Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Rare Cancers Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We all know someone who has suffered from a rare cancer—a brain tumour, childhood cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, or one of the other cancers on a long list that are unfortunately all too familiar. Each of them may statistically be considered rare, but collectively they are anything but rare. Blood Cancer UK states that rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses—a staggering 180,000 a year. The irony of the Bill’s title is that so-called rare cancers are not rare. Common cancers deserve attention, but so too do rare cancers.
I want to share an example of a family in my constituency who were confronted with a rare cancer. Tilly’s first symptoms were leg pains and loss of appetite. This was in September 2021, when face-to-face GP consultations were not possible. On visiting A&E, she was given ibuprofen. It was thought that she might have a virus. Six weeks later, she returned to A&E and was transferred to the cancer ward, where she was diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma. On diagnosis, she was given a 50% chance of survival. Despite undergoing over a dozen rounds of chemotherapy and an operation, she sadly passed away about a year after her first symptoms appeared. Tilly was just four years old. Her father Jonathan, a headteacher in my constituency, is in the Gallery. He reached out to me after reading about the Bill. He explained his frustration that the development of new treatments for neuroblastoma has been moving at a glacial pace for too long. The same is true for many other rare cancers. This slow pace of change is not respected by these cancers, and it meant that Tilly missed her seventh birthday yesterday.
I thank Jonathan for sharing Tilly’s story, and wish him all the best as he moves to Northern Ireland with Tilly’s mum and big sister Emily to start a new job. I thank Livingston’s Team Jak for their ongoing support for Tilly’s family and many others. Neither Jonathan nor I want to suggest that the Bill would have saved Tilly, but we hope that it will improve survival rates for others, and take them beyond the 50% rate given to Tilly. That is why Jonathan is here today, and why I am here today.
Nobody told me that the most amazing thing about being an MP would be the people we meet almost daily, who want to make their community, our country or even the world a better place. That is particularly true of the people I have been humbled to meet on my journey to speaking about the Bill today, including cancer patients, survivors, the bereaved and campaigners, all of whom want just one thing: justice. Although the healthcare system in the UK is founded on the notion of equality, fairness and justice, they believe that rare cancer patients are being overlooked. Their demand for justice covers three points.
The first is that beating a rare cancer should not be less likely than beating other cancers. I have said that 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses each year are of rare and less common types. These patients already have the cards stacked against them, as they are 17% less likely to survive—an injustice caused by the relative lack of research and development in this field over many years.
Secondly, having a rare cancer should not mean being less likely to benefit from a medical breakthrough. According to Cancer52, in 2024, an astonishing 82% of patients with rare and less common cancers were not offered a clinical trial, and so were denied access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Often that is because such trials do not even exist, because there has been so little progress, and when they do exist, they are not always easy for patients to access.
Let me give an example: there is a remarkable young woman in my constituency known as Kira the Machine. Kira has been living with neuroblastoma since she was 10. She has been through it all: a prognosis of inoperability, 26 rounds of chemotherapy and eight relapses. Her and her mum, Aud, are fundraising legends locally. I do not know a school or workplace in Edinburgh that did not help when they were given just three weeks to raise £500,000 for lifesaving specialist treatment in the USA. Now 21 and fundraising for other cancer sufferers, Kira is an example to us all. She owes her life to a lung cancer drug not typically provided to treat neuroblastoma and not yet generally available in the UK for that purpose, although I understand that Solving Kids’ Cancer is working on that.
Kira appears on my social media so much, and is really well known in Edinburgh because of the fantastic campaign that she and her mum ran. She is a bit of a celebrity, if I can use that word. She came into my office recently to talk about the Bill. It was really humbling to meet her, and because she has that celebrity status, in my mind, I was also quite starstruck; I told her that it was like Taylor Swift entering my office. I resisted the temptation to exchange friendship bracelets with her, but she gave me a Solving Kids’ Cancer badge, which I am proud to wear today.
Kira’s story is important because it reminds us that repurposing existing drugs can unlock great benefits, but those benefits can be delivered at scale only through additional medical research efforts and clinical trials.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The NHS has a drug repurposing office. To date, it has repurposed one drug, and that was for breast cancer. Does my hon. Friend think that is good enough?
Dr Arthur
I welcome that intervention; I think that was a leading question. Of course it is not good enough. I do not think that anybody here thinks that it is good enough, including the Minister. Unfortunately, at present there are very few clinical trials in this country for rare cancer treatments. Families such as Kira’s should not need to crowdfund for treatment overseas; we should be building the capacity here in the UK.
Thirdly, having a rare cancer should not mean that a diagnosis is delayed when compared with diagnoses of other cancers. Rare cancer sufferers tell me that their symptoms are often less likely to be recognised, as doctors are less familiar with them.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way he is introducing his Bill. My constituent Steph is just 29 years old and is a mam to two little girls. She was diagnosed with grade 4 glioblastoma, known as astrocytoma, on her birthday last year. For months prior to her diagnosis, she was treated for migraines by her GP. Steph knew that she was not suffering from migraines, yet she was rudely dismissed by an A&E doctor, and felt nobody was listening to her. Steph has since had brain surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. My hon. Friend knows that early diagnosis and treatment is vital. Can he assure Steph and her family, and me, that the Bill will help to raise awareness across the medical profession of rare brain cancers?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. Last week, I attended a reception for the Eve Appeal. I was really struck by the fact that early diagnosis was a big feature of what the charity was talking about, and I will come on to that in just a second.
As a consequence of the lack of recognition of the symptoms of rare cancers, too many people are diagnosed too late. Last week, at an event hosted by the Brain Tumour Charity, I met Gabrielle and her wife and children. Gabrielle told me how the neurologist to whom she was initially referred did not recognise her brain tumour symptoms, and told her instead to go home, breathe into a paper bag and get some counselling. If only curing brain tumours was so easy. Reflecting on the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), an observation that I have made on this journey is that so many of the people who have talked about late diagnosis have been women. That is purely anecdotal, but it seems to be the case. When I was at the Eve Appeal reception, the point was made that so many women are turned away; the GP tells them that they are hormonal, premenstrual or premenopausal.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point, with which many across the Chamber will agree. The statistics are particularly stark for women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds; they are even more likely to be dismissed.
Dr Arthur
I thank my hon. Friend and office neighbour for making that point, which was also made by Eve Appeal. I cannot remember the statistics, but there is a stark difference. I talked about this issue when I met the Minister yesterday and she gently pointed out to me that it is not just in healthcare where women are dismissed as hormonal, premenstrual and so on. I thanked her for reminding me of that in the gentlest possible way.
It is a cruel irony that rare cancers such as Gabrielle’s tumour are typically less survivable, making early diagnosis even more important. Rare cancer patients require early, not later, diagnosis. I have spoken about poor outcomes, lack of progress in developing treatments and late diagnosis. My Bill focuses on the first two points, but I want to acknowledge the need to improve diagnosis, because of comments that have already been made. I am sure that will feature in the cancer plan.
I am the first to admit that, when I was successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I found it daunting as a new MP. I thought I had some really good ideas for a Bill, but as soon as my ping-pong ball was picked from the goldfish bowl, I was inundated with calls from constituents, charities and lobbyists, each telling me that their cause was better than any I could think of. I considered many worthwhile causes over the following days, but while having a coffee in Colinton Mains Tesco in Edinburgh South West, I received emails from members of the public who support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). Just last week I met Oriana, one of the people who emailed me. It was incredibly moving to meet her; it took me right back to the start of this journey. I posted on my Facebook page about meeting her, and straight away somebody said that they knew her and that she had helped them when their family had been faced with glioblastoma. That is a reminder that so many people affected by these conditions turn their loss into something really positive and help other people.
My hon. Friend’s campaign relates to glioblastoma, a type of tumour that took my father-in-law. I felt that the stars had aligned for me. I really do mean that; I really did get that feeling. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] More, more! I know her to be a formidable woman who in this context is driven by glioblastoma taking her sister, Margaret. I did not know her sister at all, which is my loss, but I do know that she shaped my party and she helped change our country for the better, and I know above all that she was loved by her sister.
Glioblastoma is typical of so many rare cancers, and it started me on this journey so I want to talk about it further. My father-in-law, Ivor Hutchison, was a dignified man but glioblastoma did not respect that. He was a technical teacher at Bell Baxter high school in Fife. He was married to Sylvia and they have four daughters, Denise, Iona, my lovely wife Audrey who is in the Gallery —I have just embarrassed her—and Sarah. In time, Ivor and Sylvia had grandchildren: Andrew, our daughter Ruth, Hannah, Matthew, our son Ben, Rory and Sophie. Ivor was not a passive grandfather; he worked hard to ensure his grandchildren flourished.
In September 2017, Ivor began having problems with his speech. My wife Audrey, an NHS nurse, was concerned that it might be a sign of dementia. We all hoped that that was not the case. Following an MRI scan in the November, we received the devastating news that Ivor had glioblastoma. At Christmas he was still very much himself and enjoyed the festivities. Ivor never had a pound of fat on him, but when it came to Christmas time he really did hoover up the food and enjoyed the Christmas meal. It was great to see him that Christmas, but we did feel that it would be his last. Once we entered the new year, he began to lose his mobility, and eventually he was admitted to Adamson hospital in Cupar. In 2018, surrounded by his wife and daughters, Ivor died peacefully, eight months after his first symptoms. He had a good life and his daughters are a fantastic legacy to him, as well as all the pupils he taught at school.
However, as a physically fit man, Ivor should have lived longer: he should have lived to see his birthday last weekend, and if he had done so, he would not have missed two of his grandchildren getting married and his first great-grandchild, Fraya, being born in December last year. I assumed that he had been unlucky with glioblastoma. It was not until I met my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that I learned that only 25% of glioblastoma patients live beyond 12 months after diagnosis, and only one in 20 survive beyond five years. Despite that awful prognosis, as for other rare cancers, the drugs to treat glioblastoma have not changed in decades. That is why I knew in my heart that I needed to introduce a Bill that would help equip those working hard to fight against glioblastoma, and all rare cancers, with the tools they need to further their efforts and, ultimately, save lives.
Over the past 15 years, thanks to the dedicated work of charities, survivors and researchers, we have seen a 10% rise in survival rates for those diagnosed with cancer. Globally, new treatments are being developed and rolled out to patients, improving outcomes and saving lives in our NHS every single day. However, rare cancer patients are being left behind, and I need to explain why. It is not due to a lack of effort by charities or those affected by the disease. In fact, in the Gallery today are members of some incredible charities who are fighting against rare cancers in what is often an uphill battle. I thank them for their hard work in helping me to develop the Bill—they really have helped me—which aims to address the injustices faced by rare cancer patients and their families. For all the people I have met from the charities, their work is much more than a job for them; it is about making a difference to people’s lives, improving survivability and supporting families.
The reason for the uphill battle is that research into rare cancer is much less appealing to pharmaceutical companies when compared with more common conditions. With smaller patient populations, there is an increased logistical challenge in bringing patients together. Currently, we are lacking a sufficient development strategy and there is no single source of patient data, meaning companies must undertake the costly endeavour of finding patients and verifying eligibility. Even if they succeed in running a clinical trial and a drug proves to be an effective treatment, companies face the challenge of selling a drug developed at great expense to a small market. Ultimately, these companies exist to return a profit for their shareholders. Given a choice between investment in potential treatment for a rare cancer or a more a common one, too often rare cancer patients lose out.
Having set out the challenges faced by those diagnosed with rare cancers, let me now address what the Bill aims to accomplish. I will list four key measures and explain their impact: appointing a named responsible lead for the delivery of rare cancer research; creating a single registry of rare cancer trials; creating a single registry of rare cancer patients available for trials; and defining an evidence base for repurposing new cancer treatments. Let me explain in turn why these are important.
First, the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to facilitate and promote research related to rare cancer patients. The appointment of a national specialty lead for rare cancers in the National Institute of Health and Care Research would provide the Secretary of State with advice on the design and planning of research to facilitate collaboration between relevant parties. That will ensure co-ordination and accountability for the delivery of new cancer research in the UK.
Secondly, the Bill would increase access to clinical trials via a service tailored to rare cancer patients. Through the Secretary of State’s new duties, that would be accomplished as part of the existing “Be Part of Research” registry, ensuring that all trials are registered in a single place.
Thirdly, charities and clinicians tell me that more trials would be attracted to the UK if we had easier access to patient cohorts. Establishing a single database of willing patients would remove a significant burden on researchers in finding and verifying eligible people for clinical trials.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing a Bill on this important subject. He mentions research. Can he explain why the extent of clauses 2 and 3 is limited to England and Wales? What is happening in Scotland in relation to the research issues?
Dr Arthur
The challenge is devolution. I am a huge fan of devolution, but often the UK is at its best when it works together, particularly on healthcare. I hope that in time we will see progress and the nations will work together. I do not want to overstate this, but there have been discussions across the UK about how we could work together on the issue, so perhaps the answer is, “Watch this space.”
The Bill’s fourth measure is to trigger a review by the Government of the orphan drug regulations, to examine how they can be reformed to better incentivise pharmaceutical companies to invest in clinical trials for rare cancers. Specifically, it will consider how incentives could be provided to pharmaceutical companies to trial the repurposing of new cancer treatments. We often hear about how drug development for one cancer can be used to defeat another; that is what Kira relies on right now. My Bill aims to build a foundation for industrialising that approach via incentives. The EU has a similar system for incentivising the testing of drugs for paediatric use that have already been approved for adult use, so the approach has been tried and tested.
Together, these measures will ensure that we have leadership in Government and will remove the barriers to running new clinical trials that researchers and pharmaceutical companies face.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which he is introducing the Bill. Will he recognise the work of pioneering teams such as the one at Charing Cross hospital, under Imperial College healthcare NHS trust, where Professor Michael Seckl is leading the way in groundbreaking treatment for and research on gestational trophoblastic disease and germ cell tumours? Does he agree that those centres need support to expand and share their research findings with the rest of the NHS?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely. There is fantastic expertise in our universities across the UK; as I say that, I have to refer hon. Members to my registered interests because of my connections with the university sector. There is much more that we can do to attract the best researchers to the UK and build capacity in UK universities.
The Bill will provide greater accountability for the delivery of new research, but please do not just take my word for it. Brain Tumour Research has described it as
“essential for a brain tumour cure”.
I did not feel any pressure at all when I read that quote! No, it was quite daunting, to be honest. The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce says that the Bill
“could be a truly transformative moment in the UK’s approach to research for rare and less common cancers.”
My friends at the Brain Tumour Charity say that the Bill
“is a framework for tangible, impactful change.”
At this point, I have to mention my daughter’s connection with the Brain Tumour Charity. She is running a marathon in May to raise funding for it, and I wish her well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.
Let me list some of the other groups that support the Bill. They include Pancreatic Cancer UK, which has been absolutely fantastic in its support for what we are doing; Cancer52, an organisation that represents more than 100 groups; the Angel Mums; the Grace Kelly Childhood Cancer Trust; and the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Network UK. Inflammatory breast cancer accounts for 2% of breast cancer diagnoses in the UK each year, but 10% of the deaths.
The Bill is also supported by Target Ovarian Cancer, Brainstrust, AMMF—the Cholangiocarcinoma Charity, the Urology Foundation, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Action Kidney Cancer and Sarcoma UK, which I met this week. I have a friend with that cancer, and it is a fantastic organisation that I hope to work more with in the future.
It is supported by Maggie’s, Shine Cancer Support, Solving Kids’ Cancer, the British Liver Trust, Blood Cancer UK, Radiotherapy UK, Leukaemia UK, CCLG—the Children and Young People’s Cancer Association, CLL Support, Neuroblastoma UK, Salivary Gland Cancer UK, Neuroendocrine Cancer UK, Melanoma Focus, Myeloma UK, Hope For Tomorrow, Alike, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Young Lives vs Cancer, the Tessa Jowell Foundation, the UK Mastocytosis Support Group, the Bone Cancer Research Trust, the Neurosciences Foundation and the Eve Appeal.
The Eve Appeal had a fantastic reception last week, and when I went along to it, having its support felt like a real tipping point in the progress we are making in building support for the Bill. It was great to see the Minister as well, and I have to say—this is not a trivial point—that the cake there was absolutely fantastic. I do not doubt that when I get back to my office and check my emails, more organisations will have got in touch to say that they want to support what we are doing today.
I know that many Members in the Chamber today will have deeply personal stories to tell, on their own behalf and on behalf of their constituents. I look forward to hearing those testimonies as we debate this Bill, because it is so important to give those people a voice. I will conclude by saying that the Bill we are debating today has a real chance of making a difference. For too long, rare cancer patients have been left on the sidelines without significant advancement—this cannot go on. Tilly and Ivor deserved a better chance of beating the cancer inside them, and those who are yet to be diagnosed deserve a better chance of a full life. Let us pass this Bill today and work across the UK to take the fight to rare cancers and save lives. I commend this Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the first speaker, I am aware that this is a very personal debate for some Members, so please feel free to leave the Chamber if you need to. Let’s look after each other today.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), both on his good fortune in being drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot and on his wisdom in picking this very important issue to take forward. Having been similarly lucky in being drawn in that ballot a few weeks after I was first elected, nearly a decade ago, I know the barrage of calls and emails that suddenly come your way—the very sudden and slightly fleeting popularity that comes from coming towards the top of the private Member’s Bill ballot—and the very many, very worthy causes and campaigns that come your way for you to choose between. The hon. Gentleman could not have picked a better cause than the one represented by this Bill, and if he is never again quite as popular as he was in the few hours after the publication of the ballot results, I know that he would willingly exchange all of that popularity in an instant for the difference that this legislation can make to so many lives across the country, if and when it is passed and implemented—as we hope it will be.
I stand today not just as a Member of this House but as a friend who is deeply moved by the pain of seeing someone I care about—someone who has become like family—struggle against an insidious disease. This Bill is not just another piece of legislation; it is a cry for help. It is a plea for those who are fighting for their lives—a lifeline for families who are watching their loved ones slip away, bit by bit and day after day. Too often, those diagnosed with rare cancers are left stranded in a system that does not have the answers they need.
We know the wonders that pharmaceutical companies can do in drug development, but the horrible truth is that few people are able or willing to invest the enormous amount of money needed to take forward drug development—knowing that about one in 25,000 drug candidates make it to market—for conditions that will require that drug 1,000 or 2,000 times a year, at most.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a whole range of new modern immunotherapy drugs that could be used on these cancers? They already exist, they are used to treat other people, but they are simply not tried. The cost of those trials is not overwhelming and we can do them, and the NHS repurposing project should be doing them.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady is obviously right, and I know that she approaches this subject with, tragically, a huge amount of personal experience. We have already seen drugs—in some cases, long-marketed drugs—being applied for new purposes and new conditions. Without those costly clinical trials, they will not be licensed or approved for prescription, and that is why the Bill is so important. Clinical trials are sadly a distant hope for far too many currently, and many patients are left with the crushing, gut-wrenching words, “There is nothing more we can do.” Those words can be a death sentence, but they do not have to be—not if we act.
Many Members and House staff will know my senior parliamentary assistant and dear friend Dan Horrocks. He is best known as the owner of Bella, his therapy shih tzu who he had while he was being treated for his third brain tumour and who is often seen roaming around the Palace and 1 Parliament Street. Dan has worked for me since I was first elected in 2015, but he is not just my senior parliamentary assistant; he has become like family. He is a father, a husband and a four-time cancer survivor. For 14 years, he has fought this monster, each time feeling the ground slip more from under him as his options narrow, leaving him and his family with ever-reducing hope. We have seen him face unimaginable pain. I have watched him endure brain surgeries and radiotherapy, and seen the fear in his eyes each time the disease comes back and he hears his doctors tell him that they do not know how much more his body can take, and whether he can be put through that next course of radiotherapy.
Dan’s journey started with something as simple as headaches, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West referred to in another case, that no one thought were serious at the time. As a teenager, three GPs all misdiagnosed that tumour and for unknown reasons, the GPs did not want to send Dan for a scan. A simple scan to check that there were no malign causes would have identified those tumours months earlier. It was a free voucher for an eye test that saved Dan’s life, because it was not until, by sheer luck, an optician noticed something wrong in his eyes that anyone realised the nightmare he was living. That optician saved his life.
What followed has been nothing short of a nightmare: brain tumours, surgeries, radiotherapy and the heart-wrenching hope that every treatment might be the last, only for the disease to rear its ugly head again. Now the cancer has spread to his spine. His doctors and consultants have no answers. His options are dwindling, yet Dan’s fight is far from over, because Dan is not just fighting for himself, but for his two-year-old son, Elijah, who deserves to grow up with his father by his side, cheering him on at his first football match and guiding him through life’s milestones.
Dan dreams of walking his son to school every day and of being there for every moment that really matters, whether it is his graduation or his wedding—the moments that every parent should have the chance to see. He is fighting with his wife, Sonia, who has been his rock through all of this. Sonia has stayed by his side through every hospital visit, through every sleepless night, and through every moment of doubt and fear. Together they have dreamed of a life growing old together, of watching their child grow up, and of building memories that will last forever, but that future is slipping away. That is why we are here today—to ensure that no parent, no family, no child has to face the horror of rare cancer without hope. This Bill is not just about changing laws or regulations; it is about giving families like Dan’s a fighting chance. It mandates a review of the orphan drug regulations to ensure that rare cancers get the investment they so desperately need, creates the national specialty lead to drive research and innovation, and establishes a registry service to help to connect patients to the clinical trials that really could save their lives.
This Bill gives hope—a real chance for families who are facing the unimaginable. I stand here today with a heart full of hope, but also with a heavy heart, because I know that time is not on their side. Dan does not have the luxury of waiting. His family do not have the luxury of waiting. No one diagnosed with rare cancer has that luxury. That is why this Bill is so very urgent. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber talking about politics, but this is not about politics: it is about real people like Dan who desperately need our help.
Cancer does not care about politics. It does not care what background we come from, our age or gender or what party we belong to. It strikes indiscriminately. It takes what it wants, and it leaves devastation in its wake. That is why we must respond with urgency, with compassion and, most importantly, with action. I strongly support this Bill and I urge all hon. Members here today to stand with us, to stand with the families clinging to the hope that there is something more we can do and to stand with those, like Dan, who are fighting for more time, for more moments, for more chances to hold their loved ones close. The cost of inaction is measured not just in money, but in precious lives lost. Let us pass this Bill. Let us give people like Dan and his family the hope they so desperately need. Let us give them a future—a future that is still within reach.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I rise to speak about a Bill that will increase research funding focused on more effective treatments for rarer forms of cancer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill.
Like many in this House, I rise today because I have lost a family member to a rare cancer, and I also rise as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. In the last Parliament, the Committee conducted a Future Cancer inquiry, which recommended that
“the UK should be leading on driving up international action to tackle the poor outcomes for the least survivable and least common cancers. “
This Bill will do that—but, as I say, my reason for speaking in this debate is much more personal. On 20 January this year, my brother Alex English passed away from high-grade acinic cell carcinoma, a form of salivary gland cancer. I tell his story to highlight what we can win, because this Bill can give families the gift of more time with the special people they love.
Increasingly, more common cancers are treatable or are illnesses that people can live with, but on rare cancers we still have a way to go, and without focus we will not get any further. There are more than 700 diagnoses of various forms of salivary gland cancer each year, but my search for related terms in Hansard finds only two mentions in this Chamber in the past 30 years—my hon. Friend has just made the third. One of those mentions was from me, following my brother’s death. That is why we need more focus.
In evidence to that Select Committee inquiry, Cancer52 noted that, while they represent 47% of diagnoses of less common cancers, rare cancers account for 55% of deaths. Members across this House have our own cancer journeys—ourselves, our friends or our loved ones—and I want to talk about my brother’s journey. Not all cancer journeys have the outcome that we want, and even with this Bill we will still lose some people, but more investment into research for rare cancers can give us something crucial: time. I would do anything for more time with my brother.
If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about the person who Alex was. The most important thing about Alex was not how he died; it was how he lived and the mark he left on the world. He fit a lot into 53 years. A lot of us think that our elder siblings are rock stars, but in my brother’s case that was literally true. The band he joined at university, called Pure, toured with bands like Soundgarden and reached the top 10 in Japan.
I have always been tremendously proud to call him my brother. I was proud of the horse-drawn narrowboat company he ran in Hebden Bridge, which forms part of many people’s happy childhood memories, and of his subsequent time at the National Trust, where he helped properties to become profitable, worked to restore nature and worked with local authorities. His last major project was creating woodlands near Lunt, in Liverpool. But most of all, I was proud of the person he was. He was always funny—he had a surreal wit. He was unfailingly kind and the sort of non-toxic model of masculinity that the world needs more of. I remember the humour and love in the best man’s speech he gave for me, and I will never not be sorry that I have written eulogies for my brother but never a best man’s speech.
While preparing for Christmas in 2023, I got a call from Alex and he asked if I had a minute to talk, which was unlike him, because he would not generally be over-serious. He said he had a lump on the side of his face that was, in his words, unsightly but not overly concerning. It might have been cancer, but there are a number of other things that it could have been, and if it was cancer, it was likely to be a very treatable form. He instructed me to be aware of it but not make a big deal of it, because, typically, he did not want to worry our mum. Later, it transpired that it was acinic cell carcinoma, but the prognosis was good and they were going to operate. The cancer continued to grow. His operation took 14 hours. The thing about Alex’s tumour is that the version of the illness he had was high grade, which meant that it mutated faster. It is something that has only been identified in about 100 cases, and which no doubt could have been identified earlier had we known more about cancers like his.
Last spring, in my mum’s garden, during a hushed conversation with a different family member to the side, they told me that Alex might only have 18 months to live. I hugged my two-year-old son, who was playing in the garden unaware, because I was trying not to make a big deal of it—but sometimes you need to hug someone. Every update got worse, until I took a day off during the election campaign to visit him at the Christie hospital because his lung had collapsed.
Then, because it is never a straight line, his health improved. He got to sit up there in the Gallery to watch my maiden speech in Parliament. We went to a Pixies concert together at the Piece Hall in Halifax. Then he got worse, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on Christmas Eve last year he was hospitalised again. When he returned home, we knew he was coming home to die. I cannot say enough about his wonderful friends, particularly Matt and Sarah, and my incredible family, who cared for him at the end. All of us would have spent more time at his bedside if we could, because time with people you love is a privilege.
That is what this Bill is about: giving people more time with those they love, perhaps even a full lifetime together. In cases where the cancer is worse and it cannot be treated or cured, it is about giving people more time, better health and an understanding of the journey that they are on. It is about giving people more special moments, be it a Pixies concert or reading a story to a child—Alex read the best stories—and time to organise what you leave behind. People who develop cancers that are rare still matter, and they still deserve more time. The work to help people like Alex in the future must start today.
The Government have a renewed emphasis on tackling rare cancers, in memory of the sister of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and of Tessa Jowell, and for countless other campaigners, including those in the Gallery. What we need is focus and determination to respond quickly. I thank the House for indulging me today. Let us be that world leader that is so desperately needed in tackling rare cancers. Let us give families special time with those they love the most. Let us pass this Bill.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill before the House, and pay tribute to him and to the hon. Members who have already spoken so movingly on this subject, including the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her tireless advocacy.
The many forms of cancer categorised as rare according to the Bill might each strike a small number of people, but taken together rare cancers make up almost one in five of all cancer diagnoses. Each incident, each diagnosis, each prognosis has the same devastating impact on families throughout the country, my own being no exception. My brother-in-law, Group Captain Pip Harding, who was 53, was diagnosed with stage 4 glioblastoma this time last year. At the time, he was serving in the Royal Air Force with the US Indo-Pacific command, one of his many tours, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. He was given nine to 12 months to live. For his wife Claire and his five children, the news changed everything.
In September, I joined Pip, his family and over 400 other loved ones at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire for what was called a “dining out” or farewell ceremony, an event to allow everyone to be together with Pip, potentially for one last time. You can imagine how difficult, yet how moving, that was. A few weeks later, Pip was lucky enough to come across the pioneering brain surgeon Dr Paul Mulholland, who has been trialling a treatment called oncothermia. This employs radio frequencies to target and heat malignant cancer tumour cells while avoiding healthy cells. Oncothermia is not currently available on the NHS and each one-hour treatment costs £1,000. A tumour like Pip’s requires 36 sessions.
For most people, indeed for almost all of us, that kind of money and, consequently, that course of care, is out of reach, but the 400 friends and family who attended Pip’s farewell dinner set up a GoFundMe page, which is now covering the cost of the treatment. We love Pip, which is why we all put in as much as we could to fund it. Cancers like this, with a brutal and bleak prognosis, bring people together to fight it. I want the Government to share that resolve. Since starting the monthly oncothermia sessions in December, the first MRI scan showed that Pip’s brain tumour had reduced in size from 7 cm to 1.7 cm. Pip is, thank God, still alive and watching today. European studies now suggest that oncothermia can extend life for four to five years. For Pip’s five children, that time is everything.
But that is not the whole of my experience with glioblastoma. In 2021, my husband John’s best friend Ian died from the disease. His widow Nicola is in the Gallery. Almost unbelievably, Nicola’s sister Karen, who had done so much to help Nicola through the loss of Ian, was herself diagnosed with a stage 4 glioblastoma last year and died a few months later.
I know that others in the Chamber and in the Gallery have had their lives touched by glioblastoma, too. I am sure they will agree that in the past three decades there has been an unacceptable lack of progress made on this disease: a lack of progress in developing new treatments, making them widely accessible and keeping those diagnosed with glioblastoma here with their loved ones. In the past 50 years, cancer survival rates in the UK have doubled. Whereas in the 1970s only 25% of those diagnosed were expected to live 10 years, today over half do. That is a record of staggering success and represents countless lives extended, made richer and fuller, and even saved. When it comes to glioblastoma, however, there is far less to celebrate. The chances of living a decade with the disease are one in 100. The gains in life expectancy over recent decades can be measured in months—precious, yes, but not nearly enough.
Glioblastoma is a rare cancer, but also an exceptionally lethal one. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40, yet in recent years, glioblastoma has been apportioned only around 1% to 2% of UK cancer funding. In 2018, to honour Dame Tessa Jowell, the Government announced a doubling of funding for research into brain tumours, but six years later, it was widely reported that less than half of the pledged £40 million had actually been spent. During each of those years, as funding was being delayed and sluggishly deployed, more than 3,000 people in the UK were diagnosed with glioblastomas. Will the Government update the House on how the remaining funds have been and are being spent? Will the Minister assure me that as the national cancer plan is developed alongside the NHS 10-year plan, deliberate and specific consideration will be given to glioblastomas?
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency incentivises research on orphan drugs, granting exclusivity for manufacturers and making it cheaper to bring drugs to market once they are developed, but clearly, when it comes to glioblastomas, it has not had adequate success.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
I have been to see the MHRA numerous times and have asked about repurposed drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies are worried about repurposing drugs; the fear is that if glioblastoma research were to affect the main cause for having the drug, that might make the drug less successful. We have beseeched the MHRA to treat glioblastoma separately. Would the hon. Lady support such a move?
Monica Harding
I would of course support such a move, and I urge the Government to listen and take action.
Getting it right on glioblastoma is vital. Despite minor breakthroughs, exciting innovations and apparently promising research leads, for this disease, there has simply not been the improvement in survival rates that most cancers have had. To put it bluntly, glioblastoma remains a death sentence—an increasingly common one. In the UK, cancer diagnoses have increased, but although there are some worrying sub-themes, this trend is largely due to increased life expectancy. However, that is not the case with glioblastoma. In the past 30 years, rates in the UK have more than doubled. There has been far more of an uptick than is attributable to us all living longer. More people are developing this disease, yet we have failed to make meaningful strides on treatment and cures, or even on giving those with glioblastoma a little more time with those dearest to them. Now is the moment to do something about that.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome its emphasis on improving research—I have already touched on drug development—and the provisions to facilitate clinical trials, because the grim reality is that for glioblastoma, those trials are hard to conduct. There are too few patients, and frequently their life expectancy is too limited. Anything that can be done to connect eligible patients with researchers faster and with less friction is valuable.
I emphasise that there are great opportunities in front of us for accelerating research and making broad advances in the battle against rare cancers. Along with almost half my parliamentary colleagues, I am proud to have pledged my support for the Lobular Moon Shot project, which advocates a boost of around £20 million over five years for research on the basic biology of invasive lobular breast cancer, with a view to developing new treatments. Despite being the second most common form of breast cancer, lobular breast cancer is in many ways treated like a rare cancer. It is under-researched, difficult to diagnose through the standard screening mammogram, and often presents fewer symptoms than invasive ductal carcinoma, which makes up the overwhelming majority of breast cancer incidents.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the hon. Lady is explaining very well, invasive lobular breast cancer is not classed as a rare cancer. I am concerned that it would not come within the scope of this Bill, so I gently ask if it could be widened at the next stage. As she says, lobular breast cancer has many characteristics of a rare cancer.
Monica Harding
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, lobular breast cancer is treated in many ways like a rare disease.
I recently met my constituent Kate, who was diagnosed with lobular breast cancer in 2023. She explained to me that because almost all breast cancer research is based on the ductal variant, women like her are diagnosed later and often receive treatment oriented towards a cancer with a different biology from lobular cancer. Those two factors result in higher recurrence and lower survival rates. Kate has been in remission for more than a year, and has become an advocate for research. On her behalf, I ask the Minister whether she has met with the Lobular Moon Shot campaigners. What steps are the Government taking to increase research into the cancer? What consideration has she given to updating guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to encourage the use of MRIs to diagnose lobular breast cancer earlier?
The moon shot idea is the right one. In fighting cancer we should set ambitious goals, and we should innovate until we meet them. Moreover, as the Apollo project shows, research into seemingly narrow things often has spillover effects, producing vast, unanticipated benefits. That is often true when it comes to orphan drugs. To take just one example, Gleevec has changed the game, and not just for one rare form of leukaemia; it is now used to treat a range of other cancers and conditions.
The British pharmaceutical development sector is exceptionally strong, and now is a moment of potential. On genome mapping, artificial intelligence, biotech, immunotherapy and cancer vaccines, the UK is in a position to transform and save lives. I recognise the limited scope of the Bill, but I believe it to be vital. This House must take a keen interest in accelerating and incentivising research into rare cancers, including glioblastoma. This legislation meaningfully advances that goal.
I will speak briefly about young people and children, and specifically a lovely girl called Maddie Cowey. At the age of 18, Maddie was diagnosed with an alveolar soft part sarcoma. Sarcoma is an uncommon cancer that can occur anywhere in the body. All cancers in someone of Maddie’s age are considered rare, but in her case, the classification was ultra-rare. Partly in consequence, it took five months for her to receive a diagnosis. Maddie had just started university. She recalled that at the time it
“felt like my life was falling apart. In many ways it was and it did. It was a very lonely place.”
Maddie was diagnosed almost 10 years ago now. There are no approved treatments for Maddie’s type of rare cancer, and she is undergoing a clinical trial. It is likely that she will remain on treatment for life. Maddie is amazing; she is brave and she will not let cancer define her. I bring up her story because cancer in young people is so uncommon that often it is diagnosed later. Neither medical professionals nor young people expect it, but the later a diagnosis comes, the more likely the cancer is to be lethal. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the rare cancers afflicting young people are caught earlier?
Finally, I am reminded of something that Emily Dickinson once wrote about hope:
“I’ve heard it in the chillest land, and on the strangest sea”.
We must get this right. We must give sufferers hope. We owe that to Pip’s family—his wife Claire and his five children—and to Nicola in the Gallery, and her and Ian’s sons Adam and Oliver, and to so many others who have suffered and who are here with us. I believe that we can.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to apologise to the young black man on the Northern line tube from Colliers Wood this morning for having to spend his journey looking at me sobbing my heart out. It must have been a very odd experience. I wanted to say to him, “I am not just sad; I am angry.” I am angry at the NHS. I am angry at the MHRA. I am angry beyond belief at the National Institute for Health Research. It should be renamed the national institute for something that does not do very much at great public expense.
All these institutions are bedevilled by the desire to carry on doing what they have always done. It does not get them sacked. As the former Home Secretary John Reid—Lord Reid—constantly tells me, “Siobhan, nobody ever got sacked for continuing to do the same thing. You are only sacked if you do something different.” My God, has this morning not told us that we need to do something different? We have the tools to do something different, but the people in positions of power and responsibility choose not to. We have the best health system in the world for potential drug trials—a uniform system with well-trained doctors, great scientists, great universities and great hospitals—but do we do them? No. Do we fail people every single day? Yes. Do we threaten those doctors who try to do something different? Let me tell the House, groundbreaking oncologists are looking over their shoulder, waiting for the regulator to come and get them when one of their colleagues grasses them up. That is the atmosphere in our intellectual and health service institutions.
I could feel sorry for myself and for my loss, but I do not want that; I want things to change. All of us, from all parties, need to run fast and break things, and provide a challenge to the people running our systems. We have a drug repurposing project in the most universal health system in the world, so why are we not repurposing drugs for people with rare cancers? Why is that not being done for glioblastoma? Why is it that in May, we will open a drug trial at University College London and University College London Hospitals trust in Margaret’s memory to trial one such drug that has been in the system for years? We organised a dinner with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; some ran marathons; and others sold cakes and scones in beautiful Cornwall villages. Doing those things gave us a great deal, but why, under our system, do we have to do them?
Why is it that the trial in May, under the amazing Paul Mulholland, will be based in only one trust? It is because if we had negotiated with all the other hospital trusts that are experts in this field, it would have taken us two years to get started. Why are we outstripped by Israel, Spain, America and any number of countries? It is because we cannot get our act together to start a trial, as each hospital trust is arguing about and seeking to renegotiate every trial and every plan.
This is not new. The issue was raised by Lord O’Shaughnessy in his great report on clinical trials. That report is two years old, but we have made no progress. We made no progress under the former Conservative Government, and we have made no progress under our Government. The £40 million given to the National Institute for Health and Care Research in 2017 for glioblastoma and brain cancer drug trials has not been spent. Can any Member of the House explain to me how that is humanly possible? Do we not have drugs that we could trial? Yes, of course we do. Trials are not that complicated; we can do them if we choose to. We have the doctors to do them. We need to want to change.
I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), because when she came to talk to me in the Tea Room this morning, she got this at a very fast pace. I have now met four wonderful cancer Ministers, two Conservative and two Labour. They have all been dedicated, and all wanted to sort this out, but we cannot do this by edict, or by hoping and wishing. Unless we change things and unless, I dare say, some people are removed, it will never happen. All the institutions I mentioned continue to exist because they do not do things differently.
Someone diagnosed with a glioblastoma will get the same treatment that they would have got 25 years ago. They will have their tumour removed. They will be delighted that it is gone, but it is not gone; it is coming back. They will be given eight weeks’ radiotherapy. It is brutal. It will help them for a while, but the tumour will come back. Then they get given chemotherapy— the drug is temozolomide, which was approved at the beginning of the 2000s. It will help, but the tumour will come back. They have to be able to withstand that drug themselves.
Margaret could not do that. By March, five months on from her diagnosis, she could not take it; her kidneys collapsed. What happens then? We had money and good friends. At this point, I would like publicly to thank Lord Waheed Alli for the kindness and friendship he showed us through Margaret’s journey. The treatment that he has experienced from the press is absolutely appalling. He helped us on our way. But what about somebody with no money who cannot fundraise? Their life ends at the chemotherapy. There is nothing on the NHS, but those lucky enough to have the money can find a way.
I am really grateful that the brother-in-law of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) is on the oncotherapy machine. My sister fundraised for that machine, because we had to go to Dusseldorf to have it, so we brought it here. It is great that he is receiving much benefit from it. I know that many other people are, too.
Why is the NHS, which is so risk-averse that it will not allow slightly alternative therapies for cancer, happy for people who are really ill to get on a plane and go to a different country? Is it because it does not see what happens in another country, so that is okay? I have told the stories of holding my sister’s head as she was sick in a bucket in terminal 5 at Heathrow airport, of carrying her on to a plane in the hope that the air stewardess would not see how she was, of lying next to her overnight hoping that she would be alive in the morning, because what was I going to do in a hotel in Germany, where I could not speak that language? That is my experience, but I am only one of thousands and thousands of people who do this every year, including children, because our system will not allow the use of novel treatments.
Why? Why can’t we change things? Why don’t we get up every single day and want to cure something? I do not know about other hon. Members, but since I joined the Labour party, and since I became an MP in 1997, I have got up every day and hoped that we could make things better in some way. I do not understand why our systems do not want to do the same thing. I want to understand, but it is beyond me. If there are drugs that could cure or give longer life to people with glioblastoma, why don’t we trial them? That is not beyond our ability. We have the money to do it. If we do not have the money, we will raise it. We just need the opportunity.
I do not know why we do not have that wish to achieve. I was given some hope yesterday by the proposed abolition of NHS England, because something needs to change. I do not know whether that is the right or wrong thing to do, but we need to liberate people to do things. Let us face it: in the end, only people who are well motivated and willing to take a risk can change things. Beyond that, people will continue to die, will continue having to go to other countries, will continue having to spend large amounts of money. People not lucky enough to be in that position will just die prematurely.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill and for the courtesy he has always shown me, which must have been difficult at times as I sat shouting at him in Portcullis House about how everything was useless and hopeless. In my calmer moments, I understand that progress begins with small steps. I am frustrated that those steps are too small. I am delighted that there will be one database for trials, but if there are no trials, the database does not get us very far.
We will have a report on the orphan drug Act in 18 months’ time. In that period, over 3,500 people will have been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, and many of them will have died. Why is it going to take us 18 months? Why can’t we change things now? Why, in spite of the huge support we have had for the Bill from the Secretary of State for Health, could we not get something much more fierce in it? It is not a criticism; it is an observation. I know progress begins slowly, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West taking up the Bill and for having the calm demeanour that I lack, because I do not think the Whips would have accepted anything that I would have come up with as a private Member’s Bill.
We need a revolutionary attitude. We either see and harness progress, or we come back next year, the year after and the year after that to ask why there has been no progress. All of us, individually and communally, need to dedicate ourselves to that progress and to keep asking the questions, being angry and simply refusing to accept that nothing can be done.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), because I have enjoyed working with them on the Bill. We all have our own stories. I should state my personal interest. My sister Georgie is sitting in the Gallery. She was diagnosed with a GBM—glioblastoma multiforme—nearly two years ago. I would like to say that she is alive and well, but let me just say that she is alive and she is doing well. She has been brave, determined and an inspiration to us all. It is particularly painful as she is a mother of three, a wife, a daughter and a sister. We have a lot to focus on, and it is on us collectively.
I will not rehash too much, and I will try to resist having a cry-fest, but it might be difficult. Our actions, and what we do as a team, are what we will be judged on. I am going to throw it over to the Labour side a little, because they are in government now and they have more power than we do in opposition. When we leave the Chamber today, I ask each Government MP to ask, “Okay, what are we actually going to do?” The talk in this Chamber is nice, but it is the actions that count.
I will pick up on two points. The first is the trial register. We have first-hand experience with Georgie of trying to find what trials are out there. Obviously, there are not enough trials; we know that, and that is something we need to fix. Also, matching patients with trials is not rocket science—that is a basic thing. I would also encourage the Government, rather than just starting from scratch and taking months to reinvent the wheel, to find out what is going on in the private sector and what trials and registers of people seeking trials are already out there, and to build on that. If there is a partnership with some company, that is fine, but let us move quickly, because speed really counts.
The second point is about orphan drug regulations. A key trigger for me getting into politics was Brexit. I thought it was a disastrous idea, and I still do. I struggle to find any possible gains from Brexit, but there is one thing that we could do. The EU has regulations on orphan drugs; ours could be more generous. We could pull research into the UK by giving patents for a few extra years, which would encourage people to dig into the research in these critical areas. I live in hope of that one potential gain.
Even if products are obtained, reimbursement has to be accessible on the NHS, which is far from certain. Ensuring that there is a robust, timely and accessible route to making these drugs available on the NHS for patients really counts. It is critical that that does not fall off the radar. Also, we are really falling behind in the number of clinical researchers active in the UK today. If we want to get this research moving, we must think about what we are doing to get clinical researchers working hard in this space and in others, because we are not doing a good enough job on that.
That is all I will say. Let me just return to my first point: we need action. It is good to have those in the Gallery here today.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing the Bill to the House, and join him in paying tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning, and for her powerful speech calling for a revolution in attitudes. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his very moving speech. As somebody who lost a brother much too young, I was deeply moved by his words.
I have come here today to speak on behalf of my constituent, Katie Swinburne. She is a much-loved school teacher—in fact, she was the school teacher of one of my staff—and a mother of three who was diagnosed with invasive lobular breast cancer. As was mentioned a moment ago, lobular breast cancer is not classed as a rare cancer—in fact, it is the second most common type of breast cancer in the world, with 8,500 diagnoses annually in the UK alone—but it shares many characteristics of rare cancers in the sense that it is very difficult to detect. In Katie’s case, as in many others, it did not initially form as a lump in the breast, for example. It has distinct genetics, so is not detectable in genetic tests, and it is very easily missed in mammograms and ultrasounds.
As a consequence, many of the women who get this form of cancer will not be diagnosed until long after it has already spread. I am also told—thankfully, Katie is watching today; I received a WhatsApp message from her a moment before speaking—that a key point that I should make to the Minister is that, because lobular breast cancer presents differently from other forms of breast cancer and is not separated out in clinical trials, there is very little trial data on it. I met recently on Zoom with Katie and others who have been campaigning for the moonshot. This is not a lot of money; it is simply £20 million of funding that the University of Manchester could use to better understand the biological architecture of this type of cancer. That would lead to the possibility of developing the right treatments, because it currently has no specific treatment. This is a gentle request, really, that in the next stage of the Bill lobular breast cancer be considered alongside the rare cancers for which it already provides.
I finish by paying tribute to Katie and all the many brave individuals I have met. I cannot imagine what it is like to be young and have parenting responsibilities and be diagnosed with an advanced stage of cancer. Many of those campaigning know that they might not live to see the day when the better drugs and treatments are available, but they are bravely taking up this cause on behalf of those who come after them.
Katie was bravely doing a mile a day sponsored walks. My predecessor in this place joined her on one of those miles, and although we disagree about many things politically, we have already seen today that this is a cause that unites, because there is little—in fact, there is nothing—more precious in life for any of us than time spent with the people we love. Money cannot buy that—nothing can buy that—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden made clear, the decisions we make in this place can have a real impact in the lives of others.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as I was waiting to speak, I was very pleased that you did not call me after the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) because I do not think I would have been able to get through parts of my speech so shortly after listening to his story; he did really well.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008, which is relatively unusual for a man, and the hardest thing I ever had to do was tell my two daughters, who were 13 and 14 at the time, about my diagnosis. It was an experience that left me wondering if our family of four was about to become a family of three. I had to explain to all of them that I would have an operation to remove a tumour and I might need another one. As things turned out, my cancer had spread and I did need to have another operation. I also had to say that I would need chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and that that was going to take nine months out of our lives—not just mine, but the lives of my immediate family, my wider family and our friends.
I consider myself very lucky that my treatment pathway was relatively clear, but that is not the case for many rare cancers. The reach of cancer is an evil that is growing across our society with nearly one in two of us projected to get cancer in our lifetime, meaning we all know someone close to us, whether family or friend, who will begin what can be a very traumatic journey. It is a fight that causes your life to be taken completely out of your hands, and that leaves families forced to hear rarely used terms like “malignant” or “metastasised” as if they were common expressions, clouding the horror of medical jargon.
It is with these words that I am proud to associate myself with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), and I congratulate him on his campaign that demands better for cancer patients and especially on bringing forward the Rare Cancers Bill, because it is a powerful and necessary step forward to end the experience that I described at the beginning of my speech.
Rare cancers are often under-researched and the regulatory environment simply fails to cope with them. They have smaller patient populations which makes research and investment less appealing and an evidence base harder to achieve. Where clinical trials are taking place, patients often do not know very much about them. A Cancer52 survey of rare cancer patients found that 65% cited not knowing about trials as the main barrier to accessing the trial in the first place. The Bill seeks to rectify those flaws in our system, and I would like to highlight the powers it contains to ensure that patients can get better access and find relevant clinical trials. As was highlighted in the Teenage Cancer Trust’s “Improving Young People’s Access to Cancer Clinical Trials” report, it is also difficult for the clinical trial leads themselves to find the necessary patients, meaning that they struggle to recruit. Both patients and researchers want to be in those clinical trials, but the system does not allow for that common-sense joining up.
I hope that as a result of the changes made by the Bill, people in my constituency of Wokingham and across England will begin to see a shift towards prioritising rare cancers, because such a shift is long overdue. Last week, I met a constituent to discuss his wife’s cancer. She had leiomyosarcoma, which has an incidence rate of six cases per 1 million people annually in the UK. He explained to me that one of the potential treatment options for his wife is exploiting faults in the BRCA2 genes through PARP inhibitors. However, with an estimated 30 new cases of leiomyosarcoma every year and only three with the BRCA2 mutation, there are too few patients to allow for a sufficient clinical trial, and therefore NICE does not license those drugs for that particular cancer.
What are the Minister’s views on efforts within the European Union’s life science industry to develop clear guidance to make cross-border clinical trials easier? If that were to happen, it would address one of the major problems with rarer cancers such as leiomyosarcoma. Individual nations may not have a sufficient pool of patients to conduct a clinical trial, but multiple nations working together could. Does the Minister see cross-nation trials as having great potential for developments in oncology? If the EU were to advance easier cross-border co-operation, would that be something that the United Kingdom could potentially negotiate its way into? This is no time for a Government to be isolationist.
My constituent also highlighted that PARP inhibitors are available in the United States. What efforts is the Minister making to ask that if drugs are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, NICE has the opportunity to take the US evidence into account when considering whether to approve licences for drugs in the UK?
Sarcomas are just one tumour type that has poor survival outcomes and limited treatment options. Despite the investment by charities such as Sarcoma UK to fund research into new treatments, we do not know enough about the disease, because so few people are affected. Other constituents have written in to share their experience of losing loved ones to brain tumours such as glioblastomas and to blood cancers. All have expressed hope that this Bill will create a world in which we can better encourage pharmaceutical companies to run trials on rarer cancers in order to create innovative new treatments, so that the pain they went through will not be a fate that others must endure in future.
Before I conclude, it would be a missed opportunity if I did not ask the Minister about the national cancer strategy, which will be so important in ensuring that a long-term plan is in place to deliver better services for patients with rare and less common cancers. The NHS needs to be prepared for the innovations of the future by preparing for an increase in demand for companion diagnostics. The turnaround times for existing tests are already causing delays in optimal treatments. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is enough capacity for the ever-increasing demand for diagnostic tests?
The national cancer strategy needs to be thoroughly scrutinised before its final draft is published, to ensure that the measures demanded by cancer charities and patient groups, and ideas from by the life sciences sector, are properly covered. NHS performance must be measured regularly over the lifetime of the strategy to see if improvements are actually being made. Will the Minister explain what accountability mechanisms are being considered for the national cancer strategy?
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West once again for bringing the Bill to the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I know he has put a huge amount of effort into bringing the Bill before the House, in collaboration with many others, including patients, families, professionals and charities. I send my condolences to him, his wife and family on the death of his father-in-law, and to Tilly’s family. To lose a child is unbearable and against the natural order of things.
The Bill is much needed and I welcome the opportunity to make some observations about it. Before I do so, I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) and his brother. I live in the area of Lunt that he referred to, where there is going to be a remarkable legacy for his brother: the area has been rewilded and there will be a forest there in due course, which is absolutely fantastic. I invite him and his family to come down—I will show them around and they can see the legacy that his brother has left us.
I also want to refer to comments made by the chief executive officer of the Brain Tumour Charity, Dr Michele Afif, about the context of the Bill and why it is before the House. In an online article last month, she wrote:
“During my clinical career I was frequently moved by the courage and determination of my patients and their families.”
It behoves all of us to support the endeavours of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to help those people who “don’t have a voice”, as Dr Afif says, by giving our unambiguous backing to what she calls “a Bill of hope.”
We must ensure that that hope is turned into reality: that is the job of every Member in the Chamber. We owe it to those affected by rare cancers to champion their needs, treatment and lives. The proposed legislation would be a starting point—a first base. It will enable and facilitate the promotion of research into rare cancers and better access to clinical trials, as has been said, and initiate a review of marketing authorisations for so-called orphan products, which I will explore in more detail.
It is devastating to have a cancer diagnosis. We all know family members who have been diagnosed with one form or another. The shock and trauma that comes with such news is hard to take in, as the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said. But then to find out subsequently that the spectrum of intervention with medicines or other allied interventions is limited because of the rare nature of a particular cancer surely adds to that distress and worry. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said, with glioblastoma, questions inevitably sweep through the minds of those affected as to whether an appropriate medicinal intervention is available or even on the horizon.
Orphan products are those drugs that are used to treat not only rare cancers but other rare diseases. The pharmaceutical industry is reluctant to develop the drugs because of the cost, time and effort when they will not be commercially productive, given the number of people who will use them. The fact that these potentially lifesaving, or life-changing, drugs are not produced leaves a significant lacuna in the treatment options for those with rare cancers. Although there is a public health need—of that there is absolutely no doubt—there is no resource to enable that lacuna to be filled. That resource should be made available.
I am therefore pleased that clause 1 of the Bill will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to undertake a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for potential orphan medicines. I note that the Bill will require an assessment of regulatory approaches in other countries, which is also welcome. That is an excellent and much-needed step in the right direction, linked in with the other requirements in the Bill relating to research programmes and initiatives. It sends a clear and unambiguous message to those affected and those who will be affected—that could be anybody in this Chamber and, as we have heard, it is some people in this Chamber—that the Government have heard what they have said and are not only listening to that message and that plea, but are taking practical action to put it into effect, which is more than welcome.
Other countries have introduced similar legislation in this respect. The provision in clause 1(2) will help to form a more progressive, informed approach and its requirements will enable information, practices and protocols from other jurisdictions to be harvested. For example, Genetic Alliance UK points out that there are as many as 7,000 rare diseases—possibly more—affecting one in 17 people, with approved treatments available for only one in 20 rare diseases more generally. Although those are not significant cohorts of people per se in a particular disease category, collectively millions of people are affected in one fashion or another by a rare disease, including rare cancers—and it is no less the case for rare cancers: a disease is a disease, and those affected by it, whether it is rare or not, are entitled to equity of care and intervention.
In this case, such potential interventions cannot simply be left to market arrangements. That is why it is important to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to the development of orphan medicines, which must be set against the context of, for example, a 2022 survey of 61 orphan medicines that received EU approvals between 2018 and 2021. Of those, 36 orphan medicines were made available in England, compared with 55 in Germany, 50 in Italy, 48 in France and 31 in Spain. While those medicines do not specifically relate to cancer, that helps to contextualise the difference in numbers for orphan medicines.
A research programme between 2020 and 2025 at the University of Sheffield, funded by the Wellcome Trust, indicated:
“Furthermore, only a third of EU authorised orphan drugs are recommended by NICE… Thus, the medical needs of UK rare disease patients are potentially underserved compared to both the USA and EU.”
Indeed, the programme is called the Orphanisation project. Clearly, as the university puts it, there is a
“major international debate…currently ongoing about how we might improve patients’ access to orphan drugs, raising important questions about how to value these medicines, and the ethics of resource allocation”.
The project sets out a path for being creative in progressing the relatively new concept of orphanisation,
“as a way of understanding contemporary changes in the biopharmaceutical sector. Specifically, the project examines the extent to which orphanisation occurring in the EU, UK, and USA”,
and seeks to understand how it is informed by
“different technologies, institutions, and actors, addressing the implications for industry, health policy and patients”.
I look forward to the progress that it will make. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will help. They follow through systemically and consistently to change that scenario for the better. International explorations and comparisons are one method to inform decision makers about how they can be more proactive in facilitating access to medicines for those most in need of them, especially when the size and extent of the available medicinal range is limited. That is often the case with the rare cancers we are talking about, and rare diseases more generally.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for enabling the House to debate this issue and for the opportunity to tease out many of the issues affecting our constituents and, as I referred to earlier, to discuss crucial lifesaving and life-enhancing treatments for diseases more generally.
I again pay tribute to all those colleagues who have brought their stories and their experiences to us today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley and for Mitcham and Morden, the hon. Members for Wokingham and for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and others. They deserve our admiration and thanks, but more importantly, they need our support to get the job done. That point has been made by so many. Such expositions, however painful for the Members concerned, bring home the real need for this House to act on this issue, which is literally a matter of life and death. Finally, I look forward to seeing the Bill progress through the House in the coming weeks, as no doubt do many others. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I am here today to support the Rare Cancers Bill, a vital piece of legislation introduced by our hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I begin by paying tribute to his father-in-law and all those who have shared their stories here today.
My hon. Friend’s story, like so many, is a stark reminder of how aggressive and under-researched cancers can be, leaving patients with little or no hope. It is assumed that rare cancers, as has been mentioned today, affect a low number of people, but that is not the case. Cancer Research UK says that rare and less common cancers account for 47% of all UK cancer diagnoses and 55% of all cancer-related deaths. Some 82% of rare cancer patients are never even consulted about joining a clinical trial. That means that while each individual rare cancer may affect relatively few people, together they make up almost half of cancer cases, yet the funding and research remain disproportionately low.
I will briefly mention Charlie Shrager, one of my constituents in Gravesham. Like so many, she is fighting cholangiocarcinoma, or bile duct cancer. It is a supposedly rare but devastating form of liver cancer, and there is rising incidence. In 2001, 2.9 out of 100,000 people were diagnosed with it. In 2018, it was 4.6. Some 79% of these patients are diagnosed at stage 3 or stage 4, meaning that their likelihood of survival is limited. Histotripsy is a non-invasive treatment that uses sonic beam therapy. It is incredible. The problem is that we do not have a machine in the UK. They cost £10 million, and let us get one here, because for people facing this disease or pancreatic cancer, it is a lifesaver, and they desperately need it. As Charlie put it:
“I was lucky enough to afford treatment abroad, but I know many who aren’t. They don’t have that option. Why should their chances depend on their bank balance?”
We must recognise that “rare” does not mean “insignificant”. People across the UK are battling cancers that remain underfunded, under-researched and underserved by clinical trials, which is criminal. It is a pattern that is repeated again and again with bile duct cancer, glioblastoma, leiomyosarcoma—a rare soft tissue cancer that demands personalised medicine—pancreatic cancer and blood cancers. Each of these cancers devastates lives. We have discussed what the Bill can do: appoint a national specialty lead for rare cancers, review and improve the UK’s orphan drug regulations, and improve data sharing.
As a research scientist in biochemistry, I worked on neglected infectious diseases and came across the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative. It was launched 25 years ago to co-ordinate research outcomes, negotiate with big pharma and test drugs that have been developed for other neglected diseases, and it is now eliminating diseases across the globe. It can be done—we have the blueprint—so I urge the Minister to reach out to that initiative to see what we can learn and implement here.
For too long, rare and neglected cancers have meant a rare chance of survival, and that must change. Given the strength of feeling among everybody here, there is the will to bring about change. I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward, and to seeing that people are not left behind and that we find a cure for everybody.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
We have already heard so much moving and powerful testimony in this debate, but despite the tragic impact that rare cancers have on people across the UK, they garner too little attention, are under-researched and lack investment in their treatment. Though cancer survival rates rose by nearly 10% between 2005 and 2020, rare cancers still have some of the lowest survival rates, leaving too many people without hope.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing this Bill. I will argue in favour of it today, using three examples: first, the story of a constituent suffering from a rare cancer; secondly, the importance of this Bill for extremely rare cancers; and, lastly, its importance for future research.
There are many rare forms of cancer that individuals suffer, often without specialised treatments or public awareness, but every rare cancer patient has a name and a story. Take that of a constituent I recently met in Parliament at an event for World Cancer Day, who suffers from T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia. Although the five-year survival rate for leukaemia currently stands at 55%, the figure for acute myeloid leukaemia, a rare and aggressive form, is one of the lowest of all cancers. It has a 22% survival rate beyond five years after diagnosis. This means that, sadly, nearly 80% of those diagnosed with AML today will not survive until the end of this Parliament. Surgery is not a viable treatment option for those diagnosed with leukaemia, so such patients often depend on the discovery of new and innovative treatments to survive the disease.
Though every cancer has a name and a story, some are so rare that there is little representation of them, even in debates like this. That brings me to my second example: composite hemangioendothelioma, or CHE. It was first medically identified in only 2006, and by 2022 had fewer than 60 cases reported in English-language literature. Because of its rarity, it is hard to treat and garners little attention from companies that could develop treatments. However, those affected by CHE have names, families and stories. Hopefully, my mentioning CHE in this debate may, in a small way, help raise awareness of its existence. This Bill will assist us in this matter, as it will result in the appointment of a named person who is responsible for overseeing the delivery of research into rare cancer treatments. That will facilitate some political accountability for rare cancer research and encourage an ecosystem that can hopefully lead to future treatments for, or at least more attention to, even some of the rarest cancers, such as CHE.
Talking of treatments, earlier this week, I met a constituent who is a researcher at the University of Glasgow. She was in Parliament for the STEM for Britain exhibition. We discussed her research on a novel approach to treating osteosarcoma. Although it is the most common primary bone cancer, only 160 people are diagnosed with osteosarcoma each year in the UK—fewer than three people in every 1 million of the population—making it a rare cancer under the Bill. Current treatments lack specificity in targeting the tumour and often have unwanted side effects. My constituent’s research looked at the potential use of small molecules to create a more effective and non-invasive treatment for osteosarcoma. The Bill’s support for information sharing in the research registry system will help researchers like my constituent. It will help with research and clinical trials by giving researchers greater access to the patient population with rare cancers like osteosarcoma. A patient survey in 2024 found that 82% of those with a rare or less common cancer were not offered a clinical trial. That is why the Bill is important.
The Bill will help to foster an environment in which there can be more research and clinical trials on rare cancers such as osteosarcoma. For patients like my constituent suffering from t-cell large granular lymphocytic leukaemia, for those diagnosed with the least-understood cancers, and for the researchers trying to find new treatments, the Bill represents a commitment to the fight against rare cancers. I therefore urge the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and the Bill today.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Those of us who have lost a friend or a family member to cancer will no doubt have heard them described—often, I think, somewhat unhelpfully—as courageous, but this morning we witnessed the most courageous exposition I have ever heard in my life from my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). I thank him for the privilege of allowing us to listen to his loving tribute to his brother. We also heard from a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and for Witney (Charlie Maynard), and, most forcefully, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), about the pressure of time, and the urgent need to do something to find a cure or treatment for rare cancers. We have heard a number of moving speeches this morning, but I will allow hon. Members to relax and recharge their emotional batteries a little bit, because I will address the issue of time, and the practical considerations of how we can turn drug discovery into treatment as speedily as possible. To do that, I will lift the lid on our drug supply chain and set out the vital role that the NHS can play in it.
There are lessons we can learn from the covid pandemic when it comes to the drug supply chain. We very quickly developed a vaccine in the UK, in Oxford, but we saw quite quickly that the vaccine was worth nothing until it was in the arms of the population. Getting that done required a big effort, including in industry. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), industry is also important. The Fujifilm factory in Billingham in my constituency manufactured one of the covid vaccines, and it will shortly turn Billingham into the largest biopharmaceutical manufacturing centre in the UK. When it was making the vaccine, it found that it had a big problem. This brings into play another town, just up the River Tees from Billingham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth). Members may have heard of it—it became famous for a particular reason during the pandemic—but they may not be sighted on the reason why I will talk about it, which has more to do with glass than glasses. Barnard Castle is home to GlaxoSmithKline, which bottled the vaccines. There was, at the time, a global shortage of bottles for vaccines, and in the UK we have only one glass manufacturer capable of doing that job, although soon there will be another in St Helens.
Hopefully, after that little overview, Members can sense that there is a big industrial supply chain issue that we need to address before we can get treatments to the people who need them most. In fact, there are a number of researchers working on this area. I am sure that when we think of research into rare cancers, we think of people in white coats and laboratories in places like Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial, but I urge us to also think about the process operators in Billingham, the bottle fillers in Barnard Castle and the furnace operators in places like Glass Futures in St Helens, who are also working hard on research projects to deliver those treatments.
The second issue that I would like us to consider is the role that the NHS can and must play. I want to see a transformatively different approach from the NHS in this area. A month ago in Parliament, I met representatives of Pancreatic Cancer UK, which I know supports the Bill. They talked to me about pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, which is a treatment for pancreatic cancer, and about the difficulties in sourcing sufficient quantities of treatment. We all know from our constituency surgeries that there is the same issue with common drugs; people suffering with other conditions and people who have children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and so on are struggling to get the drugs that they need.
Part of the issue is that we rely so much on imports. We could be manufacturing these products in the UK. The NHS is the single biggest purchaser of drugs in the world; it has the market power to demand that production be centred in the UK. That would bring clear economic benefits to the UK, but it would also shorten cycle times for innovation, because the researchers and the manufacturers would be close to one another, and it would ensure security of supply in the UK. It would mean that we could be proud of manufacturing drugs that help to treat people around the world. It would also fit in with our industrial strategy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was talking only yesterday about the importance of life sciences to our industrial strategy, and about their creating British jobs in research and in factories.
I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. He described his father-in-law as a dignified man; my hon. Friend gave an incredibly dignified speech, and I am sure that his father-in-law will be very proud. We look forward to the days when people who suffer from rare cancers are not offered such treatments as breathing into a brown paper bag, as my hon. Friend described, or taking a paracetamol, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) described. Instead, we should use the power of our NHS and the efficiency of our UK supply chains to turn discoveries into drugs, and trials into lifesaving treatments.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill.
I remember the day my dad was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I remember my mum and dad picking me up off the floor. I was supposed to be supporting them, but that did not happen that day. Dr Lau at Blackpool Victoria hospital explained that my dad’s cancer was terminal. My dad was initially given chemotherapy to try to shrink the tumours and give us more time. Later, he was asked to take part in a trial using immunotherapy. It was explained that the immune system does not recognise cancer as alien and as a threat. Immunotherapy teaches the immune system to recognise cancer, and enables the body’s immune system to fight back.
My dad was a fighter and he was willing to try anything. His body struggled with chemotherapy, and after we nearly lost him twice in 12 months it was stopped, but the immunotherapy continued. He finished the course without any complications. Once my dad started the treatment, the cancers—there were many—never moved. To this day, we do not know whether the treatment cured him and he was left with just scar tissue, or whether the cancers lay dormant. What I can tell the House is that my dad did not die of cancer; it was something else that took him from us.
My family believe that we were given an extra three years of loving and being loved by my lovely dad because of immunotherapy. We will always be grateful for the Christmas days, the birthdays, the celebrations and sometimes the tears that we were all able to share with my wonderful, caring dad.
People with rare cancers deserve the funding and research trials that the Bill will initiate. They should have the chance of life that my dad was given. That starts with ensuring that patients can get better access to clinical trials. Many people miss out on potentially life-extending trials because there is just not as much information out there as there needs to be. Recent research has found that 82% of respondents with a less common or rare cancer were not offered an opportunity to be part of a clinical trial. That has to change, and the Bill would achieve that.
I support the Bill, because everyone diagnosed with cancer should be given every chance of survival. Without the Bill, people with rare cancers will die sooner than other cancer patients, not having been given the chance to fight this terrible disease. I speak for them, so that they can have the chances that were awarded to my dad. I thank Dr Lau, my dad’s consultant, for giving an 81-year-old man the precious gift of life for a few years longer.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. It may be the most repeated phrase in the Chamber, but politics is about choices and he, having ranked so highly in the private Member’s Bill ballot—an early accolade in this Parliament—chose a Bill that would put patients suffering from a rare cancer and their families higher up on the list of priorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) so movingly put it, I hope that, in time, the Bill will mean that in some instances, my constituents in Falkirk and families across the United Kingdom will get precious extra hours, days, weeks and years to spend with our loved ones.
Every Member of the House and every constituent I have spoken to about this has a story of a loved one who has suffered through the heartbreaking cruelty of a cancer diagnosis. I lost two of my grandparents in their early 60s. I still remember the seven years of my life that I spent with my grandad Robin. We found plenty of time to exchange robust views on football, and I am sure that if he had more time with us, we would today be exchanging views on life and politics, too. He was lucky, though, to meet all four of his grandchildren, thanks to the immense care he received from his doctors and the support he got from his family.
I remember my granny Janet, who passed away in 2012 after a 10-month battle with a brain tumour. I remember most fondly her fussing over everyone in the house to make sure they had absolutely everything they needed at all times. I remember holding her hand in Strathcarron hospice, where she had volunteered for a number of years, and where she received care in her final days. One thing I have drawn from those experiences is the value of our NHS and hospice staff to those who have cancer and their families. Those staff, day in, day out, take the worst parts of life and allow us to endure them. We should arm them with the best possible tools for treating illness and disease.
Statistically, half of us in the Chamber will have to comprehend our own diagnosis of some type of cancer. The definition of “rare cancer” is, for the purposes of the Bill, one that affects fewer than one in 2,000 people. We must acknowledge that active intervention is required to ensure that research, treatment and clinical pathways for those cancers have parity with other cancer research. As has been mentioned, rare cancers account for about 47% of all cancer diagnoses.
I will go through the Bill and each of its clauses to show why I support it. Clause 1 and the statutory requirement for a review relating to orphan medicines will be an essential step to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the availability of medicines and how they can best be calibrated towards new treatments and new research. The comparative approach that the Bill puts forward for the review acknowledges that while we have a proud history of world-class research, other countries have been able to make substantial strides in this area in recent years when we have not. In the last six years, the UK has dropped from being ranked second for the availability of orphan medicines—behind only Germany—to England being 10th and Scotland being 13th among European countries. That does not necessarily look like regression, but it potentially exposes stagnation in advancing research that would benefit those suffering from a rare cancer. The British pharmaceutical industry has stated that it is increasingly challenging to develop medicine for rare diseases in this country, citing, among other things, the low prospect of NHS reimbursement for rare disease medicines.
Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State a duty to promote research on rare cancers, ensure that patients can be easily contacted about such research, and ensure appropriate oversight of rare cancers. That is a progressive move, as the duty to promote research will write into law that any Health Secretary must take a proactive approach to maintaining and promoting rare cancer research. It embeds in the Government’s job description a duty to ensure that ease of contact is properly facilitated, and that there is appropriate oversight. The Bill is not overreaching when it says that strategic co-ordination is key. The appointment of a national speciality lead for rare cancers will put into law the requirement for a champion who can cut through any silos that exist, or that start to develop as the Bill takes effect.
Clause 3 is a critical part of the framework. It will aid the building of a robust evidential basis for clinical trials by making a bespoke register for those with a rare cancer. The sharing of information from the national disease registration service by the NHS with the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” registry, so that patients can be identified and contacted, will improve an issue that has come up several times when I have spoken to organisations in this space: there are not enough people available for clinical trials for rare cancers. Correspondingly, as has been mentioned by other Members, clearly there is a substantial barrier at the patient end. Cancer52 found that 82% of those with a rare cancer had not been offered a clinical trial. That evidences the clear case for the change proposed in the Bill.
With rapid advances in cancer treatment, there is a massive opportunity to take steps forward in increasing survivability after diagnosis. For all these new treatments to be effective, there needs to be corresponding clinical trials. Currently, connecting those with a rare cancer to clinical researchers involves an amount of luck that the information about the trial will make its way to the patient or that they will be aware of a clinical trial. Organising the register so that clinical trials can get in touch with patients will simplify and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the system, saving time and increasing the chance of successful trials. I give the Bill my full support.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising this deeply important issue. I know that I speak for everyone here in finding his words about his father-in-law, and the story of Kira, very moving. I join him in welcoming Kira’s family. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning on this issue—her sister would be very proud of her. I also pay tribute to everyone who has spoken, for both their bravery and the immense bravery of their constituents and their family members.
I particularly want to recognise the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the story of Dan, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her powerful speech about her father, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for his speech about his grandparents. I give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn); I am so sorry that I did not get a chance to meet his brother Alex. He sounds like a phenomenal human being. I am so sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss, but I know that his brother would be very proud of him.
My heart goes out to those who have shared their stories. I thank them for their bravery. As so many stories show, the term “rare cancers” is misleading. The cancers we class as rare in total account for almost half of all cancer diagnoses each year, and as has been mentioned, tragically they account for over half—55%—of all cancer deaths. Given that, on average, one in two of us develops some form of cancer in our lifetimes, the chances of experiencing one of these so-called rare or less common cancers, or seeing them diagnosed in a loved one, are far higher than the term suggests. In the coming year, 182,000 people will be diagnosed with these types of cancers—equivalent to the population of a city the size of Swindon. Sadly, 92,000 people will lose their lives as a result—the population of a city the size of Chester.
Behind each one of those tragic statistics lies a story of families bereaved; of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children lost, and of lives torn apart. That was brought home to me when I visited Chai Cancer Care in my constituency to hear the stories of many people battling to live with cancer. Their bravery is inspiring and they need our help now. I commend the Government’s work to improve cancer outcomes for all. Last month they launched the call for evidence to inform the development of a national cancer plan, and I hope that we can pass the Bill to support those efforts.
Illnesses classified as rare or less common are among some of the very cruellest. The Bill seeks to address some of the fundamental reasons why diagnosis of a comparatively rare form of cancer can leave patients with a disproportionately lower chance of making a full recovery. For a start, rare cancers are harder to diagnose. There are many reasons for that. Some of the more common cancers have screening programmes, which means that many people are diagnosed before they have symptoms. Sadly, that is much less common in the case of rare cancers. Additionally, doctors see the symptoms of common cancers more frequently, and so are more likely to spot them. Also, currently, 82% of patients with a rare or less common form of cancer are not offered a clinical trial.
The Bill will seek to reduce the knowledge gap on rare cancers, proposing a national specialty lead for rare cancers to advise on research design and facilitate collaboration in rare cancer research, and a specific rare cancer registry to share information to improve the recruitment of participants for rare cancer clinical trials. However, although we need to incentivise research, it is not the only barrier that we face to improving rare cancer outcomes. The comparatively lower occurrence of many rare cancers mean that, although drugs to combat them often exist, for economic reasons they are not developed by the pharma industry, despite the pressing and urgent need for them. These orphan drugs have the potential not only to save thousands of lives but to provide hundreds and thousands of families with that most valuable thing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred: more time with their loved ones.
Under normal market conditions, pharma companies may be unwilling to invest in the research and development of new treatments for diseases that affect fewer people than the most common forms of cancer. The figures are stark: five of the six less survivable cancers received only 17% of the research funding for more survivable cancers. By proposing that the Secretary of State will be required to review the current laws on marketing authorisations for these orphan drugs, and by placing a duty on Government to support research and innovation further, the Bill would go a long way to achieving something that many of us would view as common sense: incentivising the production of these medical products and putting them to use where they are so badly needed in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of cancer.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and his team for the work they have done to improve the power of collaboration among Members of Parliament, the charity sector and patient advocates. Drawing on medical expertise and lived experience, their diligence in bringing about the Bill is borne out by the widespread support it has gathered across the House. According to Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Bill has the potential to transform survival for rare cancers by encouraging a greater focus and drive to research, and the Brain Tumour Charity has also praised it.
I know from my own experience, talking to constituents in Hendon and visiting hospitals such as the Royal Free, just how crucial one word can be: hope. Cancer is one of the defining health issues of our time, causing the death of 460 people in this country every single day. We know there is no silver bullet. We must fight cancer on all fronts, from research to prevention to diagnosis to treatment, and I know the Government are wholly committed to doing that. Thanks to huge oncological steps forward in recent years, outlooks for cancer patients have improved dramatically. We have reached the milestone of more than 50% of people diagnosed with cancer in England and Wales now surviving their disease for 10 years or more, yet this number falls sharply for many of the rarer cancers we have talked about today. We must recognise—as this Bill does—where the shortfalls are in our shared knowledge and the resources we put into the rarer forms of this disease. We have a duty to put this right. We must ensure that those suffering from rare and less common forms of cancer, and those yet to be diagnosed, have as much cause for hope as possible. I support this Bill.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill. I thank the many other Members from across the House who have contributed so movingly today, and my constituents who reached out to me to share their views. I will try to keep my contribution brief, because I know others will want to speak.
In particular, I would like to thank Maria and her daughter Lauren, who told me about Maria’s journey and her fight against leiomyosarcoma—I am the second person today to struggle to pronounce that word—and how that diagnosis, during the covid lockdowns, turned her life upside down. Navigating the pandemic was hard enough; navigating it while one of the people you love most in the world is suffering with cancer must have been nearly impossible.
Maria is still living with leiomyosarcoma and has chemotherapy once a month. As she and her daughter told me, living with cancer is tough enough; when it is a rare cancer, patients live with the fear that the disease will act quicker than the research makes progress. That is why this Bill is so important. We need to close the gap in the treatment so that more people diagnosed with rare cancers have the same chance of survival as those with other cancers.
Another constituent of mine knows the cost of that all too well. He has asked me not to share his or his wife’s name, but instead to tell her story. She passed away last year after being diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma. Despite the best efforts of the oncology unit, the rarity of the cancer meant that it took too long to identify her condition. A year of chemotherapy followed, sadly to no avail.
Although I have two examples of leiomyosarcoma in my constituency, it is incredibly rare. One challenge of that cancer is its genetic variability and the fact that it has many different subtypes. Personalised medicine is particularly important for rare cancers with different subtypes, but because of the small number of patients with leiomyosarcoma, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to run robust clinical trials. Research is possible, however, and great strides are being made in the US, showing that better treatment and outcomes are possible. It is vital that we incentivise research of and investment into the treatment of rare cancers and begin to close that gap.
I thank my hon. Friend again for introducing this important debate and the Bill.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. He has channelled his personal experience, and that of his family, to produce a vital piece of legislation. I hope that he succeeds in driving change on this issue. He certainly has my support and that of all Members of the House. It is on days like this that I call Members of Parliament from across the House my hon. Friends rather than hon. Members. This cause certainly unites us.
I know from reading emails from my Telford constituents that they are fully behind the Bill. I join my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the many people who have told the stories of loved ones in their families and communities—they are far braver than I. Next Thursday, I will be a bearer at the funeral of a woman who is very special in my life. I am not quite brave enough to tell her story today, but maybe one day I will.
I have heard about devastating impacts from a number of constituents who have contacted me to share their stories. I heard from one constituent about the mother of his three teenage children. She is in her 40s and battling terminal pancreatic cancer after a late diagnosis. Among those stories, a familiar theme arises: conditions such as pancreatic cancer are being diagnosed too late and there is no available treatment. My constituents’ loved ones are given just months to live.
I focus on pancreatic cancer because it is an example of the scandal of rare cancer treatment. It is classed as a rare cancer by the Bill because it affects fewer than one person in every 2,000. Every year, one in every 6,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and half of them die within three months. There are roughly 107,000 people in Telford, which means that 18 of my constituents will be diagnosed with that awful cancer each and every year, and nine of them will die within three months of diagnosis. That is absolutely shocking. I owe it to those 18 people in my constituency to speak up in the Chamber and demand drastic change.
It is easy to see how this problem can arise, although that does not make it any less galling. In a healthcare system under strain that is failing cancer patients in particular—last year, UK cancer survival rates were 25 years behind some other European countries—decision-makers might be faced with a Sophie’s choice: the unenviable task of prioritising cancer treatments. When resources are scarce, the treatments that will save the most people are prioritised, but that is no consolation to the 47% of patients in the UK whose cancers are rare and less common.
An even more damning statistic is that sufferers of rare and less common cancers make up the majority of cancer deaths, as we have heard—55%. Clearly, that is not sustainable, fair or just. We cannot let a single cancer patient slip through the cracks in our healthcare service, let alone 90,000 people each and every year. All too often, people in my constituency and across the country will, as we have heard, rally around to raise money for their loved ones—their children—to receive treatment. On one level, that is amazing to see, but on another, it is depressing that that has to be done in order for people to access lifesaving treatment.
The Bill is about acknowledging that we can do better. The treatment of rare cancer patients is a scandal—not in the sense that any one individual is liable or culpable, but because the system as a whole has let tens of thousands of cancer patients down. To the healthcare and research sectors, we say, “You must do better, we want you to do better, and we will work alongside you to do better.” The Bill is a welcome first step in doing that. I urge the Government to be bold. This cohort of Members of Parliament and Ministers can do a lot on this agenda. We talk a lot in this place about hope and change. Well, goodness me—what better example is there than this Bill of providing hope and change to millions of people across our country? Let’s make cancer history.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
There is hardly a family in the UK who have not been touched by cancer in some way—this morning’s debate has shown how much we reflect the population—and the feeling of fear, anxiety and heartbreak that comes with it. But for those diagnosed with a rare cancer, the challenges are even greater: delayed diagnosis, fewer treatment options and the shocking lack of research, which means that these patients and their families are often left in the dark. I am glad that we are united in saying that that has to change. I am so proud to support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur)—I think I possibly worked with his father-in-law at Bell Baxter many years ago—because we now have the chance to turn the tide and focus on people with rare cancers.
We have talked a lot about the statistics. Rare cancers still do not get the same investment in research or access to clinical trials as common cancers. As a result, survival rates for some of the least survivable cancers, like pancreatic cancer, brain cancer and stomach cancer, are stuck at just 16%, which is not good enough.
Seven weeks ago, I lost my dad. More time has now passed since his death than the time we had between his diagnosis and his passing. The grief is still exceptionally raw.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s dad. He would be extremely proud of her, and of the speech that she is making.
Katrina Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The Brain Tumour Charity and Brain Tumour Research have highlighted time and again that just 1% of national cancer research funding goes towards brain tumours, despite their being the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40. That is totally unacceptable. People who are dealing with these devastating diagnoses need more than words; they need real investment in clinical trials and better pathways to diagnosis. The Bill is about fairness—it is about tackling the lack of funding, the difficulty in getting patients into research, and the absence of clear Government leadership in this area.
People miss out on life-changing trials because they simply do not know that they exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) talked about having a universal system in this country. We also have one of the most siloed systems. People in one part of the system often do not know what is going on in other parts, and we need that to stop. We have talked a lot about the approaches in places like the United States, where targeted policies have led to surges in new treatments for rare cancers. But we also need to recognise what else is going on in the United States: a raft of Executive orders from the White House is putting higher education and current clinical trials into a tailspin.
I want to pay tribute to the people who have helped me a lot over the last few weeks, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. She talks about being angry. I just remember that anger is a natural stage of grief, but it is also a massive driver for change and for getting things done. I am not at the angry stage just yet, but I will be at some point, and when I get there I will certainly be joining my hon. Friend; it is something we all get.
Somebody said to me many years ago that the greatest gift that any of us can give is the gift of time. No matter our political differences on other things, we have a chance today to give others the gift of time and to make sure no other families have to experience what we have had to go through. Please pass this Bill. Thank you.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this important Bill and for his tireless work in championing the need for a greater focus on research into rarer cancers. Having worked as a district nurse for over 25 years, I have seen time and again the devastation cancer brings, not just to those diagnosed but to their families, friends and communities. The harsh reality is that one in two of us will face cancer at some point in our lives; it is an issue that touches all of us in some way.
While we have made significant strides in cancer treatment and survival rates, progress has not been equal. Some cancers, like the rarer, less survivable cancers, have been unjustly left behind. Cancers such as pancreatic, oesophageal, liver, brain and stomach still face staggeringly low survival rates. Currently, the least survivable cancers have a five-year survival rate of just 16%, compared with 55% for all other cancers. This disparity is not just a statistic; it is a failure in our services and the way these cancers are researched, which has cost lives, shattered families and left too many of us without hope.
A key driver of this has been the chronic underfunding and lack of focus on research into these cancers, which has meant that we lack tests and the tools and treatments needed to give people a fighting chance. The consequences of this neglect are devastating.
This issue is deeply personal to me. I have lost loved ones to pancreatic cancer, a disease that steals lives with ruthless efficiency. I lost my best friend, a woman full of life and love, to this cruel illness. She endured months of uncertainty before finally receiving a diagnosis in August, only to pass away shortly after. Her story is of delayed diagnosis, missed opportunities and a system that failed her. Sadly, her story is not unique. I find it truly shocking that in 2025, more than half of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will die within three months and only 7% will survive.
Pancreatic cancer is the fifth biggest cancer killer in the UK but receives only 3% of the UK cancer research budget. This lack of investment has meant we are not seeing the treatment breakthroughs that have transformed outcomes for other types of cancer. It does not have to be this way. We know that sustained research funding and strategic focus from the Government can dramatically improve survival rates—we have seen it work for other cancers. I particularly welcome the Bill’s proposal to nominate a named lead to focus on these rarer cancers, ensuring that they are no longer overlooked, as well as its provisions to give people a better opportunity to take part in innovative, cutting-edge trials. That is why I support the Bill.
The Rare Cancers Bill offers a road map to bring real-life, lifesaving changes to those diagnosed with life-threatening diseases. It is not just about policy, but about people; it is about giving hope to those who have been left behind. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the less survivable cancers and vice-chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I firmly believe that through the provisions of this Bill, we can start—I say start—to bring forward access to innovative treatments that could turn the tide. I say to Members of this House, “Let us be bold. Let us make a difference. Let us ensure that future generations have a better chance of survival than those who came before them. Let us send a clear message to patients and their families that they are not forgotten. This is our moment to make a lasting impact—let us make it count. Let us support this Bill.”
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill and for his work in bringing about this necessary debate on rare cancers. I also pay tribute to all Members who have spoken today, but particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his heartbreaking tribute to his brother.
Like too many across this House and throughout the United Kingdom, I have been on the receiving end of the devastating news that a loved one has been diagnosed with cancer, but when that cancer is defined as rare, it is infinitely more terrifying, when confronted with the reality that there is a lack of funding and research dedicated to those cancers. I therefore welcome the three steps in the Bill to encourage further research into rare cancers. I welcome the fact that it will place a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to facilitate or otherwise promote research into rare cancers. The Bill will ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for patients to be easily contacted about research opportunities and clinical trials, and will also ensure that there is adequate oversight of research delivery for rare cancers.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her dedication in bringing glioblastoma and other types of brain cancer to the forefront of the political debate. I would like to mention the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours and its work to raise awareness of the issues facing the brain tumour community. I have seen at first hand how devastating glioblastoma can be: my dear friends and constituents, Ann and Richard Lucas, lost their son Fionn in 2022. Fionn was diagnosed with glioblastoma aged 58 in June 2022, and his cancer left him with a very short time to live—he died two months later. The Lucas family has supported the work of the Brain Tumour Charity to help find new treatments, offer the highest level of support and drive urgent change, given the charity’s aims of saving and improving lives and carrying out research into brain tumours globally.
Glioblastomas are fast-growing brain tumours. They are the most common type of cancerous malignant brain tumour in adults, yet as has been said, there is still a lack of funding. Of the 54% of research that is specifically about rare cancers, only 16% is focused on brain and nervous system cancers. I therefore welcome this Bill, thank my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West and for Mitcham and Morden, and place on record my support for the aims of the Bill—to support research, and to support those impacted by rare cancers.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief as I am keen that other colleagues get to speak in this important debate. As we have heard, rare cancers are defined as those that affect fewer than one in 2,000 individuals; in Hyndburn, that equates to an estimated 1,500 people being impacted. Behind every number is a story, as we have heard, of a patient and those who love them, of lives cut short that could have been saved or prolonged had the right diagnosis and treatment been available.
I want to spend a few minutes speaking about constituents in Hyndburn who have reached out to me and about some of my personal experience. I am grateful to Carol who reached out on behalf of herself and her daughter Emma, who is battling a rare cancer and is the mum of two girls. Every day, and every advancement, could be transformational for that family. I thank Janet, who lost her granddaughter Elizabeth, for also reaching out. Elizabeth was a real fighter; she raised over £100,000 before she died, and she left her body to research, demonstrating what individuals are doing in this fight. It is now the Government’s turn to step in and meet what has already been put in by families and communities.
I want to thank Sheila, who sadly lost her sister Margaret and her father-in-law to pancreatic cancer. I also want to mention Milly, the incredible young girl who died of leukaemia when she was just 11 years old, not 18 months after being diagnosed. Her mother Lorraine always reminds me to talk about Milly’s life and what she brought while she was with us. She should have turned 16 last year, but she was the girl with the brightest smile who took on life and everything it threw at her and who was brave to the last. We owe it to the memory of Milly and her mum’s incredible work with their charity Milly’s Smiles, to do all we can to tackle this in future and to take action today.
When I was in my late 20s, one of my best friends lost both her mother and her sister within a year, one to melanoma and the other to ovarian cancer. The reality is that if they had been living in America, for at least one of them, if not both, we would have had more time. That is not good enough; I refuse to accept that, and today we can take steps to ensure that people like my friend do not have to be left literally with none of their family and can have that precious time, however long that might be, because every day, week and birthday really counts.
The Rare Cancers Bill represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the disparities faced by individuals with rare cancers. By revising the regulatory frameworks, promoting dedicated research and facilitating patient participation in clinical trials, this legislation has the potential to transform the landscape of rare cancer treatment in the UK. I am glad that this Labour Government are supporting the Bill as part of the development of the desperately needed national cancer plan, recognising that the provisions of the Bill are a crucial step towards equity and excellence in cancer care for all patients, regardless of the rarity of their diagnosis.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing forward his important Bill. I also commend hon. Members across this House for their powerful and moving speeches, particularly those of my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), who showed that the love for a sibling or child persists forever and can be harnessed to bring about change.
I am speaking today because my constituent Mr Peter Realf contacted me about his son Stephen, who was training to be an RAF pilot when he was diagnosed with astrocytoma. He was just 19. Tragically, despite his cancer being described as “low-grade” and despite receiving treatment that prolonged his life, he died six years later, aged just 26. I cannot imagine the pain and sense of loss felt by Stephen’s family and friends, and my heart goes out to them and all those who have faced the consequences of this cruel disease.
Mr Realf and his family have campaigned tirelessly since Stephen’s death to address the baffling paradox that despite brain tumours killing more children and adults under 40 than any other cancer, and despite them robbing patients of more years of their life than any other cancer, only a fraction of the Government’s research funding into cancer is used for brain tumours at just 1.37% of national spend, according to the charity Brain Tumour Research.
Stephen Realf’s case is stark: a talented, hard-working and clearly impressive young man who died young, losing perhaps 50 years of life and 50 years of potential. A huge public petition and an article written by Stephen’s sister Maria led in 2015 to the then-new Petitions Committee of this House conducting its first inquiry. I challenge any right hon. and hon. Member to read the report’s conclusions from 2016—nine years ago—and not to conclude that, in general, little has improved since then.
We should be deeply concerned—though perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has indicated, the appropriate emotion is a stronger one. We hear of the additional £40 million pledged by the last Government and how, according to reports, £28 million of it is yet to be released to scientists. After one of the relevant authorities, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, came to see us at the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours recently, my colleagues and the campaigners, patients and families present still could not fathom just why the money had not been spent in all those years.
I am relatively new to this place, but I have been observing politics for a long time, and something about this issue does not fit. It does not feel right. Something is profoundly wrong. Where there should be outrage, there appears to be relative indifference—not to death and suffering, of course, but to the need for radical changes to get money flowing. Where there should be urgency among the authorities—for, after all, people are dying, often young—there appears to be a degree of inertia, and where there should be action, we often get lost in the chilling snowstorm of bureaucracy.
I am not impugning the decency, compassion or professionalism of officials, researchers or clinicians; they are of course committed to helping to cure, treat and prevent cancer. However, as with other examples of institutional failure, it does not take overt malice, just the absence of grip and tenacity in the face of injustice, or of challenging the status quo, for good things not to happen, or even for bad and preventable outcomes to occur.
I do not know why progress does not seem to be happening. What reasons could there possibly be for the continuing paradox of the underfunding of rare cancer research? We must find out the reasons and overcome those forces, or perhaps even vested interests, because the stakes could not be higher. Little has changed in terms of treatment and survivability since the 1960s. Patients with brain tumours do not have time on their side, as many hon. Members have said; sadly, most of those diagnosed die within five years.
The following statistics from Brain Tumour Research are stark, but, before I read them, I should say that I am glad of the progress on more common cancers, which have affected my family as they have every family. Brain Tumour Research states:
“Brain tumours kill more children than leukaemia. Brain tumours kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer and more women under 35 than breast cancer. Incidences of and deaths from brain tumours are increasing… At the current rate of spending, it could take 100 years for brain cancer to catch up with developments in other diseases and find a cure.”
That is why the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West is so needed. It offers practical steps to get more funding into research to take on and defeat those cancers.
Finally, I know my ministerial colleagues want only the best for patients, so I gently encourage them, if they have not already done so, to ask this question of officials: “Why is it that research into these cancers, which cause so much death and suffering among the young and rob so many people of so many years of life, are receiving so little funding?” Ministers should keep asking until they get a satisfactory answer. MPs should keep asking until we get a satisfactory answer. We should work together, cross-party if possible, to overcome obstacles and we should certainly pass this Bill. The pain, loss, concern and even anger must be channelled into urgent, substantive action. We owe it to the past, current and future victims of rare cancers and to their families.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing forward this Bill. If, as we always say, politics is the language of priorities, then my hon. Friend has got his absolutely correct. I thank all Members who have shared their experiences and their stories, some incredibly moving. They should be what inspires us to take forward all the action we are proposing today.
I was struck by the fact that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and I have something in common, which we probably would not want to have in common, in that we were both diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008. I have to say, my breast cancer was a strange breast cancer, and it always feels slightly strange talking about it, because no one’s ever heard of it. It is not a rare cancer as such, because it is a breast cancer, although there are some who argue it is actually a soft tissue sarcoma—whatever, it was treated as a breast cancer. It is called a phyllodes tumour.
Unlike other breast tumours, phyllodes tumours do not go into the ducts, but into the connective tissue. It presents differently from other cancers of the breast, and the treatment is also different, in that the only treatment that works is excision. Excision can be anything from a lumpectomy to a mastectomy. The hope is that there are clear margins, which mean the patient will be okay, but—and it is a big “but”—when a malignant phyllodes tumour is present, it can spread, and it can be difficult or impossible to treat. That is when it becomes a very different outcome.
I mention it today not because it is a rare cancer, but because it can be difficult to diagnose. It does not show up in a mammogram, for example, and there is no definitive explanation why such tumours occur. Some research is going on just now, but it is not conclusive as yet. A lot more work needs to happen, and because incidence is so low, it is difficult to research. The things we know about it for certain seem random to me. They tend to occur more often in the left breast. Why? I have no idea. They usually occur when a patient is in their 40s. As I have said, they do not seem to respond to chemo or radiotherapy, and they are not thought to be genetic or hormonal.
The reason I mention my case is that it can be a lonely thing to have an unusual cancer. When trying to explain it to family and friends, you say, “No, it did not show up in a mammogram. No, I am not getting chemotherapy or radiotherapy. No, I do not know why it happened. No, I had not heard of it either.” You begin to doubt yourself a little, and you begin to question what is actually going on. For someone with a very rare cancer, it must be incredibly difficult when there is not a background of research, not anything that they can read, and no one can give them a pamphlet about it and tell them what is happening.
It seems to me that we should know more about cancer full stop. We have got to 2025, and we know some things about cancer. We know how to treat some cancers, but there are so many others that we do not have the answer for. We need people to be diagnosed more quickly, which means that we have to have the research. We need people to have the best possible treatment, which means we have to look at the drugs and find out what works and what does not work, and where a drug can be transferred from one thing to another successfully. Crucially, we have to know why it is that some people get cancer and others do not.
This Bill will make a huge difference to the lives of some of the people we have heard about today. For some, as we know, it will not be soon enough. It is the responsibility of every single one of us to make change happen, and we have an opportunity today to take that step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her sister, Margaret, who I worked with for a time in the Labour party. While I was listening to the other speeches, I was reflecting on what my hon. Friend said. I think we all need to be angry. We need to say—to shout it from the rooftops—that change begins today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was very powerful. I call Leigh Ingham.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I am proud to share the Benches with all the hon. Members here. The advocacy that we have heard has been incredibly moving. My constituents Rosalind, Rob, Mark and Michelle asked me to speak today; they support the Bill, as do I.
Patients with rare cancers face incredible challenges, including delayed diagnoses, limited treatment options and a lack of research investment that often leaves them feeling forgotten. This Bill will change that narrative. It is a call to action for greater investment, better access to clinical trials and a stronger commitment to research that will ultimately save lives. Barriers and bureaucracy must not stand in the way of innovation. That is why I support the measures in the Bill that call for a comprehensive review of how we approve treatment for rare cancers. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that more powerfully than I ever will.
The Bill is about fairness, dignity and hope. It has significant support from hon. Members across the House, not just as politicians but as people who understand the value of every life. I hope that we all get to vote for it today.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for their moving, passionate and powerful speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on bringing forward the Bill and on the work he has done with so many stakeholders. I commend him on sharing the story of his father-in-law, who will be sadly missed by him and his family.
The story of my hon. Friend’s father-in-law has prompted a significant number of my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith who are advocates for the Bill to share their stories. A constituent told me about their friend, who passed away aged 45 in November 2023. They were diagnosed with two rare cancers. On each occasion, they were informed by their doctor that it was a cancer that they did not know how to treat. My constituent’s friend tragically died unable to understand why more was not known about those rare cancers, despite the large amount of money that has been put into research and the wins achieved in cancer care and treatment by scientists and medics over the past few decades.
In Edinburgh, many cancer patients are treated at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre at the Western general hospital, which borders my Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. Established in 2022, the Cancer Research UK Scotland centre brings together the very best in cancer research from Edinburgh and Glasgow, working with over 80 teams. The centre has established processes, and has access to two of the largest cancer treatment centres in Scotland, making trials and research more efficient. One of the centre’s six research themes is mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, abdomen or heart. I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West about his engagement with the University of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre on the Bill.
The Bill crosses devolved and reserved areas. I believe in pooling and sharing resources. Just as profit should not be a barrier to research, neither should the border at Gretna. I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend or the Minister about any discussions that have taken place with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure that we work across the UK, and use the research talent of the University of Edinburgh and others across the UK. We need a joined-up approach to make breakthroughs on the treatment and care of those with rare cancers. Has there been dialogue with Ministers in Scotland and other devolved Ministers on clauses 2 and 3? Have devolved Ministers given any undertakings to replicate the proposals?
In conclusion, the Bill will make a difference to our constituents, and I am delighted to speak in support of it. My mum Violet died two decades ago within six weeks of her cancer being diagnosed. I hope that the Bill will give hope and time to every family impacted by a cancer diagnosis.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill. Many of my constituents have shared with me their experiences of rare cancer, and the experiences of their families and friends. Rare cancers make up almost half of cancer diagnoses, so the Bill is very much welcome.
A constituent wrote to me recently about their seven-year-old son, who was diagnosed with medulloblastoma, a rare form of brain cancer. Sadly, their son did not survive, despite that cancer having a 75% survival rate. Medulloblastoma is on a spectrum of high to low risk, which further complicates ability to predict the outcome of treatment. I am here to represent that child, their family and other families affected by rare cancers. I welcome the increase in research, funding and support for early detection and diagnosis. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and wholeheartedly support it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I will be brief, because I understand that we are at the end of the debate, but I rise to support the Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing it forward, and for the dignified, collegiate manner in which he has gone about things. Up to 95 people in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will be facing a less survivable cancer. That is 95 people who will wait longer for a diagnosis, will face a postcode lottery to access specialist treatment, and will be left asking why there are so few treatment options available.
The truth is that rare cancers do not receive the research attention or funding that they need. The Bill would take decisive action to change that. It would introduce measures to break down systemic barriers preventing research and innovation in rare cancers. These are not abstract policy changes but lifesaving reforms that would give patients with rare cancers greater access to clinical trials. Researchers would have better tools to study the diseases, and pharmaceutical companies would be given stronger incentives to invest in treatments that could transform lives.
Behind every rare cancer diagnosis is a person fighting for their future, a family searching for answers and healthcare professionals looking for better treatment options. We cannot allow those individuals to be left behind simply because their condition is considered rare. We have the opportunity to change that. By supporting the Bill, we send a clear message that no cancer is too rare to matter, and that no patient should be forgotten. I am proud to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend for bringing it forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
May I start by extending to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and her family my sincere condolences on the passing of her father?
This is an important Bill. I often say to constituents, “If you wish to see the House of Commons at its best, tune in and watch on a Friday.” I say that again today, having heard the debate. It is it is rare for a shadow Secretary of State to take to the Front Bench on a Friday to respond on a private Member’s Bill, but the debate has reinforced my determination to be here.
As the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said—I like to call him my hon. Friend—this is a Bill of hope. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for his clear and compelling articulation of the case for the Bill, and for being willing to share something as personal as the loss of his father-in-law and his family’s circumstances. He spoke about that with great dignity.
With a debate of such quality, it is always invidious to pick out contributions, but I cannot resist doing so. I have to pick up the contribution of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). When I was a Minister, we often worked with each other and spoke on matters relating to health, although not this subject. Her passion, determination and energy for change and for something better comes across in everything she does, and that builds on the fact that this is a Bill for hope. I pay tribute to her for her work and her dedication.
I have been a Member of this House for 10 years, and before the election I was a Minister for six. Two and a half of those years were spent as a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care during the pandemic, in times that were challenging for everyone, but I have to say that I have rarely heard a speech as powerful and moving, or that held the House so completely, as that of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). Although I did not know his brother, I suspect that he would have been deeply proud of the hon. Member today.
“Rare” in this context is often a misnomer, because although individually these cancers are rare, collectively they are sadly all too prevalent. As we have heard from hon. Members, approximately 55% of all cancer deaths are down to so-called rare cancers. The breadth of those rare cancers is huge: they include blood cancers, cancers of the female reproductive organs, head and neck cancers, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke about glioblastomas—and, importantly, children and young people’s cancers, which the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about.
We have all seen the amazing work by powerful campaigners on these issues and by the huge array of charities campaigning in this space: Cancer52, the Brain Tumour Charity, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Leukaemia UK, Pancreatic Cancer UK and a whole range of other dedicated and amazing institutions. They do a fantastic job. Like other hon. Members, I recently met Pancreatic Cancer UK to hear about its work; the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) may well have done the same. Initially, it was to discuss pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy drug shortages and the urgent need for some sort of solution, but we also had the opportunity to talk more broadly about pancreatic cancer and rare cancers.
Pancreatic Cancer UK highlighted issues that are specific to pancreatic cancer but that I suspect are reflective of many rare cancers: the challenge of diagnosis, the challenges posed by late diagnosis, the reliance on a single therapeutic or a small number of therapeutics with complex supply chains, and the challenges of clinical trials. Sadly, so few people with pancreatic cancer, even when they are able to enlist on such trials, survive long enough to provide the data that will make a real difference. The Bill will help to address that.
Because each rare cancer is different, each rare cancer needs focused research and treatment. The hon. Member for Bootle set out clearly the orphan drugs regime for rare cancers. Yes, there are incentives; under the 2021 regulations it is possible to incentivise pharmaceutical companies that may not be inclined to invest in research in areas that may benefit only a few, in comparison with the large numbers affected by other cancers. The regime seeks to give market exclusivity rights for 10 years, helping to reduce the costs of market authorisation, but we have to ask the question that the Bill asks: is it actually doing the job it needs to do to genuinely incentivise companies to invest in research in this space?
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the NHS repurposing project. If we make it work effectively, it will be a very practical way in which, while we wait for specialist research to come through, we can still do something. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards addressing the issues. The review of the orphan drugs regime, particularly the international angle, is hugely important. I welcome all the provisions in the Bill, especially those on the specialist registry and on the sharing of information to get more people into trials. As with any Bill, there are some things that I believe would benefit from further explanation, but that is what Committee is for. As shadow Secretary of State, I am happy to confirm that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West has our support for the passage of his Bill through Second Reading and into Committee.
In this place and in life, there is a time to act. I believe that this is it. We have huge potential and huge talent in this country. Let us help focus that on saving more lives and giving more precious time to more people. I am pleased and proud to offer my support to the hon. Gentleman for the passage of his Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
First, let me say how sorry I was to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) recently lost his father-in-law to glioblastoma. I congratulate him on introducing this legislation less than a year after his election. His wife and children will be immensely proud to see him in the Chamber today. He has the full support of many charities, such as Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Brain Tumour Charity and Cancer Research UK, as well as people up and down the country who have written to their MP urging them to join this debate and vote for the Bill.
I also pay tribute to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have lost loved ones and remembered them so powerfully today. I thank them for the courage that they have shown in sharing their stories. Particularly, I do not think that anyone in this Chamber or watching from the Gallery or beyond could have failed to be moved by the powerful stories from my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), to whom I give particular thanks for her tireless campaigning on glioblastoma following the untimely loss of her sister Margaret.
I also pay tribute to those who remembered their constituents. I am delighted that very soon I will be meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) and Lorraine to discuss Milly’s Smiles. Let me take the opportunity to add my memories of Joe Chilcott, the son of my friends Tim and Verity and sister to Ellie, who was diagnosed with a brain tumour at the age of 10. It was heartbreaking to lose him when he was just 18.
I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken today. I will seek to address as many of the issues raised as possible. There were so many stories. I recognise the people who were remembered in those stories, those in the Gallery, and the many more watching at home. They are willing the Bill to succeed. On behalf of the Government, it is my great pleasure to pledge our support for the Bill. We are undertaking fundamental reform of the NHS. People living with rare cancers must be at the heart of that change. Rare cancer patients deserve better, and the Bill gives them something that has been spoken about across the House today: new hope.
Let me begin my remarks on what the Bill will do, why we support it and our policy on rare cancers more generally. Clinical research is one of the most important ways in which we can improve healthcare, by identifying the best way to prevent, diagnose and treat cancer. The Bill will encourage the placement of clinical trials for rare cancer in England, by ensuring that the patient population can easily be contacted by researchers, streamlining the recruitment process. It will also ensure a Government review of regulations relevant to orphan drug designation, to ensure that they continue to deliver for patients. Innovations in the Bill will complement the radical actions that we are developing through the 10-year health plan and the national cancer plan to fix the NHS, on which I will expand later.
Research is a key part of this effort, which is why the Department of Health and Social Care, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, invests more than £1.6 billion a year in health research. In 2023-24, the NIHR invested £133 million in cancer research. As we have heard, rare brain cancers such as glioblastoma have a devastating impact on people and their loved ones. That is why the NIHR announced in September 2024 a new package of funding opportunities for brain cancer research, and established in December a new national brain tumour research consortium, bringing together researchers from a wide range of different disciplines. That is in parallel with a dedicated funding call for research into wraparound care and the rehabilitation and quality of life of patients with brain tumours. We remain committed to accelerating new breakthroughs in high-quality research to drive improvement in the diagnosis, management and treatment of brain and other rare cancers, for better survival rates and patient outcomes.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden and others asked how the £40 million promised for brain tumours has been spent. In the five years since 2018-19, the NIHR has invested £11.3 million directly in brain cancer, with a further £31.5 million to enable brain tumour research in 227 studies involving 8,500 people. The commitment remains in place. I can confirm that there is no upper limit on that funding. We are exploring additional research policy options to encourage more clinical trials in early phase research and the development of medical devices and diagnostics.
We have also talked a lot about other rare cancers, including lobular breast cancer, for which we are supporting research through the research infrastructure, including biomedical research centres. We welcome further funding applications for research on all conditions, including lobular breast cancer. We continue to consider whether abbreviated forms of breast magnetic resonance imagining —fast MRI—can detect breast cancers that are missed by screening through mammography, such as lobular and the other types of breast cancers that have been mentioned. We are also supporting the opening of 171 studies on blood cancer, providing an online registry called “Be Part of Research”, which allows users to search for and participate in studies relevant to them.
Clinical trials are a crucial part of cancer research. They provide patients with early access to groundbreaking and possibly lifesaving treatments. The measures in the Bill align strongly with our commitment to that, and aim to streamline clinical trial recruitment processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke passionately about how long it takes trusts to negotiate contracts. We recognise that issue and are beginning to make progress. NHS commercial contracting has been standardised, and the national contract value review has reduced study set-up times by 36%, from 305 days to 194 days in the first 12 months’ analysis. We continue in that work.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) asked how we are working across borders. We are taking forward the most significant reform of UK clinical trial regulations in over 20 years, while maintaining robust protections and safeguarding for clinical trial participants. The MHRA already authorises cross-border clinical trials, including those conducted in the EU and on UK-based trial sites. The “Be Part of Research” programme uses information from national and international sources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke so passionately—we have all commented on her passion and anger. I appreciate her frustration and share her desire for radical action. I think we can all agree that the Government’s announcement yesterday on scrapping NHS England demonstrates our willingness to be bold, take risks and do things differently.
Members raised several other matters. I will come back to them all with more detailed information on those issues, but I do not have the time to do so today. I will address the national cancer plan, however, which was raised a number of times. It is really important to fulfil our goal of transforming cancer care, and we will not just cherry-pick the most common cancers; we need a rising tide that will lift all ships. As a person who is living with an incurable cancer myself, I cannot overstate how deeply I feel the honour and responsibility of being asked to drive forward our work in creating the national cancer plan—it is my absolute honour. But while we take strides to fix cancer services, I am under no illusion that the Government or I hold all the answers, so my plea is for hon. Members to work with us and share their expertise. I ask them please to visit “Shaping the national cancer plan” on the Department’s website and to contribute evidence.
The Government are committed to making a real difference for patients with rare cancers. For those affected by this devastating disease, every discovery, every treatment and every moment matters. We will do all we can to facilitate the passage of this Bill here and in the other place.
Dr Arthur
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank a few people. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for her speech. I met her yesterday, and she was filled with genuine passion, energy and excitement for this subject. It is great to see her come here today and use her power to support this Bill, and let us hope that it passes.
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar). Before this debate, people told me that he was respected across the House, and he has shown why. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). People in the Gallery will not know this, but he has worked really effectively, right throughout the debate, to ensure that all the people who wanted to speak could do so. I thank him for that.
I thank the Whips and the Speaker’s Office for managing the debate sensitively, because this is quite a difficult subject, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was you who pulled my ping-pong ball from the goldfish bowl. It was very skilfully done.
I wish I had time to thank everybody who spoke in the debate. Sadly, I do not, but they have my thanks and respect. They have done a great job of thanking each other as the debate has proceeded, so I thank them all. I will watch the debate again over the weekend, because it has been quite incredible and quite moving.
I thank our colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care, who are in the officials’ box. They have been fantastic. Without them, this Bill would not have happened. Privately, there have been a few Sir Humphrey moments, but those from the Department have been absolutely fantastic, and that was very clear yesterday when I met the Minister.
I thank the charities that backed the Bill. They did not just back it; they helped get it to where it is. They were not just backing a finished product; they influenced and shaped it. I think that is why so many people are here to support it.
I thank the staff in the Public Bill Office for their patience and so much more, and I thank the staff in my office. I think Noel and Solomon are here today, but it is a team effort. Back in Edinburgh are Lucie, Salim, Xavier, Evie and Hannah. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They deserve that.
In all the contributions today, we have heard evidence that people with a rare cancer diagnosis face great injustice, because their chances are so much slimmer and they face so much uncertainty. We have shown that we want change. We are not just being angry; we are using that anger to get even, which is really important. We talk in this Chamber, but often there is no action. Today we have talked and agreed, and hopefully there is going to be action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That was most definitely Parliament at its best.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am very grateful for my good fortune in having the chance to introduce a Bill in my first year as a Member of this House and to seek to address, in part, one of my greatest policy concerns: childhood poverty. The previous Labour Government made reducing child poverty one of their most significant missions in office, and research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated that without the changes they made to benefits, child poverty would have increased by more than a quarter by 2010—instead, it fell by more than a quarter. It was a remarkable achievement under the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the actions of the Conservatives in the years since have reversed much of that good work. Today, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, almost a third of our children—innocents who have no control whatsoever over their personal circumstances—are living in poverty. Harold Wilson famously said that the Labour party is
“a moral crusade or it is nothing.”
If this Government are to be judged on anything over the next five years, let it be how they treat the most vulnerable members of our society.
Like many Members of my party, I have found the decision not to immediately lift the two-child benefit cap extremely painful. We do not need further reports on how this policy was one of the most significant drivers of child poverty under the previous Government; at this point, I do not believe the bookshelves of the House of Commons Library could support any more evidence, were it to be submitted. However, I do accept that £3.2 billion cannot simply be found overnight. If we are serious about ending childhood poverty, we need to consider all the issues in the round, and the child poverty taskforce is a vital part of ensuring that limited public money is used most effectively to address this crisis.
What can we do here today, while we await the findings of the taskforce, to try to improve the conditions of children living in poverty? Members will be aware that private Member’s Bills cannot authorise new expenditure, and I do not seek to challenge that. This Bill seeks simply to ensure that the children whom this House has already stated should receive free school meals receive them automatically, unless their parents actively opt out of the system. It will not require a penny more in expenditure than is necessary to fulfil the social contract that generations of Parliaments have sustained with our poorest children.
The requirement to qualify for free school meals is a combined household income of £7,400 or less—an income of roughly half the average rent in my constituency. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to sustain a household on such a low income. It is these children the Bill seeks to support. The stories we hear of child poverty are heartbreaking, not only because of the hunger and the impact on children’s performance at school, but because of the stigma, with stories of children pretending to bring food out of their bags so that they can fit in with their friends at school, even when there is nothing available.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Us former council leaders have to stick together. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Bill. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I was a recipient of free school meals myself. I remember that stigma; I remember getting a blue ticket when I went to get lunch with my friends, while they got a yellow one. The stigma is still with me today. It runs very deep in me. Does he agree that the Government’s child poverty taskforce has to consider everything in the round? We should welcome the Government’s announcements on free breakfast clubs and the roll-out of the trial of those clubs. Does he also agree that we need to see urgency from the Government and the Minister, as I am sure we will, to address this issue and to take a systematic look at families and children in poverty?
Peter Lamb
I absolutely agree. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Government are doing a lot to try to address this issue, but that is not to say that we cannot do more. We hear those stories of stigma, with children pretending to bring food out of their bags so that they do not miss out or so that they fit in, even if they do not have the actual food. We should be glad that over the years since, the system of free school meals has changed, so that people cannot tell which children are in receipt of free school meals. I will come back to that point, but it hopefully has encouraged parents to make use of the option.
Free school meals are estimated to save roughly £500 a child. Against such a low income, that amount makes a huge difference. For a family affected by the child benefit cap, it would increase their income by a fifth or more. Why, given the difference that it could make to their household, is every eligible family not claiming? There is a range of reasons. In some cases, there is a belief that their children might be bullied due to being in receipt of a free school meal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) mentioned. If there is one immediate outcome of this debate, I hope it is to reinforce the message to parents that no one can now identify which child is on a free school meal. There is no stigma in claiming—please make the application.
We know also that the same barriers exist as with any other form of state support, where barriers of language, agency, awareness and ability ensure that those facing the greatest disadvantages in our society are the least likely to access the support available. These are the families who would benefit most from this legislation.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
This Bill is so important exactly because of what my hon. Friend has just said. It removes administrative barriers that get in the way, but that can frequently be overcome sensibly. Importantly, it still provides an opt-out for parents, which is important, because not everybody would want to take this up for their child. Does he agree that this Government should do everything they can to remove any administrative barriers?
Peter Lamb
It has been a while since I looked at the numbers, but my understanding when I last looked was that the level of unclaimed benefits in our system is at least 10 times greater than the total value of benefit fraud. People are choosing not to access the support available by and large because of stigma or a lack of awareness, but the impact within our society is real, and we should be doing everything we can to reduce that stigma.
We all pay in so that there is a safety net for us when we need it and to ensure that other members of our community, our neighbours and the people we care about do not have to go without when they fall on difficult times. We should do everything possible to avoid the vilification that is disgustingly often put upon people simply because they are poor.
Beyond the moral argument, this measure is about the future of our country. Education is an investment in the future prosperity of our country and of our citizens. It is the bedrock of economic growth and of enabling people to live independent and successful lives. Auto-enrolment stands to improve educational outcomes in three ways. The most obvious is by reducing hunger, the impact of which upon concentration and educational performance is well known. School meals were introduced 120 years ago next year to ensure that children received at least one nutritious meal a day, so that they could function effectively.
Secondly, auto-enrolment would improve household incomes, and household income is positively correlated with educational outcomes. In fact, there is a double-digit improvement in performance at GCSE level between children in the lowest and second-lowest income deciles, and that improvement continues all the way up in decreasing amounts until we hit the third-highest decile, where for all the money spent on private schools, educational outcomes plateau across the top 30% of incomes.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making and for putting child poverty at its heart. On educational outcomes, does he agree that auto-enrolling children would mean that schools could take advantage of many of the gateway supports that are premised on how many children at a school are on free school meals? I am sure that, like me, he will have spoken to schools carrying a heavy level of debt that is school dinner debt, because they are having to provide meals for hungry children.
Peter Lamb
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am well aware of the amount of effort that local schools are having to make directly to deal with the consequences of financial deprivation. It is important that we try to ensure that the statistics on free school meals are accurate, because it is a gateway to support. It is also how we measure any number of indicators of poverty in our society. If there is a statistical link between some groups under-reporting compared with other groups, we will have inaccurate figures on where deprivation is in our society and how best to try to address that problem.
The last benefit of auto-enrolment relates to the pupil premium of £1,455 a pupil, which is designed to counter the impact of deprivation on educational outcomes. It is a payment that schools receive on the basis of the number of pupils in receipt of free school meals. Low uptake of free school meals is now directly limiting the funding available to those schools where it would make the most difference to educational outcomes.
As a Government who are ambitious for the education of our children and committed to securing high levels of economic growth, the failure to address these matters of deprivation is a hurdle that we have to clear if we are going to succeed. This is well recognised. The Education Committee recently reported:
“We consider that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay.”
Pilots run by local authorities, which quite heavily bend the rules set by current legislation to try to get as many of their children registered as possible, have repeatedly shown over recent years the scale of under-registration and the impact that auto-enrolment could have, both for those families benefiting and for school funding in deprived communities. The Government’s own figures suggest that under-registration stands at a minimum of 11%, which is equivalent to a quarter of a million children, although research nationally and in my own constituency suggests that the overall figure could well be significantly higher.
It is worth noting that the £7,400 income threshold cuts off the overwhelming majority of children who are living in poverty in this country, who still do not qualify for free school meals. That should certainly be corrected in due course, but for now, this Bill would make the most amount of difference to the very poorest children, benefiting them, their families, their schools and—through improvements in educational outcomes—society at large.
I accept that the mess the new Government have inherited from the last Government and the economic uncertainty created by decisions currently being taken in Washington mean that it may be too much to expect a wholesale adoption of the policy today. However, I hope that the Minister—who has been generous with his time with me on this matter, and has demonstrated his commitment to increasing the uptake of free school meals—will be able to give a commitment that auto-enrolment will be given serious consideration as part of the work now being undertaken to bring an end to childhood poverty in the United Kingdom. I also hope that today’s debate will underline the support among Members of this House for bringing about this change on behalf of our most vulnerable constituents. Surely, the very least that our country has a right to expect of its Parliament is that we will ensure that the nation’s children are fed.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I am so happy that his name was drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and that he has chosen this excellent subject and most important topic for his Bill.
As my hon. Friend said, school food has been available for almost 120 years. That is thanks to an MP for Bradford —little known by most—called Fred Jowett, who introduced the concept in his private Member’s Bill in 1906. My hon. Friend follows in the footsteps of a great man, and I thank him for that. Free school meals have existed in one form or another for the best part of 80 years, meaning that countless generations of children have received a hot, nutritious meal at lunch time. They are life-changing for pupils—no one knows that better than I do. Growing up as a recipient of free school meals, from almost the day I started school to the day I left school, the knowledge that there would be food at lunch time gave my mam, me and my brothers the security that I would not be hungry going into the rest of the school day.
I echo the feelings of stigma that my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley and for Telford (Shaun Davies) have spoken about. I also recall having a different dinner ticket and, even worse, having a different meal queue to stand in. Our queue was served after the paid-for children were served; it is horrifying, I know. I am glad to say that that does not happen any more—children are not separated in such an abhorrent way—but the stigma is still very real and alive today, no matter how hard schools try to alleviate it through cashless systems and so on. Ask any child in school, “Who are the children on free school meals?”, and they will look to them straightaway. They all know. I have been to many schools over 20 years; I always ask them, and they always nod sheepishly that they know—sometimes because they are that very child, but sometimes because they know who those other children are. That stigma never leaves you; it stays with you, and in the sixth richest economy in the world, we should not be subjecting our children in school to that stigma any longer.
We are all aware of the countless, cross-cutting benefits of free school meals, so I will not waste the House’s time by relisting them all; I will only say that, from increased attendance to attainment and more, free school meals are a multifaceted policy with widespread benefits across society. I am proud to be the founder and current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school food since 2010. The group was instrumental in shaping the universal infant free school meals scheme, along with the authors of the school food plan, Henry Dimbleby and John Vincent, and we are still in discussion on the best delivery of the universal primary breakfast club programme. We—I, the MPs involved and all the stakeholders, who I think number 300 now—all want the early adopter to be a huge success.
The all-party parliamentary group met only yesterday, and the Wilson Room was packed. The group is always well attended by school food stakeholders: we had around 50 in attendance yesterday, but I have known us to fill Committee Room 14 with 80 to 100 attendees, and I hope the Minister knows he has an open invitation to attend when his diary allows.
The early adopter scheme, due to roll out to the first 750 schools this April, will show us where lessons can be learned for a smooth introduction to all primary schools next year—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has already said, this Government can and should go further. We can make marginal, low-cost improvement to the statutory free school meals scheme that we already have by introducing an opt-out system, as outlined in the Bill. We will capture around 200,000 children who are eligible for this crucial support but are not currently receiving it. Admin barriers should not mean that one in 10 students whose household income is already below the £7,400 threshold before benefits, miss out on free school meals support when they need it most.
This auto-enrolment Bill cannot be seen as extra spending. Government funding already exists for the children who are not claiming this statutory support, so it is the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Moreover, increased free school meals uptake unlocks, as we have heard, a whole host of other benefits, including vital pupil premium funding of up to £1,455 extra per child. If this House wants to talk about better education funding, surely unlocking funding that already exists is the most logical and economically efficient way of doing that?
In closing, extending free school meals by automatic registration to these most needy 200,000 children should be a no-brainer for any Government and a moral imperative for this Labour Government. I hope to see this Government and this Minister rectify that at their earliest opportunity.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on promoting this Bill so ably. The last Conservative Government massively expanded eligibility for free school meals, meaning that the proportion of children and young people eligible is much higher than was the case under any previous Government. The evidence here proves that the inheritance we left behind in this area last July was much kinder than that which the last Labour Government left us in 2010, with one in three children able to get a free school meal—as opposed to one in six when the previous Labour Government was last in office—despite a large fall in the number of workless households.
Sam Rushworth
We see in the bodies of children increased stunting, with the average 10-year-old 1 cm shorter than they were in 2010. How does that square with what the Minister is saying? We see a malnutrition crisis.
Mike Wood
When we look at dietary habits in recent decades, we see that that is not confined to parts of the income spectrum. There has been a deterioration in the quality of diets going back over several decades that is quite separate from issues of poverty.
As of January 2024, more than 2.1 million pupils were eligible for benefits-related free school meals, which amounted to 24.6% of all pupils. In addition, more than 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education received a free school meal at lunch time. Collectively, this supported the children and young people who needed it most to ensure that they could make the most of their world-class education, boost their health and save their parents considerable amounts that they could not afford.
Mike Wood
I really must continue. The Government have promised to move on to the next Bill at quarter to two, so I need to keep interventions to a minimum.
We also introduced extensive protections which have been in effect since 2018. They ensure that while universal credit is being fully rolled out, any child eligible for free school meals would retain their entitlement and keep getting free school meals until the end of the phase; in other words, until they complete either primary or secondary school if their family’s income rises above the income threshold such that that would otherwise have stopped.
On breakfast clubs, we all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, setting people up with the fuel they need to make the most of the day ahead, and the evidence supports that. At this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, I ought to declare an interest. My wife is in teaching, although she is providing one-to-one special needs teaching rather than in a classroom at the moment. We know that those children who do not have breakfast are more likely to have issues with behaviour, wellbeing and learning. That is why the previous Government expanded the provision of breakfast, investing up to £35 million in the national school breakfast programme. That funding supported 2,700 schools in disadvantaged areas, providing thousands of children from low-income families with a free nutritious breakfast at school to support their attainment, wellbeing and readiness to learn. Moreover, we trusted school leaders to deliver, building a breakfast provision that fitted the needs of their pupils. That involved five different models, ranging from a traditional breakfast club to a healthy grab and go. The programme has had great success in supporting those who needed it most and I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that his party will continue to support it until at least next March. I hope the support extends past that date.
Nutrition does not cease to be an issue outside of term time, which is why the previous Government rolled out the holiday, activities and food programme to support during holiday periods disadvantaged and low-income families in receipt of free school meals. Since 2018, the programme has delivered enriching activities and nutritious food to the children and young people who need it most, with more than £200 million each year delivering 15.6 million half days to children and young people across every single one of the 153 local authorities in England.
The Bill requires local authorities in England to identify each child of school age resident in its area who is eligible for free school meals. It also requires state-funded schools that identify a child who is eligible to provide those meals. We support the desire to ensure that all those eligible for free school meals have an opportunity to receive them, so do not wish to prevent the Bill from proceeding. However, I have a couple of questions about how the Bill will achieve that, which I hope that the Bill’s promoter can address in his closing remarks so that Members can consider that as the Bill proceeds.
I know that the hon. Member for Crawley has extensive experience in local government, and I think that 20 local authorities have now piloted their own auto-enrolment schemes at some point. In drafting the Bill, what consideration did he give to the burden that will be added to local authorities? Does he have any assessment or measure of the cost for local council tax payers and how that relates to both the savings for local families and the additional income for schools through pupil premiums?
The Bill would also give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to make provision for the definition of the term “state-funded school”. In what circumstances does the hon. Member believe that a change in definition will be necessary?
I will be clear, as we were in government, that we believe in targeting support to where it is most needed. We believe that the state should do less but do it well—but that does include delivering sufficient support to those who need it most, and particularly to children and young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his Bill and for providing the opportunity to consider the importance that free, nutritious meals have in breaking the link between background and achievement. He is a true champion for his constituents and for children and families across the country. I was delighted to meet him to discuss the Bill and hear how passionate he is about our opportunity mission. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has been a champion for free school meal provision in this place for a considerable time. I also thank her for her leadership on the APPG.
I am proud to serve under this mission-driven Government who are breaking down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of our country. We currently spend about £1.5 billion annually on free lunches for 2.1 million school pupils under benefits-based free school meals alongside over 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education and about 1.3 million infants under universal infant free school meals.
We consider the aim of those measures at their core to be to ensure that those who need it get the support that they are entitled to, which is a goal that we are supportive of. Free lunch programmes provide pupils with essential nutrition, support attendance and ultimately ensure that pupils can concentrate, learn and get the most out of their education. They are essential to breaking down barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty: a task that is more important than ever as a result of the legacy of rising child poverty left behind by the previous Government. Shamefully, there are 700,000 more children in poverty than in 2010, and over 4 million children are now growing up in a low-income family. That is why I am proud of a new ministerial taskforce that is working urgently to develop a child poverty strategy to address that.
The child poverty taskforce is considering a range of levers to tackle child poverty, including key cost drivers for households such as food, to develop a comprehensive strategy that will be published later this year. That is in addition to action that we are already taking to deliver on our mission to break down barriers to opportunity by rolling out free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school, providing food and childcare to children and to socialise them before the school day as well as put more money back into parents’ pockets—on average £450 a year. Further, the holiday activities and food programme, which is established in every local authority area in England and delivers vital support to children and families during school holidays, will again receive more than £200 million in 2025-26.
We facilitate the claiming of free meals by providing the eligibility checking system, a digital portal available to local authorities that makes verifying eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. I can tell the House that the checking system has been redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently from their local authorities. This system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for school meals, and has the potential to further boost take-up by families meeting the eligibility criteria.
Further to that, my Department is aware of a range of measures that are being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches. We welcome locally led approaches and I am personally keen to learn from them. By working directly with their communities, local authorities can overcome the barriers to registering and take action to ensure that families have access to the support for which they are eligible, subject to those activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection.
To support those local efforts, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on exploring legal gateways that can enable better data sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders, including families and young people, as I have done personally, to understand the barriers for households that meet the criteria for a free lunch but are not claiming them, including through working closely with local authorities to understand the approaches that they have taken.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley for bringing forward this Bill. We all agree that it addresses a matter of great importance. I hope it is apparent from my remarks that the Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill. We are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing, and there is further consideration of improving free school meal enrolment through the work of the child poverty taskforce. This Government are determined to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child. Our work to simplify enrolment is important to achieving that aim. We are confident that the actions I have outlined will improve take-up of free meals, alongside the local work being trialled by many local authorities across the country. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend can be encouraged to withdraw his Bill while we continue to explore enrolment and keep free school meals under review.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on his private Member’s Bill on this very important topic, and on his excellent speech.
It is a well-established fact that good nutrition is essential for children’s brain development and learning. When children go to school without eating a nutritious meal, or eating at all, it has a detrimental effect on their behaviour and educational performance. Barnardo’s latest research, “Nourishing the Future”, found that
“1 in 3 schools said hunger and food insecurity was impacting on children’s ability to learn, including poor concentration, tiredness and behavioural problems.”
As a school governor, I know the challenges that schools face in dealing with challenging behaviour and getting children to learn, so anything that helps improve behaviour and learning is to be welcomed.
Free school meals are meant to be a lifeline for low-income families. They are meant to ensure that the most disadvantaged children in society get a free nutritious meal every day that they are in school, to help them concentrate, learn and achieve. However, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, over 900,000 children across the UK do not qualify for free school meals because of restrictive qualifying criteria. According to the Food Foundation, a further 250,000 eligible children are missing out on free school meals for a variety of reasons, including lack of awareness, stigma or embarrassment, the complexity of the forms—the Minister referred to the previous checking system—or language barriers.
The fact that obtaining free school meals is an opt-in process, requiring parents or carers to apply, is itself a barrier. If we want our children to flourish, thrive and get the best start in life, that needs to change. As the Minister mentioned, one of the Labour party’s five missions is to break down barriers to opportunity, and I believe this is one of those barriers. The solution is auto-enrolment for free school meals, as set out in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. However, he is not the only person to call for such a change; that call has come from many quarters. In 2021, the Conservative Government commissioned Henry Dimbleby, co-founder of the restaurant chain Leon, to produce a food strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Recommendation 4 of the strategy was to extend eligibility for free school meals, and one of the three ways to achieve that recommendation was to:
“Enrol eligible children for free school meals automatically.”
The rationale for that recommendation was that
“even eligible children are often missing out. Currently, FSMs are ‘opt-in’: parents have to know about the scheme and apply for it. The effect of this is that, according to a 2013 estimate by the DfE, 11% of children entitled to FSMs do not receive them.”
In the benefits section of recommendation 4, it was noted that:
“This would have benefits for those children’s health, but also for their educational achievement. Following one pilot of universal free school meals in 2009–11, primary school pupils made between four and eight weeks’ more progress than expected. Pupils from poorer families and those who had previously done less well at school showed the most improvement.”
It was stated that there were clear education and health benefits in children having a nutritious free school meal—and that came from the Conservative Government’s food strategy. Sadly, as with many of the recommendations, auto-enrolment was not implemented.
More recently, the Education Committee’s “Scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill” report of 28 February states at paragraph 35
“that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay.”
We are lucky in London that the Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, has agreed to fund free lunches for all London’s children in state primary schools, which is already making a difference to children’s educational outcomes. It is a shame that this policy does not apply to secondary schools too, but in the absence of such a policy, auto-enrolment is the best way to ensure all eligible children get the free school meals that they are entitled to and deserve. If we are to ensure that children get the best start in life, learn and thrive at school and achieve to their full potential, auto-enrolling of eligible children on to free school meals is the best way forward. We need to remove that barrier to opportunity, and this would, at a stroke, make a huge difference to those children’s lives.
The Government are already doing many good things in education, and the announcement of the breakfast club early adopters was warmly welcomed by me and, I am sure, colleagues on both sides of the House. I hope that the Government will adopt this policy, because it helps alleviate child poverty, is good for children, and is the right thing to do.
I hear what the Minister said about the child poverty taskforce strategy, and look forward to it reporting later in the year on what it would do to challenge child poverty. Data sharing is obviously to be welcomed, and I know that the Government will do all they can to ensure that all eligible children get the free school meals that they deserve, to help them learn and thrive.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill on a process that, as a former council leader, I saw as a bureaucratic, red-tape nightmare. Children eligible for free school meals were not accessing them simply because a form was not filled in. Even though local authorities, schools and communities knew exactly who those children were, bureaucracy was getting in the way. I was pleased to hear the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that he is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to look at ways in which data sharing and passported benefit checks could be used to ensure that more children get food.
However, this must be looked at in the round. I heard from a constituent this week who has just taken their child out of a breakfast club because the cost of the club has gone up by £15 a week. Sadly, that school is not one of the 750 early adopters of breakfast clubs, but it will benefit from that policy initiative as it is rolled out. It is an excellent initiative and we should be proud of it. We should call on the Government to go harder, faster, in implementing the policy.
Some 900,000 more children in working households were living in poverty in 2023 than in 2010. That means that 1,350 children entered poverty every single week for the first 13 years the Conservatives were in power. In my area, Telford, absolute poverty rose from 14.9% to 18.4% between 2014 and 2023, and we know that a huge number of families who are not included in the poverty figures were also struggling to make ends meet.
Ultimately, we need an economy that is growing and getting people into work so that the poverty trap can be removed. Like the shadow Minister, I declare an interest: my wife is a primary school teacher in Telford. She tells me about the direct contrast between the children she teaches now and the cohort that she taught when she started 20 years ago. Children are coming in with major social issues, and those social issues have to be addressed as a whole.
The Government also need to consider the huge regional inequality in deprivation. Child poverty in some parts of the country went down under the last Conservative Government, but in my region it soared. We need to engage with councils and, where applicable, with combined authorities and mayors to ensure a systematic approach.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions working with regions. May I add a point about nations? In Wales, all primary school children have been eligible for free school meals since September last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that in designing the roll-out of free school meals in England, the UK Government could learn from the experience in Wales?
Shaun Davies
I absolutely agree. My county borders Wales, so I know Wales very well indeed. The Westminster Government should absolutely learn from the Welsh Labour Government’s approach to child poverty, and to inequality more generally. We should congratulate and acknowledge the work of Welsh Labour in that space.
I welcome the previous Government’s household support fund and its extension by this Government. As a council leader and as chair of the Local Government Association, I worked with Conservative Ministers on the fund. The approach and ideals were absolutely right, but the one-year duration means that the money is not being used to the best possible extent. That goes back to the point about the importance of a cross-ministerial taskforce looking at the issue in the round.
We have heard a lot this week, from the Prime Minister downwards, about the need for delivery, about urgent action and about the ability to make a difference and demonstrate change. As a Labour Government, we cannot be in a position where, in four or five years’ time, we point to bureaucracy and red tape as the reason why we have not made a huge impact on the lives of the poorest children in our country.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity that the Bill provides to put on record the importance of discussing the scourge of child poverty in our country, particularly as it relates to children’s nutrition. It is a simple fact that the height of an average five-year-old increased progressively until 2013 but has since reversed; children aged five are shorter today than in the past. We face a dual burden: not only stunting, but obesity. We have seen a 30% increase in obesity since 2006 and a 22% increase in teenagers with type 2 diabetes since 2017.
All of this points to the poverty of children’s diets in this country. When we have this conversation, for me it is never a matter of what we can afford to do; we cannot afford not to do something about it, because the knock-on in the NHS is immense, and the knock-on in future work days missed by the next generation will be immense. It is a sad reality that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said, in a typical UK classroom one third of children will be living in relative poverty. Children are also the group most likely to be living in cold homes in this country.
Probably the most startling statistic from my county of Durham, which really shows what austerity has done to our children over the last decade and a half, is the 250% increase in the number of children in the care system. The cost of that for the local taxpayer is immense, as is the human and social cost for those children. But somewhere between being in the care system and being a happy child with a healthy life are many children who live in conditions of neglect. That is why it is so important that the state and schools sometimes do the work to provide what children are not getting in the home.
I hope that the child poverty taskforce will report soon, and we will see some positive change. I welcome the breakfast clubs introduced by the Government, which will make a difference not only to ensuring that children start the day well fed and having settled, but to the cost of living. I met a constituent a few months ago who shared with me that it cost her £400 a month just to pay for her children to be looked after from 7.30 till the start of the school day. That was having a massive impact on her, so for her, that breakfast club is an extra £400 a month, and I am grateful for that.
What is being proposed today is a modest and sensible tweak that addresses the challenge of children not being enrolled. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government will look at this issue, because we cannot afford to allow a generation of children to grow up as they are right now.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Bill aims to make a meaningful and lasting difference to the lives of children across our country. We must come together to focus on the future of our young people, understanding that the way we invest in them today is how we shape our society of tomorrow. The Government have been clear in their commitment to address child poverty—I welcome that—and the work already being done through the ministerial taskforce, which is shaping a long-term strategy to bring about change. That commitment was also evident in the King’s Speech, which announced further investment in children’s wellbeing through the introduction of breakfast clubs, which I also welcome.
Financial support for the least well-off is another key element of our approach. As a former councillor, I know that the additional £1 billion allocated in the most recent Budget to the household support fund will allow local authorities to provide targeted help to those who need it most. We must always ensure that support for families is not just well intentioned but well delivered. That is why the Bill is so important. It removes unnecessary barriers, streamlining the process so that every eligible child is automatically registered for the help to which they are entitled. No family should have to navigate unnecessary bureaucracy or miss out due to a lack of awareness. At the same time, the Bill respects parental choice, which is incredibly important.
It is essential to recognise that the most effective way to reduce poverty and improve life chances is by focusing on long-term, sustainable economic growth. By fostering a strong economy we can boost household incomes and ensure that public services remain well funded and effective. The long-term vision must always be to create an environment where families can thrive, children can reach their full potential, and the cycle of poverty can be broken for good.
While we work towards that vision, it is important to continue implementing practical, well targeted measures, such as those in the Bill, that can bring about immediate improvements. The decisions we make today will shape the society we live in tomorrow.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Before I entered this place, I worked on poverty for the Child Poverty Action Group, Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty. Back in 2010, there was cross-party consensus that we should end child poverty. Gordon Brown referred to it as his guiding mission. Should we return to that time?
Leigh Ingham
I completely agree. Gordon Brown was a wonderful Prime Minister.
To conclude, the Bill represents a crucial step in our ongoing commitment to tackling child poverty.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, timing is important in politics. When, last autumn, I chose today for the Second Reading of the Bill, how could I have predicted that arm’s length bodies, which I will abbreviate to ALBs, would have been mentioned four times in The Times leader this very morning? Nor could I have predicted the generosity of the Government Whips in allowing—indeed, facilitating—debate on this important Bill.
I first introduced the Bill in the 2023-24 Session, but Dissolution prevented it from being debated. I have to say, I do not think the Government who were in office at that time would have been very responsive to the contents of the Bill. It is therefore beyond my wildest dreams that a Labour Government seem to understand, at least in part, the problem that arm’s length bodies present to Parliament, particularly to the House of Commons, and the Ministers, through their unaccountable structures.
As The Times leader this morning puts it:
“Arm’s-length bodies…have often been favoured by ministers as a way of distancing themselves from contentious issues. But the result is often a duplication of effort, resulting in turf wars between Whitehall ministries and ALBs over policy. Free of the need to answer to voters, ALBs can go rogue, as Highways England did over its promotion, in the face of public opposition, of so-called smart motorways.”
For another current, topical example of that problem, one need look no further than the Sentencing Council. Earlier this month, on 5 March, that independent arm’s length body issued new guidelines for the sentencing of offenders from minority groups. That issue was taken up by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), during the questions that followed a statement by the Justice Secretary.
My right hon. Friend challenged the Justice Secretary by pointing out that the new sentencing guidelines would make a custodial sentence less likely for those from
“an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.”
In her response, the Justice Secretary said:
“As somebody from an ethnic minority background, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law for anyone. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch”.—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 287.]
Within hours, however, it became apparent that the Justice Secretary did not have the control that she thought she had over the activities of the Sentencing Council. The new guidelines, due to be implemented from 1 April, remain unaltered and unaffected by what both the Secretary of State for Justice and her shadow have said to this House.
I understand from today’s newspapers that yesterday there was a meeting between the Justice Secretary and the chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis. I would have expected to have seen in the same press release that Lord Justice William Davis had now conceded to the Justice Secretary, who I think spoke for everybody in this House by saying that we should not have a two-tier justice system. I would have thought that he would have accepted that he got it wrong, and the new guidelines would be withdrawn before 1 April. However, that does not seem to have happened yet.
We now know that the guidelines were the subject of quite critical comments when they went out to consultation, including from the Magistrates Association, which described them as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Why have we set up a system whereby the Sentencing Council is able to dictate this type of policy, overriding the will of Ministers and elected Members of Parliament?
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I respect the points that the hon. Member is making about the Sentencing Council, but given that this issue has been around for the past few years—he said that the guidelines were out for consultation—why does he think the previous Government were unable to take any action on it?
Sir Christopher Chope
I cannot speak for the previous Government because I was not a member, although obviously I was in the House. My understanding is that this has become a live issue only within recent weeks and months, and that the present Government have been involved in discussions behind the scenes. I am not blaming the Justice Secretary, because I think that perhaps her officials misread what she said or perhaps did not understand the need to consult her. They seem to have been to meetings with the Sentencing Council. It is my understanding that the consultation process came to a conclusion after the present Government came into office.
We should all agree that we need to try to find a way through. A Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark, which is on the Order Paper today—the Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill—would enable the House and the Minister to take back control from the Sentencing Council over issues relating to a sentencing policy and guidance. I would find it amazing if the Government sought to block progress on that Bill today. There is everything to be said for it going through all stages in the House in one day, because it is essentially an emergency measure in response to the fact that, so far, the Sentencing Council does not seem to have responded positively to the representations of the Justice Secretary.
The Sentencing Council is not unique in being able to ignore the wishes of Ministers and Parliament. Most arm’s length bodies have a similar status to the Sentencing Council. They are in three different categories: executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and non-ministerial departments. They have slightly varying relationships with the House and with Government, but there are far too many of them. How many arm’s length bodies are there? I was told by a Cabinet Office Minister in response to my question that on 4 July last year, there were 307 arm’s length bodies, and 135 of those had an annual operating expenditure in excess of £5 million in 2023-24. Although the Minister ducked my other question of how many there are now, we know that since coming into office, the Government have removed one quango and created 27 new ones. Although the Prime Minister has taken some decisive action on one quango, there are a heck of a lot of others that I hope will come under his scrutiny. My Bill seeks to ensure that the most significant quangos are accountable to Parliament.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Given the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, does the hon. Member welcome the announcement that the largest of those organisations is to be moved within ministerial and departmental oversight?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am just coming to that—I have to say that I am absolutely delighted. I am not ambivalent about it; it is really good news, and I will give some examples of how frustrating it has been in my constituency to try to engage with the organisation called NHS Dorset —it used to be called the integrated care board—and how difficult it has been to get any timely responses. I am delighted that the Prime Minister obviously agrees with the objective of the Bill. Whereas this Bill inevitably had to tread carefully around the subject matter, the best way of getting parliamentary accountability of the activities of arm’s length bodies is to abolish those bodies completely, which is what the Prime Minister announced yesterday.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I am very much aware that the hon. Member has been a Member of this Chamber for much longer than I and many of my colleagues have, given that many of us were elected for the first time last July, but does he recall that between 1997 and 2010, the Labour Government cut the number of quangos in this country by 39.8%? That shows what Labour does in government. Wait until the end of the five years and see how many we have cut by then—I am sure he will be delighted by the number.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am more interested, actually, in looking at the number of people in the civil service. There was a low point during the Blair years, but I am sorry to report that under the last Conservative Government and in the time that this Government have been in office, the number of civil servants has continued to increase exponentially. We are talking about between 100,000 and 200,000 more civil servants since the Brexit referendum. The size of the state, the Government and the civil service are important issues, and they are fundamental to this, but my Bill focuses on trying to ensure that the officials who are paid handsomely by the taxpayer are more accountable than they have been to this House and the Government.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that these quangos and regulators end up blocking what the Government want to do, and that is obviously unsatisfactory. In a democracy, we elect a Government, and we expect them to take action on our behalf.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on a slight confusion I have with the wording of his Bill? The Government are talking about bringing more of these agencies back under Executive control so that the Executive, elected by the British people, can drive their performance. His Bill would provide direct parliamentary control, which in many cases—such as with the Prison Service, which is overseen by the Ministry of Justice—would move control and oversight from the Executive to Parliament. I may be confused, but would the Bill not make some of that harder not easier?
Sir Christopher Chope
I do not think my Bill would make any of that harder. What I am saying is that if the Government wish to abolish these arm’s length bodies, or some of them, and to create a more direct relationship between the activities of those bodies when they are under direct Government control and this House, I welcome that. I have already made that clear. However, the Government have already shown that they are intent on increasing the number of arm’s length bodies. Later, I was going to come on to what I regard as an egregious example of giving substantial new powers to an arm’s length body—namely the powers for Natural England set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that was published earlier this week. I will come on to that in due course.
What is important is that these arm’s length bodies are not able to go on a frolic of their own and ignore the wishes of the people’s representatives. As such, my Bill attempts to remedy that accountability gap. As has been said, the most direct way of doing that is to abolish the arm’s length bodies altogether. Currently, the Government are indeed legislating to abolish one arm’s length body through the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill. I was chairing that Bill’s Committee stage yesterday, so I will not comment on its merits or otherwise, but its proposals are dwarfed by the announcement of the abolition of NHS England. I welcome that decision; as I said earlier, I have a constituency concern about the way in which NHS England’s outpost in Dorset, NHS Dorset, lacks responsiveness to Members of Parliament.
To give the House a topical example from this week—indeed, it is still going on—the continuing healthcare department at NHS Dorset has failed over many months to sort out an issue relating to a quadriplegic who is one of my constituents. He has now moved into a different residential care home, and his social worker is from the NHS continuing healthcare team. As we speak, he is threatened with losing his mobility vehicle this very weekend because of the NHS’s inability to deal with the Department for Work and Pensions and sort the matter out.
This very week, my constituent’s mother wrote to me, and I immediately tried to contact NHS Dorset. I have sent an email and left phone messages with both the social worker and the organisation, and my secretary is busy phoning today to try to get a response. No response is forthcoming from NHS Dorset, and in my view, that is unacceptable. That is just a small example of the problem, which I hope will be properly addressed by bringing NHS England back under direct control of the Government. It would mean, for example, that I would be able to put down questions about this matter—I could try to table an urgent question for the Minister.
That direct accountability is, I think, what Lord Lansley was trying to avoid when he was Secretary of State. It was an embarrassment to the Conservative Government—the coalition Government—that they could be asked questions by MPs on the sort of subject I have just raised, yet what more important role is there for an MP than trying to drive through these bureaucratic blocks and deliver what our constituents are expecting?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The case of the hon. Member’s constituent is a really interesting one, although I do not know the full details. However, sometimes when we get rid of a quango, it is a case of, “Be careful what you wish for.” One of the jobs I had before coming to this place was parliamentary officer for the Public and Commercial Services Union. One much lamented former body from the bonfire of the quangos was the Independent Living Fund, which provided support for some of the most complex cases—potentially like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—and was able to work much more easily. In a cost-saving measure, that support was transferred into local government, and local government is much less efficient at administering it, so I would say, “Be careful what you wish for when you close quangos just because they are quangos.”
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s cautionary tale, and I am not suggesting that anything will be a panacea. My Bill is just a tentative step to try to introduce a little more accountability.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and I agree entirely with the points he is making. As I recall from the coalition days, one of the reasons for the Lansley reforms was to make the NHS more independent of Government, which clearly failed. My personal view is that all these arm’s length bodies, quangos and so on should be within the Departments. Then, as he says, we would be able to question Ministers on the issues. The idea that we should make them independent of their political masters is something we need to overturn.
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely; that is why, although the term “independent” sounds seductive to people outside, it quite often means a lack of control by elected representatives over the body in question.
I am not going to spend all my time talking about NHS Dorset, but I must offer one other illustration of my concerns. I have a letter here from the chief executive of NHS Dorset, who I think receives a lot more remuneration than even the Prime Minister. I wrote to her in November, and she wrote back at the end of January about an issue relating to dermatology services in Dorset. I wrote back to her saying, “What is being done to address this issue? You haven’t answered that in your letter.” It took until 5 March, with further queries following up on it, for me to receive an answer. The letter cites my question, which I first raised back in November, as:
“Concern over the ‘unacceptably long waiting list for dermatology services. What is being done to address this issue by the Integrated Care Board?’”
The answer given is:
“As part of a Commissioning for Sustainability programme, Dermatology is one of the services that is being focussed on. The aim of the programme is to recover services to the 18-week standard target, whilst maintaining sustainability. As part of this we are currently reviewing how the commissioning and delivery of services can best achieve this.”
That is after more than four months. There is no suggestion of when the review started, when it is likely to end or what will happen. I take that as an example of the Member of Parliament being fobbed off by officialdom for having the temerity to raise an important issue on behalf of his constituents.
I could go on with many other examples from NHS, but I will not do that. Instead, I will see whether, through this debate, I can encourage the Government to go further than just abolishing NHS England. I have had many dealings with the NHS Business Services Authority, another arm’s length body, apparently controlled by the Department of Health and Social Care, but essentially a law unto itself.
I have been in dealings with the NHSBSA on a number of different subjects, but particularly on the subject of the access and treatment of people who suffered vaccine damage and have applied for vaccine damage payments. The NHSBSA is responsible for organising and running that scheme, yet progress in dealing with applications is desperately slow. As at last November, it had more than 17,000 claims relating to covid-19 vaccines, but of those, more than 7,000 were awaiting resolution, and some had been waiting more than 18 months to be resolved.
Once a claim has been rejected, as it often is, the claimant has an opportunity to go for a mandatory reversal application before they can get access to a tribunal. Dissatisfied claimants can go for the mandatory reversal, but the NHSBSA can hold up that process. As at 27 February this year, 1,657 rejected claims had been subject to mandatory reversal. Some 600 of those are outstanding, and 81 have been outstanding for more than a year. That is intolerable, because it can take more than a year for someone to have their claim dismissed. They then get a mandatory reversal and need to go to tribunal. After three years, someone’s right to litigate on this subject is taken away by the limitation period. That is an example of what happens when Departments and arm’s length bodies start taking over and being thoroughly incompetent.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman was so concerned about that, why did he vote for the Health and Social Care Bill, which included the setting up of NHS England, on 13 March 2012?
Sir Christopher Chope
I was probably in one of my less rebellious periods at that stage, but the hon. Gentleman is right to chide me, because I think it was a big mistake.
Peter Dowd
This is such a fundamental issue for the hon. Member, so why should we pay any attention whatever to what he is saying to us today?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not insisting that anybody should pay attention to what I am saying. All I am putting forward is a proposition that these arm’s length bodies, of which there are far too many, should be brought to account more than they are at the moment.
I have just given an example of the NHS Business Services Authority. Another example is Natural England. One of the means by which arm’s length bodies are meant to be accountable to Parliament is through the publication of annual reports, with accounts. If one looks at the situation with Natural England, it has not produced an annual report and accounts for the year ending 31 March 2024. The last accounts it produced were in December 2023 for the financial year ending 31 March 2023. That is unacceptable. The Government guidance is that these arm’s length bodies should produce their report and accounts within three months of the end of the financial year.
Deirdre Costigan
In light of what the hon. Member is saying, will he support Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which takes away Natural England’s power to delay or stop the building of vital infrastructure, including energy and rail infrastructure and the 1.5 million homes that we need in this country?
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Lady tempts me to move on to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from Natural England, in my constituency we have got a huge problem with the Whinney Hill tip, which Natural England and the Environment Agency are both heavily involved in. My residents face horrendous issues with gulls, the stink and many other challenges from that tip, but we have been limited in finding an alternative because elected officials need to plan for an alternative waste station. If the Environment Agency had greater teeth, it might have been able to push the issue and find a better solution. Is it not sometimes about having the right powers in place rather than removing quangos altogether?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That intervention was slightly broad in scope, but it returned at the end.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Environment Agency as an arm’s length body is found wanting in many respects, not least that it argues that it has a lack of resource to introduce the necessary prosecutions and enforcement of the regulations that it is meant to be in charge of. Just to illustrate that point—this also relates to Natural England, actually—towards the end of the last Parliament, I arranged with the then Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to have a meeting in his office with officials from Natural England and the Environment Agency to discuss the state of the Avon valley: the river, the nitrates and phosphates problems, and the break in the Avon valley footpath, which crosses the River Avon in my constituency but, as a result of neglect, is no longer viable.
The Minister set up the meeting in his Department. The first time I went along to the Department with him, he was sitting there with his private secretary and we were meant to have officials from Natural England and the Environment Agency with us online on Zoom—I do not know whether they were working from home—but nothing happened. At the last minute, there was a message saying that they could not attend. I said to the Minister that he should get heavy with them, because this was intolerable. It was another month or six weeks before we had an in-person meeting with them. I wish that I could say to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) that, as a result of all that, the issues have been resolved, but they have not. I have got a meeting with Natural England on site on 1 April in the Avon valley in my constituency.
All is not well with these arm’s length bodies. There are probably different solutions for resolving that, depending on their specific nature.
Peter Dowd
The former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), said in guidance that
“ALBs are closely aligned, but distinct from their sponsor departments”
and so on. It continued that ALBs
“are each responsible to Parliament for their use of public funds.”
Is that not contrary to what the hon. Gentleman seems to be telling us? Who is right—him or the former Paymaster General?
Sir Christopher Chope
That is the difference between the words and the reality. Strictly speaking—I was coming on to this—they have to produce annual reports and accounts, which go to what are described as their sponsoring Departments. In most cases, the sponsoring Department lays those accounts before the House. With Natural England, for example, we do not know what has been going on since 31 March 2023, so it is accountable, but not in what I would describe as a meaningful sense such that we can ask specific questions.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
On the point about arm’s length bodies and their accountability to Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to have a mechanism to bring them to Parliament to hold them to account, not just through their annual accounts? If there is gross negligence in a Department or an arm’s length body, particularly those that deal in medical or other delicate matters, or if there is some issue that needs to be brought to the fore, we could have a mechanism for them to come to Parliament so that there could be direct parliamentary accountability. Although it is said in theory that those bodies are accountable to us, there is no evidence to show that that is the case.
Sir Christopher Chope
My hon. Friend takes me back to the content of my Bill, which seeks to achieve exactly what she requests. Clause 1 states:
“House of Commons approval of relevant documents
(1) Within a period of forty days starting on the day on which a relevant document is laid before the House of Commons by, or on behalf of, a qualifying body, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion that the House of Commons approves the relevant document.”
That means that we, in the House, would be able to decide whether we approved that document.
The Bill goes on to say:
“If the House of Commons does not approve a motion under subsection (1), the relevant document shall stand referred to the Committee of Public Accounts.”
It seems to me that the best body that we have in the House to deal with this sort of situation would be the Public Accounts Committee, so there would be an automatic referral to that Committee if the Members of this House decided that they were dissatisfied with the performance of the relevant arm’s length body.
Peter Dowd
Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussions with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), to assess how much of the Committee’s time would be taken up with going through the accounts of, potentially, 150 quangos, which would be directly responsible to Parliament?
Sir Christopher Chope
Quangos are not directly responsible to Parliament, which is why I have brought forward the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not going to give way any more, but I will just make this comment: the hon. Gentleman seems to be intent on finding a reason for not taking action in this area and to block progress. May I suggest that he pursue an alternative career in the civil service, because that is exactly the sort of role that he would be well suited to?
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was published this week. It gives extensive and revised powers to Natural England, which has not even produced its annual report for last year. Instead of abolishing Natural England, which might have been the right approach following the Prime Minister’s abolition of NHS England, so that the relevant responsibilities could be taken on by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs directly, clauses 48 to 78 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill give Natural England, an unelected, arm’s length body, responsibility for environmental delivery plans, the administration and control of the nature restoration levy, and a whole lot of other responsibilities, which would be better suited to the Government so that there is more direct accountability.
I can see why the Government are frustrated at the delays by Natural England. I have experienced that in my own constituency, where there was a ridiculous attempt by somebody to try to build a new open-air surfing lake. Although the site was only three miles from the coast, they wanted to build that new infrastructure, but Natural England sat on the responsibility of advising on the project and refused to take action. I kept asking the planning inspector what we could do about that, and the answer was nothing. We had to wait until Natural England got round to deciding what it was going to do, if anything, which added months.
There is a development site in the middle of Christchurch, a former police station. As a result of Natural England’s faffing about over phosphates, the cost of developing the site has increased by over £3 million, and there is a significant delay of probably two years or more. The Government need to take these powers back into the Department, rather than, as set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, give even more power to Natural England, which is an unelected and scarcely accountable quango.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about Natural England and NHS England, which obviously operate only in England. Is he aware that in another part of the UK, Scotland, we have seen an absolute proliferation of quangos under the SNP? We now have more quangos in Scotland than there are Members of the Scottish Parliament. Does he, like me, look forward to the day when the SNP no longer runs the Scottish Government and a Labour Administration promise to crack down on these things?
Sir Christopher Chope
Although I was educated at university in Scotland, I will not get drawn into Scottish politics, but there is a lot to be said for having a United Kingdom approach to all these issues. In some respects, we have probably devolved too much power to the Scottish Government for things that should more properly be dealt with by the United Kingdom Parliament. We heard in today’s debate on the Rare Cancers Bill that its clauses 2 and 3 are specifically limited to England and Wales. Although it is a very important Bill about research on rare cancers, it would not apply to Scotland. That is a bigger problem, but we will not get into that now, because I am trying to confine my remarks to the several hundred arm’s length bodies. I do not have time to go through any more examples, but the Government seem to have undergone a conversion. Suddenly they have seen the light, and realise that they need to take back control.
I will use an anecdote to illustrate my proposition. When I was a Minister in the Department for the Environment, we had 18-storey tower blocks in Marsham Street. I was privileged to be a junior Minister, and Nick Ridley was my Secretary of State. For those who did not know him, he was passionately in favour of the freedom of people to smoke, if they so wished. One day, he arrived in the tower block and there was a big notice in the lift saying, “No smoking in this lift”, which caused him to say in a stage whisper, “Can somebody remind me who’s in charge of this Department?” Needless to say, the notice was quickly removed. When he was Secretary of State, he gave me the responsibility of dealing with a mega-quango: the Property Services Agency, which was responsible for massive delays and added costs to the building of the British Library, for example. He imbued in me a feeling that Ministers are in charge.
One day, the permanent secretary, who was responsible for the Property Services Agency, went behind my back and basically said to Nick Ridley that I was responsible for a significant decline in the morale of the people working for the Property Services Agency, and he asked whether the Secretary of State could intervene. The Secretary of State said to the gentleman in question, “Sir Gordon, Chris is in charge of the Property Services Agency. If you wish to discuss anything with him, then I am sure his door is always open.” He reported that back to me, and from that moment onwards the relationships changed; the Minister was back in charge and the civil servants recognised that they were in a subordinate and accountable role. I hope that is exactly what will happen now with NHS England, and a lot of other arm’s length bodies, as a result of the Government’s conversion to recognising—
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Arms Trade (Inquiry and Suspension) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May.
Pension (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April.
Heritage Public Houses Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April.
Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Member in charge has given instruction earlier today that he wishes to defer his Bill to Friday 28 March and will not move Second Reading of the Bill today. We will therefore move on to the next Bill set down for today.
Pets (Microchips) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act (Review) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March.
Sentencing Council (Powers of Secretary of State) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
HS2 Mitigation Projects: Inflation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. I want to focus on the impact that inflation has had on the ability of different institutions to deliver the community projects and mitigations that High Speed 2 previously agreed to in Mid Buckinghamshire. The cases are many in number, but I will illustrate the scale of the problem with particular attention to two pressing concerns: noise mitigation measures for St Mary’s church in Wendover and the provision of a new ground and facilities for Wendover cricket club.
HS2 has been deeply controversial across my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency and the wider county. I make no bones about my absolute and total opposition to HS2, which is well documented. Many of my constituents have suffered greatly as a result of the disruption that it has caused, from environmental damage to the impact on homes, businesses and local amenities, as well as the damage to our local infrastructure. That is not to mention the hideous cost to the taxpayer.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the cost relating to infrastructure. One of the huge impacts that goes unrecognised is the impact on roads and road surfaces. Not only are many areas of Buckinghamshire on a flood plain, but our roads get a huge amount of use, which is compounded by the HS2 traffic. Does he agree that that is not compensated for by the HS2 fund in any way?
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament is absolutely right. Day in, day out, we see the impact of thousands of heavy goods vehicle movements having churned up our local road infrastructure. These roads originated as cart tracks and do not have deep substructures, so they get churned up very easily. The impact of such big infrastructure projects on our roads is considerable. I have talked about that many times in the House, and had a great deal of correspondence with Ministers on it. No matter what the infrastructure project, we have to get better as a country at understanding the construction impacts before a green light is given, so that they are properly mitigated. It is incumbent on HS2 to fix what it breaks. East West Rail, to be fair to it, has done that. It has resurfaced a number of roads around the Claydons where it has had compounds, and where there have been HGV movements. It is incumbent on HS2 to do the same.
From the outset, affected community organisations have been forced to negotiate their survival with HS2 Ltd, often at great cost to them and ultimately to the taxpayer, but when a town, village, neighbourhood or community is so brutally impacted by big infrastructure, I argue that there is a moral duty on the promoter—in this case, the state—to mitigate, compensate, and treat the places and people affected fairly. The rising cost of inflation since phase 1 was approved in 2017 has meant that commitments made by the state and HS2 Ltd—indeed, by Parliament, through the hybrid Bill process—are at risk of being delayed, watered down or even abandoned altogether. That is simply unacceptable.
One of the most egregious examples of such broken commitments is the case of St Mary’s church in Wendover. This historical and much loved place of worship has served the community for centuries, not only providing spiritual support but acting as a hub for local activities and events, particularly music concerts. HS2 Ltd had recognised that the noise impact from construction and, in the future, from passing high-speed trains would significantly affect the church, particularly during services and the concerts I have mentioned. As such, it had agreed to provide noise mitigation measures—above all, very sophisticated sound insulation.
Yet due to rising costs and the pressures of inflation since that particular mitigation was agreed in 2016, we are now being told that these measures may not be delivered in full, if at all. After conversations between the church and the project began more than eight years ago, the undertaking and assurance originally given by the Department for Transport have not been honoured, through no fault of the church, despite the project being contractually obliged to do so.
As such, with inflation, the original £250,000 cost referred to in the U&A will now result in less than 50% of the work being affordable, compared with what it would have covered at the time of the U&A. This was confirmed after I intervened to restart discussions, which had effectively stalled because of the fundamental unwillingness on HS2 Ltd’s part to engage meaningfully on what is a key community concern—an attitude that, as I have raised many times in this place, is evident across affected Mid Buckinghamshire communities.
This is completely unacceptable. A commitment was made, and the Government must ensure that HS2 Ltd honours it. The congregation of St Mary’s church should not have to suffer excessive noise pollution because of a failure to manage costs effectively or the basic fact of construction inflation over so many years. This is a matter of fairness and upholding trust, and ensuring that historic institutions such as St Mary’s are protected for future generations.
My second example of a broken promise relates to Wendover cricket club. As I said earlier, I could go much further afield in my constituency, but Wendover town has been particularly affected. This historic local club has been an integral part of the Wendover community for more than a century, offering young people and adults the opportunity to engage in sport, stay active and participate in community life. It is one of the few clubs across Buckinghamshire that offers the wide range of age groups for teams that compete across the whole country. It is part not just of Wendover’s identity, but of Buckinghamshire’s identity. By evicting the club from its grounds, HS2 is driving a wedge through everyone and everything there.
Due to HS2’s construction, the club’s existing facilities were rendered completely unusable—indeed, completely severed in two. HS2 Ltd originally pledged to provide new grounds and upgraded facilities to compensate for the disruption, to the tune of £200,000, through another of these undertaking and assurance agreements, signed in 2017. However, the club has now been informed that due to escalating costs, the new facilities may not be delivered to the standard originally agreed upon—or, worse, that they may not be delivered at all because of HS2’s reluctance to pay the cost as it is in 2025, or potentially 2026, if it takes that long.
Acting in good faith, the cricket club has already entered into a groundworks contract that includes approximately £90,000-worth of self-funded items. It is also considering a pavilion contract that currently includes approximately £180,000 of items, again self-funded, on the basis of receiving the U&A resource and its own reserves. The U&A states:
“The Secretary of State for Transport will, subject to Royal Assent, require the nominated undertaker to contribute the sum of up to £200,000 toward the reasonable costs of Wendover Cricket club relocating both its Ellesborough Road and Witchell grounds”.
These delays were wholly the result of HS2, so I ask the Minister for an assurance that, at a minimum, the nominated undertaker—in this case HS2 Ltd—honour the spirit of the U&A to Wendover cricket club with an inflation-adjusted figure.
The impact of this situation on local cricket and community engagement cannot be overstated. Wendover cricket club is a volunteer organisation that is trying to provide a service for the local community and encourage youth and adult sport and fitness. Its coaches teach young people discipline and teamwork and contribute to the health and wellbeing of the entire community. The loss of its promised facilities would be a devastating blow to the area and to my constituency.
I understand the significant economic pressures that our country faces. The war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions and other global economic factors have all contributed to rising costs. However, those factors must not be used as an excuse to renege on commitments that were made to communities directly impacted by HS2. HS2 Ltd and the Government must ensure that funds are allocated properly to deliver on the promises that were made to the people of Wendover and beyond in my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency. If savings in HS2 Ltd need to be found—and let us face it, they do—they should not come at the expense of community projects that were explicitly agreed to as mitigation measures. Instead, we should look at where efficiencies can be made in the wider HS2 project, to ensure that local communities are not short-changed.
I urge the Minister to take the following immediate actions. First, will he confirm HS2 Ltd’s commitment to delivering the promised noise mitigation measures for St Mary’s church, Wendover, and ensure that no backtracking takes place? Secondly, will he guarantee that Wendover cricket club will receive the new ground and facilities that were pledged, with no reduction in quality of delivery due to cost-cutting measures? Thirdly, will he ensure full transparency from HS2 Ltd regarding how inflationary pressures are impacting community mitigation projects and explore alternative funding mechanisms to safeguard those commitments? Fourthly, will he hold HS2 Ltd accountable for ensuring that agreed mitigation measures are ringfenced and are not subject to arbitrary cost-saving exercises that disproportionately impact communities?
My constituents did not ask for HS2, but they have had to endure years of disruption, environmental damage and upheaval in our communities. The very least that they deserve is for HS2 Ltd to honour the commitments that it has made to mitigate the very worst excesses of that impact. It is a matter of integrity, fairness and doing the right thing by the people of Wendover and Mid Buckinghamshire. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, hopefully, to working together to ensure that these promises are kept.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) on securing this debate, on standing up so resolutely for civil society institutions in his constituency and on speaking so eloquently about them.
High inflation, the pandemic, protester action, planning appeals, judicial reviews and lower productivity than expected have had a significant impact on the cost of phase 1 of HS2. The Government have been clear that we are committed to getting a grip on the spiralling costs. As part of that work, the Secretary of State for Transport has published the first HS2 report to Parliament under the new Government, setting out some of the immediate actions and interventions that we will take to regain control of HS2’s costs and bring the project back on track. For instance, Ministers have tasked the new chief executive officer of HS2 Ltd, Mark Wild, with producing an action plan to reset the programme and deliver the remaining work as cost-effectively as possible. We have also reinstated ministerial oversight of the project through a ministerial taskforce to ensure transparency and accountability. My Department will update Parliament as the important work of resetting the programme and reinstating oversight progresses.
Joy Morrissey
May I say, on behalf of two of the Buckinghamshire MPs, that we stand in solidarity in support for scrapping HS2 altogether? It is never too late for a real cost-saving Minister to scrap the whole thing.
Mike Kane
Well, it was the former Prime Minister who came to Manchester during the party conference to scrap HS2 from going from Manchester. I have never known quite such a political insult. It was supposed to balance up our country, yet we will have reduced capacity and there is an impact on Northern Powerhouse Rail. The handling of the project over a number of years has had effects both on the constituencies it is going through, as the hon. Member has so passionately extolled, and on those that are not getting it.
Let me get back to the point that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is here to talk about. Following discussions with St Mary’s in 2016, during the passage of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017, the church was given an assurance and commitment that the project would support it in improving its noise insulation. The assurance provided very clearly for a contribution up to a maximum of £250,000, with no provision for inflation. There are many other HS2 assurances on the public register, including commitments to fund particular works or activities. Some of those explicitly provide for index-linking; others do not. The one given to St Mary’s does not. It is worth noting that the House of Lords Committee set up to hear from petitioners against the Bill considered the case of St Mary’s, and took the unusual step in 2016 of reporting that the £250,000 offer was generous. Furthermore, I am pleased to report that, since the assurances were given, HS2 has made other improvements to its plans for noise mitigation in the locality of the church. That will reduce the amount of noise reaching the church in the first place.
Taking all that into account, it is not considered appropriate to increase the amount of public funding offered to the church or to increase any other financial mitigations that were fixed, not indexed, at the time they were agreed. There is no evidence that the sums are no longer sufficient. We have inherited a difficult situation on HS2, as the hon. Member said, and our priority now is to get a grip of the cost to the Government.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but does he accept, as a point of principle, that that was not an arbitrary amount of money offered to the church as a top-up for church funds, but was very specifically for noise mitigation purposes? If in 2025 the money promised in 2016 simply cannot deliver that, it is not fair on the church or the many other projects in a similar position. I know that it is not a problem of his making, but it is a problem that the Department for Transport, as the sponsoring body, now finds itself with.
Mike Kane
The hon. Member is right. HS2 has clearly already put in some noise mitigation, but I hope he will hear me out for a second.
I understand that agreement has not yet been reached on the mitigation works to be undertaken at the church. As a result, according to the terms of the assurance, the funds cannot yet be released. I encourage the hon. Member, and particularly the parties of HS2 and the church, to focus their efforts on agreeing the works that can be carried out and a timeline for them to begin, so that the available funding can be released and stretch as far as humanly possible. I encourage the parties to get together and begin that negotiation.
I am a social member of Wythenshawe cricket club—although my playing days are long behind me—so I know the value that cricket clubs, and other sports and social clubs, provide not just in sporting terms but in the social glue of cohesion and solidarity. The hon. Member spoke eloquently about Wendover in his constituency. The deal that was asked for had an uplift to cover inflation. I understand that the request is currently with HS2, which is looking into the circumstances of the club and will respond in due course. I hope that he will get an answer very shortly; if he does not, he should please contact me. I will then let the Rail Minister know and we will follow it up. HS2 will have heard his impassioned plea that this historic and successful club does not miss out.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) raised road conditions. I am aware that HS2 Ltd has been working closely with Buckinghamshire council over the past few years to improve the way that such road repairs are managed. It has already allocated considerable resources to dealing with that problem. Road repairs are measured against the baseline road condition levels agreed at the start of the project. Either payments are made to councils at current prices or the repairs are undertaken by HS2 Ltd contractors, so they are not affected by inflation. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has been far more successful with East West Rail on the road repairs in his constituency.
I again congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Let me reiterate that transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. We will continue to work with hon. Members and local leaders on ensuring that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. As I said, I welcome this debate, as it is vital that we continue to discuss our transport projects openly and transparently.
Question put and agreed to.
UK Trade Envoy to Brazil: Lord Evans of Sealand
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
The Secretary of State has today appointed Lord Evans of Sealand to the United Kingdom’s trade envoy programme as the UK trade envoy to Brazil.
The United Kingdom’s trade envoys will play an integral role in the Government’s growth mission and delivering our plan for change by helping to create opportunities for UK business to compete abroad, break into new markets and attract greater inward investment from their markets.
Lord Evans of Sealand will play a crucial role in supporting my Department’s growth priorities, in particular through helping deliver the industrial and trade strategies and attracting foreign direct investment to every region in the UK.
The role as a United Kingdom trade envoy is unpaid and voluntary with cross-party membership from both Houses.
[HCWS523]
Infected Blood Inquiry: 13 March Announcement
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Yesterday, the infected blood inquiry set out its intention to publish an additional report. The inquiry also published a number of witness statements, including ones provided by the Cabinet Office, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and a number of people directly impacted by the infected blood scandal and their representatives.
The victims of the infected blood scandal have suffered unspeakably and their needs continue to remain at the forefront of our work. The Government will give careful consideration to the statements published by the inquiry. I am committed to continuing to build trust with people who are impacted by this scandal, and to engaging further with representatives of the infected blood community on the Government response. We will continue to co-operate with the inquiry over the coming months.
The Government are determined to deliver justice for people who are infected and affected as a result of the infected blood scandal. That is why, in the autumn Budget, we set aside £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal. This is one of the biggest compensation schemes in our country’s history, and that is entirely right given the scale of this injustice. In line with our commitment, in December last year the Infected Blood Compensation Authority began delivering this compensation. As of Friday 21 February, 204 people have been invited to start their claim, and IBCA is on track to meet its commitment for 250 people to start their claim by the end of March.
Before the end of March, both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the draft regulations for people who are affected including partners, parents, children, siblings and, in some instances, carers. Once in force, the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 will provide IBCA with the powers it needs to begin making payments to eligible affected people. We have committed that payments to affected people will start by the end of 2025.
The Government also recognise that delivering justice is much more than financial compensation. I am continuing to work with the Department of Health and Social Care, taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations to ensure that everything is done to prevent further such tragedies in the future.
My personal commitment to this work, and the people impacted by it, remains steadfast. The Government are acting on the findings of the inquiry. We will continue to work with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to ensure compensation is delivered as swiftly and compassionately as possible to everyone who so greatly deserves it.
[HCWS525]
UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly Membership
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate has been appointed as a full representative of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in the place of Lord Lamont of Lerwick.
[HCWS524]
Single Source Defence Contracts: Baseline Profit Rate 2025-26
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I am today announcing on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence that the baseline profit rate for single source defence contracts will be set at 8.56%, in line with the rate recommended by the Single Source Regulations Office. This an increase of 0.32% from 2024-25. The Secretary of State has accepted the methodology used by the SSRO to calculate these figures. A full explanation of the SSRO methodology is published on their website. Element 2024-25 rates 2025-26 rates Baseline profit rate (% on contract cost) 8.24% 8.56% Baseline profit rate to apply to contracts between the Secretary of State and a company wholly owned by the UK Government, and where both parties agree (% on contract cost) 0% 0% Fixed capital servicing rate (% on fixed capital employed) 3.26% 3.64% Working capital servicing rate (% on positive working capital employed) 3.1% 4.69% Working capital servicing rate (% on negative working capital employed) 1.61% 3.21%
The SSRO’s recommendation on the capital servicing allowance to be applied to single source defence contracts has also been accepted and these rates are set out in table 1. These rates have been published in the London Gazette, as required by the Defence Reform Act 2014.
All of these new rates will come into effect from 1 April 2025.
[HCWS522]
Universal Credit (Standard Allowance Entitlement of Care Leavers) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as this will be my last opportunity to address your Lordships’ House on this Bill, I crave your indulgence for a couple of minutes. There are something like 92,000 care leavers in the 18 to 25 age bracket at any one time. While it is hard to be precise about how much this Bill would cost, the best estimate is that it would probably add something like £25 million a year to the total costs on the Government. That would enable a young care leaver who is in receipt of universal credit to get an extra £80 a month, which is 25% more than they currently get. It would be life-changing for them. It would make, I would argue, very little difference to the state of the nation’s finances.
Notwithstanding that, I understand that this is not the way that Governments like bills to be added to the Treasury and I fully anticipate that the noble Baroness, my good friend on the Front Bench, will say that in a moment or two. But I urge that, if there is any possibility of this being discussed in the other place, that be permitted, because I have learned so much about care leavers in the course of leading this Bill through your Lordships’ House. I have begun to realise how being in care adds a further adverse childhood experience to young people who have probably, because they have been in care, already had other adverse childhood experiences at an earlier stage. Their lot and their life chances are typically poorer. We know that some even make it into your Lordships’ House, and that is fantastic, but many suffer disadvantage well into adult life.
I am very grateful for the support from around the House at the earlier stages of the Bill and I thank all noble Lords who participated in that process. I am very grateful to the charities, particularly Become and Barnardo’s, which work very extensively with care leavers and young people in care. I am even more grateful to the young care leavers who came to Parliament for Second Reading and who met me in advance of that and shared with me some of the challenges they faced in making the transition from the state being their corporate parent to often being told that they now have to live entirely independently at the age of 18. I am also grateful to Sarah and Will in the parliamentary office of the Church of England here in Westminster, and to my own staff, Abi, Anne and Lucie, in my diocese in Manchester. With that, I think I have probably addressed noble Lords for long enough on this matter.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, once again I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing this Bill before your Lordships’ House. As we said at Second Reading, we support the sentiments behind the Bill, which has raised awareness of care leavers and the struggles they face. We all know how vulnerable young people who leave care can be and the challenges of transitioning into adulthood without the support that many others receive.
As noble Lords will be aware, care leavers who are over the age of 18 are entitled to claim universal credit on the same basis as over 25 year-olds, but at a lower rate. Standardising the allowance payable is a noble cause that I know, and we have heard, the right reverend Prelate cares very deeply about, and he is to be commended for his tenacity and dedication to the cause. But finally, to restate our position on the Bill, we believe that a number of alternative provisions already exist, such as the setting up home allowance. Extending the monetary support to care leavers, as this Bill suggests, has fiscal implications, as has been highlighted. It will be up to His Majesty’s Government to decide whether the provisions of the Bill are financially workable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and I commend him for his work on this Bill and for giving the whole House an opportunity to understand more about the experiences of care leavers and those in the care system now. I add my thanks to charities such as Barnardo’s and Become. I had the opportunity to speak with care-experienced young people at events there and I learned a lot from that, as I did from discussions with the right reverend Prelate at earlier stages of the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate is quite right that adverse childhood experiences are at the heart of this. We recognise that many care leavers, because of the experiences they have had, are more likely to be out of education, employment or training, and more likely to experience financial difficulty, health problems or homelessness. Although, as the right reverend Prelate rightly predicted, I am not in a position to support his Bill today, I want to say that the Government are determined to make sure that we offer the right support to care leavers. We already offer a range of safeguards and specialist services to support them. Care leavers under 25 can claim the local housing allowance rate of housing benefit; they can get specialist support with transitioning into adult claims; they can get extra help in returning to education if they have missed out on that; and they can get all kinds of support to help them develop and get into jobs. However, there is much more to do and the right reverend Prelate is right to challenge us.
The Government are taking steps to improve support for care leavers and young people more widely. When the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill comes forward, we will be looking to see how we can support care leavers to find accommodation and access local services. Through our youth guarantee, we will help all 18 to 21 year-olds get access to quality training or apprenticeships or find work. But that is all for another day. Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate and those who have brought these issues before the House, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed and I look forward to continuing to work on these issues as time goes on.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I remind the House that the advisory speaking time for Back-Benchers on the next Bill is three minutes. That means that, when you get to two minutes, you start making your closing remarks and, at three minutes, the time is up.
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Lord Norton of Louth
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I wish to explain the context of this Bill, detail its principal provisions and, most importantly, stress what it is designed to achieve. Its introduction is premised on a dual need: to strengthen the House in what it does and in how it is seen by those outside.
Many of those taking part in this debate are aware that this is a revised version of the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. It has been amended in the light of what was said in that debate. However, its genesis goes back much further. Almost 20 years ago, I penned the first draft of what became the House of Lords Bill, better known as the Steel Bill. It was introduced into this House by Lord Steel of Aikwood on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, a body I founded with my noble friend the late Lord Cormack.
The Bill had four main provisions, which in effect constituted the manifesto of the campaign. It put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis; it ended the by-elections for hereditary Peers; it allowed Peers to retire; and it provided for Peers who commit serious criminal offences to be expelled from membership of the House. It was variously debated, twice in 2007, and enjoyed wide support, but, because of opposition from a small minority of Peers, we were not able to make progress as it stood. We were, though, able to get two of its provisions enacted—enabling Peers to retire and removing those who commit serious offences—through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place by Dan Byles and facilitated it in its passage by the Government. We now also have the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill going through your Lordships’ House. That means that only one provision of the Steel Bill is, in effect, unfulfilled: putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, on a statutory basis. For me, this Bill constitutes unfinished business.
This Bill has four main provisions. First, it puts HOLAC on a statutory basis. The case for doing so has always been strong, but is made even more so by the hereditary Peers Bill. Enactment of that Bill will mean there is no route to becoming a Peer independent of prime ministerial patronage. My contention is that this Bill has to be conjoined with the hereditary Peers Bill to ensure that the Prime Minister does not enjoy exclusive, unrestrained power to create Members of this House. Those who have opposed the hereditary Peers Bill for giving too much power of patronage to the Prime Minister need to explain, if they do not support this Bill, what they would do to constrain that power.
Putting HOLAC on a statutory basis would protect its independence. It can be argued that no Prime Minister would think of getting rid of HOLAC, but the point is that they could. It could have been argued that no Prime Minister would ignore a recommendation of HOLAC on the appointment of Peers, but they could—and, as we know, have done. The point is not just one of quality control: fundamental to my argument is that it is core to public trust in appointments to this House. In terms of what the public want from HOLAC and the appointments process, my Bill is a modest one and, as we have seen with the Steel and Grocott Bills, if you do not make modest changes now, the likelihood is that you will eventually end up with more radical surgery.
There are two changes from the Bill I introduced two Sessions ago. The first is made in response to what was said in debate on the Bill, where concerns were raised that putting the appointments process in statute opened up the prospect of judicial review. I have therefore introduced an ouster clause. This is exceptional but, as with the ouster clause in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act introduced by the Conservative Government in the last Parliament, justified in the context of the measure. It is not a qualified provision of the sort referred to by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne in Monday’s debate. The clause meets the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in the earlier debate; he cannot be here today, but he has authorised me to say that the inclusion of the clause fully meets his concerns and that the Bill now has his full support.
The second change derives from public expectations. The Bill provides that, if HOLAC recommends against a name being put forward to the monarch, the Prime Minister cannot put forward that name for two years. It is not a bar. The name could be resubmitted. However, it forces the Prime Minister to reconsider someone who is not judged suitable at the time.
Secondly, the Bill enshrines the core principles widely endorsed by Members on the size and composition of the House: that is, that it should be no larger than the House of Commons, that no one party should enjoy an absolute majority and that at least one-fifth of the House should comprise Cross-Bench Peers. These provisions enable the House to do what it does well. We are too large and we recognise that we need to reduce our numbers, but size is a second-order issue relative to the need to be seen to be effective in fulfilling our core functions, not least legislative scrutiny. Because no party in government enjoys an absolute majority, it works to persuade the House to accept the provisions of a Bill. In the Commons, there is a culture of assertion; in this House, there is a culture of justification. Ministers need to justify what they bring forward. Ensuring that a significant proportion of the House is independent of party contributes to the independence of the House and provides a route for people who have served in public office and have no party-political affiliation to join it. These in effect constitute goals for the Prime Minister. They provide a core organising framework.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that those nominated for membership must meet the criteria of “conspicuous merit” and demonstrate
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House”.
In the light of the Delegated Powers Committee report, I am content to confine it to those provisions. The committee has drawn attention to some subsections of Clause 7—even though the clause is the same as in the 2022 Bill, to which the committee raised no objections.
When the Bill was debated in 2022, some Members thought the criterion of “conspicuous merit” was too broad; others, I know, think that it encapsulates what we need and what the public expect. If we are to do our job effectively—and, in effect, justify our existence—we need to maintain a membership characterised by experience and expertise. We also need to be seen to be bringing in Members who can make a distinctive contribution. In my view, generating guidance as to what constitutes “conspicuous merit” is not the most onerous of tasks as it essentially requires those nominated to show what they have contributed by way of experience or professional achievement. The experience may not be earth-shattering but may, by its nature, be distinctive. I am not opposed to generating a different wording; the key point is establishing a clear threshold of merit.
Fourthly, there is a need for transparency, requiring those party leaders putting forward names for peerages to inform HOLAC of the criteria and process employed for making the nomination. Injecting the fresh air of transparency is a further means of enhancing public trust in the process. When we debated the Bill last time, the then Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, expressed doubts about this provision. Yet the Government have, in effect, conceded much of the principle by publishing citations for nominations. I commend them on that. This Bill pushes a little further in a way that serves to tackle public cynicism.
That brings me to the purpose of the Bill, which is the core reason for this debate. It is to establish the need to change the process by which people are nominated for peerages. It is necessary—not desirable but necessary —for the House to maintain its claim to legitimacy, both in how Members arrive and in the work they do. This House contributes to good law because of a unique combination of membership and procedures that distinguish it from the other place. It fulfils functions that the House of Commons may not have the time or the political will to fulfil. It is recognised as carrying out detailed scrutiny of legislation that enhances the quality of law in this country. However, the public derive their view of this House not from what it does but from how Members are selected and how some behave.
Enacting this Bill will enhance the work of the House through bringing in Members qualified to carry out its functions, and tackle the distrust that now engulfs the nominations process. As I said, the provisions are modest relative to what the public want. There is clear public support for nominations to be taken out of the hands of party leaders and given exclusively to HOLAC. The Wakeham commission recommended that most Peers be nominated by HOLAC. If we do not make changes now, more radical reform beckons.
This debate gives the House the opportunity to send out a clear signal as to the need for reform of the nomination process and a recognition that change is necessary to establish confidence in that process. The defence offered for the existing system, I submit, is not sustainable. In the debate on the previous Bill, we were told that the Prime Minister is the one who makes the nominations and is accountable to Parliament for those nominations. That is constitutionally correct. It is also a practical nonsense. When was the last time a Prime Minister was held accountable, in any meaningful form, for nominations to this House? The Prime Minister is not the one who suffers in any significant manner. It is this House that gets the political opprobrium. Under this Bill, the Prime Minister would remain the sole person responsible for submitting names to the monarch, but he or she would work within a process designed to ensure that those being nominated were, and were seen to be, highly qualified.
The other objection raised was that the Bill would give too much power to HOLAC, a body that is unelected and not accountable for its actions. I believe that is based on a false premise. HOLAC would be created by law and if it was seen to be acting in an inappropriate way, its role could be changed by law. In any event, the powers being conferred are limited and, I believe, proportionate. The only power will be one of restraint, requiring the Prime Minister to wait two years before being able to resubmit a name. The more significant challenge to the Bill is not that it gives too much power to HOLAC but that it confers too little.
We are now in March. This Bill is not going to make it to the statute book unless the Government facilitate its passage or take it over. I am not overly optimistic that the Minister will make such a promise. What we can do is use this opportunity to acknowledge the need to reform the process by which Members reach this place. We have to embrace change to enable us to do even better what we already do well and, even more crucial to this debate, demonstrate that we recognise public discontent with the process as it stands. Doing nothing is not a viable option. I beg to move.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a huge honour to follow the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and to speak here for the first time.
It has been a whirlwind few weeks and I am so very grateful to everyone who has helped and supported me: Black Rod and all the staff here for the incredibly thorough induction process and wonderful, warm welcome, as well as my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Hodge, both of whom have been so crucial in my career to date and have helped enormously in making my formal introduction a tiny bit less scary.
Having survived that a couple of weeks ago does not make it any less daunting to stand here, not least because I usually never speak without the prop of a full deck of PowerPoint slides. Frankly, I was disappointed to learn from my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith—who have been so helpful in every other way—that I would not be able to use slides here this morning, so please bear with me as I speak unadorned.
I am new here, but I am not new to politics. My first election was in 1987, when—along with the late, great Philip Gould—I worked on Labour’s campaign. Young Labour Party staffers I spoke to recently were amazed by this, as most had not even been born then, and pressed me for quaint stories about the olden days. I can see that many noble Lords here will not need any such briefing.
I have worked on almost every general election since, and often on what happened in between too. Overall, if my career has been about anything, it has been about keeping the organisations I have worked with—businesses, government, political parties and their leaders—in closer touch with those whom they serve. Focus groups and polling have been the tools of my trade. In my view these are not dark arts, as some characterise them, but an effective way of creating an open, sustained and positive connection. And politics—let us face it—needs that positive connection; it is very much a work in progress.
Disappointingly, we have been heading in the wrong direction. Trust in politics has plummeted to its lowest score for 40 years. This is not a party-political point. Fewer than one in 10 people trust politicians, of any hue, to tell the truth—although your Lordships might take heart from being slightly more trusted than estate agents or journalists. But the grim statistics speak for themselves: only 28% say they have any confidence in the House of Commons. In focus groups, Prime Minister’s Questions—the one set-piece debate that the public watch—is seen to epitomise everything that is bad about politics. It is shouty, it is point-scoring, it is partisan and, frankly, it is rude.
Here in this place, I gather we like to do things differently. Certainly, from what I have seen so far, noble Lords are nothing if not courteous. However, the same poll revealed that confidence in the Lords was 8% lower than in the Commons, at just 20%. This is not something any of us can afford to ignore. If people lose faith in our institutions, our democracy weakens, and a weak democracy loses legitimacy. A recent poll suggested that more than half of Gen Z voters—that is, very young people—would rather be led by a strong dictator who does not bother with elections. Even if that is only half right, it is pretty scary. Our democratic institutions are facing the biggest sustained attack since the Second World War. This is urgent. It is harder for us here than it is in the other place; there, they are accountable to an electorate every few years and that sure focuses the mind. We are going to have to work a lot harder on building that positive connection. Like my noble friend Lady Chapman, I am from Darlington. I often ask myself, “What on earth would Darlington think?”. We must all keep asking such a question and we must make it our duty to know the answer.
How we are appointed here and, crucially, how the public perceive how and why we are appointed here, really matter too. It is just one part of the wider package of reform that people voted for when they voted for change so resolutely last July. The most significant change we could make, by some distance, is removing hereditary Peers. Nearly 70% of the public strongly support this move. That must be our main focus in reform.
There is also a lot that we can do to shine a light on the excellent work that is done here every day—day in, day out. Two-thirds of people say they know little or nothing about what happens here, and that is on us. That is why we need to shake things up and transform our reputation and performance. There is a lot at stake, and I am very much looking forward to playing my own role here in the future.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Mattinson. We expected an excellent maiden speech from her this morning and we were not disappointed, because the content, as well as the delivery, lived up to expectations. I congratulate my noble friend. As it happens, her speech was entirely in line with much of what was said by my friend from university days, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in relation to reputation.
I owe my noble friend Lady Mattinson a debt of gratitude. As she described, her entry into the wider political arena was in 1987. She said that did not engage in the dark arts, but I seem to remember she was working with someone who did, who is now our ambassador in Washington. I owe her one, because I entered the House of Commons in 1987 with the largest majority that I ever got—of over 24,000—and I never matched it again, so I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, talked about the reputation of politics and the way in which people see us—both in Parliament and outside—and the critical nature of the threat to democracy and the way in which we conduct ourselves. That is true in terms of young people. I did a citizenship class earlier this week with a school and discovered that none of the 28 young people read a newspaper. Only six of them ever regularly watched the evening news, but over half of them had, either deliberately or by algorithm, been affected by Andrew Tate. We have a major problem and we here in Parliament have to set an example.
I know—because I have supported my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on previous occasions—that the tortoise, and not the hare, is the way in which we conduct ourselves. When the tortoise gets shot, rather than the hare, we are in difficulty. I say to Members opposite that had the Grocott proposals been supported by the whole House, and they were by the majority, the historic Disraeli way of doing things from the Conservative Benches might have achieved a different outcome from the Bill we are dealing with in Committee at the moment.
On the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, transparency, clarity and support for the reputation of having people nominated to this House in a way that is understandable and justifiable are really important, as is the intent of the Bill to reduce numbers to no greater than in the House of Commons.
If my noble friend the Chief Whip will forgive me—I do not think he will—I want to finish by saying that I think there is a cunning plan. The cunning plan is that we are kept here until the early hours of the morning until the numbers drop by dint of the Grim Reaper. It is time that, even within our self-regulation, we got a grip, because there is not a trade union leader in Britain who would put up with the way we do things in terms of timetabling. It is time now to take on board both the first speeches here this morning and get the reputation of politics back on track.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it seems that we never stop talking about ourselves to ourselves, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on securing a Second Reading of this well-aired Bill and want to touch on three aspects.
The first is the significant amendment to the House of Lords Appointments Commission remit to include the criterion of
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”.
The emphasis was, and is, on maintaining the quality of the House of Lords by recruiting from a pool of those with conspicuous merit. The Bill enjoins the nominating bodies—be they political parties or other organisations—to submit, along with the nomination, the procedures and criteria involved in the initial selection of potential Peers. This points to the elimination of individuals who may offer only their donor credentials, rather than those of suitability and/or conspicuous merit.
Secondly, the requirement for the House of Lords to be no larger than the House of Commons imposes on the Prime Minister an obligation to be mindful of the number of Peers nominated by his or her office. The “one in, two out” procedure first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, would, in time, contribute to a reduction in the size of the House if further augmented by a renewed effort on the part of group Leaders to ask non-contributors to retire. As the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, presciently said in November 2022 when discussing the earlier Bill, a lack of restraint on numbers might cause a future Labour Government to feel justified in introducing stricter mechanisms. This we know to be true.
Thirdly, while many of these changes do not require primary legislation—all that is needed is the agreement of the Government and, hey presto, we could, in a short time, have a smaller, more effective, less expensive and a more justifiable Chamber—they do require the willingness of the Government of the day and, in particular, the Prime Minister to relinquish a measure of patronage power. It can only be hoped that this Bill, and other internal and external pressures, will create a culture in which this can happen. What I mean by this is that current and future Prime Ministers will feel bound to nominate new peerages very sparingly and with the new HOLAC criteria in mind.
This second attempt to adopt a modest, practical and effective Bill is once again before us and I hope that it might go significantly further this time around.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, not only because of the privilege of hearing from my noble friend Lady Mattinson, whom I am sure the Conservatives fear because of her incredible knowledge about the thinking and behaviour of voters, but to support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I now have the privilege of co-chairing the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. Indeed, as he described, much work has already been done by that campaign, not on my watch but before then, under his tutelage and that of the late Lord Cormack, much missed in this parish.
The Bill has been here before, as we heard, but without the then Government’s support. Interestingly, the Norton Bill was in some ways juggling for attention along with other Bills from my noble friend Lord Grocott to end hereditary by-elections, which the then Conservative Government refused to support—although I see that now they are out of office, they somehow think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps, now that Boris Johnson can no longer nominate reams of Peers—some not entirely to the liking of HOLAC—the Conservatives might also suddenly see the wisdom of today’s Bill and rush to its support.
The purpose of the Bill has been well elaborated by its sponsor. Therefore, I just want to do one thing: to underline the importance of the fact that if this change is enacted, it will have emanated from your Lordships’ House. That seems an important item. It is not a matter of us “pulling up the drawbridge” after we are all safely over it but of using our understanding of the role we play here, the demands made of our Members, the need for appropriate participation, the importance of balance between the two main parties, and the vital role that, as we all know, is played by the Cross Benches. It is about putting that together; we know there is a better way of scrutinising who should join us and the criteria for who should join us so that we have a House able to meet the very demanding asks we make of our Members.
There are of course issues in the Bill, not those referred to by the Delegated Powers Committee—which were a little over the top for a short Bill, but never mind—but others, which I hope we will be able to discuss in Committee. But this principle has to be right, and I am delighted to support the Bill in its Second Reading.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her most accomplished speech this morning. We are old friends and colleagues from another place, and although we have different political views, I look forward very much to hearing more from her in the period to come. I also thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the way in which he introduced this Bill, although I am afraid that I do not support it—I will explain why.
When the House debated the Burns report some years ago, I was one of the few Members who spoke against the recommendations. That was because it proposed that the House of Lords, an unelected House, should decide on the size and composition of itself, and I thought that was fundamentally wrong. I have the same objection, I am afraid, to the Bill before us today. It proposes to take away from the Prime Minister the power to appoint Members of this House. The last word on who sits and does not sit in this House would rest with members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission—not the elected House of Commons, the elected Government or the elected Prime Minister, but the unelected HOLAC. This is absolutely no criticism of the members of HOLAC; as far as I can tell, they are of unimpeachable integrity and wise and experienced —but they are not elected.
The Bill sets out two criteria, one of which is “conspicuous merit”, although I know my noble friend said he was not wedded to that particular form of words. I looked up “merit” in the dictionary, and it is defined as “excellence”. Of course, if we were looking for excellence in nursing, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, would pass with flying colours, and if we were looking at media, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would pass with flying colours. But it is such a woolly definition, and I am not sure why we should not have people in the House of “inconspicuous merit” as well.
I return to my core point. I cannot accept that Members of this House should be appointed by unelected people, however great and good they are. They are not elected.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a HOLAC-nominated Peer, and before I speak to my key point, I want to speak briefly about the impact of the HOLAC process on those of us who arrive through it.
Applying to HOLAC is much like applying for a job: you research the role and the organisation, complete an application and then articulate your suitability at interview. The panel has to be convinced not only by suitability but by capacity and your understanding of the House and the role of a Peer. That does not make us better or worse Peers but it shapes expectations and instils a strong sense that, while membership is a great privilege, it is also a job of work.
The key point I want to raise in relation to the Bill is criteria and, specifically, the clause allowing for additional criteria with
“regard to the diversity of the United Kingdom population”.
There is no constitutional requirement for this House to be representative, but most of us share an aspiration that it should fully reflect a diverse UK, and I understand this to mean not just religious and ethnic diversity but socioeconomic and geographic diversity. We want this House to include younger Peers, Peers who come from all parts of the country, from different faiths, ethnicities and socioeconomic groups, and we want them to attend on a regular basis.
Yet without some creative thinking, this aspiration will remain just that, because the combined effect of our procedures and systems and the London property market militates against the ambition to include people from outside London and the south-east—and particularly those who are younger or from lower socioeconomic groups. Without access to accommodation in or around London, Members are not only subject to the exorbitant cost of overnight stays but cannot be at home to meet caring or family responsibilities, and it is only by living within striking distance of the House that Peers without additional means can combine regular attendance with the kind of job that will allow them to secure and sustain a mortgage or accrue a pension.
This means that we risk having to choose between socioeconomic diversity, age, regional representation and attendance. A London-based schoolteacher could make it work, but it is hard to imagine how a 35 year-old teacher from, say, Bolton, could actively participate in the House while holding down her job.
Noble Lords might argue that our membership already includes young Peers from outside London, and of course it does, but the size of the sample group is hardly statistically valid. They might also argue that life Peers have managed this conundrum since 1958—but times have changed. Without radical thinking about our procedures and systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has already said, and without taking any account of intersectionality, we risk a situation in which our efforts to increase diversity may have the opposite effect.
A final point, in the minutes I do not have left, is the potential for HOLAC to fulfil a skills audit function, tasked over a fixed period with assessing what skills the House will lose on the departure of the hereditary Peers and then actively recruiting an agreed number to bring those skills to the House. In many cases, departing Peers would be the strongest candidates and would rejoin in a transparent and open process. It might uncover some brilliant new Peers but its real value would be that it had the continued effectiveness and reputation of the House at its heart. That is the intent of the Bill, and it should underpin all our efforts to reform this House and its membership.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to agree largely with the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, and to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her excellent maiden speech. As has been said, we are very aware of and respect her political expertise; we do not fear it. We welcome her to this House. I am quite sure she qualifies as having “conspicuous merit”.
I have some questions on this Bill, which restricts the Prime Minister’s ability to appoint Peers with an effective size restriction, but does not impose the same restraint on the commission, which could nominate unlimited numbers to this House, effectively restricting the Prime Minister’s capacity if we were to keep to the 650. There is a minimum size of 20% but not a maximum. Why is that? Strangely, the Bill then excludes people who have supported a party in the past two years from being four out of the nine nominated to the commission. Why is that? This is a political House, and politics determines our Members. Why should an unelected, opaque committee run by the elite to perpetuate the elite be allowed to veto a person the elected PM, who is elected by MPs to get to that position, wants to be part of the legislature? That is how it will be seen by the public.
Although I wholeheartedly approve of a mechanism to ensure that your Lordships’ House contains people who remain committed to work in the House, I do not believe the Bill achieves it. All it requires is that nominees must show
“a willingness and capacity to contribute”
at the time of being introduced—as if anyone would say, “Oh, I don’t have the willingness or the capacity”. I am an employee of a financial services company. I chair four charities. I am on the board of five others. I chair a public company. I am a treasurer of the party. If anyone looked at my record, they would say, “Well, he doesn’t have capacity”, but I have an 82% voting record.
I am also unhappy with the effective veto the commission would have over the PM’s choice. Nominations frequently come from opposition party leaders, thankfully. There is one case about which I happen to know more than most and in which, in my opinion, HOLAC was possibly ill informed and possibly then gave an ill-judged view. I would feel very uncomfortable that a commission of unelected people, however eminent, could overrule the democratically elected Prime Minister of this country. Who are they to determine what is “conspicuous merit”? That is fine, but what does “conspicuous merit” mean? As we discussed on the hereditaries Bill this week, is it people who just served well in their job, be it in the Commons, the judiciary, the civil service or business, who are entitled to be in this House? I argue not. Anyone who is to be elevated must show they have contributed to society over and above their paid, salaried day job. That does not seem to be envisaged in this Bill. Most importantly, they must show that they are able to contribute in areas where greater contribution is needed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, indicated, the Bill allows the commission itself to propose additional criteria without any approval from Parliament or government. This is a very dangerous open invitation to allow a private, secret, unelected group to determine who it thinks are appropriate Members of this House, when clearly that should remain with our Prime Minister —and, of course, other political leaders. The issue of judicial review, as eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, is still not determined. I welcome reform, but I do not believe this Bill addresses the real issues we face in this House.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in my view the Bill is clear and proportionate and gives HOLAC powers I believe it should have possessed when first established. In the very short time I have, I shall speak to two challenges the Bill engages, but first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and congratulate him on bringing it before your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on her excellent maiden speech. The undoubted merit of it was, and here I paraphrase the words of Robert Burns, the Scottish poet—who wrote them, by the way, in my former constituency—the gift to help us see ourselves as others see us.
On that subject, in recent years your Lordships’ House has been criticised as unrepresentative, but one way in which it has mirrored British society and economy is in the fact that it has suffered from gross inflation. Clause 3 stipulates that the Prime Minister, when recommending new life Peers, must have regard to the principle that the membership of the House of Lords must be no larger than that of the other place, as well as other measures ensuring political balance. It is possible to have too much of a good thing, and this measure is a good step towards rationing the number of ornaments to the legislative process who can serve in your Lordships’ House.
Clauses 2 and 7 amplify the power of HOLAC in its interaction with the Prime Minister of the day. Noble Lords will be familiar with the “good chaps” theory of government of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy: the notion that our conventions, including those around patronage, are predicated on the idea that those at the top of government could be relied on to behave ethically. In this connection, I feel that the decision of a previous Prime Minister to overrule HOLAC for the first time strengthens the argument for the provisions we are considering today. I understand the constitutional concerns of those who believe that granting HOLAC the power to refuse a prime ministerial nomination interferes with prerogative powers, but given that the two chief criteria by which such a refusal might be made are “conspicuous merit” and
“a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”,
I do not think these measures, while increasing public confidence in the process by which appointments are made, will meaningfully dilute prime ministerial power.
It is difficult to see how public life is improved by allowing the Prime Minister to appoint an unmeritorious Peer or one who is unwilling or unable meaningfully to contribute to our proceedings. It is rare that I venture a footballing analogy on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but I see this improved HOLAC as something analogous to VAR. Where the Prime Minister has made, to use footballing phraseology, a clear and obvious error in nominating someone unfit, HOLAC gives the Prime Minister the chance to think again and, if appropriate, resubmit the name after a two-year interval. There are many other merits that the Bill possesses but, mindful of time, I shall resume my seat and allow other noble Lords to continue to enumerate them.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I was canvassing one day, and I came across a man who had the simplest imaginable concern, which was to do with speed bumps. I said, “I tell you what I’m going to do; I’m going to get you the leader of your district council”. He said, “Oh yeah, that’ll be the day”. I said, “No, he’s just down the road”, I left the two of them together, and then the leader of the district council came back and said, “I’ve sorted him out”. I said, “That’s wonderful. What are you going to do about the traffic calming?”. He said, “I don’t mean that; I mean he’s voting for us”. I said, “That’s great, but what about the issue the poor fellow had about the speed bumps?”. He said, “Well, that’s not really to do with me; that’s county”. I said, “Hang on, wait a minute; you are a county councillor”—which he was, as well as being leader of his district council. He said, “Well, I say county; it’s really highways authority”. There we were, representing three of the four tiers of government under which this poor man was governed—and if the MP had been there, it would have been no different—and we could not begin to address the simplest concern he had about something that affected his life every day.
Now, is it any wonder that that man, and millions like him, have stopped voting? They no longer see any connection between where they mark their ballot and any consequential changes in their life. Power has been shifted from elected representatives to unelected officials. Where are we allowed to drill for oil? What sentences can courts impose? On what terms can disruptive children be excluded from class? On what terms can people who entered this country illegally be deported? These are no longer decisions made by people who are in any sense accountable to the rest of the country. We have this myth that somehow when people are appointed to these quangos and expert bodies, their prejudices and assumptions disappear and they become magically wise and disinterested simply by virtue of being appointed. But that is not true of other quangos, and it is not true of HOLAC.
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State for Health has just said about not just abolishing the large quangocracy at the top of the NHS but this being part of a broader democratisation process. I hope we all support the Government in that endeavour, but how can we then say that one of the two legislative Chambers should be appointed by a bunch of good chaps without any direct oversight by the population? By the way, who appoints HOLAC—quis custodiet ipsos custodes? At the moment it is appointed by the Prime Minister, but since the whole object—the purpose, if I understand it—of my noble friend Lord Norton’s Bill is to try to take away that power from the Executive, presumably there would have to be some different method of appointing it. How are we going to do that? It seems to me that the only fair way of ensuring an appointments mechanism that is genuinely answerable to the population would be to elect HOLAC. Hang on—if we are going to do that, why not go the whole hog, totus porcus, and elect your Lordships’ Chamber too?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I praise the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his perseverance on this subject. I spoke at Second Reading on 18 November 2022, and am privileged to do so again. Once again, his timing is exemplary. The previous debate took place in the wake of a previous Prime Minister’s rather generous showering of new Peers on this Chamber—a syndrome I have referred to on more than one occasion as long Boris. This time, we have a new Government and a lot of talk about House of Lords reform, most of it far less focused than this quite small, modest Bill.
I speak as somebody who is a hereditary Peer of clearly inconspicuous merit, but somebody who has professionally advised on appointments for 31 years as a headhunter. Putting boards and executive teams together is rather like constructing a jigsaw; each piece is slightly different. I also chair a fairly active nominations and governance committee.
If we look at what this House does best, we find that it is very simple: it is scrutiny of legislation and it is committee work. In the House of Commons, it is all about numbers and getting your legislation through or opposing the other side through thick and thin. In the House of Lords, it is more about getting it right, which sometimes means losing a vote or having thoughtful interventions—heaven forbid—by one’s own party colleagues. Getting it right could be greatly improved by a more thoughtful and strategic approach to who is appointed and why. The people’s Peers are quite a good example of that.
If we look at the 30 new colleagues announced on the Government’s side in December, we see that 22 of them—in other words, 73%—are a combination of ex-Members of Parliament and ex-members of trade unions or leaders of unions, and that six have worked with and for the party. I in no way question their collective or individual merits. Indeed, as Nick Thomas-Symonds wrote on 5 December:
“It is for party leaders to consider who is best placed to represent their party in the House of Lords when nominating individuals for appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/24; col. 21WS.]
Is this a sufficiently thoughtful and strategic way of building the necessary capability for this House to do what it does best? We should use the opportunity given by the debate about reform to look more broadly at the bigger picture. Justification versus assertion is a good basis on which to proceed.
Clearly, this Bill is a stalking horse, and a very good one, for thinking about appointment to this rather extraordinary institution as part of a broader debate about reform. I urge the Government to co-opt it and to assist the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in nudging us bravely into the second quarter of the 21st century.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice once again in support of this Bill. It is a useful measure to enhance the effectiveness and credibility of this House. I say in passing, if I may, that I really enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson. She will make a huge contribution to the work before us.
I welcome this debate for three reasons. First, there are the merits of the case for this Bill, which were well spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, this morning. It is aimed at increasing public trust in the process by which Members are appointed to this House. The measure enjoys widespread support in this House, among constitutional experts and among the public at large. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has listened to comments made on his previous draft Bill and has produced a revised version. It deserves considerable attention and further consideration.
Secondly, I want to use this opportunity to urge the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to continue with a programme of wider reform of the House of Lords. It is not enough for the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to be the end of the story. There is so much more to be done. It will take parliamentary time, but it will be time well spent if it results in better lawmaking and greater trust in Parliament.
This brings me to my last point. I, like others, want to put this proposed reform in the wider context that is on all our minds. Our democracy is under threat as never before: externally, from a radically more unstable international environment, and internally, from the erosion of public trust in democratic institutions. We can and we will respond to these challenges. One imperative among many is to redouble our efforts to strengthen our own parliamentary system through a clear agenda of constitutional reform. This modest but sensible proposal is part of that process.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on her excellent speech; I look forward to many more contributions.
I give broad support for this Bill. This is the third day this week that we have debated, in effect, this House. As a Deputy Speaker, I have sat at the Table listening to some very interesting speeches This Bill is about the future and, when the history is written of the reform of the 2020s, if noble Lords do not mind my saying so, I think that my noble friend Lord Grocott, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, will all have their place in it. I speak as a fellow member of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. Our current system of appointments is widely thought to be inadequate to protect the reputation of the House and, hence, to protect the credibility of its work. After all, and despite the surroundings of this building, we are a workshop, not a museum.
In the time available, I want to make a couple of brief points. To start with a word about Part 3, I listened to an exchange earlier this week between the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about whether putting it on a statutory basis would make it justiciable. I am not a lawyer, but I am convinced, partly by the exchange and partly by Clause 3, that that would not be a problem for the future. It is right for HOLAC to give advice, but it is still right for the Prime Minister to refuse it. What this Bill will do is to strengthen the position of HOLAC vis-à-vis the Prime Minister. I do not blame Prime Ministers—I do not think that there is anyone here, if they became a Prime Minister, who would not be tempted by the power of patronage. For every person you appoint, you can keep 10 people hovering about trying to do what you want anyway.
I look at this Bill in the context of British political and constitutional history: the struggle for the franchise; the struggle of Parliament over the monarch, and now the Executive. We have fought kings in the past. I remember that, in the previous debate we had on this in November 2022, our noble and dear departed friend Lord Judge made a wonderful speech about this, which is well worth listening to. This Bill has its place in the story of reform. It may be that the Government do not choose to support it today, but, when we look ahead, I think it will form part of the future and a wider package of reforms, which we do not have time to discuss at length now. On that basis, this is a Bill that is worth debating and worth giving a Second Reading to today, so that the debate can move forward.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said about this Bill—it is essential to our democracy. In the democratic principles, Parliament makes the rules and the Executive are meant to carry them out, enforce them and run things. The Prime Minister is the head of the Executive; he is the First Minister of the Executive. However, because of accidents of history, he is also the King’s adviser. A lot of the powers that the Prime Minister has were the old prerogative powers of the Crown before Magna Carta, when some were taken away because we did not want to circumscribe those things. Certain things were left with the Crown, including the power to make war and make treaties, and to appoint Lords to create new peerages. It is a relic of the past.
People have said, in rubbishing some of the issues around the hereditary peerage Bill, that this is okay and is democratic because it goes through the democratically elected Prime Minister, who recommends to the King that the Peers should be appointed and brought to the Lords. The trouble with this is that our system is, as Lord Hailsham described it in 1976, an “elective dictatorship”. For five years or thereabouts, the Prime Minister has a lot of absolute power, and there is very little control over that—it is not quite as democratic as one thinks.
This Bill would allow a certain amount of parliamentary control over that right of the Prime Minister, which dates back hundreds of years, after they have been elected, when they may no longer be subjected to as much parliamentary control. Very often, Governments are not elected by the majority of the public anyway, so there are issues like that. This Bill goes a long way to addressing that. We can toy around with things, but we should start with the Bill and then move forward from there.
The Bill addresses the big concern that Parliament, certainly the Lords, will lose its independent voice. This is a brilliant way of ensuring that the Cross-Bench element, and the various members of the public who are not interested or do not have the mindset to become politicians—who can be very different from people who have technical mindsets or particular interests—are still maintained in Parliament at some level. That is essential. This Bill goes a long way towards resolving it.
If the Government were to add this Bill’s provisions to the hereditary Peers Bill, it would go some way to fulfilling the Privy Council oath, given that the departure of the remaining hereditary Peers would be linked to democratic reform of the Lords. Personally, I would insert it there and we would do the whole thing in one go; I and the other departing hereditaries would be much happier with that.
The point about the ouster clause is a good one. The problem of judicial review over these appointments was raised in the other debate. It is a good idea; it would prevent that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this Bill, both on principle and because I think it is piecemeal in nature, poorly drafted and pernicious. It fails to address important questions: will it widen participation and make this House more democratic, more efficient, more effective and more inclusive?
Putting HOLAC on a statutory footing will embed semi-permanently an already closed and opaque system of appointment. It will result in the establishment of an unaccountable, undemocratic and self-perpetuating body whose Members share the same liberal, metropolitan viewpoint and hostility to those who take a contrary opinion. It will weaken the reputation and legitimacy of this House and, more fundamentally, undermine the Prime Minister’s long-established constitutional prerogative right to appoint Peers on a case-by-case basis in an open system that guarantees accountability to Parliament, to his or her constituents, to the media and to others. HOLAC adjudicating on propriety is one thing, but suitability is a step too far.
The Bill also continues the regrettable trend of the accretion of power and decision-making away from elected politicians and towards quangos—and more recently, inter alia, activist judges. It is predicated on the idea that HOLAC is a model of success, but is it? Although noble Lords appointed by HOLAC are of course noted for their knowledge, skills, experience and wisdom, they remain drawn from a narrow educational, social, political, economic and demographic cohort. Will we see more working-class men from Yorkshire and the east Midlands? Will we see more young women, people from south Wales and disabled people? I doubt it.
As my noble friend Lord Hannan said, it is a myth that any public body can be truly independent and impartial. Every sentient, thinking person is subject to predisposition, prejudice and assumption. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton: the “good chap” theory of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, was never about heavy-handed legislation. It was always about enduring conventions; it is a value judgment whether they have been observed.
Finally, the Bill contains a number of clauses that are deeply worrying. The words “as it deems appropriate” do lot of heavy lifting in Clauses 5, 7 and 8. I am particularly concerned about the ouster clause, Clause 10 on non-justiciability, which I believe is unprecedented and problematic and will potentially be struck out in Committee.
In conclusion, we all know that, to a certain extent, this legislation arose from one hard case under the premiership of Boris Johnson in 2020. That is regrettable because, as we know, hard cases are very likely to make very bad law.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill and the process of making HOLAC statutory. I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, but I do not have time to explain why today. In my view, there are more important issues affecting this House before we consider election, the age of Members and other similar matters. The excellent maiden speech gave us a great deal to think about and reflect upon; I am very grateful for that.
In my view, the reputation of this House is much affected by its size. We are the largest House in the world apart from China. I do not think that goes down all that well with the public. Why are we so large? It is due to the prerogative and to the appointments made by successive Prime Ministers over the years I have been in this House, which is quite a long time. Some of them are bringing in more than 200 Members during a period of six or eight years. There is no requirement on somebody invited to become a Member of this House to make any sort of contribution, and there is no requirement to attend. When you think about it, is that not extraordinary?
So we have those who do not attend. I asked for some statistics from the Library. I understand that 127 Members had attendance rates of between 0% and 9% last year, while 110 Members were between 10% and 19%. All attended less than 20% of our sittings, and some almost nought. Moreover, we have leaves of absence. There is one Member who has been out for eight and a half years on a leave of absence, and quite a number who have been away for several years. We now have a rule that if people cease to attend altogether, they cease to be Members, but only 16 people have ceased to be Members under that rule.
We are losing the hereditary Peers—it is right that they should go because the way in which they come in is unacceptable nowadays—but the fact is that they have made an enormous contribution to this House, yet no one is doing anything about those who do not attend or contribute. There is no suggestion to deal with that from the Government. Could not this House, by our own rules, look at what we might be able to do and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, become the hares, not the tortoises?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on his tenacity in working with other Members of this House to advance issues that improve our reputation and effectiveness, and on his masterful introduction to his Bill this morning. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her striking maiden speech. She brings to the House great knowledge and understanding of what people think; her statistics about the reputation of the House were devastating and must, I believe, be acted on.
In this House there are radical reformers, those who support only modest and incremental reforms, and a few Members who can hardly be regarded as reformers at all. The principles of this Bill have appeared today to have the general support of all but the third group. The objections of the noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne, Lord Leigh and Lord Hannan, appear to be based on far greater trust in the people who become Prime Minister than most people have. I and my party are in the first group: radical reformers. We would go much further than this Bill. Moving to an elected Chamber has been our stance since Liberal Governments had to fight general elections on the issue of House of Lords reform before the First World War.
Being radical reformers does not by any means put us on the opposing side of serious attempts to improve both the reputation and the effectiveness of the House. The urgency of enacting the kind of reforms proposed in this Bill has increased over time since the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in 2000. Soon afterwards, the cash for honours scandal erupted. In the investigation that followed, I was personally thanked by the former Scotland Yard assistant commissioner known as “Yates of the Yard” for the information I provided to him about how Peers were nominated and how political parties recorded donations. Exactly 100 years after Lloyd George’s selling of peerages was supposed to be banned by the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, the link between major party donors, who are legally allowed to give unlimited sums of money, and the creation of new peerages continues to cause controversy.
It is not just cash that causes controversy over our appointments. The scale of them—the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to the condition of “long Boris”, and I think we know what he means—the lack of transparency and sometimes their appropriateness cause genuine concern. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the significant ethical concerns about some appointments. The lack of effective scrutiny backed by investigatory powers, and the present powers of the Prime Minister to simply override objections from HOLAC, make it harder for some Peers to be seen as worthy Members doing a good job.
The argument has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others, that we should not interfere with the role of the Prime Minister as adviser to the King. Previous monarchs, such as Edward VII, found themselves embroiled in controversy by entreating this House to either support the People’s Budget or to face the creation of hundreds of Liberal Peers committed to it. Such controversy is unthinkable in the 21st century, so there is absolutely no constraint on the Prime Minister acting as adviser to the King.
It has been suggested that Prime Ministers are somehow subject to the democratic accountability of the electorate. But how was the electorate able to exercise its judgement over the 79 life peerages created by Boris Johnson, especially those on his resignation list, or the 32 peerages created by Liz Truss after being Prime Minister for just 49 days? Even Prime Ministers who face a general election are not subject to proper scrutiny over their nominations to this place. Has anyone here ever seen specific references to a person being made a Peer in a candidate’s election address, a party broadcast or a press conference? No; we do not have real scrutiny over prime ministerial nominations, especially when objections from HOLAC can be overruled.
Sometimes, our only weapon is ridicule. I recall the pithy response of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who is not in his place, saying of Boris Johnson’s appointments that he was reminded of Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate. That was prevented only by the assassination of Caligula. How can Prime Ministers be held accountable for their appointments when they have had to be defenestrated by their own party before facing a general election?
This Bill is not a radical reform but a sensible step forward, and we should not oppose modest reforms just because we believe that they may not go far enough. We need greater checks and balances in our system. There is too much power with an Executive who are not directly elected, and not enough with the legislature—both parts of which should be chosen, in our view, by those directly affected by the laws that it passes.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, replies to the debate on behalf of the Government, I remind him of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, when she wound up for the Opposition at the end of the Second Reading of a similar Bill in November 2022. She said:
“We are broadly in agreement on where we are seeking to get to, with occasional differences on the right way to achieve that”.—[Official Report, 18/11/22; col. 1122.]
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will assure us of government support, at some point, to take this measure forward with further scrutiny and enable a necessary and worthwhile reform to take place.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on securing the Second Reading of his Bill and thank him very much for setting out his arguments with such clarity. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her interesting and informative maiden speech. I wholeheartedly agree with her that we should promote the excellent work of your Lordships’ House.
I think we can all agree that we want a House of Lords that serves with integrity and commands public trust, and an appointments process that preserves the best of our traditions while adapting to the demands of modern democracy. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, currently provides a non-statutory safeguard within the process for appointments to this House. It has a clear but limited role: to recommend non-party-political Members for the Cross Benches, ensuring that this House benefits from independent expertise; and to provide vetting advice on nominations for life peerages. Crucially, its recommendations are advisory and do not bind a Prime Minister.
A number of noble Lords have emphasised the modest nature of the changes in my noble friend’s Bill, but it proposes significant changes to the powers and operation of HOLAC, including making its recommendations binding and placing it on a statutory basis. It also places greater powers of nomination to this unelected Chamber in the hands of an unelected committee, as my noble friend Lord Leigh so effectively highlighted, as well as putting de facto limits on the number of Peers that can be created. Although I deeply respect my noble friend’s intentions, I must express my concerns regarding the direction of travel that most of these proposals suggest.
The Bill would establish HOLAC on a statutory basis and strengthen the commission’s role in the appointments process. The aim—to secure greater legitimacy and transparency for HOLAC—is honourable. The effect, however, would be disastrous. Placing HOLAC on a statutory footing would not clarify its role; it would fundamentally alter it. Legislation would create a legal framework against which HOLAC’s decisions could be formally challenged in court, opening the door for both the malicious and the litigious to claim that it had failed to fulfil its legal duties. These concerns have been raised previously by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne, who has served on the commission, and by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, a distinguished former chairman.
Instead of providing independent advice to the Prime Minister, HOLAC would become a body subject to judicial review, forced to justify its reasoning in court, constrained by legal precedent and bound to operate not based on judgment but within the narrow confines of justiciability. Candidates not recommended for appointment as Cross-Bench Peers could contest the basis on which they were excluded. Those who failed the conspicuous merit test, which is based on judgment rather than law, could argue that it had been misapplied. The Prime Minister’s discretion, exercised on HOLAC’s advice, would be second-guessed not in this House but in the courts.
I appreciate that Clause 10 seeks to make the commission’s recommendations non-justiciable, but the courts have shown increased willingness to interpret and disapply ouster clauses, particularly where fundamental principles of legality and procedural fairness are at stake. I share my noble friend Lord Jackson’s concerns on this point. The courts should have no role in determining the membership of your Lordships’ House. That would run contrary to the principle of a separation of powers.
Clause 2 would strengthen the commission’s role in the appointments process in two key respects. First, the Prime Minister would be required to refer the name of an individual to the commission before recommending them for a life peerage. Secondly, it would require the Prime Minister to wait until the commission had advised on whether a nominated individual met specific criteria before recommending them to the Crown, in effet, giving it a veto over nominations. This would represent a profound constitutional change. The Prime Minister—the only person in this process with a democratic mandate —would be restricted in their ability to recommend life peerages and the power would be vested in an unelected and ultimately unaccountable body.
The Prime Minister does not act alone. HOLAC already plays an important advisory role, scrutinising appointments and applying the propriety test, but, crucially, the Prime Minister makes the final decision. That balance matters. If HOLAC gets it wrong—if it misjudges a candidate or applies the conspicuous merit test too narrowly or loosely—the Prime Minister can correct it. If the Prime Minister gets it wrong, he or she faces scrutiny, challenge and, ultimately, the judgment of the electorate. This system holds both in check. If the Prime Minister were stripped of that role, HOLAC’s decisions would become final. There would be no backstop, political oversight or democratic accountability. More than that, it would break a fundamental constitutional principle, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, emphasised so effectively earlier this week. The Prime Minister is the monarch’s chief adviser; it is not for an unelected commission to take on that role—a point reinforced very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Sherbourne.
Appointments to this House must be made by those who answer to the people, not a body with no democratic mandate, no political accountability and no direct link to the people. The principal criteria for appointing new Peers in Clause 7 of the Bill are
“conspicuous merit, and a willingness and capacity to contribute to the work of the House of Lords”.
While I understand the intention behind this, I struggle to see how one could determine legally what constitutes conspicuous merit and how contribution would be measured. We have endured a number of debates on that very issue this week. These are by their very nature subjective judgments and in a democracy such judgments should ultimately rest with those who are accountable to the people, rather than with those who are accountable to no one.
These amendments do not simply tweak the appointments process. They fundamentally recast the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. HOLAC was created as an advisory committee, to advise, not command. To make its recommendations binding is to transform it from a source of counsel to the ultimate arbiter of membership of your Lordships’ House. It would no longer be a check but a gatekeeper. This Bill claims to fortify the appointments process by placing HOLAC on a statutory footing, yet at the same time it strips away one of the most fundamental principles of good governance: accountability. It grants HOLAC the power to block nominations for two years but then shields its decisions from judicial review.
This is not some dry technicality. It is a profound shift in constitutional authority. At present, the system balances expert scrutiny with democratic accountability. HOLAC advises, the Prime Minister decides. If a Prime Minister presses her head against its recommendation, the commission ensures transparency by informing Parliament. The check is there, the scrutiny is real. Crucially, it is the Prime Minister, not an unelected committee, who must justify their judgment to the country.
HOLAC plays an important role in safeguarding propriety and ensuring that this House retains, and is seen to retain, its reputation for expertise and integrity. I am sure that the Prime Minister, like his predecessors, will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. I also commend the Government’s decision to introduce a requirement to provide citations for all new appointments to your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friends Lord Hannan of Kingsclere and Lord Jackson of Peterborough made very clear, no advisory body is truly neutral and objectivity is hard to achieve. HOLAC is no exception. It offers judgment, not infallibility. Expanding its powers risks creating a system which is neither accountable nor impartial. We must be wary of trading one form of discretion for another, especially when it moves further from democratic oversight. The balance that we have is not perfect, but it preserves scrutiny and responsibility in a way that reinforces rather than undermines the legitimacy of this House.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on securing the Second Reading of his Bill. He has shown persistence in pushing forward this issue over the last few years and has led this debate with his customary thought and consideration. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Mattinson on a wonderful maiden speech. I have known and worked with her for many years and look forward to hearing from her many more times. She will make a great contribution to this House in our deliberations in the years to come.
As we have heard, this Bill would put arrangements for the House of Lords Appointments Commission in statute for the first time. The commission would maintain its role of nominating Cross-Bench Peers to the Prime Minister, but would also be able to set out new criteria against which it should judge and advise on political nominations to your Lordships’ House. This would require the Prime Minister to follow the commission’s advice. The Prime Minister would not be able to recommend Peers to the sovereign where the commission has deemed that they do not meet the suitability criteria. The Bill also stipulates considerations that the Prime Minister must make when recommending new Peers, relating to the size and composition of the House.
A similar Bill received support in this House back in 2022. However, the context this time is different from the context of the noble Lord’s previous Bills on this topic. The Government agree that we need to reform the appointments system and we remain committed to wider House of Lords reform—a pointed raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. We have an ambitious programme of reform for this House, which we have made an immediate start on. When the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said that he wanted to remind me of certain words, I was pleased that they were not my words. However, I do believe that there is a desire for reform across the House. We have made a start in line with our manifesto commitments.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is currently in Committee in this House. It will remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and to vote in this place. I recognise the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to this House over many years—a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Government have committed to reforming the process of appointments to the second Chamber, to ensure the quality of new appointments and improve the national and regional balance of your Lordships’ House. However, this Bill represents a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities of the appointments system. That, as I will outline, risks undermining the proper lines of accountability.
There has been much discussion about the Prime Minister’s role in appointments to this House, so I will first address the roles and responsibilities of the appointments system that the Bill seeks to change. Constitutionally, it is for the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, to make recommendations on individuals appointed to this place. By convention, the Prime Minister invites nominations from other political parties, which decide who is best placed to represent their party in the second Chamber. The Prime Minister passes on the nominations of the party leaders without comment, provided that they meet the commission’s propriety checks. This is important. The Prime Minister passes them on to the sovereign without comment.
As my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent made clear in Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill only this week, this is an important principle. The Prime Minister and other party leaders are democratically elected and accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, and they should be held to account for the political nominations that they make to your Lordships’ House. The House of Lords Appointments Commission advises the Prime Minister on the propriety of individuals nominated to the party Benches in this place. This propriety advice is important to the Prime Minister as he discharges his duty to recommend new life peerages to the sovereign. The commission also has an important role in nominating individuals to the Cross Benches. As with nominations from party leaders, the Prime Minister will pass these on to the sovereign.
The noble Lord’s Bill attempts to put in statute that the commission will judge political nominees not only on their propriety but their suitability, and that the Prime Minister must follow this advice. This would give the commission, an unelected body, the power to veto the Prime Minister’s and the party leaders’ nominations to this place. The noble Lords, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury and Lord Leigh of Hurley, and other noble Lords, made this point.
As I have set out, it is for party leaders to give due consideration to the quality and suitability of new Peers. Party leaders must accept responsibility for their nominations to this place. We cannot and should not expect the commission to take on this responsibility. In my nearly 15 years in this House, I have made many great friends on all Benches. We have wonderful Members who do great work in this House and did great work before they came to this House. They should be congratulated on that.
This Bill would represent a fundamental shift in the responsibility to make appointments to this House and would risk undermining the democratic lines of accountability that currently exist in the appointments process—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne. The Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also requires that the Prime Minister, in considering recommendations for new peerages, should have regard to the fact that at least 20% of the membership of this place should be non-party political, that no party can have an absolute majority in the House of Lords and that the membership should be no larger than that of the House of Commons. It also gives the commission the ability to advise the Prime Minister on reducing the size of the House.
The House may be sympathetic to these principles that the noble Lord has set out. I note that in recent years no party has held an overall majority in this place. Indeed, since the removal of the majority of the hereditary Peers in 1999, no party has held more than 40% of the seats, nor has the proportion of the Cross-Benchers been below 20% in the Chamber during this time. But the Government share the concern regarding the size of the House: it has become too big. We have committed to reforming your Lordships’ House to achieve a smaller, more active Chamber that better reflects the country it serves. I note that noble Lords made this point, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.
Our manifesto commitments set out how we intend to achieve that, by reforming the process of appointments to this place, as well as by introducing a mandatory retirement age, which will bring down the size of the House, and a participation requirement. As an immediate step in our reform, we have introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which, as I said, will remove the right of the remaining hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this place, completing the work of the 1999 Act.
We are in a very different position from when the noble Lord first introduced his Bill. The Government of the day now have a clear manifesto commitment for reforms to this place and we have an ongoing dialogue to consider the options of how we can best implement these commitments. Setting in statute requirements around the size and composition of the House and giving the commission a role on advising on reducing its size would cut across the dialogue on the wider reforms to the House that the Government are proposing.
The Government have already taken the straightforward but important step to help shore up trust in the appointments process, introducing a requirement that political parties must, on nominating individuals, provide a citation explaining why individuals have been nominated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, mentioned. These citations are published on the GOV.UK website following a nominee’s successful appointment, in order to provide greater clarity for the public about how and why party leaders chose their nominations to your Lordships’ House. This will encourage political parties to take greater responsibility for their nominations, which, as I said, are for party leaders to decide and to be held accountable for.
It is right that we should take the time to properly consider how we reform the appointment system and the commission’s role within it as part of the wider standards landscape. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he is committed to restoring trust in government. We are committed to keeping the ethics bodies under review and, where necessary, delivering reforms to ensure the highest standards in public life. Indeed, the Government have already demonstrated their willingness to strengthen the independent protections within the existing standards landscape. The Prime Minister has, for example, significantly strengthened the remit of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, giving them the ability to initiate an investigation into ministerial standards without requiring the Prime Minister’s consent. However, we do not think that this Bill’s proposals are right for the House of Lords Appointments Commission or the wider appointment system at this time.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for raising these important issues and provoking a discussion on reforms to the House of Lords appointments process. We know that there is work to be done to reform this House and we have an ambitious programme to do just that. We are eager to maintain the ongoing dialogue with your Lordships’ House about the reforms to this Chamber. We need to allow time to consider how best to implement our manifesto commitment to reform the appointment system as part of our wider programme of reform. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, so eloquently set out for us during the Committee stage of the Hereditary Peers Bill:
“The sovereign, the King, creates Members of your Lordships’ House. There must be somebody to advise him. It must be a democratically elected person and that has to be the Prime Minister”.—[Official Report, 10/3/25; col. 514.]
In the end, the Prime Minister has to take responsibility. The Bill would represent a fundamental shift in the roles and responsibilities of the appointment system that the Government cannot accept. The Government, therefore, have reservations about the Bill.
Finally, I should say that I have huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. His contributions to this House are always thoughtful, challenging and considered. His role will help the Government in the further work that we want to bring to this House.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I think that I am in order in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Mattinson, on her excellent maiden speech. The noble Baroness noted that the public do not trust politicians to tell the truth. Opinion polls show that the public trust professors to tell the truth; I shall therefore speak as a professor.
There have been some excellent speeches. I am especially grateful to those who have added their voice in support of the Bill, which has been the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken. I will deal briefly with those who took a contrary view. My noble friends Lord Sherbourne and Lord Leigh of Hurley may not appear dangerous radicals but, de facto, I am afraid that that is what they are. If we do not make modest change now, much more radical change will come later, and neither of my noble friends advanced alternatives to what I am proposing to deal with the problem that we have identified.
My noble friend Lord Jackson uncharacteristically got one or two things wrong: first, the Bill predates the Johnson premiership, as I explained in my opening speech; and, secondly, Clause 10 is not unprecedented, again as I explained. My noble friend Lady Finn did not explain why the ouster clause will not work in this Bill but apparently will work in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act. I also note that my noble friend did not engage with or come up with any alternatives to the present system, which attracts the criticism that we have heard and has been well adumbrated by Peers in this debate.
The assertion as to the Prime Minister’s accountability for making nominations is built on thin ice. I will not digress on to the point about party leaders being elected: Governments are elected through elections to the House of Commons, while party leaders are elected by their own parties. The point is accountability. I am about to write a chapter on Maundy Gregory for a book on political fixers. His activities led to a change in the law: the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. There is no reason why there should not be a further change in the law and every reason why there should be.
I reiterate the need for reform of the nomination process. We do not exist in a vacuum, although some noble Lords have spoken as if we do. We need to achieve public trust in that process. This Bill is designed to make it clear that we recognise that. As I tell my students, Private Members’ Bills do not normally make it to the statute book. Their value is in raising issues and getting them debated. They help to bring issues on to the political agenda. This debate has achieved that purpose.
Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, thank you for being here today for my Private Member’s Bill on the recognition of Palestine. In the light of recent proposals by President Trump and huge global instability, I think that this Bill has become even more vital. The idea that Gaza should be cleared out and its population moved to other countries to become an American riviera is deeply shocking. My Bill would require the Government to recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on pre-1967 lines, just as almost 150 of the 193 UN countries have done. Some say that recognition is merely symbolic, not changing anything on the ground, but recognition has importance—that Palestinians have the right to self-determination, national rights and the legal benefits of that, just like Israelis.
Some say that it is too late: the Swiss cheese effect of Israeli settlements, roads, walls and checkpoints in the Occupied Palestinian Territories means that a contiguous Palestinian state is no longer viable. The actions and words of the current Israeli Government seem intent on making it even less likely. Several Israeli Ministers have been clear that they will never accept such an outcome.
Nevertheless, most countries, including the UK, remain committed to a two-state solution. Probably most speakers today, including the Minister, will support this, but if it is to be delivered it becomes urgent to take it forward, lest it becomes impossible, with ramifications both for Palestinians and for the long-term future security of Israel.
Some say that recognition now would be seen as a reward for the Hamas terrorists who carried out the atrocities of 7 October. Absolutely not: this would be the long-overdue recognition of a state for the Palestinian people, not for a particular group. As Sir Vincent Fean, former British consul-general in Jerusalem, has said:
“The voices of moderation on both sides need encouragement”.
They need the hope of a political process. As three Israeli former ambassadors—who, by bravely speaking out, face much opposition—have said,
“recognition would not benefit the Palestinians alone. At this point in time, there can be no greater contribution to peace and security for us Israelis as well”.
Britain, of course, has a special responsibility. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was made here. Balfour spoke of a national homeland for Jewish people in Palestine, but he also spoke about safeguarding the
“civil and religious rights of … non-Jewish communities”.
Israel was recognised in 1948, in the wake of appalling Nazi horrors and centuries of persecution, but no state was established alongside for the displaced Palestinians. This was never likely to be settled and stable, and so it has proved.
We know that Israeli Governments have opposed Palestinian sovereignty and sought to freeze out those countries, most recently Norway and Ireland, that have recognised Palestine. The former ambassadors state:
“Reluctance by key western states to recognise Palestine has fed Israel’s misguided belief that the bestowal of Palestinian independence is its prerogative, to be conferred when the Palestinians meet its requirements”.
But it cannot be the case that an established state should be able to veto the recognition of a neighbour in its own territories. Neither can this be subject to negotiation and conditions.
In 2019, Luxembourg called for the EU to recognise Palestine. Its Foreign Minister said:
“Recognising Palestine as a state would be neither a favour nor a carte blanche, but rather a mere recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to their own state. It would not be meant against Israel”,
but a measure intended to pave the way for a two-state solution.
In 2011, William Hague, the then Foreign Secretary—and now the noble Lord, Lord Hague—stated:
“The United Kingdom judges that the Palestinian Authority largely fulfils criteria for UN membership, including statehood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/11; col. 290.]
Palestine was granted observer status at the UN General Assembly in 2012.
In 2014, the Commons voted for recognition, with the Minister’s support. In putting that Motion, Grahame Morris MP argued:
“Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right … As it stands, Israel has little motivation or encouragement … to enter into meaningful negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; col. 64.]
Alan Duncan, as Minister, concluded that recognition was
“the other half of the commitment that our predecessors in this House made as part of the British mandate in the region”.
This was not, he argued, about recognising a particular Government:
“It is states that are recognised, not Governments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/14; cols. 71-72.]
In 2017, this House’s International Relations Committee stated:
“The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.
It is my party’s position to recognise Palestine. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, as Labour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, stated repeatedly Labour’s commitment to the two-state solution. Thus, in 2024, he said that we need to
“give hope to that process and move towards recognising a Palestinian state, rather than waiting for the end of the process”.—[Official Report, 5/3/24; col. 1539.]
It is something with which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as Foreign Secretary, appeared to agree in early 2024, until reduced back to the traditional government line. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, noted,
“when the Foreign Secretary made the original statement, he was very clear that we need to show irreversible progress towards a two-state solution … My right honourable friend David Lammy welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s comments, arguing that recognition should not wait for the final status agreement but should be part of efforts to achieve one”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; cols. 148-49.]
The 2024 Labour Party manifesto stated:
“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel”.
So, to my very straightforward Bill. Clause 1 requires the recognition of Palestine
“as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the State of Palestine”.
The wording is taken from UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, specifying in the UN’s own terms what it means to be a recognised state. Clause 1(2) specifies that “pre-1967 borders”
“has the same meaning as in resolution 76/10 (2021) of the UN General Assembly”
and other such resolutions. Clause 2 recognises the mission of Palestine in London as “a full diplomatic mission”. Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within two months of the passage of the Act on steps taken to implement it.
This is all very familiar and all in line with what other countries have done: to recognise Palestine according to the pre-1967 borders, with any change to that to be achieved through negotiation. For those who argue that we cannot recognise a state without settled borders, we recognise Israel, rightly, but Israel itself does not declare its own borders; indeed, it claims the territory of other states. Britain recognised Israel in 1950 without the defining of borders or its capital; it did not wait for the outcome of negotiations.
This is solely a bilateral issue between Britain and Palestine. Labour’s stance in opposition created the hope that it would recognise Palestine, but hope for the Palestinians always seems to be over the horizon.
So if we hear once again that it is not the right time, in effect denying the same rights to self-determination that Israeli citizens have, then I will find myself thinking back, among other things, to a visit I made to Saudi Arabia with other parliamentarians in the mid-2000s. It was a time when the rights of women there were severely curtailed. In a break in our meetings, I went down to the pool in our hotel. “You can’t swim now”, I was told, “It isn’t the ‘woman’s hour’”. “When is the woman’s hour?”, I asked. “There isn’t one”, came the reply.
Recognising two states should have happened long ago. My short little Bill seeks to rectify that. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing forward this Bill and setting out the case so clearly and powerfully. The United Kingdom has a historic responsibility going back to the time of the mandate. We have to act upon that. What we have to do now, I believe, is to work for an immediate two-state solution. So many countries have already recognised Palestine: 140 of 193 countries have done so. Sweden, Norway, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia have done it, and I understand that Australia and New Zealand are considering it.
The two-state solution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, has long been Labour Party policy. It was in our manifesto. It was supported by the Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, said:
“We are committed to Palestinian recognition. We hope to work with partners to achieve that, when the circumstances are right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/24; col. 305.]
It is that phrase, “when the circumstances are right”, that has delayed progress up to now. I suggest to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that the circumstances are right at the present time. Within Israel, there is support as well. There is a policy working group that a few days ago wrote to our Prime Minister and the President of France urging immediate recognition. The policy working group consists of senior Israeli academics, former diplomats, policy analysts and human rights defenders.
The tragedy of 7 October in Israel and the thousands of deaths in Gaza surely demand a new way forward for all the people in the region. I firmly believe that there can be no security for the people of Israel until the Palestinians also have their own state. There would have to be international guarantees to ensure the safety and security of both states, with Jerusalem as a shared capital. I am afraid that the United States’ plan for Gaza is not only nonsensical but is setting the clock back. It has no acceptance in the region. Anyway, why should adjacent countries support thousands of Palestinians who would then be forcibly removed? It does not make sense. The Palestinians have the right to their own territory, and the Americans should recognise that.
Earlier this month, there was an emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo dealing with the post-war reconstruction of Gaza. The President of Egypt said that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the only path to “genuine peace”. It is notable that both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have welcomed these proposals. The only comment I would make is that I hope the Government will not wait for the passage of the Bill. We can act immediately.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is always so courteous and so clear in what he says. I am afraid I disagree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the Bill that she has introduced, and briefly I will explain why.
I think we have to look at the situation on the ground. Israel has been fighting for 18 months now. It is much the longest war it is ever been involved in. It involves not just Gaza, but Lebanon, Syria and even Yemen and Iran. It is imposed huge strains on Israeli society, and there is no end in sight to it. So it is not surprising that Israelis are sceptical about the land for peace concept, and it has failed as a concept, most obviously in Gaza. Indeed, only about a quarter of Israelis now support a two-state solution. Equally importantly, as a PSR poll last autumn showed, only 39% of Palestinians support a two-state solution. This means that a two-state solution seems very unlikely to happen.
That is the context in which we must consider this proposal to require HMG to recognise Palestine as
“a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders”.
The only problem is that no such state exists on the ground. There are no agreed borders or territory, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out. That is not the only relevant criterion. Palestinians have very limited control of the territory, for good security reasons. There is no real ability to engage in interaction with other states. They have institutions that are riddled with anti-Semitism and corruption and simply cannot govern. There simply is nothing approximating to a state, which is important because that is the basis for UK recognition of states.
In these circumstances, what is the point of the recognition of Palestine? At best, it is acknowledgement of the concept of a state for a state that does not exist; at worst, it is just a form of international virtue signalling, or even a statement to Israel that we will reward in some way the Palestinians for the chaos and violence of 7 October.
I think the Government are being sensible in saying that recognition can come only as part of a process that is working and in which they can help. I am tempted to think that that is just another way of saying that it is never going to happen, but the problem is that for as long as recognition is a theoretical possibility, it encourages the international community to keep engaging with the phantasm rather than dealing with the real situation. This country should deal with reality as it is, rather than wishing for things that are not going to happen, and that is in our interest. That means backing Israel to do what is necessary for its security to support a realistic and achievable solution to the grievous problems that beset Israelis and Palestinians, which I strongly suspect is not going to involve a two-state solution in the near future, and stopping pretending that gesture politics by those with no skin in the game can help in any way in this. That is why I oppose the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking to give strong support to the Second Reading of the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on Palestinian statehood. Why is that so? It is because without recognition of that statehood as part of what has come to be known as a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute, there will be no lasting peace, justice or prosperity for the countries of the Middle East, and for any interim solution, such as currently under negotiation over Gaza, to prosper, there has to be a horizon of a long-term solution, which I argue is a two-state one, however far away that horizon may be. As for what is sometimes known as “thinking outside the box”, such as Trump’s riviera ideas, they are simply illegal, immoral and impractical. They have no supporters in the region apart from the Netanyahu Government in Israel.
For many years as a loyal British diplomat, I defended the idea that the recognition of Palestinian statehood could come only at the end of a process that settled by negotiation the vexed issues of territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem. So long as Yitzhak Rabin lived, that was a realistic prospect, but he was assassinated for supporting a two-state solution. Since then, the idea of holding back the recognition of Palestinian statehood has become a mirage abandoned by an increasing number of countries around the world, some of them our fellow European democracies. Our Government seem to some extent to have moved down that road too, since they now talk of the recognition of Palestinian statehood at some undefined point during two-state negotiations. However, that step is now in limbo thanks to the refusal of the Israeli Government to contemplate any negotiations for a two-state solution, although I salute those brave Israelis who have this week put their names to a position that is more favourable to a two-state solution.
What sequencing of decision-making, which does not consist simply of the recognition of Palestinian statehood, but goes beyond it to achieve the recognition of Israel’s statehood by every Arab country in the Middle East, could be contemplated and have some chance over time of being achieved? It could be realised by an international conference bringing together all the Arab countries of the region and a wider range of world powers to relaunch two-state negotiations. At that conference, all participants would recognise the statehood of all others, thus bringing about Israel’s recognition of Palestine and Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel—to mention the most prominent lacunae in the present arrangements. Negotiations on territory, security, refugees, governance and the status of Jerusalem would then resume, but within the irreversible framework of two states.
The present Bill could help to make that possible without transgressing the unacceptability of giving any governmental or security role to Hamas following its horrendous breaches of international humanitarian law in October 2023 and since; nor would it contain any trace of anti-Semitism since it would treat all states of the region on an equal basis. I hope that with arrangements such as that in mind this Bill could be given an unopposed Second Reading, and I would like the Minister to address the route that I have suggested we might move towards when she replies to the debate.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a patron of the charity Embrace the Middle East. I am also a regular visitor to the region and last visited in June, spending time particularly in the West Bank. As Palestinians shared stories from the past and the present. I was really struck by the absence of hope, the absence of a vision for the future and the focus on simply trying to survive the present.
It is poignant that today is the Jewish festival of Purim, wonderfully marking the saving of the Jewish people from annihilation. It is a stark reminder that all people are equal and, I would add, created in the image of God.
We must go on naming the abhorrent attack on Israel by Hamas. We remember all those who grieve and live with trauma, and of course those who continue to be held hostage and must be released. At the same time, we must not become dull to the horrors of the war in Gaza. All people are equal.
For Palestinians in the West Bank, their present is about surviving the intensification of military activity, increased house demolition, road blockages and massive inflation and poverty levels, along with the collapse of basic services. Even in conversation with Christians, who would usually speak of hope, there was a palpable sense of a struggle to contemplate what an earthly good future might look like, not least amid a sense of being abandoned by international leaders and indeed the majority of the worldwide Church. A well-known Christian pastor from Bethlehem commented to me that he no longer used the word “hope” except to reference Easter.
As other noble Lords have noted, the Government seem wedded to recognising a Palestinian state only as a contribution to a renewed peace process. However, there is an absence of such a process and no prospect of negotiations any time soon, so the diplomatic stance simply reinforces to Palestinians that their future is one of survival. We must speak of hope. Recognition of Palestinian statehood should not be contingent on non-existent negotiations. It is vital to acknowledge the equal rights of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, demonstrating parity of esteem for both.
We have an American President who speaks of forcibly transferring millions of Palestinians from their homes in Gaza. In Israel, there is no major political party arguing in favour of negotiations to end the occupation. The festival of Purim celebrates courageous leadership, and a decision by this Government on Palestinian statehood would send a clear signal to the Palestinian people that they could hope for a better future and that they were recognised and supported by this country, as are the people of Israel. Given Britain’s own troubling history on this matter, the UK carries a responsibility to the Palestinian people to speak and act for an independent, sovereign Palestine at peace with its neighbours. Recognition is a vital step that must be taken now.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Yachad Ltd, a British Jewish organisation supporting a political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As a proud progressive Zionist, I believe in the right of Jewish people to national self-determination and that Palestinians have the same right. We all, I hope, share the Government’s policy of a two-state solution. We need to be a strong advocate for that in the region, because too many people there, on both sides of the conflict, now talk only of a one-state solution.
Given the facts on the ground and the legacy of Hamas’s terrorist pogrom on 7 October, together with everything that has followed, I fear it is simply wishful thinking to say that immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, which the Bill advances, would advance the peace process. It might feel like the right thing to do, or indeed a wise diplomatic signal to send, and it might win praise here in the UK, but would it advance peace in the region? Experience of unilateral action suggests not. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, last year Ireland, Spain and Norway recognised Palestine as a state. Israel recalled its ambassadors to those countries in response. I fear that if we followed those examples then our long-standing locus, through both history and international standing, would be severely impaired—and if that was not true before President Trump’s election then I fear it certainly is now.
Recognition is a card that you can play only once. Timing is everything. As the Oslo accords state, any dispute must be resolved through direct negotiations. Only through such engagement and mutual agreement, which Britain can and must support, will we deliver lasting peace. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, alluded to, this requires fundamental change on both sides. First, it seems otiose, as others have said, to point out that Hamas simply can never be a partner for peace. But there are also progressive forces in mainstream Israeli politics that are thinking productively as to how best to move forward towards peace from this fragile ceasefire. Yair Golan MK, who is leader of the Democrats—Labor’s sister political party, formed out of Avodah and Meretz—a retired major-general in the IDF and an absolute hero of 7 October, is clear-eyed in his view of the Israeli Prime Minister’s current policy of strengthening Hamas to weaken the PA. Writing in Haaretz on 26 February, Golan said:
“The simple truth is that Hamas has survived thanks to Netanyahu and Netanyahu has survived thanks to Hamas”.
He argues that the regional struggle is not about territory so much as one of moderate forces that want stability and prosperity versus extremist forces that want anarchy and terror. Israel should lead that moderate alliance. The UK should urge that moderation on Israel. Would we have the agency to do so if we unilaterally declared Palestinian statehood?
Golan outlines a three-stage progress process towards peace. Time prevents me going into detail, as it prevents me talking about Yair Lapid’s credible alternative, called the Egyptian solution. These are not the awful plans we have heard from President Trump, those shocking pipe dreams for Gaza, but neither are they a counsel of despair. They hold out the prospect of statehood at the right time—not at the end, but not now.
I will conclude by reporting a conversation with a high-ranking official in the Democrats. He asked me to make it clear in this debate that there are indeed Members of the Knesset who have the strong desire to push forward for peace, spearheaded by his party. Because of that, not despite it, my left-wing peacenik friend said that recognition would be a “huge failure of British foreign policy, making the UK totally irrelevant”. We should listen to our partners for peace when they ask us not to do something.
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill and on her powerful introduction, and I am delighted to support her. In doing so, I declare my interests as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and president of the Palestine Britain Business Council.
As we have heard, the history of the United Kingdom and the Palestinian territories is deeply entwined. Through that shared history, we have a special responsibility to the Palestinian people, and we should discharge that responsibility, which is long overdue, by the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state alongside the sovereign State of Israel. That is because we cannot champion the rights of others around the world, supporting them in their stand for freedom and self-determination, and then deny those same rights to the Palestinian people. Recognition should be the first step in the process, not the last. Despite all that has happened since we missed the opportunity to recognise Palestine in 2011, it remains the only step that leads to genuine peace and prosperity and a stable and secure future for both Palestine and Israel.
This is not an either/or situation. Contrary to what some might wish for, the Palestinians and the Israelis are not going anywhere, so we have to find a way forward. The Palestinians are not asking for anything extraordinary. None of those whom I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting and working with over many years—it is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that the majority of Palestinians are ordinary people, just like you and me, from the young girls in a refugee camp in Gaza debating rights and responsibilities in such a thoughtful and engaging manner that if you closed your eyes you could have been in any classroom in the West, to the entrepreneurial men and women running remarkable businesses but hampered by the problems of occupation, to the farmers tending their animals and harvesting their olives and dates against a background of settler violence, to the courageous medics who are not just treating today’s physical and mental injuries but still treating the wounds, scars and amputations of injuries incurred over many years, to the students, academics, musicians and those who play sports who just want to travel without asking permission of Israel, which is often denied—are asking for anything extraordinary. They are simply asking to be able to enjoy the freedoms and life experience that we all cherish and often take for granted.
Much of what I have said repeats the words I have used in your Lordships’ House over many years. It is dispiriting and beyond tragic given the horrors of the past 18 months in Israel and Gaza that they still need to be said. I hope the Minister, whom I hold in the highest regard, will support the Bill. If that is not the case, please can she explain the timetable for the Government’s manifesto commitment to recognise Palestine? The only silver lining for me in losing the general election was the thought of the Palestinian people being given not just their rightful recognition but the hope they so desperately need to ensure a peaceful future for all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. Britain’s historical role in the plight of the Palestinians is undeniable. The 1917 Balfour Declaration divided Palestine, carving from within it a national home for the Jewish people, with the caveat of
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
That did not work out too well.
More than a century has passed since the declaration, during which time more and more land has been taken forcibly from the Palestinian people and atrocious violations of civil and human rights have been heaped upon them. They are unquantifiable in scale, so large are the numbers, and immeasurable in their impacts on the physical and mental health and well-being of Palestinian men, women and children. The occupying Israeli forces have used collective punishment to subjugate the civilian population. Collective punishment is a war crime the under the Geneva convention.
Witness the situation in Gaza today, where all humanitarian aid remains blocked by Israel and electricity has been cut off. The arbitrary detention of men, women and children has been commonplace—illegal under national law. There has been the forced displacement of people—illegal under international law.
Some noble Lords who contribute to today’s debate may not agree that Israel is guilty of heinous human rights abuses. Israel can put those allegations to bed immediately by allowing independent journalists and observers into Gaza and ceasing its violations of press freedoms in the West Bank. It is a fact that independent human rights investigators, fact-finding missions and the International Criminal Court still do not have access to Gaza.
Statehood for Palestine is long overdue. Britain has a special responsibility to put right its actions of the last century and undo the damage of the Balfour Declaration. It cannot be right that, of the 146 countries that recognise Palestine, Britain is not of that number. There is no justification for withholding from the Palestinian people their right to recognition as a viable state and the hope that goes with it.
I support the Bill and its commitment to international law and to the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognised pre-1967 borders. I hope the Government and others will do the same.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. In the very brief time available to me, I wish to concentrate on one of the major obstacles to a two-state solution: the massive Israeli settlement enterprise in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Today, the settler population of the illegally occupied West Bank—that includes east Jerusalem—numbers around 750,000 people. Back in 1993 when the Oslo accords were signed, when we dreamed of a two-state solution, the number of settlers was 250,000. Their numbers have trebled. The intention of the Israeli Finance Minister, himself a settler, is to increase those numbers to over a million. All these settlers have the full rights of Israeli citizenship. They live under Israeli civil law, unlike their Palestinian neighbours, who live under Israeli military law—two peoples in the same territory but under a discriminatory legal system.
I hope that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, will outline the Government’s position on any further Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Will she also confirm that the Government expect Israel to adhere to United Nations Security Council Resolutions 476 and 478, of which it is in gross breach? These do not just condemn the annexation but insist that all such Israeli measures are null and void and must be rescinded.
In all, there are now nearly 300 illegal settlements in the West Bank—every one illegal, every one an obstacle to peace. During what was meant to be a ceasefire, Israel has mounted a massive military operation in the northern West Bank, starting two days after signing the ceasefire deal, using tanks in cities for the first time in 20 years and forcibly displacing 40,000 Palestinians. This is not the only example of forced displacement outside of Gaza, where 90% of the population has been forcibly displaced over the last 18 months. Israeli settler violence, aided and abetted by the Israeli army, has targeted Palestinian communities in area C, and now increasingly in area B, of the West Bank. This is forced displacement, where violence has been deployed to force these communities into the cities, so that settlers can steal even more land in occupied territory.
Israeli settlers know that they will not be arrested, let alone imprisoned. The culture of impunity that they enjoy, sadly, is akin to the impunity that Israel enjoys internationally. Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes and structures is just another tool to force Palestinians out of areas. Since 19 January 2025, the UN figures estimate that 211 structures have been destroyed during this 37-day period alone.
The legal position of the occupation is now clear, as the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, made clear last July. It stipulated that the Israeli occupation was illegal and a violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination and that Israel must bring the occupation to an end.
Recognising a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, on the territory that Israel illegally occupies, would demonstrate that the Government are committed equal-handedly to international law, are committed to a two-state solution and committed to Palestinian self- determination.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on the recognition of the Palestinian state. I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as a director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
For years Palestinians have been looking aghast at British policy and its hesitancy to recognise an independent state of Palestine. I empathise with that view. “If not now, when?”, they ask. How long do Palestinians have to wait? It is sad that we are still having this debate, as recognition should have happened years ago.
Back in 2014, I spoke in the debate in the other place and voted for the recognition of Palestine when it was passed by that House overwhelmingly. I want to challenge some of the arguments made against recognition. We do not have to recognise the state of Palestine with borders. There are plenty of examples where we have recognised states with territorial disputes, and rightly so—not least Israel, a state that has not declared its borders and in fact keeps expanding, but it is absolutely right that we recognise it.
We do not need to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and we will not have to recognise Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. All of this should be decided in negotiations towards peace. But recognising a state of Palestine, as we recognised the State of Israel, should not be up for negotiation. It is in the gift of the British Government, and it is for the British Government to decide. The British Government have, for decades, since 1980, supported a two-state solution. The Government need to move beyond the slogan of a two-state solution, which I know they wholeheartedly believe in, to a situation of actively bringing this about; otherwise, they risk not being seen as credible on this issue.
Some point out that the Palestinian Authority is weak, and many think that it is corrupt, but recognition is not an endorsement of any Government, nor should it be—it is a recognition of a right of the people. For example, we recognise Iran but do not approve of its regime. The nature of the Palestinian Authority is immaterial to this issue.
Some argue that Israel will react by freezing out contacts with Britain, as it did with Sweden and Ireland, but I would ask whether we should be bullied by another state. We should stand up to bullies on a matter of principle. I believe that, currently, crimes against humanity are being committed in Gaza, where Israel has reimposed a complete blockade on a captive civilian population of some 2.3 million Palestinians. That is a form of collective punishment, and it needs to be called out by our Government.
Britain can and should recognise the state of Palestine and push for European allies to do likewise. Perhaps the French-Saudi Middle East peace conference in June is an opportunity to do this. We can do more; we can get behind the Arab plan as agreed in Cairo. The Arab reconstruction plan included a restatement of the Arab peace plan. It has the backing of all 22 Arab states, plus the support of the organisation of the Islamic conference of nations. That is 56 states in total. In my view, it is the bones of a plan that can bring peace to the Palestinian and Israeli people, which is, I believe, what we all want. Will the Government welcome it?
The Arab plan is for a two-state solution, to which the UK subscribes. The Israeli plan is for a one-state solution in which there is no Palestinian right of self-determination, no Palestinian state and no peace. The British Government need to recognise the state of Palestine, support the Arab plan in Cairo and take a leadership role in moving this situation forward.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
I respectfully advise noble Lords that the speaking time for this debate is three minutes.
Baroness Warsi (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on introducing this Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. It is right to recognise Palestine as a state—just not right now. That is the mantra we have heard for over 50 years. The main argument has always been that recognition should be part of a wider peace process; a peace and a process that, sadly, has failed to materialise.
Tragically, as we have failed to recognise Palestine, methodically and, I would argue, deliberately, the probability of Palestine existing as a state has been diminished. Each time we have failed, more Palestinian land has been occupied, more Palestinians have been displaced, more homes have been demolished and another generation of Palestinians have lived without the dignity of freedom. At a time when Netanyahu and Gallant find themselves wanted under arrest warrants issued by the ICC and Israel finds itself before the ICJ accused of plausible genocide; at a time when the lifeline of UNRWA has been slashed; when in Gaza, over the past 18 months, nearly 18,000 children have been killed, 70% of all homes have been destroyed and hospitals, schools, universities, libraries, churches and mosques erased; at a time when, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, settler violence is unashamedly unchecked and Israeli military personnel have livestreamed their own human rights abuses; at a time when senior members of this Israeli regime make no secret of their absolute dismissal of a Palestinian state; and when the denial of Palestine, Palestinians and even the basic humanity of the people from those lands is now mainstream, the urgency to recognise has never been so acute.
One hundred and forty-six countries recognise Palestine—more than 75% of the world—most recently, Ireland, Norway and Spain. They recognise, as should we, that recognition is a basic backstop position that we all urgently need to adopt. By recognising, we do that essential act of preserving at the very least the idea of a Palestinian state. We must muster the political will and moral courage to do so, and we have that opportunity today to stop being an outlier on this issue and choose to be on the right side of history.
I and others in this House have rightly condemned those who have argued against the right for Israel to exist as a state. Today at the very least we should be equally vociferous against those who, either through their words or through their actions, fail to condemn or curtail those who do not believe in the right of Palestine to exist as a state.
I urge this House to come together to support this Bill and to say that we recognise Palestine and the dignity of its people, the suffering of its children and the sacrifice of its multiple generations, and their humanity and right to live on their land, and to be free in a safe, secure and sustainable Palestine; and to prove that our policy of two states is not just words but a fundamental belief by recognising that second state, a state of Palestine, alongside the state of Israel, in line with UK policy, UK interests, UK public opinion and UK values.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I, too, rise in support of my noble friend Lady Northover and her Bill on the recognition of a Palestinian state. As of 28 May 2024, the state of Palestine was recognised by 146 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. The Bill requires the UK Government to formally recognise Palestine as a sovereign and independent state. It would send a powerful signal that the UK supports both the State of Israel and the state of Palestine entering peace negotiations on an equal footing, and demonstrate our commitment to the two-state solution and peace and security for both nations.
The illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank since 1967 is the longest military occupation in history. The Palestinian people continue, under occupation, to be deprived of the civil and human rights enjoyed by Israeli citizens. ICJ rulings have recognised the illegality of this occupation and called for Israel to end it. Those who seek to bring peace and security to the region know that this will certainly not be achieved through the brutal subjugation of 5 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Extremist settlers, many in the Government, will not achieve peace and security by savagely driving out Palestinians from the West Bank and destroying their homes.
Since the Hamas atrocities of 7 October, at least 1,860 incidents of settler violence in the occupied West Bank have been recorded. There is impunity for the perpetrators. Since 2005, only 3% of investigations into ideologically motivated crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank have led to a full or partial conviction. The repeated, sustained bombardments and destruction of Gaza have deprived generations of Palestinians of family members, homes, healthcare, food and shelter, with vital aid still being denied and blocked. We all deplore the atrocities of Hamas on 7 October and call for all the hostages to be released immediately, but the disproportionate retribution that has resulted in more than 60,000 people in Gaza being killed, including large numbers of civilians, women and children, has sickened the world.
By immediately recognising the state of Palestine, the UK is standing in solidarity with other UN members and against the grotesque Trump plans for ethnic cleansing, but recognition is not enough. We must work with international partners to support democratic leadership in Palestine, and the UK should lead efforts to bring together Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders who are dedicated to a future of co-existence and mutual security. As other noble Lords have said, we must seize the moment and take a stand to work for peace, justice and security for both states through the two-state solution.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can I offer a legal perspective? In international law, a state exists only if four criteria are met. These were set out in the Montevideo convention of 1933 and it seems highly doubtful that Palestine satisfies any of these criteria at the moment.
First, a state must have a defined territory. This Bill would oblige the Secretary of State to recognise a state of Palestine on the basis of pre-1967 borders, but there is plainly no existing Palestinian control within those borders. This is wishful thinking. It is a fantasy. It is not the recognition of an existing territory. A defined territory depends on a peace settlement with Israel.
Secondly, a state must have a permanent population. According to UNRWA, around 2.5 million of the 5 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza are refugees. I cannot understand how Palestine can claim to have a permanent population when half the people living there are waiting to live in another state, in Israel.
Thirdly, a state needs a Government who exercise effective control of the territory. But the Palestinian Authority operates in the West Bank and Hamas claims to govern Gaza. A Government of a state must govern the whole state.
Fourthly, the Government of a state must have independence, but the Palestinian Authority currently enjoys very limited powers because of Israeli control. Israel has that control for good security reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, pointed out.
I make it clear that all of this does need to change. I would welcome the existence of a Palestinian state. The Palestinian people are entitled to self-determination. But this will happen only when Palestinian leaders accept the political reality that Israel exists as the homeland of the Jewish people.
I was very grateful that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester pointed out that today is the Jewish festival of Purim. We celebrate our victory over Haman, the chief minister to the King of Persia who wished to annihilate the Jewish community over 2,000 years ago. Fortunately, the King of Persia had a Jewish wife—I can confirm that they are often a formidable presence—and he sided with her and Haman was hanged. As with most Jewish festivals, the basic principle is very simple: “They tried to kill us; they failed; let’s eat”. All of this is sadly material to today’s debate, because progress towards the achievement of a state of Palestine is being held up by modern Hamans—lots of them—in the Palestinian community, whose primary objectives remain to kill Jews and to destroy the State of Israel.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share the desire for peace of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and so many other noble Lords who have spoken today, and have always hoped for a two-state solution. The only party which has never accepted the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel is the Palestinians themselves. Israel was attacked by its neighbours right from the word go, and has been attacked again and again ever since, with the intent to wipe the Jewish state off the map. Israel has offered peace. It has given up land for peace. It still seeks peace—but with whom?
As the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said, timing is everything. At this moment, a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders is a fantasy, especially given the realities of the last few decades. Doing this now would be a reward for the jihadis, Islamists and extremist leaders of the Palestinians in Gaza, and their masters in Iran. They do not accept any borders; they want Israel from the river to the sea.
Those who chant the slogan on our streets every week are effectively calling for no two-state solution; they are calling for Israel to be eradicated. Also, in practice, the pre-1967 borders—originally accepted by Israel, of course—proved an unsustainable geographical dividing line, leaving Israel completely vulnerable to invasion and annihilation. Has the Minister been to the Golan Heights, for example, to see the complete overlooking of Israeli towns, leaving them wide open to murderous attack?
If the intention is to satisfy Palestinian demands for statehood, which I truly wish were possible, can the Minister—or other noble Lords—point to any evidence of their willingness to live in peace next to a Jewish state? If none is given today, perhaps the Minister would write to me: I would be grateful.
Hamas wants to wipe Israel off the map; nothing less would suffice. Both the Palestinian authority and Hamas reward their citizens for murdering and attacking Jews. They teach their children to want to kill them and that Israel has no right to exist. A Palestinian state will turn out the same as the post-2006 unoccupied Gaza. Israel withdrew unilaterally, dismantled the Jewish settlements established there, and what happened? The Palestinian leadership spent billions on building tunnels from which to attack and kill Israelis. Intifadas and suicide bombers killed Israelis.
They spent years preparing for 7 October: to torture, rape, kill and kidnap Israelis. They particularly targeted Israelis like me, who most wanted to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours and who had spent their lives helping Palestinians, ferrying them to Israeli hospitals for treatment, employing them in their homes and engaging with them as friends and neighbours. The very people who wanted a two-state solution have now started to lose faith in it. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the absence of a peace process, but peace is not a solo. If one side does not seek peace, we would just be repeating past failures.
This Bill, if passed, would be a licence for further terrorism, I am afraid. It would be a signal that deliberately torturing and murdering Jews, promising to do it again and again, then hiding safely in tunnels under or behind your own civilians and knowingly, cynically, inviting retaliation from those you have attacked, will bring rewards from civilised countries whose emotions you have deliberately manipulated.
I know the noble Baroness wants to see peace—so do I—but I fear that this Bill will take us further away from that goal.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. The idea of a Palestinian state did not enter into public debate for very many years after the early discussions of a Jewish state. The First World War and the pogroms led to the Balfour Declaration being made by a British Minister, which favoured a national home for the Jewish people. It sought to protect the rights of the indigenous non-Jews, as has happened, but no such offer was made to create a Palestinian state. It was, in fact, after the murder of 6 million Jews in Europe and the defeat of Nazism that an offer was made in 1948 in Resolution 181 to effectively have a two-state solution. The Israelis accepted it, but the Arabs rejected it immediately and commenced a war on the fledgling state. Since then, peace processes have come and gone and, in each case, the representative bodies of the Palestinians refused to accept the offer that was made to them.
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered a deal whereby 95% of the land claimed would be given, including East Jerusalem. An international jurisdiction of the Old City was offered—and, again, rejected by Abbas. Finally, the Arab world became impatient with this approach and the Abraham accords inched closer to many of them recognising Israel. As we know, it was the fear of their allies recognising Israel and seeking a harmonious Middle East—which we all seek—that prompted Hamas to carry out the events of 7 October.
In my work on coexistence—I am chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation in the UK—I have been in dialogue with those living in East Jerusalem. They specifically tell me they do not want to live in a state controlled by people who would carry out such atrocities on innocent people, as has happened, or by those who have rejected viable peace offers in the past.
Frankly, it is hugely insensitive and somewhat naive to bring this Bill to our Parliament at this time, when Israel has only recently received back some of those innocent hostages, who were tortured mentally and physically. They were hung upside-down, put in cages, starved, told lies about their families and ignored by the utterly useless Red Cross. In effect, this Bill wants to reward the perpetrators. Every poll shows that Hamas would be in power if there were elections. Indeed, there were people who rejoiced with glee as they heard of babies being decapitated and killed in front of their parents. Others were burned alive and innocents were raped.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, the criteria for statehood under international law are clear, and for good reason. Statehood is not simply a prize but a set of responsibilities. The Palestinian Authority falls short of many of those requirements. Most significantly, it falls short of the critical requirement of effective government, both in the West Bank, where its authority is limited and ineffective, and all the more so in the Gaza Strip, which is run, in practice, by the gun-carrying, terrorist organisation Hamas.
This Bill will not help bring democracy to a Government in their 19th year of a four-year term. It will not strengthen law enforcement in a system that continues with its heinous policy of “pay to slay”, financially rewarding terrorists for their atrocities. It will not help replace a school system riddled with indoctrination to violence with one that promotes excellence rather than martyrdom.
Finally, there is a much more basic problem with the Bill, in Clause 2(2). The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is given effect in UK law through the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and sets out relations between diplomatic missions and receiving states. The convention states that the head of the mission is considered as having taken up his functions in the receiving state when he has presented his credentials. In the UK, uniquely, credentials are presented to the monarch and heads of the mission are accredited to the Court of St James. Do the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the Minister seriously advocate that the King receive, at the Court of St James, as this Bill envisages, a person from Hamas, who every person in this world would recognise as a terrorist? This is not the time to consider such a state. Frankly, I find it deeply upsetting that such a Bill can even be raised in our House.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly suggest that noble Lords wind up after the clock hits two minutes, because we are in danger of running into the day’s other business. I advise noble Lords to keep to the advisory time of three minutes.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for this important debate.
As recently as July last year, our Secretary of State, David Lammy, stated:
“We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a peace process, at a time that is most conducive to that process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/7/24; col. 1150.]
I ask an obvious question: if not now, when? When will this “most conducive” time arrive? What precisely is the United Kingdom waiting for before extending formal recognition to the state of Palestine? The people of Palestine have waited long and painfully. We have heard assurances, but we want to see action. Parliamentarians have voted for this, and I am sure they will vote for it again.
I urge this House for a number of reasons. There cannot be peace in the Middle East without a two-state solution. Whatever was said just now, people on both sides are suffering the pain of what has taken place over the last couple of years. You cannot have a two-state solution without a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine is not something we should do at the end of a set of peace talks. It is what we need to do to get those talks started. It levels the playing field, and any of us who have ever been involved in mediations know how important that is. It gives the peace process a real chance. It is a catalyst for peace talks rather than an obstacle to them. It provides a clear framework for negotiations, acknowledging that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights and aspirations.
Recognising Palestine sends a clear message that we support the people on both sides who want peace. It strengthens the voices of moderates in Israel and Palestine, and it sends a clear message against further Israeli plans to annex the West Bank. It would really send a message about the idea of expelling Palestinians from Gaza or the creation of a grand holiday resort, built on the bones of the many who lie still dead under the rubble—to lie your towel out on the sands still soaked in the blood of women and children. Is it any wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, used the words “illegal, immoral and impractical” to describe the horror that sent through so many people in the world? To see Netanyahu smiling at the suggestion by President Trump was shocking. What we are talking about here is forced displacement, which is a crime in international law.
I just want to counter the legal opinion that has been given to your Lordships on what defines statehood. No court would acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said when all those criteria have been prevented—indeed, by Israel. That is the point. Why are there refugees? Let me just give your Lordships a quote—I am sorry about the time, but I want to put this before the House:
“In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: ‘Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy—to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank’”.
That was to counter the very criteria that we were talking about.
I have been to Israel many times and have many friends there. I visited Jerusalem back in March 1999, and I met Leah Rabin. She took my hands, and I was paying tribute to her husband and the sadness I felt about his death and his assassination, when she said, “Netanyahu killed my husband”. I frowned and thought, “What does she mean?”. She said, “The night before my husband was killed, Netanyahu led a demonstration in which there was behind him a coffin with my husband’s name written out on the top of it. It was an incitement to extremist settlers”. The settlements themselves have prevented peace in that part of the world. It is said that we would be compensating Hamas; we are compensating breaches of international law by not recognising the state of Palestine.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although I share the concerns that some have expressed about the statements that have been coming from Washington recently, I cannot support the Bill for at least three reasons.
First, the recognition of states is an exclusive Crown prerogative. Parliament can legislate in any matter and can limit the prerogative, but it is constitutionally a very bad idea for it to do so. When Parliament stepped in and tried to run foreign policy in the past, the result was not usually a success—for example, in 2017 and 2018, when it was not clear whether it was Parliament or the Government running the negotiations with the EU. We are going through particularly testing times. This is not the time—if it ever was—for Parliament to dictate the content and timing of a sensitive step in foreign affairs on the Government.
Secondly, by forcing the Government to recognise the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 boundaries, the Bill would disincentivise the Palestinians from compromising, and without compromise there cannot be peace. I echo in this respect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on territory as a requirement for statehood under the Montevideo convention. It would be ironic for Britain now to proclaim that the pre-1967 borders were always the unequivocal and definitive borders of Palestine, given that Britain was one of the few countries that recognised, back in 1950, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, except for Jerusalem.
The third reason is that recognising Palestine in the current circumstances would reward Hamas. True, we would be recognising the state and not any Government; the policy of officially recognising Governments was stopped by Lord Carrington in 1980. But in this case, the distinction would be somewhat artificial. The fact is that recognition of a new state is a gift to whoever is in power at that point. There are two Palestinian entities that exercise governmental control in the Palestinian territories: the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. All evidence suggests that Hamas is by far the more popular of the two, and it would almost certainly end up being in complete control of the Palestinian state.
Some believe that support for Hamas would wane if we in the West showed greater support for the Palestinian cause, including through recognition. I disagree. I cannot think of many international causes that have received as much support and attention in the West as the Palestinian cause, yet I can see no evidence of such support and attention being rewarded with greater moderation. At this point, Palestinian support for Hamas is a social and political fact; it is a regrettable and truly tragic fact but one that we cannot wish away. Things may change in future but we are not the ones who can make that change happen. We barely know how to change our own society. We must dispense with the illusion that we can change other people’s societies.
Even if every country in the world unconditionally recognised Palestine as a state tomorrow, the consequence would not be Hamas giving way to a moderate Palestinian faction. What would happen is that Hamas would gain an internationally recognised state. In those circumstances, recognition would not help solve the conflict but escalate it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on getting her Bill to this stage. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for signalling opposition to the Balfour Declaration, on the basis of which the State of Israel was founded.
We learned recently that the Americans have been talking directly to Hamas. I wonder: has the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, managed to make contact with Hamas and get its take on the two-state solution? Has she spoken to Khalil al-Hayya, who only a few weeks ago described the 7 October massacre as
“a source of pride for our people … and it will be passed down from generation to generation”?
Has she spoken to Ghazi Hamad, who said this barely a fortnight after the massacre:
“We will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated … We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe … and must be finished”?
It is clear where Hamas stands on a two-state solution: it rejects it, as we have already heard. Indeed, its barbaric actions on 7 October and statements since provide incontrovertible proof, if any were needed, that it has not only vetoed that solution in effect but set back the cause and the realistic possibility of Palestinian nationhood for generations, if not for ever.
I finish with a simple question: how could anyone not want peace for the people of Gaza, the West Bank and Israel? Hamas answered that question on 7 October 2023. It does not want peace, and it most certainly does not want a two-state solution. However much we would like to do so, we cannot ignore the fact that it is Hamas that has, in word and deed, done more than anyone to destroy the two-state premise on which this Bill is based.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when moving a similar Bill in the other place two years ago, my friend Layla Moran, whom I greatly admire as an MP and respect as a self-described daughter of Palestine but also friend of Israel, asked the Government to recognise the state of Palestine without any preconditions. As the vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, though speaking in a personal capacity, I completely understand her frustration and her motivation, which I think are shared by my noble friend Lady Northover today.
I thoroughly support the creation of a state of Palestine and I agree with my noble friend that Israel needs it too. The problem with recognition now is that, as a unilateral gesture it risks being not a practical and realistic solution but a dead end, a brick wall, even increasing the frustration of Palestinians rather than increasing hope. It would not obviate the painful compromises that have to be made in bilateral negotiations by competent Governments with international support.
Obstacles often cited to the creation of two states are the existence of hundreds of thousands of Israelis living in settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank and the demand that, as well as the many Arab Palestinian Israelis who are Israeli citizens, many more Palestinians should be allowed to return to what is now the State of Israel. In that context, I was pleased to be invited to attend a presentation a few days ago by May Pundak and Dr Rula Hardal, leaders of an organisation of Israelis and Palestinians called A Land for All. I thank Sir Richard Branson and his not-for-profit foundation Virgin Unite for sponsoring that event.
A Land for All has a very different take from the usual one on the route towards peace, security and stability for all. Of course, it envisages two independent states, Israel and Palestine, with a border on the green line, but it proposes what it calls a joint framework, allowing both peoples to live together and apart. It points out that when Palestinians refer to “Palestine”, it is to the entire area between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean—we are familiar with this recently—just as for Israelis, “Eretz Israel” refers to the same space, and that no international borders could change these connections to the homeland, and this identity. It proposes that the political solution must reflect the emotional reality and create a framework that allows members of both nations to travel and live throughout the shared homeland on the basis of political separation, yes; geographic and demographic separation, no. It wants both states to be committed to the vision of an open land, where citizens of both countries have the right to travel, work and, over time and with limitations, reside, though not get citizenship in both states.
That is a very tall order. Freedom of movement has been controversial enough in Europe, but at least A Land for All is making positive and dynamic proposals, not just a static one which might go nowhere.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have to start with the practical situation on the ground. Hamas is still in place, still armed, still holding hostages, and it will not even accept Israel’s right to exist, let alone commit to living in peace alongside it. I listened to all the legal arguments about borders, but the key points seem to me to be practical, because there is no idea about how any borders would be policed and no guarantees for Israel’s security. The failure to establish a Palestinian state is not the fundamental cause of the problem. It is actually a result of the fundamental problem, which is that Israel’s enemies have always been more determined to prevent the existence of a Jewish state than to allow the establishment of a Palestinian one.
What happened in 1947? It is extraordinary that the noble Baroness just glossed over this when she was introducing her Bill. In 1947, the UN proposed two states side by side. The Jewish people agreed; Israel was established. Seven Arab countries invaded on day one to prevent Israel being established. They were not successful in that, but they did prevent the Palestinian state being established. For a long time, that was exactly the position of the PLO. Now it is the position of Hamas, of Iran, of Hezbollah in Lebanon, of the Houthis, and of large numbers of people in the West Bank too, as we have heard.
I have always campaigned for self-determination, justice, security and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis alike. A majority of Israelis have supported a two-state solution. The Palestinians have been offered a state on at least five occasions, most recently in 2008. There was agreement: they were offered at least 95% of what they wanted and there was an agreement about how to deal with the question of the settlements. When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it had a functioning economy; the PA had control of borders, imports and exports; there was an agreement on a seaport; there were plans for an airport. It was a nascent Palestinian state and it was destroyed by Hamas, which cancelled elections, executed rival Palestinians and used Gaza as a base to attack Israel. That is why the Israelis had to build a security barrier: not to imprison Gazans but to protect Israelis. It is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, the biggest barrier to a Palestinian state is Hamas. The first step must be an end to its ability to attack Israel, and anyone who wants peace should support Israel in defending itself against terrorism.
As for the longer term, I was in Israel a fortnight ago, where we discussed plans to get Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE to fund the reconstruction of Gaza and its economy and provide jobs for young Palestinians so that they do not end up joining Hamas. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, was completely correct about this. It would be much more use if we were discussing that instead of this proposal.
I conclude with one final point. Proposals such as this are a barrier to peace. Recognition will be achieved only when the Palestinians commit to peace and by helping Israelis and Palestinians build trust, negotiate and compromise. Suggesting to Palestinians that there is a short cut, that statehood can be imposed by the international community, will make them less likely to engage in building trust, negotiation and compromise. The UK’s role must be to help build long-term stability and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, I make no bones about it: a vote now to recognise a Palestinian state would deliver a clear message not just to Hamas but to every terrorist organisation in the world that terrorism wins. Undoubtedly, if this Bill becomes law, it will be seen as a reward for the barbarism of 7 October 2023. Many good-thinking people call for a two-state solution but, regrettably, have not thought it through. They believe innocently that the Palestinians want this, but there is no indication that that is the case. Indeed, the opposite is true. Hamas remains in control, as we have seen from the disgraceful scenes of triumphalism in recent weeks, when a few of the hostages—too few—were allowed to leave Gaza but were first wickedly humiliated by their captors.
It is clear that Hamas is certainly not giving up. The Bill calls for formal recognition of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and for the Palestinian Mission to the UK to be given full diplomatic status, but this is wholly unrealistic. Such a proposal would leave Israel dangerously vulnerable to attack, and, with Hamas still in control, that would be inevitable. As for the Palestinian Mission to the UK, on its website it claims to provide
“official representation for the government of the State of Palestine on behalf of the Palestinian people”.
How can that be possible while Hamas is on the scene, claiming that it represents Palestine? Do those sponsoring this Bill intend that the British Government should recognise this terrorist group as the Palestinian representative in the UK?
Hamas wants just one state: Palestine. Its charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. Until the Palestinians are represented by those genuinely wanting peace and prepared to recognise the State of Israel, no progress can be made. What is more, Hamas is not alone in having that ambition. Those who chant “from the river to the sea” make clear their rejection of a two-state solution. While Hamas remains in control and there are no other Palestinian representatives with whom Israel could negotiate, the idea of recognising a Palestinian state is fanciful.
I do not rule out the idea of a Palestinian state in the future, but any vote to recognise such a state should be considered only when: all the remaining hostages and the bodies of those murdered by Hamas are returned to Israel in a dignified way; Hamas is permanently removed from Gaza and the West Bank and its control is ended; Gaza and the West Bank are demilitarised; there are no more rockets, drones or other weapons, or tunnels, in the region, and the leading Arab states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, have guaranteed this; a new leadership of the Palestinians recognises the State of Israel; and an international peacekeeping force is established to guarantee Israel’s future security. Only when all this is in place and seen to work should we ever consider recognising a Palestinian state.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gold, suggested rather a long timeline for the date when we might recognise a Palestinian state. As other speakers have observed, 146 out of the 193 UN members now recognise Palestine. The number has been growing relentlessly—I would say inexorably. Until recently, the area of the world where there were relatively few supporters was Europe, but now that is changing. Last year, Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia were added to the signatories, which already included Sweden and Poland. The 40-odd states, including Britain, that have not yet signed look increasingly internationally isolated.
The choice for our Government seems clear: do we remain in that diminishing group of states holding out against recognition and eventually and reluctantly take the plunge, or do we take the lead, recognise Palestinian rights and encourage others to do the same? Recognising Palestine is an essential prerequisite for the two-state solution, which is the holy grail repeatedly given to us by whoever wishes to talk about the Israeli-Palestine situation.
Back in April 2017, the International Relations Committee of this House published a report entitled The Middle East: Time for New Realism. On Israel-Palestine, the committee had this to say:
“On its current trajectory, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is on the verge of moving into a phase where the two-state solution becomes an impossibility and is considered no longer viable by either side. The consequences would be grave for the region”.
If the Israelis and the Palestinians were to conclude that a two-state solution is neither possible nor viable, then please can someone tell me, because no one yet has in this debate, what on earth the solution to this dreadful, blood-soaked, interminable 80 year old conflict is? Does it mean a continuation indefinitely of the pattern that has existed since the establishment of the State of Israel, which is one of recurrent, savage wars, interspersed with fearful, menacing periods of relative peace, punctuated by sporadic violence?
Rejecting the two-state solution means, in practice, the de facto sovereignty of the whole of Israel-Palestine by the Israelis, with the permanent subjugation of millions of Palestinians. The truth is that, however difficult and complicated the establishment of a two-state solution may be, there is, to coin a phrase, no alternative. This is why the Bill before us is so important, because, of course, a two-state solution requires recognition of both the states.
It is no use repeating the mantra that we support the two-state solution but now is not the right time. Now is the right time. Indeed, with the growth of settlements, now is very close to being the last possible time, so surely the UK should join the 146 UN members that have recognised Palestine. Such a move would give dignity and status to what Labour describes in its manifesto as
“the inalienable right of the Palestinian people”.
It is the right thing to do, both morally and politically, and it is in the interests of all the states in the region, including Israel.
I urge the Government not to prevaricate, and not to say that we believe in Palestinian statehood but not just yet. The time has come to do it, and quickly.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the sensitivities in this debate, but I ask remaining speakers to stick within the advisory speaking time of three minutes.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I shall try to take less than three minutes, then, taking the lead from the Government Front Bench.
There have been so many missed opportunities to have a secure, just and durable two-state solution. That has been made clear during this debate. President Clinton, for example, has said that there would have been an internationally supported Palestinian state in existence for over two decades if Yasser Arafat had not rejected that possibility in July 2000 at Camp David in the final settlement. But those of us who support the rights of both Palestinians and Israelis have to face up to the current realities, which, sadly, make the legally prescribed timetable set out in the Bill implausible.
First, that is because, instead of what is proposed in the Bill, the urgent need right now is the release of all remaining hostages, humanitarian aid, the full demilitarisation of Hamas and a start to the reconstruction of Gaza. Those are the immediate priorities for both Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, painful as it is to admit, a Palestinian state conjured into existence right now in the rubble of Gaza, with the trauma of war and the continuing chokehold of Hamas, would, in all likelihood, immediately become a failed state. The institutions of legitimate government do not exist. The Palestinian Authority or the proposed committee of technocrats suggested by the Arab League would lack a monopoly of lawful force and, since 7 October, we have seen precisely what a Hamas exterminationist programme of government, if allowed to continue, would look like.
That points to a third fundamental truth, which is that, notwithstanding all our hopes, in the real world there is not going to be a viable and durable Palestinian state without peace and security guarantees from neighbouring Arab states, not least given that Iran continues to intensify its nuclear weapons programme. In other words, a two-state solution needs a 22-state solution and, rather than symbolic gestures, that is what our country’s practical diplomacy should now be directed towards.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on introducing this Private Member’s Bill, which I strongly support. Some have said that a two-state solution is no longer an option, but they have yet to propose an alternative. I believe that the only viable option is a two-state solution. Some 5.32 million Palestinians are recognised as a distinct population with the inalienable right to self-determination under the UN charter, making a Palestinian territory comprising the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
The Montevideo criteria have been referred to, but the Palestinians have a defined territory, as mentioned. It is universally accepted that this territory does not need to be fixed or of a particular size. When the UK recognised Israel in 1950, it did so without defining borders or its capital.
Palestine is recognised by 75% of the countries around the world, a global majority. The UK has supported the various UN resolutions that affirm the rights of the Palestinian people. It is the occupation that has hampered Palestinians in the achievement of self-determination and territorial integrity. The Palestinians are a highly educated people, with a distinct culture. They need our support to achieve a brighter future and should not have their human rights, which we all take for granted, denied.
Sympathy and symbolic gestures will not result in change. Recognition will give the people of Palestine the dignity and credibility to negotiate as equals. To make a two-state solution a reality means listening to those on the ground, the ordinary peace-loving people of both Israel and Palestine, of whom there are many, despite the divisive rhetoric and misery of this past year and a half. Palestinian and Israeli organisations are working together to shift the dynamics on the ground and combat settler violence and rampages through Palestinian towns and villages, and are educating and campaigning within and among their communities for diplomacy and non-violence. The organisations include: Rabbis for Human Rights, Looking the Occupation in the Eye, Combatants for Peace, Molad, Ir Amim, the Holy Land Trust, House of Lope and Nonviolence International, to name but a few of the many.
I welcome that in December the Prime Minister endorsed the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace to support civil society in the region as part of the work to negotiate a two-state solution. This is an important and welcome step, but in an ever-worsening situation the UK must do more, show real leadership and bring a degree of urgency to the matter. We must enhance the international rules-based order so that all are enfranchised and protected by it, whether in the global north or the global south, rather than benefiting only those with power who can discard it whenever they wish. Most importantly, we must do everything to protect our humanity with integrity and our moral compass.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, yesterday your Lordships’ House was debating the UK’s global position. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who called the debate, spoke about the need to work with the neo-non-aligned nations, the majority of the world’s states and people, who wish neither to cling to the coattails of the chaotic court of President Trump and answer to his whims nor to fall into the strangling gasp of the autocracies of Presidents Putin and Xi. These are states that wish to continue to uphold human rights and the rule of law, the norms hard won by campaigners and activists over past decades.
The question yesterday was essentially: what can the UK do as a middle-ranked power? Where should we position ourselves? Today we have the chance, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, to offer a direct, important, practical course of action: the recognition of the state of Palestine. As many noble Lords have noted, this aligns with the Labour Party manifesto from the recent election and with a majority of those neo-non-aligned states, 146 in total, which already recognise the state of Palestine. We are the laggards here and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, we do not have to wait for this Bill to go through all our parliamentary procedures. I join the noble Lord’s call for the Government to immediately recognise the state of Palestine.
We have had a powerful and important debate and I do not intend to go over the ground that has already been extensively covered. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that the need for the Palestinian people to have state recognition has never been so acute. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, that the recognition of the Palestinian state should be the first step, not the last, particularly with the looming gangsterish threats of the court in Washington which have suggested the reverse of self-determination, seemingly casually suggesting that the Palestinian people should be cleared out of Gaza.
As many noble Lords have indicated, recognition does not show support for any group or organisation within Palestine. It is a recognition of the need of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state. Who might that be for? A Human Rights Watch report from January this year, “Five Babies in One Incubator”: Violations of Pregnant Women’s Rights Amid Israel’s Assault on Gaza, tells the story of RM, a 31 year-old who was two months pregnant on 7 October 2023. She almost starved through her pregnancy, could not get adequate perinatal care and, after enduring a difficult labour, was forced to leave hospital after four hours and beg for a lift home. She and her family were then forced to evacuate their home and, at last report, were living in a tent, the newborn baby suffering from diarrhoea.
State recognition of course will not meet the medical needs of RM and her baby, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it would offer a gesture of hope. It would be something we could and should do.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Northover has done this House and the Government a great service by raising the possibility in her Bill of redressing a profound injustice with which we as a country have colluded for decades.
The implementation of UN Resolution 181, agreed almost 80 years ago in 1947, has been obstructed. The State of Israel came into being, but neither the state of Palestine nor the special status of Jerusalem have emerged. Has the wish for a Palestinian state gone away? Well, the Jewish wish for a state survived for around 2,000 years, so why do they imagine that the Palestinian wish for a state will disappear? As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and some others, have said, the global trajectory is increasingly towards support for Palestine and loss of support for Israel’s position and indeed for countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, whose stand is damaging their international reputation.
Those who oppose recognition criticise the other side, quoting the very real and horrible facts of terrorist outrages, quoting legal objections and obstacles, giving special regard to one side in the conflict, blaming the other and giving a veto to a Government who have no intention of producing a peaceful outcome. I listen to this and I have heard it before. I heard it in Northern Ireland—precisely the same voices and sentiments from unionists who had governed Northern Ireland for 50 years. It is often the same people in the same parties who are saying the same things that they said about Northern Ireland, and indeed, in some cases, South Africa. Eventually, the British Government stopped accepting a veto on progress and indicated that they wanted to see a change. Without that change of attitude, there would have been no peace process, no end to the terrorism and no Good Friday agreement.
I say to the Minister that those who reject this Bill and the other opportunities that are offered will find that history will judge them harshly. I have seen it; I remember speaking with a friend in South Africa who said, “The Broederbond will never allow it”; I grew up in a part of the United Kingdom where it seemed clear that the Orange Order and those who supported it would never allow a pluralist Government and a change of approach. But it came, and if there is one message of the last few weeks, it is that when the dam bursts, it does not burst gradually.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice: Israel has peace with Egypt; it has peace with Jordan and normalised relations with the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco. Israel does not appear to be the problem. Why do noble Lords who talk about the Balfour Declaration always forget the second part? We hear about the part that says
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
Then it is a full stop. What about the second part, which says
“the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”?
We know what happened to the Jews in the Arab lands of that period; it is easily forgotten.
Symbolic gestures do not create peace. Recognising a Palestinian state outside of negotiations is not a solution. It does not improve governance, security or economic stability. Instead, it sends a dangerous message that violence and extremism can be rewarded. I remind noble Lords that Hamas refuses to recognise Israel. Crucially, this moment cannot be separated from the horror of 7 October 2023. There can be no reward for barbarism and no reward for terrorism.
The irony that this debate falls on Purim should not be lost. Purim is a beautiful festival of joy and happiness. We recall the courage of Esther, who stood up to the forces of hatred in ancient Persia when Haman sought to eradicate the Jewish people. The story culminates with Charvona, a servant of the king’s palace, who, though initially aligned with Haman, eventually recognised the evil of his actions. He chose to speak up, revealing Haman’s treachery to the king. What is so striking about Charvona’s decision is his willingness to stand against evil, despite the personal risks. He understood that there comes a moment when one must speak the truth, no matter the cost. Charvona ultimately chose to act with integrity and, in doing so, helped bring about the downfall of Haman and the salvation of the Jewish people. Today, we must take a lesson and stand firm against extremism and hatred.
Silence in the face of the threats posed by Hamas and the Iranian regime and those who wish to destroy Israel is no longer an option. The silent majority in this country who condemn the actions of Hamas and the atrocities committed against Israel must now find their voice. Like Charvona, this is the time to speak up. We must be brave enough to speak the truth, call it out for what it is, and ensure that we do not reward those who seek violence over peace.
In conclusion, on 7 October, Hamas terrorists waged the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust—240 civilians taken hostage, 59 of them still there today. These terrorists openly and proudly share the same anti-Semitic philosophy as the Nazis and Haman from the story. They do not merely seek to attack Israelis; they want to eradicate all Jews. To support the establishment of a Palestinian state at this time would be to reward their actions. It would betray the victims of 7 October, condone hostage taking, promote anti-Semitism and declare that Jews’ lives did not matter. It would threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Israel and Jews around the world, and it would hand a posthumous victory to Hitler, Haman and Hamas.
Now, more than ever, we must be clear-eyed and principled in our approach. This is not the time for symbolic gestures that serve only to inflame tensions. It is the time to stand firmly for peace, truth, and the security of all people in the region. I urge this House to stand firmly against premature recognition and in favour of a truly negotiated peace.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to have been given the privilege of being able to say a few words during the gap, and I will try not to abuse that indulgence. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for instigating this debate, and I support her in everything that she said. I believe that the recognition of Palestine should be imminent. We should have done it already. It should not be the prize at the end of a process; that approach has not worked, nor will it. However, I do not understand why on the one hand we say that Palestinian statehood is conditional when at the same time we are turning a blind eye to the illegal expansion of Israel, building out the possibility of a two-state solution.
At the risk of repeating everything we have heard today, let me say that more than 146 members of the United Nations have already recognised Palestine. I pay tribute to the leadership that has been shown by our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, particularly in relation to what is going on in Ukraine. We would now like to see some of that leadership in relation to what is going on in Israel.
Regardless of what has been said about the Balfour Declaration, that declaration was a British initiative, and we have an enduring responsibility to ensure that all parts of it are upheld. I listened closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the conditions needed under international law to create a state. I have to say that he is a brilliant lawyer, but his approach was somewhat selective. For instance, some of the things that he spoke about are not achievable because of what is going on in the West Bank and in Gaza itself. He also failed to mention anything about the right of return for those descendants of Palestinians around the world—there are almost 5 million of them—who have had to leave what is now Israel.
I have a question for the Minister. The encylopedia definition of ethnic cleansing states that it is
“the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area … it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and”—
critically—“preventing its return”. I am mindful of the use of language in dealing with this issue, having been a former chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, of which my noble friend Lord Soames is the president, but, in the Government’s opinion, would the forcible removal of the population of Gaza constitute a crime against humanity?
I want a strong Israel—we need a stronger Israel now more than at almost any time—but it has to win international support, and it is losing that support. If it is involved in the forcible eviction of the population of Gaza, we have not seen the likes of what will ensue, nor do we wish to.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, there are times when we are reminded that we are all privileged to have a voice in public life. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to have what has been a generally very thoughtful and respectful debate on a vital issue. It is a vital issue of British foreign policy, but also of the very nature of peace.
I say to those who have got close to suggesting that there are some motives behind my noble friend’s proposition linked with some form of emboldening terrorism, that no one in this House supports terrorism. No one in the British Parliament supports terrorism and we should not even get close to suggesting that that is part of the motive.
Some have argued in the debate that recognition will embolden extremists. The failure to have recognition, some have argued, has already emboldened the extremists we see within the political system in Israel. The answer, which I would assume should have consensus across all elements in this debate, is to remove the incentive for extreme positions on a situation which is, I understand, the settled will of the United Kingdom—that there will be a Palestinian state.
Therefore, my noble friend should be commended for bringing her Bill to this House, allowing us to debate the need to make rapid progress on a Palestinian state and the fact that the United Kingdom can play a very significant part through recognition. There has been reference to groups; the noble Lord, Lord Katz, referred to Yachad. I am a great admirer of its work. There is also the British Palestine Project, which is the former Balfour Project. There have been many UK-based organisations which are part of considered debates on this issue. That is to our overall credit in this country.
It has also been interesting to me that no one in this debate—not a single person—has denied that Palestine is an occupied territory, such occupation being illegal under international law. That is helpful. There seems to be a complete consensus on that in this debate. My party takes the view, over many years of consideration, that recognition is the platform for the conclusive negotiations of a longer-term arrangement between Palestine and Israel, not a conclusion where one state determines the status of the other—especially, in the context of what my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, when one of those states is illegally occupying the territory of another. That creates a distortion of incentive in any form of looking at a sustainable peace for the long term.
The issue for some—including, I suspect, for the Minister—is timing. Timing is policy in itself. Therefore, we should recognise this. I want to quote from Hansard, referring to Middle East peace:
“the Palestinian problem lies at the very heart of the issue. The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories.”.—[Official Report, 14/5/1979; col. 240.]
This was Lord Carrington, in his first speech as Foreign Secretary when the Thatcher Government was formed in 1979.
As the noble Lord, Lord Soames, highlighted, that was the year of UN Security Council Resolution 446, prohibiting illegal settlements. They numbered not more than 15,000 people then. As he said, 45 years later, it is 750,000. He outlined the intent of certain Israeli Government Ministers—not a gesture, but intent—for that to be expanded further. Therefore, timing is of critical importance as policy. We will only repeat the failures of the past if we do not act.
The situation on the ground, some noble Lords have argued, prevents us acting now. When did that situation on the ground start? Was it 1979, or in 2025? Some in the debate have suggested that the conditions on the ground now—the presence of Hamas, and the continued displacement and threats—are a reward for terrorism. That is surely an argument to suggest that the current ceasefire is a mistake, but I have not heard them say that in this debate. I wonder why not. Do they feel that it is a grave error and legitimisation of Hamas for the US Government to have sat down bilaterally with Hamas last week, without that being part of any structured involvement of the Palestinian Authority or brokered talks through Qatar?
Some noble Lords have argued in the debate that, in the absence of finalised agreements on border areas, resource access, infrastructure challenges, displaced people, proposed land swaps that have not been agreed, and lack of normalisation at the start of the political process with its nearest neighbour, the time is not right —"the gesture”, as some have suggested. But if those criteria, set by them in this debate, were in place on 18 February 2008, we would not have recognised Kosovo. In recognising Kosovo, the then Labour Government said that the UK was doing so when others did not because they had made the judgment that it would be impossible to see a return to Serbian control. Some would argue, presumably, that that position should have been denied for South Sudan on 9 July 2011.
The situation on the ground is a political one. The question is whether we want to see two parties negotiate on an equivalent basis regarding an incentive for the future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, indicated. In many ways, the case is stronger for Palestinian recognition. I was not surprised that this debate had two eminent lawyers speaking in it; I was equally unsurprised that they took a contrary view. But a political view must see that Palestine has a defined territory, recognised in customary UK foreign policy, and in trade and partnership agreements between His Majesty’s Government and Palestine, based on historical borders, as my noble friend indicated. Palestine does have a permanent population within boundaries, as the UK has recognised through direct diplomatic consular representation of UK interests in those territorial areas. It has a Government, who we have supported on a consular, technical and funding basis, and a capacity to enter into relations with other states, which we know is happening now. All the criteria of the 1933 Montevideo convention apply more strongly to Palestine than they did to Kosovo in 2008 or South Sudan in 2011.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, whom I respect, spoke clearly and sincerely. He suggested that this should happen at the end of the process, but not now. I have visited Israel—a visit promoted by Yachad—and I met others who took a position distinct from his. For me, the question is who now rebuilds from the rubble and who now negotiates a future for both states, where trauma is intense, where there are still extreme players, and where the ones with the highest stakes have a mutual need for security. It cannot be President Trump or his envoy, negotiating directly with Hamas; it has to be on the basis of there being recognised states from a United Kingdom perspective.
Before I close, I want to go back to 1979 and 1980, because what was the context then is the context now. The position on the ground is of importance when it comes to ownership and respect; we need to find a way to reduce extremist narratives, as there can only ever be a political solution. The year after Lord Carrington made his speech, David Steel led a Liberal delegation to the Middle East, in September and October 1980. The delegation met President Assad, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, His Majesty King Hussein, Shimon Peres and President Sadat. I close by quoting from the conclusion of that visit. On the question of recognition of Palestinian rights, the delegation said:
“The delegation is convinced that no lasting international agreement is either possible or just which does not recognise the rights of the Palestinian people. At the core of that recognition is the creation of a national Palestinian identity, free to determine its future relations with its neighbours. As the Lebanese Foreign Minister Mr Boutros put it, ‘The homeland is the beginning of a solution.’”
The time is now, not in another 45 years.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, like others, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for bringing this Bill forward. In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said that the purpose of Private Members’ Bills was to provoke a debate. The noble Baroness can certainly congratulate herself on having done that. We have heard many passionate and strongly argued positions on both sides and across parties, which has been fascinating.
She will not be surprised to hear that, unfortunately, these Benches cannot support the Bill. While we recognise the deep concerns and strong convictions on this matter, we must ensure that any action taken aligns with our principles and our long-standing foreign policy commitments. The Conservative Party has consistently supported a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We agree that it is imperative to offer the people of the West Bank and Gaza the political perspectives of a credible route to statehood and a future of peace and prosperity. However, we maintain that the recognition of a Palestinian state must come at a time when it is most conducive to that peace process. That moment has not yet arrived. Recognition also cannot be the start of the process.
As many others have said, the horrific atrocities committed on 7 October remain fresh in the memory. Hostages are still being held by Hamas and, until recently, Hamas was still being fought in many parts of Gaza. Every effort must be made to ensure that every single hostage is returned safely to their family. This is a matter not merely of diplomacy but of fundamental human rights. Furthermore, any path to peace requires that Hamas no longer governs Gaza and that its capacity to launch attacks against Israel is decisively removed and ended. Ensuring the dismantling of terrorist networks is an unavoidable and necessary step towards a lasting resolution.
If the Palestinian Authority is to take on an expanded role, it becomes even more imperative that it implements the most significant programme of reform in its history. Such reforms must include fundamental changes to welfare and education policies that leave so much to be desired. Transparency, accountability and good governance must be at the heart of any PA Administration. Democratic progress must also be demonstrable. As we have said before, we would also like to see Israel take steps, including in relation to frozen funds and West Bank settlements. We want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords, which we hope can be restarted.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is very unusual for a state to be recognised through an Act of Parliament. Usually, the royal prerogative is used to recognise states. Like others, I very much look forward to the response of the Government and the Minister.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for presenting this Bill and thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It was good to meet the noble Baroness to discuss her Bill in advance of this debate. I thank her for her time. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, Private Members’ Bills provide an important and helpful opportunity to debate these important issues. Before I address the Bill directly, I will speak to some of the issues around the ceasefire, Gaza and the West Bank today.
The current agreement to end the fighting in Gaza is a moment of opportunity after more than a year of agony. We must thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless mediation efforts and take comfort that British citizen Emily Damari and UK-linked Eli Sharabi have been freed after their horrific ordeal at the hands of Hamas, and that the body of UK-linked Oded Lifshitz has been returned to his family.
The ceasefire remains fragile. We need all parties to sustain the ceasefire and deliver the agreement in full, with the release of all hostages, and move it through the phases and into a lasting peace. The ceasefire agreement is just the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region. Long-term stability will require a political process and a political horizon towards a two-state solution. Only that, over time, will ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis.
Even with the welcome ceasefire, the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate. We are gravely concerned by recent Israeli restrictions on aid and electricity supplies entering Gaza. Aid should not be used as a political tool, and we urge Israel to lift restrictions immediately to ensure that the supply of humanitarian assistance and access to essential services in Gaza continue. The Foreign Secretary made this clear to Israel’s Foreign Minister during their call on 5 March. Israel must work closely with the UN and all partners to facilitate a surge in aid, including reinstating commercial deliveries and allowing more types of goods into Gaza to support health and shelter needs and the resumption of basic services.
We have been clear that Gazans must now be allowed to return to their homes and rebuild. We do not support any forcible removal of people from or within Gaza or the West Bank, or any reduction in the territory of the OPTs.
The Foreign Secretary, along with the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Italy, has welcomed the Arab initiative of a recovery and reconstruction plan for Gaza. It shows a realistic path to the reconstruction of Gaza and improvement of the catastrophic living conditions for Palestinians living there. These plans must be based on a solid political and security framework that is acceptable to, and provides long-term peace and security for, both Israelis and Palestinians. We are committed to working with the Arab initiative, the Palestinians and Israel to develop these plans, including on security and governance.
Our funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year has included a £2 million uplift through a contribution to the World Bank to deliver water and energy infrastructure across the OPTs. This will support early recovery efforts. We are funding two roles within the Palestinian Authority’s recovery, reconstruction and development team, strengthening the PA’s capacity to plan for the next phase in Gaza.
On the West Bank, we have made clear our serious concern at recent Israeli military activity. Israel must show restraint, ensure that the scale of its operations is proportionate to the threat posed and minimise the loss of civilian lives and property. Stability and security are essential at this time. Settlement expansion has reached record levels in the last 12 months. The Israeli Government seized more of the West Bank in 2024 than in the previous 20 years. We are clear that settlements are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the viability of a two-state solution.
In October last year, we sanctioned three outposts and four entities that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the West Bank. We will look at all options to take tougher action. The Prime Minister has been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Israeli Government must take greater action to hold violent settlers to account and to clamp down on those who seek to inflame tensions.
I turn now to the issue of recognition. As many noble Lords have pointed out, Palestinian statehood is the right of the Palestinian people. It is not the gift of any neighbour, and it is vital that the people of the West Bank and Gaza are given the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. This needs to be irreversible. That is why this Government unequivocally support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. That is why our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. I note the route suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I thank him for his constructive approach. I am not, as he would expect, in a position to endorse his idea, but I thank him for making that suggestion.
However, my noble friends and I do not support this Bill today. This is not because we do not support the goal—as many have said, this Government strongly support recognition of the state of Palestine—but because imposing a timetable on this decision would hinder our ability to achieve the goal of a sustainable two-state solution, as my noble friend Lord Katz said. We must take this step when the time is right. Meanwhile, we will work tirelessly alongside our international partners to support a process towards sustainable peace.
This financial year, the UK has provided £129 million to help alleviate the suffering, including £41 million for UNRWA, which is supporting the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region. UK support has meant that more 500,000 people have received essential healthcare; 647,000 people have received food; and 284,000 people have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. We are working with partners to support the surge in humanitarian aid to Gaza that is needed now.
It is in the long-term interests of both Israelis and Palestinians that this ceasefire holds and progresses through each of its phases, and that both sides take this opportunity to begin the process of rebuilding a pathway to peace and stability. Peace will be sustainable only if both sides recommit to a renewed peace process resulting in a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This Government are committed to doing all we can both to support this and to recognise a Palestinian state, which we will do not at the end of a process, as some have suggested, but at the point at which recognition by the United Kingdom would have the greatest effect in bringing about the peace and stability that every speaker this afternoon wishes so dearly to see.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank everyone for their contributions, including the one that we have just heard from the Minister. Strangely enough, I particularly appreciate noble Lords’ support, but here I single out how amazing it was to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, a Kindertransport child whose wise, generous and constructive contributions in Parliament over so many years bring him now to support my Bill. I am humbled and honoured that he did so.
I have been in this House for many years. I can hardly count the number of Ministers who have held the line, “Recognised but not now”, but have, when out of government, often deeply regretted that action on this was not taken. So I certainly hope that this Government will move forward, as the Minister indicated. The instability in the region and globally, which is terribly affecting Israelis as well as Palestinians, demands that this is more than urgent.
Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Baroness Finn would ensure that a Statutory Instrument which is challenged by the House of Lords under section 1 can only be withheld for a maximum of forty days, after which it shall be approved.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I start by setting out the Official Opposition’s broad approach to the Bill. We wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his desire to improve scrutiny of secondary legislation. We agree that a “think again” power might be a useful additional tool for Parliament when considering secondary legislation.
Approximately 3,500 statutory instruments are made each year, with Parliament considering around 1,000 of them. Governments are increasingly using statutory instruments to carry on their business, and it is only right that Parliament has the appropriate tools to scrutinise secondary legislation. Indeed, Conservative Ministers have previously sought to introduce a similar power, on which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde did some excellent work. We support the improved scrutiny of secondary legislation and have tabled a number of constructive amendments to probe the noble Lord’s intentions and understand how the Bill would work in practice
On my Amendments 1 and 2, the Bill as drafted would require a Minister of the Crown to table a Motion in the other place when your Lordships’ House passes a Motion to withhold approval of a statutory instrument on the grounds that the Minister should consider amending it. Our amendments would limit the length of time the House of Lords could withhold approval of a statutory instrument to a maximum of 40 days.
Were your Lordships’ House to prove overzealous in the use of the new “think again” power, this could run the risk of clogging up the Order Paper in the other place, hindering that House’s ability to effectively manage its own business. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that regret Motions in your Lordships’ House have no legal effect and are thought by some to be a waste of time, but with this amendment we are testing whether it is appropriate for your Lordships’ House to have the ability to trigger large numbers of debatable Motions in another place. We seek to understand more fully what the implications of that new power might be.
Instead of leaving the possibility of an unacceptable number of “think again” Motions being moved in another place, our amendment would mean that a Government who do not wish to heed the recommendation to think again would not have to table a separate Motion to reject those concerns. Admittedly, this leaves the discretion not to amend the statutory instrument with the Minister alone, rather than the other place, but the other place has its own powers to approve or reject secondary legislation as it sees fit.
If the Bill becomes law in its present form, we should seek to ensure that your Lordships’ House uses these powers very sparingly. It would be an unacceptable state of affairs if your Lordships’ House could withhold a large number of statutory instruments, forcing the Government to move a time-consuming number of Motions in the other place.
I will now speak my Amendment 3. In its current form, this part of the Bill seems to imply that your Lordships’ House could choose not to consider a re-laid statutory instrument if it did not wish to do so. Our amendment seeks to clarify the drafting to ensure that all statutory instruments that have been considered, challenged and re-laid are considered formally again before being approved.
We are particularly concerned that, should a circumstance arise where your Lordships’ House could choose not to consider formally an amended and re-laid statutory instrument, the decision to use the new “think again” power would have an impact on parliamentary time in another place but not in your Lordships’ House. This clarification would retain a light check on the House using this power too frequently, or even as a standard response to statutory instruments where minor disagreement arises. Noble Lords would know that any decision to use the powers in Clause 1 would have a direct impact on parliamentary time in your Lordships’ House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will know that, as I explained when I spoke at Second Reading, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am very concerned indeed by the way statutory instruments are dealt with, whichever Government are in power. We have on many occasions put forward suggestions as to how this could be settled in a satisfactory manner.
At the moment, we have statutory instruments which are badly drafted. There is no mechanism whereby, once laid, they could be amended. On one occasion, the last time the Labour Party was in power, I persuaded a Minister to withdraw an instrument and lay it again. That should not be necessary. There should be some mechanism whereby statutory instruments can be amended.
There are a number of other criticisms. Perhaps the most important is that Explanatory Memoranda should actually explain. Many is the occasion when the Explanatory Memorandum seems to try to explain the inexplicable by repeating the wording of the statutory instrument, as if that was an explanation. Then we have statutory instruments without proper impact assessments. So I warmly welcome the way the noble Lord is approaching this subject.
I say to my noble friend Lady Finn that her route, of tabling amendments to make the Bill more acceptable by putting us on the same basis as the House of Commons so that both Houses have powers to improve the quality of secondary legislation, can only be a step in the right direction. I anticipate that the Minister may find ways to make it no longer possible to support the Bill, which I would greatly regret. Therefore, it is very much up to us all to amend the Bill so that it becomes more acceptable, whichever Government are in power, so I warmly support my noble friend.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, I do not wish to say anything about the urgent need for reform. Clarifying the use of the word “may” via Amendment 3 is sensible. You do not want to leave any dispute about it because “may” often means “must”, at least to a lawyer.
However, I have concerns about the effect of the other two amendments. First, given the speed at which statutory instruments proceed, giving the House power to delay for only 40 days might mean that a Minister will shrug his shoulders and say, “So what?” Secondly, it seems to me that if the procedure in subsection (2) is to be followed, then “a Minister must” is completely right, as is the use of “must” in line 16. The “must” in subsection (2) is right because you want to ensure that the Minister does something; it should not be at his discretion.
In discussions when the result of the last election was more speculative, one picked up the feeling in the House that some people would be happy to see the procedure changed so that there was proper scrutiny. But, as it currently stands, the statutory instrument procedure is the most wonderful tool for a Government, because it enables them to avoid lengthy—in my view, sometimes wholly unnecessarily lengthy—debates in the House. Unless we can make the statutory instrument procedure work more effectively in the manner suggested by this Bill, it seems to me that we are steadily eroding the power of this House to properly examine important legislation. One has only to look at something such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. I completely understand why the Government wanted that to be a framework Bill, because the procedures of the House make it impossible to do it by primary legislation, but if we cannot change our procedure for primary legislation, we have to change the procedure for secondary legislation. Therefore, I support one of the amendments in this group, but not the other two.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am most grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their support. They have really said everything that I could say about the simple provision that is being put forward. I just say that the amendments are really misconceived. If the second amendment, to put “may” for “must” in subsection (2), were passed, it would mean that the Minister would have discretion not to bring the matter before the House of Commons at all, and that would be the end of it: after 40 days, nothing happens and the provision goes through unamended, with all its faults.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his continued work championing the important issue of secondary legislation.
As we all know, this House plays a vital role in ensuring that all legislation brought forward by this Government is of the highest standard. I am grateful for the role played by committees of this House, including the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in ensuring that statutory instruments are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Our current procedures and processes for statutory instruments allow for both Houses to scrutinise and debate instruments.
Turning to the first group of amendments, which address the scrutiny of instruments in this place, I believe that these amendments are well intended, and I recognise that they represent a check on the power of this place and assert its right to scrutinise instruments laid before it. However, the Government’s view remains that we should continue to get this right in the first instance. That is why, as my noble friend Lady Anderson set out at Second Reading, we must focus our efforts on ensuring that statutory instruments are delivered to the highest quality in the first place.
That is not to say that the situation is perfect. This Government are aware that Parliament has not always been given the information it needs to fully scrutinise legislation, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has sometimes asked for further detail. This has on occasion led to some Explanatory Memoranda being replaced to include that information. But I remind the House, and, I hope, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that this Government have pledged, and intend, to do better. This does not mean, however, that we need to revise the procedures for the consideration of statutory instruments.
In a similar vein, while I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for her amendment which seeks to ensure that this House does not have greater powers to amend statutory instruments than the other place, I maintain that the Government’s position is that the legislation before us is not the way to remedy our processes regarding such instruments. I am, none the less, grateful to her for drawing attention to the importance of maintaining a balance between the powers of our Houses.
Additional training, resources and guidance have been and continue to be developed and revised as appropriate to support our ongoing efforts to do better. This includes training and resources for Ministers and civil servants, and last month the Guide to Making Legislation was updated. This update includes a new delegated powers toolkit which has been produced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and which will support departments to decide whether to include a delegated power in a Bill. Our hope is that this will support the subsequent development of quality instruments and supporting documentation.
The final group concerns the technical correction of statutory instruments. It would be remiss of me at this point not to draw the Committee’s attention to the excellent work carried out by the National Archives, which oversees the so-called correction slip process. This is a well-established process through which the Government can already make minor, non-substantive corrections to defective statutory instruments after their publication. The National Archives does an excellent job in assessing whether a corrections slip is appropriate on a case-by-case basis and, where applicable, issues the slip to the Vote Office in the Commons and the Printed Paper Office in the Lords.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I think the Minister may be talking to the next group of amendments.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his response to my amendments, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for their contributions. Having been a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee when I first joined your Lordships’ House—I think it was during the first two or three years of the Brexit legislation—I have full sympathy with the points made on Explanatory Memoranda and lack of impact assessments, so I fully support all that my noble friend said on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point that he disagrees with my Amendments 1 and 2 about only the Minister having the power to lay the statutory instruments before the other place and the time limit. I understand his arguments. On Amendment 3, if we do not want to leave any doubt on “may” or “must”, it is probably simpler to leave it as “must” rather than “may”.
However, I entirely sympathise with the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for drafting the Bill. Presently, your Lordships have a binary choice of whether to reject an SI or approve it. There is no procedural mechanism for the Government or Members in another place to consider your Lordships’ reasons for refusal. The Bill would allow any challenge from your Lordships’ House to be considered in another place, and I am pleased that there is within the Bill the clear power for the elected House to reject the proposed changes recommended by noble Lords. This, as the noble Lord argued at Second Reading, preserves the primacy of the elected House over the revising and scrutinising Chamber.
That said, as we will debate in the next group, it is not clear why the power to initiate the “think again” process is vested solely in your Lordships’ House under this Bill. I am pleased to have been able to put our concerns on the record, but, as I said at the beginning of our debate, we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in bringing forward the Bill. We hope that our constructive amendments have provoked a useful debate on the appropriate powers that this House should have to amend secondary legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
“(6) Where for the purposes of subsection (1) the House in which the instrument is considered is the House of Commons, the rest of this section will apply with “the House of Commons” in place of “the House of Lords”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would ensure the House of Lords does not have greater powers to amend statutory instruments than the House of Commons.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4 seeks to grant another place the same power to initiate the “think again” procedure under Clause 1. In the other place, secondary legislation is considered differently than in your Lordships’ House. When an affirmative statutory instrument is tabled there, it is automatically referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. These committees have 16 to 18 members, and any member can attend and speak, but only members of the committee can vote. A Delegated Legislation Committee considers an SI but does not have the power to stop it. In some rare cases, the statutory instrument is not referred to a committee but is debated on the Floor of the House if it is of particular interest. Once the statutory instrument has been debated by a committee, it needs final approval by another place before being made and becoming law.
As noble Lords will see, the other place suffers from precisely the same handicap as your Lordships’ House when considering secondary legislation. It has the binary choice to approve or not to approve. That is the question.
I tabled this amendment to probe the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to grant an equal power to the other place to initiate the “think again” procedure. We are open to discussions on the precise drafting of this amendment, but it is the principle we are seeking to probe. Why should your Lordships’ House have the power to trigger a process by which Ministers are asked to think again when another place does not have that power? I accept that the Bill grants another place the ultimate say on whether Ministers are forced to amend their instrument, thus preserving the primacy of the elected House, but we do not understand why it is only your Lordships’ House that can initiate a process that asks the Government to reconsider.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not going to go over all the points I already made in anticipation of the noble Baroness’s introduction of group 2. As I made clear, additional training, resources and guidance have been, and continue to be, developed and revised as appropriate to support our genuine, ongoing effort to do better. We hope that this will support the subsequent development of good-quality instruments and supporting documentation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, my objection to this amendment is that it simply does not make sense. We cannot, in the machinery that is set out in my Bill, conceivably exchange the position of the House of Lords for the House of Commons. I am not proposing legislating for the House of Commons but for the House of Lords, in the fulfilment of its function as a revising Chamber. If you change the words round—to read “House of Commons” instead of “House of Lords”—we would be asking the House of Commons to advise itself that it has made a mistake. I do not think that that can be done. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, I regret to say, does not make sense in the way that it is framed.
The machinery I have proposed allows the House of Lords to consider an instrument that is put before it and whether it has any concerns. If it has concerns, it does not form them into an amendment to the instrument; it simply conveys those concerns to the House of Commons for it to consider. Clause 1(2) offers two possible courses of action for the House of Commons: it can reject the concerns expressed altogether, and that is the end of that; alternatively, it can request the Minister to make amendments to the draft instrument. It is the House of Commons that makes the suggestion, to the Minister, of an amendment.
You cannot reverse that and suggest that there should be some machinery in the House of Commons to ask the House of Lords to make suggestions of amendments and to frame amendments for a Minister to make. It just does not make sense. Accordingly, since this particular amendment is a complete muddle, and with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, I ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for engaging with me on this amendment yesterday. I understand why, as he explained then, he thinks that it does not make sense.
We tabled this amendment to highlight the fact that the other place, just like your Lordships’ House, has no power to amend statutory instruments. If your Lordships’ House should have the power to initiate a “think again” process, with the consent of the other place, and to send Ministers back to look at their instrument again, we do not understand why the reverse should not be true—that the other place has the chance to look at it, not just that the Minister bring it.
It could be argued that when the other place disagrees with an instrument as the elected House, it should decline to approve it, yet we know that that has not happened since July 1978. It has been your Lordships’ House that has been more forceful in these matters, having rejected four statutory instruments by fatal Motion since 1997. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this Bill seeks to give Ministers the power to change the text of statutory instruments after they have been approved by Parliament. The Hansard Society discussed the problems posed by incorrect drafting in statutory instruments at length in its 2023 report, Proposals for a New System for Delegated Legislation. In that report, the society confirmed that mundane technical errors might be addressed with a correction slip, but once a statutory instrument is made into law, any significant corrections that need to be made to it require that it be revoked, amended or replaced via a new instrument, thus duplicating many elements of the workload of departmental civil servants, National Archives staff and parliamentary officials, as well as Members. So once a statutory instrument is made, there can be no corrections, no matter how minor or technical, to the text of the secondary legislation.
We appreciate that Clause 2 seeks to put the current post-approval correction process on a statutory footing, but before putting this process into law, we must ask ourselves whether it is good practice in the first place. I accept that successive Governments bear responsibility for this, but Ministers should not introduce statutory instruments that need correction. They should get the drafting right before they are considered by Parliament. This is why we are concerned about putting this process, which seeks to resolve the results of bad practice, into law. The Hansard Society has put forward a proposal that all statutory instruments should be laid before Parliament in draft, other than in exceptional circumstances. This seems a far more sensible way forward. Surely, ironing out errors prior to the approval of a statutory instrument is superior to granting Ministers a statutory power to make those changes after approval. This process invites another concern about how the House is able to undertake sufficient scrutiny of ministerial use of this power to make technical amendments to ensure that the power is not improperly exercised.
Perhaps the newly created power in Clause 1 might be sufficient to give your Lordships’ House the opportunity to highlight errors in statutory instruments and recommend their correction by Ministers. As a general point, and I accept that successive Governments bear responsibility for this, Ministers should not introduce statutory instruments that need correction. They should get the drafting right before they are laid before Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I suppose we are at a crossroads here: are we or are we not going to have legislation to improve statutory instruments and the procedure that is adopted? As I predicted at Second Reading and as we heard earlier from the Minister, there is no general enthusiasm for the Bill, which I regret.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, reminded us, with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill we had a direct confrontation between the Government on one hand and Parliament on the other. Our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made a very clear recommendation that all statutory instruments in the context of that Bill should follow the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, had a special session with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as a result of which the committee said that it was not minded to withdraw its recommendation that all statutory instruments should follow the affirmative procedure. I moved an amendment to observe and support our Select Committee, but it was voted down. I sense that even when a committee as powerful as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has such a strong recommendation, even when it listens to the Minister and still maintains its position, there is no procedure whereby Parliament can hold the Executive to account through the affirmative resolution procedure.
I am filled with scepticism as to whether this is going to make progress. I can well understand my noble friend moving that Clause 2 no longer stand part, because, in a way, we are searching for a way to make this Bill acceptable, so that it can go to the other place and we can put it on the statute book as soon as possible. As the noble Lord knows, I strongly support Clause 1, but I have a nasty feeling that, despite his noble intentions, which I strongly support, we are slowly entering a cul-de-sac. Perhaps the Minister can lay aside all my worries and concerns by suddenly rising to say that she and her colleagues have changed their minds and we are going to have a far better procedure, as set out in this Bill, in which case I will be very pleased indeed.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree, and that is why it is such a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He is right in identifying the crossroads: either we deal with our primary legislative procedure and make it more effective and efficient—in that I have great sympathy with any Government who want to get on with things—or we find a procedure for dealing with important instruments that subjects them to scrutiny on the Floor of the House, where they can be amended. We are doing far too much in the way of important changes to the law by statutory instrument, rather than by work on the Floor of the House through a proper Bill. But, if you decide that you cannot do anything about the primary legislative procedure, you cannot leave the secondary legislative procedure alone. The hereditary Peers Bill is a very good example of why, if you do not take an opportunity to reform one thing, you end up with something much worse. I urge the Government to look very seriously at this Bill.
I cannot agree with the proposal that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. There is quite an important issue at stake. It is impossible, in our present procedure, to get the legislation drafted perfectly when it has not been scrutinised by someone outside it. That is an impossibility. Lawyers will always find things wrong. Although the Minister says that her legislation is perfect, I am afraid I disagree: it is not. It is a little far-fetched to think that, because we have a new Government, the whole machinery of government that drafts all this wakes up in the morning completely transformed. That is not the case. Therefore, there is a need to correct.
What is important here, then, is making sure that we are doing this in the right way. Although I am a great believer in conventions, which is what governs the current position—and what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic shows the importance of convention to the operation of our constitution—if we are altering law, the mechanism for altering it, to accord with the rule of law, has to be under a statutory power; we cannot leave it to convention. Therefore, although some people may raise their eyebrows at this clause, I do not see how you can leave that to convention; you must make it a lawful power under legislation. So I regret to say that I cannot support the proposal of the noble Baroness to amend the Bill in this way.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I have already covered some of my points in this final group. This Government support the current correction slips process. While it should never be needed, it is helpful where minor and technical corrections are required; it is a well-established process and it is used rarely and infrequently. Correction slips, as I started to say previously, are published on legislation.gov.uk, which ensures the transparency of these technical corrections. It is obviously desirable that corrections are never needed, but in our view, we need to be pragmatic in this respect. We should therefore acknowledge that this is a part of a system that works very well, with only 69 correction slips being used in the previous Session of Parliament to make non-substantive amendments to instruments containing minor typographical errors.
Appreciating the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I again give reassurance that this Government genuinely remain committed to improving the delivery of statutory instruments. Noble Lords will be able to judge us on our success over the course of this Parliament. I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to have this debate and for the time given to discuss what we agree is a very important issue.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the motivation for this proposal came from a very weary colleague who was fed up with sitting in the Moses Room while instruments were brought back to the Grand Committee from Ministers who had made mistakes some months before—what a waste of time. This debate does illustrate the waste of the time of the noble Lords in this House who sit on committees—the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Constitution Committee and the one I always get the name of wrong and on which I sat—
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I thank noble Lords. We spend a long time worrying about whether things should be affirmative or negative. The debates then take place, there are regret Motions and the whole House is trooping through the Lobbies. There is a great deal of worry for everybody to be here. There is barely a sentence in the press the following day. Even if the regret Motion is won, nothing happens.
The proposal in Clause 2, on corrections of statutory instruments, puts into statute and gives a bit of “oomph” to what already exists through the National Archives and the work that it does. I am not saying that that is not done but it has no publicity. It does not have an airing. People’s views are not heard in this Chamber.
Therefore, I resist the noble Baroness’s clause stand part notice and ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his response and for the time that he has taken. I totally understand his frustration with current practice. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for highlighting the problems with secondary legislation and holding the Executive to account.
We know that corrections in secondary legislation are a time-consuming problem. In the 2021-22 Session, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee found that 9.6% of all statutory instruments had to be replaced by a correcting instrument due to errors in the original approved instrument. Clearly, this should be resolved, but we are not convinced that the 40-day period in which Ministers can make corrections will be the silver bullet that we seek. We recognise the problem and hope to consider other possible ways to resolve this ongoing issue before we can accept this new statutory power. I beg leave to withdraw.