to feel safe at work. The new offence will carry a maximum prison sentence of six months and/or an unlimited fine. However, as a reflection of the need for us to take a tough stance, with meaningful criminal justice consequences, the offence will also come with a presumption that a court will apply a criminal behaviour order. This will prohibit the offender from doing anything described in the order, which might include a condition preventing specific acts that cause harassment, alarm or distress, or preventing an offender from visiting specific premises.
I also wanted to mention drugs. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour, and go after the gangs luring young people into violence and crime.
The issue of county lines was raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead. I say to him that there has been some really excellent work to try to smash county lines; it is work that this Government will continue and are committed to. Since July 2024, over 400 county lines have been closed and there have been hundreds of arrests, which is very positive.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North for securing this debate today; I am grateful to her and to everyone who has contributed to it. Antisocial behaviour plagues the lives of all those it affects. It is a serious threat and under this Government it will be dealt with as such, in the east of England and everywhere else.
Alice Macdonald
I thank the hon. Members for their contributions today and the Minister for her very full response.
For me, there are three key messages. First, prevention is key—we have to tackle the underlying causes—but we also need strong powers that empower local communities to take action. Thirdly, we are all very proud of our communities, and we want to work with them to make sure they become even better than they already are.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered anti-social behaviour in the East of England.
Gender Critical Beliefs: Equality Act 2010
(1 day, 17 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
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gender critical beliefs and the Equality Act 2010.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Equality Act, passed by a Labour Government in 2010, protects people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Act has a commendable objective: to prevent people from acting on their prejudices and disagreements in a way that results in the discriminatory treatment of others. It exists not to eliminate difference or ensure conformity, but to foster good relations and tolerance between different groups.
Sometimes rights clash. Very few examples of that clash have played out as publicly and discordantly as that between sex and gender identity: that is, the rights of biological women, and sometimes men, and the rights of those who change their social gender to transition to women. Significant feminist gains have been made in policy and law since the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s. Those gains include recognition of specific rights and services for women on the basis of their sex, be that in hospital wards, prisons, rape services, domestic abuse shelters, lesbian dating sites and clubs, women’s health organisations and women’s sports teams—spaces that meet our specific requirements as women. Those gains are being eroded by the blind acceptance by some, including policy makers in this place, that anybody who identifies as a woman de facto becomes one. At a time when male violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in the UK, women’s single-sex spaces could not be more important.
Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits. It is that pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her stance, courage and wise words. Does she agree that respect is a two-way street? Although we should respect someone’s belief, we have been edging towards a place where biblical questioning of a view is taken as an offence. I treasure, as the hon. Lady does, biblical beliefs. I fight for anyone to live their faith in so far as it does not lead to harm or injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should also take that approach?
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I agree that all of those beliefs should be—and are—protected under the law.
Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits, and it is the pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination. They are essential values in a pluralistic democracy where we can acknowledge, navigate and respect our differences. Yet a tendency has arisen in polarised debates, particularly around sex and gender, to treat holding a belief opposing one’s own as not merely a point of disagreement, but a moral defect in the person with whom one disagrees.
That has been clearly demonstrated in the terms that have been used for women who think that our biological sex matters, that it is a material reality that cannot be changed and is entirely different from gender identity—that is, gender-critical women like me. Nasty, puerile terms, many unrepeatable in this place but repeated ad infinitum across social media, such as bigot, Nazi, fascist and TERF—trans-exclusionary radical feminist—are just some examples.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware of the case of my constituent, Roz Adams, who was employed as a counsellor and support worker at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. She was investigated for potentially transphobic views, having asked how she would respond to a woman service-user who asked the sex of a support worker who identified as non-binary. Does the hon. Member agree that targeting women with gender critical views in turn targets women advocating for women’s services, especially for women survivors of rape and sexual assault?
Rosie Duffield
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member so much for raising that case. It shocked and peaked quite a lot of people that just asking for single-sex services when they are more vital than ever got Roz Adams into so much hot water. It is absolutely unbelievable, and good luck to her in her fight.
Ironically, the name calling—the extreme, nasty and degrading names used for women and sometimes men who do not accept that biological men can be women—is often under the guise of “being kind”. Gender critical women are frequently shut down, told to be quiet, or told that it is not right to use accurate language to describe our bodies. Words and language matter, and material reality matters infinitely. There are situations where sex matters and the rights of women and girls must take precedence. Women and girls must be able to use language to describe our experiences and not be persecuted for causing offence or distress.
To believe in women’s sex-based rights and publicly advocate for them results in being readily labelled as hateful or transphobic. However, I am gender critical because I am a feminist and care deeply about the rights of women and girls. I do not seek to destroy the rights of trans-identifying people or any other group, and never have done. My sex-based rights as a woman have nothing to do with those other groups of people.
Gender critical beliefs are legally protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, following the Forstater employment tribunal case in 2021. The tribunal found that Maya Forstater’s beliefs, which she sincerely holds, are widely shared, based on fact, and are reflective of the law of the land, yet despite that judgment, in the four years since there has been an unprecedented run—a steady stream—of similar high-profile and costly employment tribunal cases involving gender critical beliefs that point to a problem that many in this place refuse to acknowledge, including, I am afraid, the Minister responding to this debate.
The normalisation of visible hostility towards anyone expressing widely held gender critical beliefs, even on our own green Benches, has been framed as an expression of solidarity with trans and non-binary people. Those within organisations that sign up to expensive re-education programmes, many of which misrepresent the law, and diktats on all employees signing off emails with pronouns, legitimise the constant, passive-aggressive and soft—or even aggressive and open—bullying of those who refuse to comply.
Those who disagree with gender critical beliefs routinely stigmatise women like me as bigoted, a view that arises from a total misunderstanding of what our beliefs are or the motivations of many of those who share them. The social and financial costs of voicing gender critical beliefs, and of challenging assumptions in their workplace, mean that many are afraid and feel they cannot afford to speak up. Still, day after day people who raise concerns about boundaries around single-sex spaces such as changing rooms are being disciplined, dismissed, and hounded from their workplaces.
Two such cases currently attracting huge attention are those of the Darlington nurses and the Fife nurse, Sandie Peggie. Their tribunals have brought the clash of rights into sharp relief. Few people reading that when adult female nurses challenged their employers to stop biological men changing in the women’s changing room could believe that they were disciplined. I have yet to speak to a single British voter who believes that a man should have whatever access he desires to spaces where women are getting dressed or undressed for work. .
Our evidence base is limited, as academics are afraid to research this area for fear of ending up hounded out of their jobs, as academics Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Laura Favaro and many others have been. None the less, the body of evidence is growing. In its rapid evidence review on harassment and censorship to inform the Khan review published in March last year, More in Common found significant anecdotal evidence of harassment faced by groups of gender critical activists. Gender critical people face high levels of harassment in their everyday lives, leading to self-censorship on a scale that should alarm anyone who believes in liberal democracy—including gender critical MPs who have yet to speak up in public.
Gender critical people face severe consequences for engaging in the debate, ranging from social ostracization to loss of employment and livelihood, all for holding three core beliefs: that women—adult human females—are materially definable as a class of human being; that women are culturally, legislatively and politically important, with our own set of needs, rights and concerns; and that women have the right to meet and discuss freely that which affects our lives profoundly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Lady’s bravery in standing up for what she believes in. Does she agree with me that there is a wider political danger from this form of indoctrination and extremism about gender and sex, which is that if the only people in politics who are prepared to speak out about it are from extreme right-wing movements, and mainstream politicians are too afraid to say anything, it pushes ordinary people in the direction of political extremes?
Rosie Duffield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much for raising that important point. Just for speaking up, I, a left-wing member of the Labour party, have been called a Reform member and all kinds of names, and it has been suggested that I join a right-wing party, yet an awful lot of the articles I read agreeing with me are in the Morning Star. People do not really listen to the ideology behind our beliefs and why we speak up for the rights of working women, which is what the Labour party was founded to do.
We have a duty in this place to ensure that people who hold gender critical beliefs are given the respect they are entitled to. We need to find a workable solution that respects everyone’s beliefs and protected characteristics. I finish by paying tribute to the brave and incredible women—and some men—who know that only women have a cervix and who have stood up to those hounding them at great personal and financial risk to themselves: Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Meade, Roz Adams, Denise Fahmy, Eleanor Frances, Almut Gadow, Laura Favaro, Amelia Sparrow, Jenny Lindsay, Kathleen Stock, Rosie Kay, Selina Todd, Rosa Freedman, Lizzy Pitt and my dearest TERF friends Jo Rowling, Suzanne Moore and supreme shero pioneer Julie Bindel. Those women are just the tip of the iceberg.
I was elected on a manifesto pledge to make the country work for working people. These are working people who are being persecuted for their legal and respectable beliefs. They continue to be let down by cowardly leadership. I have been hounded, harassed, sidelined and briefed against by a party now in government. It is time the Government got to grips with this issue, perhaps by following the lead of the incredibly brave women I have referenced here and the unsung foot soldiers who fight for women’s rights in the workplace the world over.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start by thanking the hon. Member for raising the issues that she has raised this afternoon. I am going to call it more of a discussion than a debate, because I think the purpose of this session is to explore how we can express our beliefs freely, frankly and respectfully, upholding our shared values of tolerance and freedom of speech.
Championing freedom of expression is critical, even when beliefs are varied or opposing. To be protected under the Equality Act, a philosophical belief must be genuinely held and more than just an opinion. It must be cogent, serious and apply to an important aspect of human life or behaviour. In case law, gender critical beliefs have been recognised as such, which this Government acknowledge and respect. The protection of philosophical belief under the Equality Act is one of the foundations of freedom of expression, ensuring that individuals can hold and express deeply held convictions without fear of discrimination, harassment or victimisation. This protection creates space for diverse beliefs in a democratic society. We must not forget that in many countries across the world, such protections do not exist. We should not take them for granted and must continue to view freedom of expression as a right, not a privilege.
We must strive to protect freedom of expression for all, whether we agree or disagree, because we should challenge, probe and inquire, not shut down or silence. We will of course always protect the right not to be discriminated against, harassed or victimised.
The Equality Act prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of a number of characteristics, including a person’s religion, belief, sex, sexual orientation or gender reassignment. That is why the Act is crucial in protecting us all and why we are proud to uphold it. Given the polarisation of belief on sex and gender issues, as well as the disagreement and discomfort such matters can provoke, I am glad that the hon. Member for Canterbury has been measured, considered and respectful, promoting a tone and quality of discussion that refuses to lower itself to the politics of division and anxiety. Let us carry that example forward beyond this Chamber.
It is important that we continue to protect freedom of expression for all, and the hon. Member has set out some examples where the law has protected that freedom, but we must try to support people’s freedom of expression in the first place rather than simply relying on the courts.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, on freedom of expression and those protected characteristics, we must do all that we can within policy to avoid a hierarchy where some of those protected characteristics are inadvertently—or perhaps at times deliberately—considered to be more important than others, and that it is essential that we keep a level playing field within that legislation?
Dame Nia Griffith
These are very tricky issues, and sensible discussion of them, rather than polarisation, is the way forward. We must remember that we have a collective responsibility to express our beliefs respectfully. By consistently adopting that approach, we can all help to lower the temperature of discussions about sex and gender issues, fostering a more positive and inclusive environment where everyone can contribute without fear of being cancelled or silenced.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that in recent years being respectful of others’ views has meant silencing those who have gender critical beliefs? That continues to be the case, although we see some signs of the tide turning. Does she agree that it is up to this Labour Government to ensure that those views are genuinely respected, rather than silencing those with gender critical views?
Dame Nia Griffith
That is exactly what I have been explaining with regards to the Equality Act and respect for all established views, including gender critical views. We want to make sure that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; that is why it is important that we uphold the Equality Act and provide everybody with the reassurance that it protects them against unlawful discrimination and harassment.
It is perhaps important to dwell for a moment on what is considered harassment under the Equality Act. Free speech is protected when it is lawful, but harassment is behaviour that the law specifically defines as unlawful in certain situations, such as the workplace. Harassment is not simply a case of taking offence; there is a seriousness threshold, and conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the definition of harassment. Harassment is a serious matter, involving being subjected to unwanted conduct of various types, as set out in the Equality Act, which
“has the purpose or effect”
of violating the employee’s dignity or of
“creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”
for the employee.
Those who seek to harass people at work will not be tolerated, hence our provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to keep workers safe from harassment.
Establishing those parameters is essential for maintaining the healthy and respectful standards of discussion that I just mentioned. It is also important to highlight that these discussions affect real people, their communities, their careers and their families. Therefore, as we exercise our freedom of expression, let us do so with humanity. We hold our beliefs everywhere we go, which often means that we express them in different places, including at work. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced guidance on belief as a protected characteristic, and we would expect employers to refer to that before taking action in a given case.
We know that single-sex services are important to people for many different reasons. For example, single-sex services can provide safety and comfort, especially for those who have previously had negative experiences using mixed-sex services. Everyone should be able to access specialist services and everyday facilities that meet their needs while protecting their privacy, dignity and safety. However, as outlined by various Ministers in this Government, there will be circumstances where certain groups need to be excluded from single-sex services and facilities to ensure the best outcomes for users—safety, dignity, fairness and privacy, to name a few.
That is why we are proud to uphold the Equality Act, which already gives providers the flexibility to deliver single-sex services exclusively for those of the same biological sex where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister will be aware that the last Conservative manifesto committed to reforming the Equality Act to protect single-sex spaces and services for women and girls, and in particular to listening to the voices of those women across the country. The Labour Government have indicated periodically that they agree with that, but will they commit to taking action—and, if so, when?
Dame Nia Griffith
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that there needs to be some clarification on guidance. She will be well aware that the last Government put out a call for evidence, asking people to provide examples of how the Equality Act is being interpreted. The Act sets out that providers have the right to restrict the use of services, including toilets and women’s refuges, on the basis of sex and gender reassignment in circumstances where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
We are proud of the Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women. We will continue to support the use of its single-sex exceptions by providers. It is vital that service providers understand the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act and feel confident using them. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is guidance in place that gives service providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how to lawfully apply single-sex exceptions. We will be setting out our next steps on that work in due course.
As hon. Members will know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance on separate and single-sex services. It has recently concluded its consultation on its draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister mentioned the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She has mentioned several times the need for understanding and empathy, to allow space for people to have various views. Does she agree that that should be shared by the likes of the Commission and other bodies, and that it is their responsibility to carry out their functions and ensure that people know that they have an empathetic hearing within such bodies, so that they are not seen as being opposed to the views of gender critical people?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed. The Commission and other bodies have a very responsible position to interpret and ensure that, where there are potential conflicts between the different protected characteristics, those are dealt with in a sympathetic and fair manner.
We will be considering the Commission’s proposals on its updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations, and Ministers will make a decision whether to approve them after the final draft of the code has been submitted. The previous Government put out a call for input on single-sex spaces guidance, and over 400 policy and guidance documents that fitted the response criteria were submitted. After reviewing these examples, it was found that the vast majority did not wrongly state or suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender. In fact, only about 10% of the examples submitted seemed to have misinterpreted the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions in some way.
As the independent regulator of the Equality Act, the EHRC is the appropriate body to ensure that this question is looked into in more detail, and it has the ability to follow up directly with organisations if necessary. We are in the process of sharing all the submissions that met the criteria of the previous Government’s call for input on single-sex spaces guidance so that the EHRC can review them. Although guidance does exist, including from the EHRC, the result of this call for input suggests that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about how the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act operate. Moving forward, we will explore the best ways in which we can give providers assurance about the rights afforded by the Act and how they can lawfully apply its single-sex exceptions.
Our beliefs have always played a fundamental role in shaping our identity, purpose and direction in life. At times we share those beliefs with others, fostering a sense of unity and belonging; at other times our beliefs may differ, leading to discord. However, discord does not have to propagate hatred. Progress hinges on our ability to respect different beliefs even when they challenge us. We must cultivate a culture of safety, one that encourages open expression without fear of discrimination or harassment, rather than a culture of silence.
While our beliefs matter, it is equally important to look beyond them and recognise the shared values of tolerance, respect and fair-mindedness that connect us. As we move forward, let us hold on to those values and remain vigilant against attempts to erode them. True progress and equality lie not just in defending our own beliefs, but in upholding the principles that allow all voices to be heard with dignity and respect.
Question put and agreed to.
Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund
(1 day, 17 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
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian
peace.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. One of the most violent cycles of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in history, the largest since 1973, has drawn to a halt and it is now critical that we redouble our efforts to make this a lasting peace. The atrocities and massive loss of life we have seen on and since 7 October cannot happen again. We must do all we can to prevent that, and innocent civilians must be allowed to live their lives without fear.
The recent news has been packed with talk of various reconstruction plans and Government summits, but the current debate is neglected and a vital pathway to peace—that is, the involvement of Israeli and Palestinian civil society. The international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace is at its core an initiative designed to give agency to those often overlooked grassroots communities of Israel and Palestine. It plans to mobilise international investment in regional peacebuilding projects and, in doing so, will tackle unaddressed drivers of this terrible conflict. That is why the Government’s commitment to the fund has been such a groundbreaking move and why our continued support will be critical.
Political discussion about the conflict is often fixated on the short-term weather of the situation, day-to-day events and great tragedy in detail, but sometimes we neglect the climate, the long-term trends and initiatives that will bring us meaningfully closer to peace. Therefore, I want today’s debate, and my intention is, to shift our political priorities to longer term, to looking at how we can create the space in the hearts and minds of all affected communities to make peace a possibility.
Of course, how we accomplish that invites a great deal of discussion, particularly in the light of our Government’s necessary and timely commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. In this era of more limited resources being available, we need to be especially sure that the budget we do have is going towards projects that are value for money in achieving security abroad, because security abroad means safety at home, and the British taxpayer must see those returns many times over. I invite other Members today to make the case for why the international fund could satisfy that requirement.
One great advantage of the fund is the opportunity that it presents for British leadership abroad. The Prime Minister has recently shown what Britain can look like as a leading force for good on the international stage. Seizing the initiative on civil society reconciliation in Israel and Palestine by championing the fund would be yet another demonstration of that power in a notably resource-efficient way. I hope that we have the courage to act and to keep the momentum of recent successes in the region going. As the examples of Syria and Lebanon show, political changes can occur suddenly and unexpectedly. Currently, however, these people and nations are suffering unimaginable pain and trauma. Innocent Palestinians have suffered the catastrophic loss of their loved ones, homes and livelihoods; and at the same time in Israel the images of the hostages are burned into the national consciousness, and the scars of 7 October will be felt for generations to come.
Therefore, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I ask that Members allow accounts from victims to always be heard. I personally have spoken with the families of hostages, and having witnessed such pain at first hand, I make clear my view that anyone who considers themselves to be on the side of peace should respect the testimony of innocents on both sides. This is not a zero-sum game. Reconciliation will take time, but history has told us that it is the only route to a lasting peace.
History has much to teach us in the pursuit of peace. In the 1980s and 1990s, Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine were both global symbols of intercommunal violence, but today they look very different from each other. The enduring relief that the Good Friday agreement brought to the people of Northern Ireland has sadly not been shared in Israel and Palestine. There are many explanations for those differing outcomes that I am sure other Members will draw attention to, but I will note that although negotiations on the make-up of the middle east often began and stayed at the level of Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders, the International Fund for Ireland ensured that as many people as possible were given a seat at the table and a stake in the future.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is talking very eloquently about history and the need for grassroots history to be reflected. Does he agree that there has been a strong history of co-operation and co-operatives in the middle east? Is he aware of the fact that the British Co-operative Group has been working hard, with the Co-operative party, on tangible measures to support peace and economic development, including the Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom peace village? Do we need to see more of these initiatives in the future, and can the fund be a way of achieving that?
Steve Yemm
I agree that co-operatives and co-operation are incredibly important with regard to this fund and that we lose sight at our peril of the value of any civil society actors, including co-operatives. We recall that the fund in Northern Ireland gave everybody a seat at the table, a say in their future. The International Fund for Ireland may well have been the great unsung hero of the peace process. We therefore have in recent memory living proof that a plan for civil society reconciliation, backed by an international fund, can succeed where high-level talks may fail.
In my opinion, no one is more fit for this task than the Labour Government. Our party has a long and storied history in peacemaking, Northern Ireland being just one example of that. Equally, I am eager that we build a consensus on the fund across the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Steve Yemm
Very briefly, and this will be the final intervention on me, I am afraid.
Mr Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I just have a word of caution for him on the comparison between the middle east and Northern Ireland. Yes, the International Fund for Ireland made a difference, but the scale of the schism in the middle east caused by 7 October and the scale of the rebuild that will be required in Gaza are such that a fund many times greater than the IFI will be needed to make any meaningful difference in the middle east.
Steve Yemm
I very much agree that we need to address the scale of the issue—certainly. That is why it is very important that we build consensus on this issue across the House, and I welcome contributions from Members of all parties who are genuinely interested in finding a resolution.
Democracy is one of the strongest tools that we have in the quest for peace, not just in ensuring that our Government do their part, but in giving disenfranchised people a say in their future. We saw that clearly in Ireland, where the promise that people could express their political desires and views with a ballot in their hand instead of a rifle was key to tackling violent extremism.
I have personally engaged with Israel’s democratic tradition in my recent meetings with Yair Golan, the leader of the opposition Democrats party. He is an inspiring man who has put his life on the line, and he has been a clear and consistent voice for peace and security. I also welcome Israel’s continued engagement with the UK, but democracy will not be built and maintained unless there is a strong coalition of ordinary people and communities to safeguard it. Peacebuilding is about not just summits and large state initiatives, but the day-to-day work of people on the ground doing their utmost to set the conditions for the ending of hostilities.
We know that the Government are ultimately interested in peace in the middle east and are taking a long-term view to achieve that end. We have seen momentum build among G7 countries behind an international fund. I want to be clear that that is the crux of today’s debate. This is not about politicking, theatre or gestures. I secured the debate because I am genuinely interested in finding long-term solutions and achieving the best outcomes in the light of the realities that we face. The UK has the opportunity to take action and provide leadership. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the fund to date and I am confident that we can build on that in the immediate future. As I draw my speech to a close, I invite Members on both sides of the House to use this opportunity to make suggestions to the Minister about how the Government and the Foreign Office might move this crucial initiative forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of Members wish to speak and I will begin to call the Front Benchers no later than eight minutes past 5, so at the moment we are looking at roughly two minutes for each speech, but it may even be less than that. I will not waste any more time—I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I commend the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for setting the scene so well.
It is important that we focus on the most innocent victims of this enduring conflict—the children. Their futures are being compromised by the ongoing violence around them, and I pray every day that they see a future for themselves and for one another. For Israeli children, especially those living in border towns such as Sderot, which has been known as the bomb shelter capital of the world for more than 25 years, and in other communities within range of regular Hamas missile fire, life is lived under constant threat of attack. These children go to school knowing that at any moment a missile could be launched at them. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and their education and daily life are continually disrupted by air raid sirens, evacuations and nights spent in bomb shelters.
At the same time, the children of Gaza are also being denied their hopes and dreams. Their education has been disrupted because their schools have been systematically used by Hamas and other terrorist organisations as military installations. Too many of these children grow up being indoctrinated into extremist ideologies, rather than hearing the promise of peace. If we are to foster a generation that chooses peace over war, we must ensure that children on both sides have access to education that is free from the toxic legacies of violence and hatred. This is where an international fund could play a role. It could invest in educational programmes to promote and instil co-existence, tolerance and economic unity.
Any such fund must be administered with transparency and accountability. Given what we already know about the politicised nature of the many NGOs operating in the region, it is very important that funds are not diverted towards movements that do not work towards peace. The foundation of that work must be a democratic Gaza, free from the influence of Hamas terrorism, and a complete rejection of Hamas’ vision of the destruction of the state of Israel.
Parents in Gaza and Israel are exhausted from burying children and loved ones. Children, by their very nature, are the future. If we believe in a future where Israeli and Gazan children can grow up without fear of one another, we need decisive action. An international fund, properly administered and targeted, has the potential to create the conditions for a sustainable peace, with a secure and safe future for all children in the region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I will extend the time limit to two and a half minutes. I will leave it as voluntary, but if hon. Members do not keep to it I will impose it.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate.
As a supporter of a two-state solution to achieve an independent state of Palestine and a secure Israel, I welcome the opportunity to further our commitment to forming an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace to build civil society and to encourage reconciliation.
I am proud that before being elected, I worked for 13 years as the director of an organisation called We Believe in Israel. However, it was not just a pro-Israel organisation; it was committed to a two-state solution and national self-determination for both peoples, Jews and Palestinians. That role means that I have travelled many times to both Israel and the west bank. I have seen many examples of magnificent work to promote peace and co-existence, and I have met many inspiring Israeli and Palestinian voices for peace. An example of those is the organisation Roots, which is a grassroots movement for
“understanding, non-violence and transformation among Israelis and Palestinians”.
It also means that the appalling terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent dreadful war do not just relate to places that I have only seen on the news; they have affected communities and families that I have visited and met. One of the things I find most painful is that the communities that bore the brunt of the attacks on 7 October were communities that were deeply committed to co-existence and to helping their neighbours in Gaza. I could say many more things about the situation, both as it was on 6 October and as it has transpired after 7 October, but because of the limited time that we have and the need to enable more people to participate in the debate, I will cut short what I was going to say.
We need to launch a diplomatic process towards ending the conflict, but it cannot just be a top-level diplomatic process between leaders; it must involve a grassroots diplomatic and co-existence process that marginalises the enemies of peace with a new strategy. We need to find organisations like Roots that bring together Israelis and Palestinians and build genuine understanding between them, that educate communities away from the ideologies and ideas of violence and bring them towards the ideas of peace and co-existence. We need to provide all the support that we can to those organisations that are struggling to build a sustainable, peaceful middle east.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the thousands of Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders, some of whom are here with us today. I thank them for their tireless and inspirational work, and the Alliance for Middle East Peace for all it does to give them a voice. They give us hope at a time when it is in such short supply. The past 18 months have been the most painful for the people of Israel and Palestine—on 7 October the worst massacre of Jews in one day since the holocaust, death and destruction in Gaza on an intolerable scale, and the torment of hostages held in chains for more than 500 days.
The ceasefire must continue to hold, the hostages taken by Hamas must be unconditionally released, and desperately needed aid must be allowed to reach innocent Gazans. Out of the rubble of the conflict, we must vow to create the conditions for peace. Our goal has to be a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and independent Palestine.
How do we get there? First, we have to learn the lessons from the past. For decades, diplomats and politicians have invested countless hours in trying to achieve peace from the top down. Each effort ultimately failed. Why? Because neither community felt that it had a real partner for peace. Without public support, even well-intentioned leaders cannot impose a lasting peace from the top down. We know from conflicts such as the one in Northern Ireland, most notably, that diplomacy can make a lasting difference, not just as a result of a top-down approach but from a bottom-up approach.
I think of Middle East Entrepreneurs of Tomorrow, a pioneering summer school programme that has supported more than 800 Israeli and Palestinian young adults in learning computer science, social entrepreneurship and leadership skills. MEET is just one of hundreds of such programmes that have emerged since the signing of the Oslo accords. We know that they work. Just look at the data: 80% of participants in a dialogue project were more willing to work for peace, 71% reported more trust and empathy for the other, and 77% had a greater belief that reconciliation is possible.
I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership. He has consistently supported that different path and his commitment in December to convene a summit in support of civil society peacebuilding is a vital first step. The United Kingdom has a unique opportunity: our experience of peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, our world-leading development expertise and the UK’s convening power mean that this is an area in which we can provide real leadership. When speaking about why the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts did not succeed in 2014, former US Secretary of State John Kerry said,
“the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low.”
Will the Minister provide an update on the preparations for the United Kingdom’s summit in support of peacebuilding?
With the UK’s support in building peace from the bottom up by tackling the fear and mistrust that has only grown since 7 October, we stand a chance of learning the lessons of the past and making sure that the next effort at top-down diplomacy succeeds. We owe it to the people of Israel and Palestine.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I refer hon. Members to my registered interests.
I strongly welcome the ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages—including the British hostage Emily Damari—and the increased flow of aid into the region, which must continue. The ceasefire undoubtedly marks a crucial moment of relief after 17 months of devastating conflict started by the massacre committed by Hamas on 7 October. Too many have lost their lives and countless others have been displaced, injured or traumatised. I know that the UK Government, in partnership with their allies, will do everything possible to ensure that the ceasefire holds but we must look to the long-term, and a route towards a two-state solution.
The path to peace runs primarily through political resolutions, political will, and reaching a mutual understanding of the rights and freedoms that should be afforded to both Israelis and Palestinians, but we know that civil society organisations can also play a crucial role. In fact, the political route to peace is made easier if attitudes on the ground shift.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have recently heard about the Arab summit contributing $53 billion to support redevelopment and restructuring within the Gaza strip. Does the hon. Member agree that recognising the state of Palestine first, and then discussing funding packages, would prevent the nonsense that we constantly hear, from Trump and others, about the riviera?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I believe that we cannot lose sight of the need for a two-state solution—for Palestine to exist alongside Israel. That is deeply important and it is the way forward in the region.
We know that civil society organisations shape attitudes on the ground, and that is crucial. Even now, they are integral to resolving the conflict, with programmes that create new ideas, leaders and political dynamics, fostering mutual understanding and advocacy. I met civil society organisations when I visited the region and it was they who gave me the deepest sense of hope that we could find a way forward, and a way towards peace.
I conclude by saying that I hope the UK will continue to build on the Prime Minister’s pledges of support for the international fund, which have shown our commitment. Will the Minister further seize the initiative next week by ensuring that the matter of the fund is raised at the meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers in Canada?
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this debate. He alluded to precedents and I want to talk about one, because the UK has been a trailblazer for peacebuilding in complex conflicts around the world, but most notably in Northern Ireland.
The attention of the world has naturally been drawn to the destruction and the suffering of the peoples of both Palestine and Israel since the devastating Hamas attacks and throughout the subsequent war. I believe that the UK has a unique contribution to make in the area of civil society and people-to-people peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine. In the mid-1980s, when a political peace process was non-existent, the international community decided to intervene at the grassroots level with the International Fund for Ireland. Expert effort was put into investing in civil society to create the social, economic and political foundations for peace. Twelve years later, the landscape in Northern Ireland was transformed, with genuine constituencies for peace. That allowed the negotiation of the Good Friday agreement. That model is one of the areas of peacebuilding in which we in the UK have unparalleled experience. Today, thanks to the tireless work of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, there is cross-party support for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Indeed, the precedent does not just show that the UK can take a leading role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but that a Labour Government are particularly well placed to do so. It was Jonathan Powell, who was the Downing Street chief of staff in the 1990s and is now the Prime Minister’s national security adviser, who led the Good Friday agreement talks. Because of its investment in civil society at a moment when peace seemed distant, he characterised the International Fund for Ireland as
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
Today, we have an opportunity to play a similar role in a similarly intractable conflict. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have indicated their intention to do so, most recently in December with the Prime Minister’s announcement that the Foreign Secretary will convene an inaugural meeting to discuss next steps with partners. I end by asking whether the Minister can provide us with an update on when the meeting in London will take place and on which partners will be involved. I also ask what plans the Government have to use next week’s G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Canada to raise the establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. It is unquestionable that this summit is an opportunity to make the real progress that I believe only a Labour Government can make in these circumstances.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this important debate. Several decades ago, the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine bore strong parallels to each another. They both faced large-scale terrorist insurgencies with urban warfare tactics that had never been seen before, deeply polarised populations and horrific damage wrought on innocent lives. Most importantly, they shared the fact that many sceptics painted the fighting as the product of ancient and intractable religious disputes, and thus hand-waved away any prospects of peace. But today they look very different. Opposed interests on the island of Ireland now have a legitimate political channel and dialogue through the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, while conflicts between those on the territory of Israel and Palestine arguably reached their highest intensity in over half a century prior to the recent ceasefires.
Of course, each historical experience is unique, and it would be an oversimplification to take the comparison too far, but I believe we must always bear the Northern Irish example in mind in our approach to an international fund and wider peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine, especially considering our country’s first-hand experience of the disastrous consequences of unresolved conflict.
In particular, I propose two major ways that we stand to gain from thinking about the troubles. First, we can learn the lessons of the Irish peacebuilding experience. Although negotiations over Israel and Palestine, such as those that led to the Oslo accords, have been largely top down and sometimes entirely secret projects of men in smoke-filled rooms, the Good Friday agreement was far more inclusive, paying attention to left-out voices, the unconvinced women and the international community. Much of the credit for getting civil society engaged in Ireland must go to the International Fund for Ireland, which our own Jonathan Powell has called
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
Fact-finding visits to Northern Ireland by Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations found that the IFI’s strategic approach to funding—with an independent body, tight public-private donor co-ordination and field officers from the affected communities—made all the difference. Civil society was the glue that brought communities together and has continued to hold them together despite the increased uncertainty of recent years. Although I have to finish my speech due to the time limit, I want to acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the new fund would have to be considerably greater.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate. I support our Labour Government, who are taking a leading role in setting up an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, as envisaged by the Alliance for Middle East Peace and advocated by Labour Friends of Israel for almost a decade. In recent months, there have been hours of debate in this place about how the UK can best contribute towards peace in the middle east following the horrific scenes of death, destruction and suffering on 7 October and the subsequent war in Gaza.
After the last serious peace process failed in 2014, it was said that
“the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low.”
Today, trust is in even shorter supply and neither leadership is in a position or has a mindset to make the painful compromises that peace and a two-state solution will inevitably entail. That is a challenge for all of us who want to kick-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and it is a challenge that only such a bottom-up initiative, rooted not in the halls of power but in civil society, can seriously resolve. It is our job to change the lack of trust to build those constituencies for peace. This is a tried and tested model, as we saw in Northern Ireland. Jonathan Powell said it was
“the great unsung hero of the peace process”.
I saw the potential when I visited Israel and Palestine on such an initiative in July 2023. I met organisations and NGOs run on a shoestring that dedicate their work to providing spaces for Israelis and Palestinians to meet and work together outside the confines of conflict. EcoPeace, for example, brings together Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians to forge new and creative solutions to climate change in a region increasingly co-dependent on natural resources. I met young Palestinian activists in Ramallah who are working to train the next generation of political leaders for the long-awaited Palestinian Authority elections and a more democratically engaged and pluralistic Palestinian future. Supporting such civil society groups is how we can play our part in changing attitudes on the ground in Israel and Palestine. That is how we will build the trust necessary for genuine progress towards peace from the bottom up.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister announced in December that we will be convening a meeting with international partners to discuss how we can take forward the G7’s commitment to supporting civil society. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about these plans, including when the meeting will take place and which partners will be attending.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for organising this debate. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding.
Last month, I had the privilege to visit Israel and the west bank. We were unable to go to Gaza, but we visited area C of the west bank, where we saw a lot of Israeli settler violence and some of the demolitions in East Jerusalem. We also had the privilege of meeting some of the families of the hostages, as well as Aviva Siegel, who had the very difficult experience of leaving her husband behind when she was released.
In many ways, it is completely understandable that the trauma and suffering on both sides of the conflict have led to such a polarisation of views, which is reflected in the polls. We saw it in our conversations with members of the Knesset, where we heard extreme views on continuing the occupation for generations and justifying what Israel is doing on the west bank.
Other Members have spoken about the UK’s experience in Northern Ireland and how important that is to our positioning on the peacebuilding fund. We are lucky to have peacebuilding organisations working with us in the region, and I was very happy to speak to them this morning. The good work of ALLMEP is well known, and we should recognise that its work is being harmed by the United States Agency for International Development cuts of recent weeks. It is now important that the UK steps up to support these organisations.
I was pleased to see the Prime Minister’s commitment to this fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. I would like to hear more details from the Minister on when the next meeting will be. Will we use this week’s G7 meeting, which Jonathan Powell is attending, to announce more details of this fund? Also, will the Minister be happy to meet the APPG on conflict prevention to talk about more of our work in the region?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Decades of violence and displacement in Israel and Palestine have created psychological scars that will take generations to heal. For Israelis, the collective trauma of 7 October is still all too painful. Magen Inon is an Israeli peace activist whose parents were killed on 7 October, and he writes that
“it feels as if a flash flood of blood engulfs the landscape and my grief is one small branch caught in the current. Everyone I know from my childhood has a horror story to tell.”
Palestinians are reeling from the terrible destruction and loss of life in the Gaza strip, tying into a wider historical experience of displacement. This cannot be described as post-traumatic stress, because the trauma is ongoing. Gaza does not have “pre” and “post”.
The effects of trauma on peacebuilding cannot be overstated. Traumatised populations are likely to support violent and armed extremist groups. Trauma leads to a siege mentality and increased anger, and trauma means a continual drain on grassroots pressure for the ending of the conflict. It is vital that peacebuilding initiatives help to end these cycles of trauma and introduce a path towards healing and lasting peace.
The newly proposed international fund will help us to do that, and it is critical that we build momentum for it today. Civil organisations in Israel and Palestine are already working with people who are terribly traumatised, while living with their own personal traumas under the harsh daily realities they face. Each day, organisations such as Combatants for Peace, the Middle East Children’s Institute and the Holy Land Trust tackle the profound scars left by the cycles of war. The unified fund will deliver resource and support to make these small-scale initiatives society-wide, to eradicate psychological drivers of conflict, and to pave the way to healing.
I will close with Magen Inon’s words:
“Our shared future is based on the belief that all human beings are equal, and deserving of respect and safety. This is how I was raised and how I am raising my own children. In the long term, and even if it’s very far away, the only real future is that of hope and peace.”
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
The two Opposition spokespeople will have five minutes each. The Minister will have 10 minutes, and there will be a minute or two for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) to wind up.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I also thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for bringing this issue to the Chamber. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a two-state solution to the conflict in the middle east based on the 1967 borders. In the immediate term, the current ceasefire in Gaza must be maintained, and both sides must advance talks on phase 2. That must include the release of all remaining hostages, including the bodies of hostages killed in Hamas captivity, and it must ensure that aid can flood into Gaza to relieve the suffering of Palestinians after 18 months of devastation.
The UK Government must also urgently engage with the Israeli Government to ensure they reopen aid routes and the supply of electricity, in line with Israel’s obligations under international law. Their decision to blockade and stop electricity entering Gaza is wrong, and it will only exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinians in the strip.
Beyond the immediate maintenance and progression of the ceasefire, a just, long-term peace must include the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has introduced a Bill in each of the last three Sessions calling for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. My noble Friend Baroness Northover has done the same.
We must also work closely with those Israelis and Palestinians who are advocating for a just peace based on a two-state solution, which would bring security and dignity for all. There is no future for peace in the region unless moderate voices can influence and frame discussions on what a peace settlement looks like. That means addressing the sources of resentment and fear for Israelis and Palestinians, weakening Hamas’s influence in Gaza and the west bank, and responding robustly to illegal and often violent Israeli settler encroachments on Palestinian land. This should include the UK Government legislating to cease trade with illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.
We must also work with the international community to identify future democratic leaders of Palestine, with a view to having swift elections in Palestine as soon as possible in the hope of uniting Gaza and the west bank under one democratically elected vote. That will ensure that there is security, safety and a bright future for the Palestinians. We must invest in peace, including via the international fund for middle east peace, encouraging our friends in the Gulf states to contribute. We must use trade as a tool for peace, ensuring that Palestinians and Israelis both benefit, which is something the Liberal Democrats have supported for many years. We were pleased to hear the Prime Minister express his desire to kick-start an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, working alongside the Alliance for Middle East Peace.
Over the past decade, there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In that chasm, civil society organisations have played a vital role in promoting peace, justice and equality. Those organisations are advocates for diplomacy and non-violence within both societies. They educate and mobilise their communities, generate momentum for peace beyond formal political structures, reduce the political risk of new ideas, influence shifting public opinion and contribute directly to political and diplomatic solutions. However, it must be said, the Government’s recent decision to cut the aid budget makes such projects all the more difficult.
The middle east stands at a critical crossroads. Although the fragile ceasefire still holds, destabilising rhetoric and actions threaten efforts towards de-escalation, diplomacy and conflict resolution. No single actor has ever been enough to secure a lasting peace, but the volatile language and policies of the Trump Administration introduce new risks and opportunities for exploitation by extremists.
The UK must work with our allies in Europe, and with regional partners in the middle east, to support the maintenance of the ceasefire, to secure the release of the remaining hostages and to give Gaza the aid its suffering people need. Those are essential preconditions on the path towards a just peace based on a two-state solution along the 1967 borders that ensures security and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) on securing this debate. I start by acknowledging the incredibly fragile ceasefire, which I think everyone in this House wants to see endure. In aid of that, we need to see the return of each and every hostage taken by Hamas during the barbaric acts of 7 October 2023.
We are all appalled by Hamas’s cynical move to continue holding hostages as human bargaining chips. Those individuals, their families and loved ones have all experienced unimaginable pain over the last 500 days and more. The world has been watching as the hostages released so far have returned to their homes and loved ones. Of course, many have not returned alive. We continue to call on Hamas to immediately release the remaining hostages, who have already suffered so deeply. That is key to a sustainable end to the conflict.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his latest discussions with Israel, the US, the UAE and other regional players to help the parties reach agreement on phase 2 of the ceasefire. I also ask what he is doing to ensure that the UK is a proactive contributor to these discussions and is doing its bit to keep the fragile peace together and to support the deal.
The Prime Minister has pledged his support for establishing an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for the plans to hold an inaugural meeting in London. We all aspire to peace in the region, and the fund was first endorsed by the Conservative Government in 2018. When will the inaugural meeting take place, and who will be a party to those discussions?
On peace more broadly, we understand that the Government share our view that Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza, but we have had very little detail on how they plan to help achieve a post-Hamas Gaza. Hamas have been shown to have a callous disregard for human life through their appalling actions on 7 October, their persistent use of Palestinians as human shields, and their murder and mistreatment of hostages. Hamas have extensively repressed civil society in Gaza, stamped out political opposition and arbitrarily arrested journalists. What discussions has the Minister had with Israeli and regional partners on the future governance of Gaza?
Wendy Morton
I will make progress because I am very short on time. Promoting peace in the region is an aim that we all aspire to in this House. The Abraham accords signed in 2020 were a welcome step that normalised relations between Israel and the other regional actors. We celebrate the success of the accords and encourage more countries to normalise relations with Israel as a potential route to a broader peace. Building on the accords presents an opportunity for greater shared prosperity, which we want and hope will mean real, tangible benefits for the Palestinian people too.
During our time in government, we took steps to try to preserve stability in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Between 2021 and 2023, the UK’s conflict, stability and security fund helped over 18,000 Palestinians at risk of eviction to protect their property rights. We strengthened economic opportunity by funding key water infrastructure and we launched the UK-Palestinian tech hub. Between 2015 and 2020, UK official development assistance supported 70,000 children to gain a decent education, and it also supported the middle east peace process, a £30 million programme that ran between 2015 and 2019. The UK is a party outside the region, but it is an important player with key historical links that act as a connector. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we continue our role as a trusted partner, supporting normalised relations and a greater peace in the region?
The most pressing task is ensuring that the fragile peace holds, and we must shift our eyes to the reconstruction of Gaza once we meet the subsequent stages of the ceasefire agreement. What role does the Minister envisage the UK playing in the reconstruction of Gaza? How will we work together with regional allies? What is his response to the paper produced by the Cairo summit? We must also understand what the ODA changes mean in practice for programmes in the region. Will the Minister see funding for the OPTs drop following the announcement? For a lasting peace, Palestinians need the same liberties that their neighbours enjoy in Israel. That involves reforming the Palestinian Authority. We want reforms to continue, including on transparency, fighting corruption and improving public sector efficiency, which we supported last year in government.
As I conclude, and I am very conscious of time, it is important to recognise that, if the Palestinian Authority is to have an expanded role, it needs to implement very significant reforms on welfare and education, and it must demonstrate a commitment to democratic processes. We have an incredibly fragile ceasefire agreement that we must all work to protect. The Government must redouble their efforts to preserve the viability of the two-state solution and ensure that the UK plays its part in helping to lift the people’s eyes to a brighter future—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that I want to call the hon. Member for Mansfield at 5.28 pm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to all hon. Members for sharing their valuable and thoughtful perspectives. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has done so much in these very difficult months in which we have both been Ministers. Much of what I will be able to say about what we are doing in the region is a result of her efforts, and I am very glad to share Westminster Hall with her.
Securing peace in the middle east is a priority that I know we share across the House. The agreement to end the fighting in Gaza was a major step forward. As many have said, ending combat operations and increasing aid for Gazans, as well as the release of hostages—38 so far—was vital. The situation is incredibly sensitive at the moment. I will not provide a detailed commentary on the talks that are ongoing today in order to try to transition into phase 2. As we have said repeatedly, and as I said this morning to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we want to see talks move into phase 2, and into phase 3.
The ceasefire has made an enormous difference to the lives of both Palestinians and Israelis, and we want it to continue. Many Members have spoken about the deficit of trust. We think that a ceasefire going through all three phrases, with all of the difficult politics and all of the difficult compromises that that will require, is a vital part of building trust between the two communities. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear: the decision to block aid going into Gaza is completely wrong. Aid should not be used as a political tool. I made some comments this morning about the restrictions on energy as well.
The topic of this debate is the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are committed to convening the meeting that many have discussed. Given the developments in the region, I am not in a position today to commit to a time or cast list for the meeting. We want to make sure that the meeting will have the desired effect of building trust across the two communities, and we will need to be sensitive to the circumstances in the region when we meet.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his leadership and the work he has done, particularly in keeping us abreast of the ongoing situation. It is right that the UK takes concrete steps to support peace, including through the revitalising of the Abraham accords, which are about normalisation of relations. Does the Minister agree that peacebuilding funds that rebuild Gaza are not just for humanitarian efforts but are a regional step towards the normalisation of peace and an independent Palestinian state free from Hamas? Does he agree that providing infrastructure, homes and hope will sustain peace efforts and normalise the reality of a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend talks about infrastructure, homes and hope, and it is those three elements—in particular hope—that are so missing at the moment. It is important to make a distinction between the vital humanitarian aid into Gaza and efforts to support civil society, which necessarily will be less focused on the immediate humanitarian support required and the reconstruction, which he rightly says will be necessary in Gaza, and more focused on the efforts that many have referred to as bottom-up—trying to ensure that both communities see bridges to each other.
I very much agree that there is a terrible deficit in trust and confidence across the two communities. When we were in opposition, I travelled there shortly after 7 October—two months later—and it was striking for both communities how little they believed in common in that moment. Rebuilding trust will be vital.
Mr Falconer
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind Members that interventions should be brief.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. When it comes to the moneys, there obviously has not been much, and it must be ensured that it goes far and wide. I think the issue has been debated in the past—that money has been diverted by certain terrorist groups. What we need is transparency to ensure that the moneys that are allocated are safely distributed to the right people for the right purposes.
Mr Falconer
I agree with the hon. Member. It is vital that aid goes to the purposes for which it is intended. To be clear, we imagine this international fund being of a much smaller magnitude than the much larger funds that would be required for humanitarian assistance or the reconstruction of Gaza.
I turn to the important questions raised by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—the spokespeople for the two Opposition parties. In relation to what assessment we make of the various proposals, we welcome the Arab plan. We think it has considerable merit and is a good place to start in thinking through the vital questions of reconstruction and the future governance of Gaza.
I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that we see no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We think that the Cairo summit made important breakthroughs. We will discuss this at the G7 meeting and as Members will be aware it will be discussed over the coming days by negotiators from a range of countries in the region.
The Palestinian Authority are clearly very important in all of this. They are the authoritative voice for the Palestinian people. We are committed to supporting them through their journey of reform, which is vital. We have given £5 million to support their reform initiatives. There is a range of views about the future governance of Gaza and the role that the Palestinian Authority might play, and some of them were discussed at the Cairo summit. We will play our full role, as the Opposition spokesperson and many Members would expect, so that the provisions in place for the future of Gaza can ensure governance and security both for the people of Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the Israelis themselves.
Before I make some general remarks about conflict prevention and civil society, I want to welcome the work of the APPG on conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding; I would be very happy to hear more about it. Civil society has a vital role to play. We will support it fully. We recognise the sensitivities on both sides. Several Members made reference to Senator Kerry’s comments that the problem in 2014 was not necessarily a gulf in the positions but a gulf in the trust, and we see that civil society plays an important role in resolving that.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I hear what the Minister has to say about how we can move to a path towards peace. However, does he agree that there must be steps taken to ensure that Israel is held accountable for its violations of international law? In doing so, will he commit to taking steps to begin ending the UK’s military support to Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have commented on the question of international law, and indeed on arms suspension, both in the main Chamber and this morning in the Foreign Affairs Committee. With just one minute left, I will say that I stand by those remarks.
I want to say a bit about some of the lifesaving assistance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East was responsible for when she was the Minister for Development. The assistance, which continues, included an announcement at the end of January for a further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reaches tens of thousands of civilians across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, it is absolutely right that we think about the route out of this conflict, but we will not forget those in desperate need at this moment, and our support will continue. I was asked by colleagues about the possible impact of the reduction in ODA. I reiterate what the Prime Minister has already said: we are focused on the needs in Gaza and we will seek to preserve our efforts through any changes.
UK support has meant that over half a million people have received essential healthcare. Some 647,000 people have received food, and 284,000 have had improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. Humanitarian needs, however, cannot be solved by short-term solutions. I will conclude by saying that we reaffirm our support for a credible pathway towards peace, leading to a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side in peace, dignity and security, and we agree on the merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Steve Yemm
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed meaningfully in the spirit of today’s discussion, with a genuine commitment to peace at heart. Very few conflicts inspire stronger opinions and more polarised views than the ones we have discussed today, and I am pleased that so many Members have moved beyond talking points and shared their sincere views on how an international fund could improve the lives of everyone in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I hope that the Minister will meet again with MPs to discuss our future commitment to the fund. I hope that he will encourage the Foreign Secretary to raise the matter at the G7, building on the commitment made last year, with the aim of co-ordinating and institutionalising the UK Government’s support for this work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.