Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Happy spring equinox and happy World Sparrow Day to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.
Fly-tipping blights communities, harms the environment and places huge costs on taxpayers and businesses. Councils dealt with over 1 million incidents in 2023-24, some 6% more than in the previous year. This Government will crack down on fly-tipping by establishing clean-up squads comprised of those very individuals who dump rubbish in our communities. We are also tackling litter by introducing a ban on single-use vapes from 1 June this year and a deposit return scheme for drinks containers.
Paul Waugh
Rochdale council has removed 6,500 fly- tips this past year alone, the equivalent of 50 tonnes of illegally dumped waste every month, at a cost of £400,000 to local taxpayers. But my council tells me that there is a real failure in the courts issuing consistent and tough enough fines. Does the Minister agree with me that it is time to crack down harder on fly-tippers, put much tighter regulations on waste carriers and treat the fly-tippers like the criminals they are, by crushing their cars and putting points on their licences?
Mary Creagh
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I hear enthusiasm for his comments from both sides of the House. Rochdale council has an exemplary record on fly-tipping, with 26 fixed-penalty notices and 12 prosecutions, which is admirable. Last week, the Environment Agency worked with the north-west regional organised crime unit to arrest two men in Manchester for fraud and money laundering, following an extensive investigation into packaging export notes used by law-abiding firms to export waste that were unlawfully sold for £747,000. Our message to the waste criminals is clear: we are seeking powers in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are going to track them down.
Rachel Hopkins
Fly-tipping is a scourge on local communities and a drain on council resources, be they rural councils, like Central Bedfordshire, or town councils, like Luton, in my constituency. Most recent figures show that there were over 10,000 fly-tipping incidents in Luton alone in 2023-24, but does the Minister agree that we need a co-ordinated approach between the Department, local authorities and the police to deliver a holistic strategy to tackle fly-tipping?
Mary Creagh
It is clear that my hon. Friend is right. Luton has a particular problem with fly-tipping, but the council has been doing good work, with 263 fixed-penalty notices and 32 prosecutions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs the national fly-tipping prevention group, and we work with a wide range of interested parties, including councils, the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to disseminate good practice, and I urge Luton to join us in that endeavour.
Warinder Juss
Although City of Wolverhampton council is to be congratulated on introducing a range of initiatives to tackle fly-tipping, including deploying drones, raising the fine for fly-tipping to £1,000 and rewarding those who identify culprits with gift cards, fly-tipping in my constituency of Wolverhampton West costs Wolverhampton taxpayers around £300,000 a year and involved some 2,714 incidents during 2023-24. Does the Minister agree that we need stronger disincentives to discourage those who fly-tip, so that that £300,000 can be redistributed to where it is really needed?
Mary Creagh
I am interested to hear about the work my hon. Friend’s council is doing with drones. We use CCTV, but there could be lessons for other councils. In our manifesto, we committed to forcing fly-tippers to clean up their mess. We are seeking powers to issue statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance so we have a consistent and effective approach, but it is clear that the waste carriers, brokers and dealers, and the exemption permitting regimes, are not fit for purpose. I have asked my officials to look at everything we can do to strengthen both of those.
David Williams
Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities, but in Stoke-on-Trent, our Labour-led council has worked tirelessly to turn things around. Under the Conservatives, residents were waiting for over a month for waste to be removed, but under the leadership of Jane Ashworth and Amjid Wazir, that response time is now under one week. However, councils cannot tackle the issue alone, so will the Minister outline what more the Government can do to support local councils to clamp down on fly-tipping, get tough on those who blight our streets, and create cleaner, greener communities for all?
Mary Creagh
It is interesting what a difference a change in council leadership makes. I commend Councillor Ashworth and Councillor Wazir on their excellent work. This Government will introduce mandatory digital waste tracking from April 2026, and I will update the House on progress in May 2025. If people want their streets to be cleaned up, the answer is clear: vote Labour.
Mr Forster
Fly-tipping is a real concern in my constituency of Woking, but I understand that the previous Government introduced new powers that enabled Woking borough council and other local authorities to strengthen their actions against people who fly-tip. What impact have those measures had?
Mary Creagh
We have not assessed the impact, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the latest statistics for his own council. There were more than 1,100 fly-tipping incidents, but just three fixed-penalty notices and no prosecutions. Local councillors are clearly making choices. We know that the latest statistics for fly-tipping show a rise of 6%, so it is clear that under the previous Government, this environmental crime was allowed to spiral out of control. I encourage all councils—of whatever colour—to make good use of their enforcement powers.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Alas, the last Government did not take up my suggestion that the offenders be garrotted with their own intestines. The first problem, however, is to catch them. Is there any way that local authorities can be encouraged to take advantage of the collapse in price and improvement in quality of internet-connected cameras?
Mary Creagh
I think there would be some human rights implications with the garrotting option, but I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passionate hatred for these environmental criminals. He is a representative of the beautiful New Forest, where I have spent many happy holidays, and it really upsets me to see fly-tipping on ancient woodland run by the Forestry Commission. These are precious and irreplaceable areas. We have not looked at that part of his suggestion, but I am very happy to join forces with him and make it a cross-party mission that we sort the messes out once and for all.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Conservative-run East Sussex county council has introduced a booking system for the local tip in Eastbourne that will make it even more difficult for many people to get rid of their waste. Many local campaigners are concerned that it will result in increased fly-tipping, specifically in areas such as Upperton in my constituency, and we have already seen it in Hartfield Square and Upperton Gardens. How might the Minister be able to influence East Sussex county council to U-turn on its unpopular decision and to keep our community clean and free from fly-tipping?
Mary Creagh
All councils have been given an uplift under this Labour Government, so they have more money to be able to deal with the priorities of their local communities, and I encourage them to think about where that money is spent. There is also a really important equality issue here: if people do not have access to the internet in East Sussex, due to blackspots, they might not be able to digitally book in, so I would look at digital exclusion. The people who are least able to afford the internet should not be forced into dealing with unscrupulous rogues.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We know that fly-tipping is an expensive and dangerous nuisance. Local authorities such as Conservative-led Walsall council are taking a really proactive and determined approach to tackling it, but with bin strikes on our doorstep under the neighbouring Labour-led Birmingham city council, we fear more fly-tipping, particularly in the communities that border Birmingham. Alarmingly, we are hearing of rats the size of cats in Britain’s second city, and these squeaky blinders are definitely not welcome in Aldridge-Brownhills. What specific support can the Minister provide to neighbouring authorities in these specific circumstances, and what can she do to bring the bin strikes to an end?
Mary Creagh
Obviously Birmingham city council’s bin situation is a matter for the council, but, as a neighbouring MP in Coventry, we have not seen any of the fly-tipping that the right hon. Lady talks about seeing in Walsall. Both sides need to get round the table and sort this out for the benefit of the people of Birmingham.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
My officials and I have regular conversations with Ofwat and other regulators. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, last year water companies discharged record levels of sewage into our waterways, which is why the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 gives the regulator tough new powers, including the ability to ban the payment of unfair bonuses to polluting water bosses. The Government have also secured a record £104 billion that will include improvements to more than 3,000 storm overflows and significantly reduce sewage spills over the next five years.
Jeremy Hunt
I wish you a happy World Sparrow Day, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In Bramley in my constituency in 2023, sewage was spilled into the local river for 59 hours. In Godalming, the figure was 83 hours; in Chiddingfold, it was 410 hours; and in Cranleigh, it was 691 hours. That is the equivalent of nearly two hours every single day—it is totally unacceptable. As a result, last year, after pressure from me and others, Thames Water agreed to invest £400 million by the end of next year. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the chief executive of Thames Water to see whether that money is actually being spent?
Steve Reed
The situation that the right hon. Gentleman describes is absolutely outrageous, and Members across the House will recognise similar situations in their own areas. We need to completely reset the water sector so that these situations cannot continue, which is why Sir Jon Cunliffe is leading a water commission. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other Members are taking the opportunity to feed their experiences and those of their constituents into his call for evidence, and I would be happy to arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to meet an appropriate Minister to discuss his concerns.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I get so many people in North West Leicestershire telling me about the toxic sewage pouring into their waterways, such as in the brook near Donington le Heath. Will the Secretary of State assure me that, unlike the previous Government, when he says that he will hold the water bosses to account, he means it?
Steve Reed
Absolutely. That is why we have passed—and my hon. Friend will have voted for—the Water (Special Measures) Act, which gives the regulator the power they need to hold those water bosses to account so that instead of paying themselves multimillion-pound bonuses they do not deserve, that money is spent where it should be spent: on fixing our broken sewage system, so that we can cut the sewage flows that are polluting our rivers up and down the country.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
Around 500 claims each year will be impacted. Our reforms will mean that farmers will pay a reduced inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%, and payments can be spread over 10 years interest free. Farm-owning couples can pass on up to £3 million without paying inheritance tax. In our view, this is a fair and balanced approach, and should be seen against the backdrop of the Government committing £5 billion for farming over two years—the largest budget directed at sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.
David Reed
I am starting to feel like DEFRA Ministers are purposefully ignoring me and Devon’s farming community. I have given the Secretary of State since early December to answer my letters and my invitations to meet with Devon’s farming community, in order to explain how changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are going to affect them. At the last DEFRA questions, I called out the Secretary of State for not replying to any of my requests. The Minister for food, farming and fisheries replied from the Dispatch Box that
“I would love to meet farmers in Devon, so I am happy to add him to the list for my grand tour across the country to reassure people that there is a strong plan to ensure that farmers have a viable future”.—[Official Report, 6 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 909.]
So far, those platitudes have gone unrealised. With less than a month until these changes take effect, Devon’s farmers are still in the dark about how the changes are going to affect them. If this is how Ministers treat fellow MPs, is it any wonder that farmers up and down the country feel completely abandoned by this Labour Government?
Daniel Zeichner
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, but I have been to Devon in my role before, and I will come to Devon again. I am always happy to meet farmers. I have spent quite a lot of time at this Dispatch Box answering questions from Conservative Members, so perhaps fewer questions will mean more time to go out and meet farmers.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Back in November, the farming Minister unbelievably said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was striking how many people were coming up to him at farming events and saying, “You’re right to be making these changes to APR and BPR.” Conservative Members have been out and about all over the country; indeed, I was in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire yesterday, and I have not found one farmer who thinks that he is right. In fact, the level of anger and sheer disbelief among our farming community is immense as this Government’s attack on our farming cash flows continues through the dramatic reduction in delinked payments, the sudden stop of the sustainable farming incentive and the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions—I could go on. Business confidence is at an all-time low, so can the Minister provide the name of just one farmer he has spoken to who thinks he and his Government are right to be pursuing these changes?
Daniel Zeichner
I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged —[Interruption.] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that some of the farmers who will be worst hit by the APR changes are those who farm in severely disadvantaged areas in the uplands around our country, where typically property values are high and incomes are extremely low? When the change was made just last week with people being excluded from the sustainable farming incentive, 6,100 people had entered the SFI in this session, and only 40 of them were hill farmers. Is he also aware that his own Department’s figures show that at the end of the transition, the average hill farm income will be 55% of the national minimum wage? Does he not understand that his changes are bringing harm to the poorest farmers in the prettiest places, such as mine? Will he undertake to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to bring in an uplands reward so that we do not plunge into poverty those people who care for our precious landscapes?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman always speaks with passion about his constituents, and I absolutely understand those concerns. He is right to say that the schemes we inherited did not reward those areas as well as they should. That is why in our announcement a few weeks ago, we increased the higher level stewardship payments by £30 million, which will be of particular advantage to people in his area. I agree with him, and the schemes we inherited were not good enough. That is why we are revising them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
After 14 years, the Conservatives left our flood defence assets in the worst condition on record. That is why this Government are investing a record £2.65 billion over two years to improve flood resilience. We will build, maintain and repair flood defences to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026.
Mr Brash
The flood defences in and around Greatham creek in my constituency of Hartlepool date back to the 19th century and are coming to the end of their usable life. I am campaigning to secure the funding we need to realise the Environment Agency’s ambitious multimillion-pound plan to upgrade these defences and create a new habitat that extends biodiversity in that area. Will the Minister commit to delivering that funding for Hartlepool?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for his recent letter. He is right to be angry about the poor state of his flood defences, and I am sure his constituents value him as a local champion, raising that in the Chamber. To rebuild after Conservative failure, we have had to urgently move £36 million into maintenance funding this year. As I have mentioned, the projects to receive funding in the next financial year are being agreed and will be announced shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Under the previous Government there was, prior to 2019, a strategy from Westminster to address flooding and coastal erosion across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All the regions were able to benefit from that, including my constituency of Strangford, where coastal erosion is a massive thing, taking away some of the major roads and thoroughfares. Will the Minister consider renewing that strategy and starting it again, looking at all of the United Kingdom as one job lot? That would thereby help us all to get the benefit in addressing coastal erosion and the flooding that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) referred to.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for raising his concerns about coastal erosion, and he is right. It is a huge problem, and with climate change it is only set to get worse. I completely recognise how it is impacting coastal communities. His suggestion to bring together the different devolved Governments to discuss this issue is really interesting, so let me take that away.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The questions have to relate to Hartlepool’s flood defences. I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The people of Chesterfield have great empathy with the people of Hartlepool, as we face exactly the same issues. A new report by Public First shows that each year of flood events causes decade-long downward pressure on the economy worth up to £6 billion. I am grateful that the Minister will shortly visit us in Chesterfield to see flood projects and vulnerabilities, but does she agree that there is acute need for projects like the one we require on the River Hipper, and the one required in Hartlepool? It endangers the Government’s growth mission if we are not able to get these projects going.
Emma Hardy
I think we all have empathy with Hartlepool, so I encourage more people to ask questions on this issue. I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to find out more about the projects he mentions. He is quite right to say—this is an argument that I hope we will all pursue ahead of the spring statement—that tackling flooding is a good, value-for-money investment, because it helps to protect our economy and ensure that we can have growth.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I said, we are delivering a record £2.65 billon investment in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, and that money will be spent over the next two years. We will shortly announce some of the projects that are going ahead in the next financial year, and next year we will announce even more. There will be an announcement this year for the next financial year, and an announcement next year for the second half of the two-year record investment. That shows out commitment to building, maintaining and improving flood defences up and down our country.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
As I may have already mentioned, we are putting in a record £2.65 billion investment to build, maintain and improve flood defences up and down the country, which shows this Government’s commitment to making sure that our communities and our farmland are protected from flooding.
Markus Campbell-Savours
I thank the Minister for her answer. Communities in Cumbria have seen many devastating floods over the last two decades, but flood action groups in Keswick have worked hard with United Utilities to develop a scheme that uses Thirlmere reservoir as a storm water store, helping to prevent flooding in the town. All agree that more could be done. Although I applaud their work, I note that there is no statutory requirement for water companies to use their assets as flood defences. Will the Minister look at how water companies’ assets can be used to prevent flooding across the country?
Emma Hardy
I am grateful not only for the work that my hon. Friend’s action flood group does, but for the work that flood action groups do right across the whole of his constituency. He raises an incredibly important and interesting issue. In the Sir John Cunliffe review, we are fundamentally looking at the management of water right across entire catchment areas. When we think about water management, we need to consider not only whether communities have enough water to meet their needs, but whether they have protection from flooding and drought. A holistic way of dealing with some of the challenges we face is certainly one of the answers going forward. My hon. Friend has given a great example, and I would be happy to explore it further with him.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Conservative Government protected over 600,000 properties from flooding, introduced the £100 million frequently flooded allowance and committed to a £5.2 billion investment in flood protection. However, we know that the mental health impacts of flooding remain long after the waters subside. Rural communities face unique challenges, including outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza and foot and mouth—a clear and worrying threat, given the recent cases in Germany and Hungary. Unfortunately, this Labour Government are exacerbating such stresses with their family farm tax and by scrapping the farming resilience fund, which supports mental health. Can the Minister confirm, for the sake of mental health, what support will be offered to rural communities in place of the scrapped fund?
Emma Hardy
That all started so well—we nearly managed to get through the question with me agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right about this issue, which he has mentioned before. I am in complete agreement with him about the impact of flooding on mental health, and I know that we all take it seriously. We are investing £500,000 in mental health charities to support rural communities, but I completely recognise the devastation that flooding causes, and I am always happy to work with Members from across the House on how we can support people’s mental health.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
The biggest driver of deforestation worldwide is agricultural expansion, particularly the production of a small number of commodities such as soy and palm oil. This Government are considering the approach to the deforestation regulations, and nothing has yet been ruled in or out.
Anna Gelderd
I thank the Minister for her answer. Tomorrow is the International Day of Forests. The Environment Act 2021 was passed over three years ago, with strong public and cross-party support, yet the due diligence provisions to prevent the import of commodities linked to illegal deforestation remain unimplemented, causing uncertainty for UK business. Will the Minister provide a clear timeline for when the secondary legislation will come into force, and will she meet me, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global deforestation, alongside other Members, to discuss how we can strengthen and accelerate its implementation?
Mary Creagh
The UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests, and we are advocating for the international commitment to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, while at the same time supporting forest dwellers and economic development. As I say, nothing has yet been ruled in or out, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
The new national procurement policy statement sets out requirements for Government contracts, and favours high-quality products that we believe British producers are very well placed to supply. This will support our ambition to ensure that half of the food supplied for public sector catering comes from local producers, or those certified to higher environmental standards.
Noah Law
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that 50% of public procurement is of British produce. Given the significant £5 billion of bargaining power that this represents, what steps is he taking to ensure that this leads to fairer prices for farmers and supports the fundamental operating profitability of the sector?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. We are absolutely determined to make the best of this opportunity, not least because the previous Government did not know how much we were actually buying. The Secretary of State has announced that we will monitor the food bought in the public sector, and that will inform our policy of making sure that British farmers make the most of the opportunity for public procurement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State, in her speech to the Oxford farming conference, spoke about the plan for change, which was going to include a commitment to public sector procurement, but that was in January, and we are now in March. With the closure of the basic payment scheme and the ending of the sustainable farming incentive, farm incomes are under real cash pressure in the here and now, so when will we hear more detail about the very welcome commitments that the Secretary of State made at the Oxford farming conference in January?
Daniel Zeichner
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), the first thing we needed to do was establish how much we are actually buying, and that is now in progress. I absolutely get the point about the urgency. The question is why doing this took the previous Government so long when they shared our ambition. We are determined to make this happen.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Repairing and rebuilding our flood defences is a priority for this Labour Government, and we are investing at a record level to improve flood resilience, better protecting 52,000 properties by this time next year.
Patrick Hurley
The Environment Agency allocates its budgets to carry out work on flood defences on the basis of a funding formula, but that formula does not give sufficient weight to agricultural land. Will the Minister undertake a review of the formula, so that agricultural land gets the flood defences it needs?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I completely agree that the previous flooding formula did not work for rural communities, which is exactly why we are consulting to change it. The consultation will be announced shortly, and I encourage him and every Member across the House to get involved in shaping the formula, so we can make sure it delivers the right outcomes for everybody up and down our country.
Jo Platt
First, I thank the Minister for visiting Lilford in Leigh after the devastating new year’s day flooding. We had a public meeting on Saturday, and three months after those floods, residents are still struggling to get any real progress from their insurance companies, while others face extortionate premiums and excess fees. What discussions is the Minister having with the insurance industry on improving how they support residents?
Emma Hardy
It was a pleasure to see my hon. Friend and see how tirelessly she was championing and supporting her local constituents after such a devastating flood. Concerns around flood insurance have been raised, so the floods resilience taskforce is setting up an insurance sub-group, through which some of its members will deep-dive into the challenges and opportunities for improvement on flood defences. If she has any further evidence that she would like me to look at, it would be very helpful to receive it.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I am of course having conversations. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the company remains stable, and that the Government are closely monitoring the situation.
Clive Jones
Data published this week in The Guardian revealed that 50% more raw sewage was discharged by Thames Water last year than in the previous 12 months. Thames Water is racking up billions of pounds of expensive extraordinary debt, while continuing to pump tonnes of sewage into our rivers. Despite bold targets and kind words, there is simply no action on cleaning up our rivers. What will the Government do to improve Thames Water’s performance?
Steve Reed
The Government are taking steps to improve the performance of all water companies, including through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which I spoke about earlier. Sir Jon Cunliffe is leading a review of the entire sector, so that we can reform regulation and, if need be, the regulator, to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with pollution. The public are rightly furious about leaking pipes and sewage spills, and we have not built a new reservoir in this country for well over 30 years. After years of failure, this Government are turning the tide. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is creating stronger regulation to hold water companies to account. We have secured over £100 billion of private sector investment—the largest such investment in the water sector in its history—to upgrade our infrastructure. Last week, the water Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy)—and I toured the country from Windermere to the Wye, from Hampshire to Yorkshire, and from Suffolk and Northumbria to Somerset, to see where that investment will build new homes, create thousands of new jobs and boost local economies. This is a cornerstone of our plan for change. Things can only get cleaner.
Sarah Bool
In February, Lucy Manzano of the Dover Port Health Authority came before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and warned that if funding was not confirmed before the new financial year, checks at our borders would stop. With the new financial year fast approaching and another case of foot and mouth in Europe, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have finally secured that funding, or will we be more at risk in April?
Steve Reed
We take border security extremely seriously. That is why we have the BTOM—border target operating model—system, which we are very closely monitoring to make sure it is doing the work that it needs to do, and why we are investing money in the National Biosecurity Centre in Weybridge to ensure it does not fall into dilapidation, which is where it was heading under the previous Government.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Over the past 14 years, things only got filthier. This Government will turn the tide. Things will get cleaner thanks to the investment this Government are bringing in.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Chamber. He has been in hiding for a week. We were so worried about him that we were going to start a “Where’s Wally?” competition. The reason he has been in hiding is that he is ducking scrutiny of his dreadful decision to stop the sustainable farming incentive farm payment scheme immediately, without warning. Conservative Members have been inundated with messages from farmers saying that businesses will not survive this latest assault by the Government. How many farmers will be bankrupted as a result of the SFI stoppage?
Steve Reed
There were, unfortunately, record levels of bankruptcies of farm businesses under the previous Government, in which the right hon. Lady was a member of the Cabinet. Under this Government, we have more money in the hands of more farmers through SFI than at any point under the previous Conservative Government. This Government understand that when a budget has been fully allocated, you stop spending. The party of Liz Truss prefers instead to keep spending, bankrupting the economy and sending mortgages spiralling. That is not good for farmers, for the economy or for anyone.
Victoria Atkins
The Secretary of State cannot find his way around a farmyard; he is certainly not speaking to farmers. We Conservatives know that if the Government continue to tax, tax, tax businesses, they will break. His answers show why we have seen cold fury in the countryside at his impotence in standing up to the Chancellor on compulsory purchase orders, the massive cuts to de-linked payments, the stopping of capital grants and SFI and, of course, the family farm fax. Ahead of next week’s emergency Budget and spending review, and given that The Guardian seems to know more than he does, will the Secretary of State guarantee that his Government’s Budget will not face further swingeing cuts?
Steve Reed
The problem facing farming is that it became unprofitable because of the actions of the previous Government, who undercut farm businesses in trade deals, undercut farmers on welfare and environmental standards and raised barriers to exports to the European markets, causing exports to plunge by 20% since 2018, which led to record numbers of bankruptcies. This Government have a plan for change that involves turning farming into a profitable set of businesses, including by backing British businesses through public sector food procurement and ruling out trade deals that undercut farmers in the way the previous Government were happy to do.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s cats, who I am told are called Clem Cattlee and Mo Meowlam, will be delighted to hear that the Government are looking very closely at the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on the welfare implications of current and emergent feline breeding practices. I can assure them that we are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Looking ahead, the future can be very exciting for farming, but as the Secretary of State said, we have to establish farming as a profitable sector. We will work with the hon. Gentleman’s farmers to ensure that vision is realised.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
My constituents in Burghfield Bridge have suffered for years with the devastating effects of flooding, and are rightly frustrated that nothing is being done. Will the Minister meet me to discuss flood resilience and better join-up of local agencies in Burghfield Bridge and across my constituency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising concerns around flooding; we have today heard about those concerns up and down the country. I would, of course, be happy to meet her.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
We are introducing the biggest set of changes to the regulations in 20 years. We are looking at the issue of dual use, but the real prize with glass is, of course, to get to a reuse system, instead of a recycling system. I have been in touch with the drinks companies to look at how we speed up the start of that.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Labour-led Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council has bucked the national trend in fly-tipping with a reduction in the borough of more than 10%, while total reported incidents have fallen by 200 on the previous year. Meanwhile, neighbouring Conservative-led North Warwickshire borough council served only one fixed penalty notice in the year 2023-24. Does my hon. Friend agree that the actions taken by Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council demonstrate that councils can reduce fly-tipping incidents, and that North Warwickshire must do more to stop the scourge of fly-tipping on our country roads?
Mary Creagh
I have travelled along those country roads near Coventry many times. My hon. Friend is right: this is a political choice that councils can make. I urge people in the upcoming elections on 1 May to vote for more Labour county councillors, who will take this scourge seriously.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Last month, more than 4,000 litres of diesel spilled into the River Wandle from a Transport for London garage in the Secretary of State’s previous constituency. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) to discuss what can be done to restore the wildlife and to ensure that that cannot happen again?
Steve Reed
I agree that what happened on the River Wandle is shocking; it runs very close to my constituency as well, so I am aware of the situation. The Environment Agency is investigating and, if there was inappropriate behaviour, there will be swift action. I would be happy to arrange an appropriate meeting for the hon. Gentleman.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
For far too long, the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have had to live with the consequences of Walley’s Quarry landfill site. With the operator, Walley’s Quarry Ltd, now in liquidation, may I urge the Minister to do all she can to make sure that those who caused the mess are forced to pay to clean it up?
Mary Creagh
We are disappointed that Walley’s Quarry has entered administration. The Environment Agency has attended the landfill site, assessed it and decided that it does not pose an immediate risk, but, of course, we are liaising with specialist contractors to look after the site and we are in close contact with the Environment Agency to recoup those costs.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I first congratulate the new councillor, Ian Campbell, on his by-election win yesterday? The team got a great result in my part of the world.
Many in my constituency are concerned about the newly coined grey belt, which will be used as an excuse to destroy our land irreversibly. What calculations have the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues made about the impact on the environment of over-development on unspoiled green-belt land?
Daniel Zeichner
This is why we will be introducing a land-use framework—to ensure that we can make rational decisions about how land is used to best effect.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
We are blessed to be nestled between the beautiful River Adur and the sea in my constituency, but that leaves us prone to flooding. Last year, my constituents in Shoreham found their homes and businesses flooded. I welcome the Government’s £2.65 billion for flood defences and must stress the importance of East Worthing and Shoreham getting its fair share of that funding. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will announce funding allocations for local flood defence projects?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We are taking decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences that we saw under the previous Government, including shifting an extra £108 million into maintenance. We will announce further projects in due course.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I recently visited New Sheepfold Farm in Ingleby Greenhow to see the great work that the Day family are doing to diversify their farm, help nature recovery and improve enjoyment of our rural area. They did this with the help of the North York Moors National Park Authority and the farming and protected landscape scheme, which I am glad the Government have extended for a further year. Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of family farms, such as that of the Days, in landscapes such as the dales and the moors, and will he ensure that they remain at the forefront of Ministers’ minds?
Steve Reed
We are fighting to have the honour of responding to the former Prime Minister! Of course I agree with him. Our focus on farm profitability is precisely so that family farms up and down the country can have a bright and secure future. Any sector that does not make a profit is not going to attract investment and will not have a future. We want farming to succeed in his constituency and in every constituency across the land.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
Earlier this month, we marked International Women’s Day, and it was very moving to hear the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), again record in this House the names of women and girls who were killed in the past year. The scale of violence against women and girls in this country is completely intolerable, which is why, under our plan for change, this Government have already taken concrete steps to tackle it, including the introduction of Raneem’s law to put domestic abuse experts into 999 control rooms.
Matthew Patrick
I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. Yesterday, I spoke to one of my constituents. When she was 14, she was raped by an adult whom she should have been able to trust. She woke up to him raping her. She has been carrying that with her for decades. Two years ago, she reported what happened to her and she has been fighting for her day in court all of that time. Can the Solicitor General please set out what the Government are doing to fix the broken system that is failing to deliver justice, and will she meet me to discuss how we can better support victim survivors such as my constituent?
The Solicitor General
I am very sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. As he knows, this Government inherited a criminal justice system in crisis with a record Crown court backlog, meaning that far too many victims such as his constituent are waiting too long for their day in court. As part of the domestic abuse joint justice plan, in his local area the Crown Prosecution Service is trialling an enhanced partnership between Merseyside and Cheshire police and CPS prosecutors, to ensure that charging decisions, including in rape and serious sexual offence cases, are made more swiftly and stronger cases are brought from the outset, with a view to quicker and more successful prosecutions.
Irene Campbell
As a former chair of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid, I know how low the prosecution rates are in cases of violence against women and girls, and how they can discourage people from coming forward at all. Victim withdrawal from prosecutions is also very high, for myriad reasons from poor treatment to long waiting times for court dates. What work is being done to make women feel more comfortable to come forward and report such cases, and to support them throughout the whole process?
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is right to raise the extremely important point of victim attrition, which is unacceptably high right across our United Kingdom. That is why we have taken swift action in England and Wales, through the CPS victim transformation programme, appointing victim liaison officers to support victims throughout the legal process. The Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has also pledged to make this issue a priority as part of his new direction for Scotland.
Matt Turmaine
Controlling and coercive behaviour is an insidious form of abuse. Will my hon. and learned Friend please outline what the Government are doing to deal with it?
The Solicitor General
Insidious is the right description. We fully recognise just how damaging that form of abuse is, and that it can follow a pattern of escalation that can lead to violence. That is precisely why the joint justice plan is underpinned by a commitment to tackle all forms of domestic abuse, ensuring that police and prosecutors can jointly tackle coercive control. The Court of Appeal recently increased two sentences for controlling and coercive behaviour by way of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which I hope sends a very strong signal about just how seriously such conduct will be taken.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can the Solicitor General confirm that it is imperative that prosecution rates for all cases of violence are increased, and that she is not suggesting to the prosecuting authorities that they should discriminate on the grounds of gender?
The Solicitor General
I can confirm that this Government and the CPS take seriously prosecuting all crimes, including the most serious ones. Equality before the law is a fundamental principle that underpins the rule of law and is foundational to this country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Many victims are so traumatised after an assault that it takes them some time to come forward. That causes delays and allows perpetrators to erase their traces. What more can we do to encourage any victim of assault to come forward as quickly as possible, knowing that they will have support as soon as they report something?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member raises an important point. The CPS is working right across the country to ensure that victims feel more able to come forward and that its service to victims improves. She will understand that the court backlog is key; unfortunately, we inherited a record court backlog from the previous Government, and we have to tackle it. The Lord Chancellor is taking a range of measures to get it down, so that victims will have the confidence that when they come forward they will have their day in court and justice will be done.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
In Surrey alone there are 1,500 cases waiting to be heard in our Crown court, including 166 sexual offences against women and girls. Prosecutors have been telling victims that they have between two and five years to wait to get their day in court. That is appalling. Will the Solicitor General talk to the Ministry of Justice to reopen Woking’s court complex, which was closed by the Conservative Government, to provide greater legal capacity in Surrey?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member is right to suggest that the root causes of the backlog are a direct result of Conservative choices and inaction. The previous Government closed more than 260 court buildings—in one year alone the Tories closed 84 magistrates courts—which clearly led to this considerable court backlog. I am pleased to say that the Lord Chancellor is taking action on that backlog by funding 108,500 sitting days in the Crown courts and increasing magistrates courts’ sentencing powers.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
New technology has the potential to bring transformative benefits to the criminal justice system, as indeed it does to public services more broadly. The Government recognise that technology has the potential to radically enhance the way in which public services are delivered to the benefit of all of us and the public purse. For example, the Serious Fraud Office is trialling technology to improve the speed and quality of its disclosure work. The results have been promising. The tech identifies relevant documents 40% more quickly than traditional methods. I am pleased to say that it will be rolled out to more cases in the coming months.
Lee Pitcher
My constituency is home to three prisons: Lindholme, Hatfield and Moorland. Given the challenges faced in our local criminal justice system, particularly in managing caseloads in prisons and capacity, will the Solicitor General outline what specific technological innovations are being prioritised to speed up court processes and improve access to justice for victims and defendants?
The Solicitor General
The work to improve our public services has to include the better use of technology. The Government are taking decisive action to enable law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities to harness innovative and cutting-edge technologies to reduce the court backlog, improve efficiency in the criminal justice system and lead to better outcomes for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government Legal Department is providing leadership in this area through its artificial intelligence centre of excellence, which offers expert support to colleagues across Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
With shameful vandalism of buildings in Eastbourne’s Gildredge park and the torching of park benches in Shinewater park reflected across the country, we clearly need more tools to tackle such crimes in Eastbourne and beyond. Technology is one of those tools. Will the Solicitor General share with my constituents what tech the Government are set to deploy to help us address those crimes more efficiently through the criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. As I outlined, tech is incredibly important to help the entirety of the criminal justice system function better. The CPS, for example, is committed to delivering more technology-enabled ways of working, including piloting digital jury bundles, which will help speed up the court process. I have already mentioned the Serious Fraud Office, which is trialling technology in a number of different areas, including its case management system, and I have also spoken about the Government Legal Department. The key is better use of technology to enable better ways of working across the entirety of the criminal justice system, including in the courts, and especially by the CPS, to enable more prosecutions.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
The Government’s priority is to keep our streets safe and to crack down on the serious and violent crime that unfortunately plagues far too many communities right across the country. As well as committing to more police officers and police community support officers on our streets, we have taken swift action to tackle knife crime by creating new offences and penalties to deter the possession and sale of these barbaric weapons. Our flagship Crime and Policing Bill will go even further with the biggest package of measures on crime and policing for decades.
Harpreet Uppal
Making sure that town centres such as Huddersfield’s are safe and thriving is important to our residents, local businesses and the night-time economy. How is the Solicitor General ensuring that the CPS works effectively with local law enforcement to bring offenders to justice and make our residents feel safe in our towns?
The Solicitor General
I know my hon. Friend has raised those important issues on the Floor of the House previously. I also know how hard she is working to ensure the safety of residents in her area.
Too many town centres and high streets are plagued by antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. Those crimes are too often dismissed as low-level, but communities have to deal with the consequences. This Government are taking action: we are putting an additional 13,000 police and PCSOs on our streets and introducing respect orders to ensure that disruptive antisocial behaviour is eradicated from our town centres. I have been visiting local CPS units around the country and have seen at first hand their hard work to ensure that crimes are successfully prosecuted and that perpetrators are put behind bars.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
The independent review of the Southport attacks condemns the CPS and police’s “near-silence” following the attacks and establishes silence as a catalyst for media disinformation and public distrust. It states that silence
“in the face of horrific events of major public interest is no longer an option.”
Does the Solicitor General accept that Government secrecy fuelled conspiracy theories and thus eroded confidence in our justice system, or is the independent King’s Counsel wrong?
The Solicitor General
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I completely reject the allegation of Government secrecy. Certainly, when it comes to Southport, those murders were some of the most harrowing in our country’s history and it was absolutely right that due process was followed to allow for the successful conviction. It was vital that justice was done in those cases.
The shadow Solicitor General will know that there are issues around contempt, which the Law Commission is looking at. The Law Commission has agreed to a request from the Home Secretary to speed up that review and it is vital that we get the results of that review as soon as possible.
Helen Grant
The independent review warned that government silence
“risked far more prejudice to any trial”
than transparency. Indeed, as is often said, the truth can be the best disinfectant. Will the Solicitor General therefore agree to greater transparency around major events in future and to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations on the provision of information to the public to ensure that that never happens again?
The Solicitor General
The shadow Solicitor General refers to Jonathan Hall and the terrorism review. Terrorism is, of course, something that the Government take extremely seriously. Jonathan Hall’s review has now concluded and it is right that his report—coupled with the contempt review—is considered in full by the Home Secretary, as an important step in addressing all those questions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Solicitor General
This Government unfortunately inherited a record Crown court backlog, with the human impact felt most severely by victims. Lengthy delays are much too common and victim attrition much too high. The Lord Chancellor has set out swift action to address that, including by increasing the number of Crown court sitting days and increasing magistrates courts’ sentencing powers to take pressure off the Crown courts.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The effective functioning of the courts relies on sound and sensible sentencing guidelines. In just 12 days, such guidelines will no longer exist and a two-tier sentencing system will come into force on the Solicitor General’s watch. This is the fourth time that the issue has been raised by the Opposition; I hope we will have more luck in securing a direct answer from the Solicitor General. Does she agree with the Justice Secretary that the guidelines will bring in a two-tier sentencing system, and can she confirm once and for all what is being done to stop those sentencing guidelines from coming into force?
The Solicitor General
I remind the hon. Member that the Conservative Sentencing Minister at the time wrote to the Sentencing Council making it clear that they welcomed the new guidance. Equality before the law is core to the application of the rule of law in this country and a foundational principle of our legal and judicial systems. I am sure that colleagues will welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor met the chair of the Sentencing Council last week, and they had a constructive discussion around the guidelines.
James Wild
Justice delayed is justice denied. Will the Solicitor General confirm that the court backlog is rising rather than falling, and can she explain why the Lord Chancellor has not maximised the number of sitting days so that victims of rape and other serious crimes do not have to wait unduly for their cases to be heard?
The Solicitor General
The criticism would carry a little more weight were it not for the fact that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years driving up the record court backlog. The root causes of the backlog are a direct result of the Conservatives’ choices. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the record court backlog now stands at 73,000 cases. As we have said, the human cost of those delays is considerable—victims are waiting years for justice. The Lord Chancellor is taking robust action. She has increased the number of Crown court sitting days, increased magistrate courts’ sentencing powers and asked Sir Brian Leveson to lead an independent review of our criminal courts to look at options for longer-term reform. The previous Government did not act; they drove up the backlog. This Government are taking action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
As the Solicitor General says, the Lord Chancellor has substantially increased sitting days. The lack of a judge is only one reason that courts stand empty. In the first nine months of 2024, 368 Crown court trials were rendered ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with the CPS on improving prosecutor attendance, so that Crown courts can sit closer to judicial capacity?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The shortage of counsel is, indeed, a problem and has contributed to the record Crown court backlog. The Crown Prosecution Service is widening their panel, including for rape and serious sexual offences counsel. I have had regular discussions with the chair of the Bar Council around its work to try to ensure that criminal practitioners continue to stay in that line of work. I am also conscious that Ministry of Justice colleagues are very much committed to the sustainability of the Bar and are having regular discussions.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The previous Conservative Government presided over a justice system where 60% of rape victims abandoned their cases, primarily due to the delays in court proceedings. This Government have prioritised victims by allocating a record number of sitting days. Does the Solicitor General agree that despite Opposition Members’ expressions of outrage, their Government failed to tackle the backlog and deliver timely justice to victims?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said a number of times, the root causes of the backlog lie with the Conservatives not taking action. It falls to this Government to take action, and it is action we are taking.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
We are taking strong action as part of our plan for change to tackle the serious and violent crime on our streets. Our new Crime and Policing Bill will back our police and prosecutors by giving them enhanced and tougher powers to keep our streets safe, to tackle antisocial behaviour and to crack down on knife crime. I know my hon. Friend will also welcome the record £1.16 billion investment in the Metropolitan police from the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London, which will help deliver this Government’s safer streets mission in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
James Asser
My constituents in West Ham and Beckton are extremely concerned about knife crime. We have had a serious number of incidents over the last few years, including in the last few weeks. Could my hon. and learned Friend reassure my constituents on the work that the Government are doing to take a stronger approach on prosecuting knife crime and the work being done to support victims?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this important issue. This Government have already banned machetes. We are introducing legislation that will clamp down on the sale of dangerous knives online, and we are committed to banning ninja swords, too. I recently met the CPS’s victim transformation programme and heard how the CPS is fundamentally transforming the way it provides support to victims to ensure that they get the assistance they need at every stage of the criminal justice process.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that question. The Government are taking decisive action to crack down on serious and violent crime right across the country, and to ensure that perpetrators of such offences are put behind bars. As such, I welcome her strong support for the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains tough measures to tackle knife crime and other crime.
Rachel Hopkins
Sadly, Bedfordshire police recorded some of the highest knife crime rates in England in the year ending March 2024. A robust and quick CPS response is key to delivering justice for victims and their families. How are the Government ensuring that we increase prosecution rates for those serious offences to keep dangerous offenders off our streets?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend raises a critical issue that affects communities in Bedfordshire and across the country. An important part of the Government’s mission to make our streets safe is our commitment to halving knife crime in a decade. We have implemented our ban on zombie-style knives and machetes, and we are moving forward with our plans to ban ninja swords later this year. We know that more needs to be done to tackle the sale of knives and offensive weapons online, which is why we have recently announced Ronan’s law, which will include stricter rules for online knife sales.
Business of the House
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I shall. The business for the week commencing 24 March includes:
Monday 24 March—Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Tuesday 25 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Non-domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Great British Energy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Wednesday 26 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring statement, followed by remaining stages of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Thursday 27 March—General debate on St Patrick’s day and Northern Irish affairs, followed by general debate on the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 31 March includes:
Monday 31 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 1 April—Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords].
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you and the House will excuse me if I start on a very personal note.
Almost exactly 24 hours ago, my father, Torquil Norman, died at the age of 91. He was an extraordinary man. He flew Seafires and Sea Furies during his national service in the Fleet Air Arm. He created Polly Pocket, a toy that has brought unbelievable joy to many young people around the House and around the world. He rebuilt the Roundhouse in Chalk Farm in London, not just as an incredible performing arts centre, but as a creative centre for young people from whatever background to be able to find their way into jobs.
The reason I mention that now is that my father stood for values that bear a wider consideration in this House and in our own lives—values of positivity and creativity. He always said that the secret to success in the toy business was to have a mental age of seven and an eye for detail. He had incredible energy but also amazing resilience and focus on the long term. “Turn up at the finishing line” was one of his maxims. Even in his 80s, he was building and creating a new enterprise to develop flat-pack trucks, if you can imagine such a thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that could be sold to countries around the world at low cost, supporting businesses and people.
I think the whole House would agree with me that we need these values today. At a time of difficulty, stagnation and international conflict, we need these values of creativity, ambition, drive, respect for others and, above all, capability —a focus not just on the head, but on the hand and the heart as well. That is something I feel very strongly about. We are trying to build a new specialist technical engineering college in Hereford, precisely to bring those different aspects of the human personality together in the service of better jobs and better possibilities.
I also think that it encourages us all, as a House and as a Parliament, to ask the right questions and to support long-term solutions, even when those questions and solutions may not be ones that we are ideologically or politically drawn to. We are in a world where welfare costs are rising higher than anyone could have wanted; civil service effectiveness is perhaps not as great as we would like; productivity in the NHS is not what we would all want, for whatever reasons that may be, over a very long period; and we need a rapid boost to our defence and security. Those are crucial questions that we, as a House, will need to continue to develop and discuss over the next few years.
I want to ask the Leader of the House whether we and other Members of the Modernisation Committee cannot expand our thinking about those long-term issues and try to push for more scope for co-operation between the parties on them, more consultation and debate on key legislation before it is brought to the House, and more ways to develop closer personal engagement between Members, so that we can build respect and co-operation across the House for the longer term. One of my father’s maxims—you will have discovered that he had many—was, “The secret to success is to take a large bite and then chew it.” I think that we could perhaps do that more as a House and as a country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Leader of the House responds, I wish to put on the record my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman, and my love and prayers. He and I spent some time together in a Department. He was a top gentleman to work with, and his father will have been very proud.
Lucy Powell
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for that tribute to his father, Torquil Norman. I did not know him, but he sounds like a wonderful father—someone who invented children’s toys but also who had great wisdom and gave him great advice. We in this House should all live by those values of positivity, creativity and resilience that the right hon. Gentleman so fondly shared with us. I send him and his family my very best wishes, as I am sure the whole House does, as he comes to terms with that in the coming days.
I want to congratulate Newcastle United—I would not normally, but they did win their first silverware in 70 years. It is also great to see that the Tour de France in 2027 will start in Edinburgh and make its way through England and Wales.
As international events yet again dominate, I am sure we all look with horror at the unfolding situation in Gaza in particular, with aid being withheld and the killing continuing. As the Foreign Secretary will set out to the House shortly, we want to see an urgent resumption of the ceasefire and the long-term peace talks continuing.
In the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I want to put on the record my thanks to him for the cross-party work that he and I do across the House, not just through the Modernisation Committee but on the House of Commons Commission, chaired by Mr Speaker, and the many other boards that we have to sit on for many hours indeed. He makes a really important point, and it is one of the reasons why I wanted to establish the Modernisation Committee. I could have come into this position as Leader of the House and just laid down motions—which I do on many days—to change the rules of the House, but that is not how I want to work.
I take very seriously my role as Leader of the House, and as such I represent the whole House and want to bring the House together. I want to hear from smaller parties and to work cross-party. I believe that in this place we work best when we work together cross-party, on Select Committees and on issues that unite us. Many of those issues are raised regularly with me in Business questions, and I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that we could definitely do more to tackle the big issues that this country faces, whether that is our defence and security, the welfare reform that is needed, jobs of the future or social care—that might be raised with me again today. Long may that continue, and we should strive to do more of it.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. Polly Pocket is still going today—my granddaughter is a Polly Pocket fan, and my daughter still has all of hers.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating North Tyneside council, the Football Foundation, the Rugby Football League and other key partners that are supporting the new multimillion pound sports hub in Wallsend, which officially opened earlier this week and will serve as the headquarters for Northumberland FA and, at long last, provide a clubhouse for Wallsend rugby football club? Does she agree with the CEO of the Football Foundation that such facilities have a
“transformative impact on physical and mental health, and play in important role in bringing people together and strengthening local communities”?
I also thank the Leader of the House for her congratulations on our wonderful Newcastle United.
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in again congratulating Newcastle United, as well as the work that is being done in her constituency to create sports facilities for grassroots football, rugby and other sports. She is absolutely right; those things are vital for our communities and young people. That is why we are reviewing the school curriculum and putting more money into local government. It is also why we are introducing a football regulator Bill to ensure that grassroots football is protected across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I extend my condolences, and those of my party, to the shadow Leader of the House on the passing of his father—he sounds like an amazing man who will be missed not just by the right hon. Gentleman, but by many across the country.
Yesterday, in response to a question about welfare reform from the Mother of the House, the Prime Minister highlighted the importance of getting young people into work. He said:
“I think that one in eight young people not being in education or training…is a moral issue.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 348.]
I could not agree more about the importance of education and training, but I gently suggest that some of the Government’s own policies are fighting against that.
Anglia Ruskin University has a campus in the heart of my Chelmsford constituency. Its relatively new medical school is doing fabulous work teaching the doctors and medical professionals of the future—members of the workforce that we desperately need in our NHS. It is doing that in new ways. When I visited ARU just a few weeks ago, I met three of the 25 apprentices taking part in the only medical doctor apprenticeship of its kind in the country. That apprenticeship is aimed at getting more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into medicine, and it is structured in such an innovative way that those apprentices will remain in their local area to complete their foundation training. That means that they will have a familiar local support system around them as they progress. It is an excellent programme, and exactly what we need to recruit, train and retain young medical professionals. But it is a level 7 apprenticeship, and the Government are scrapping them. As this is clearly a moral issue for the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House ask the Government to think again, and provide hope that brilliant programmes such as that can continue?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that question, and for passing on her condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. She is right that getting young people into work is a priority for the Government, and it is important for the country that we do so. We need to reform the apprenticeship system so that more apprenticeships are available for young people, but that is not the system we inherited. In the system we inherited, the apprenticeship levy was underused and underspent, and apprenticeship starts were falling. That is why we are creating Skills England and reforming the apprenticeship levy, so that the young people she talks about can get the help they need.
Notwithstanding the case the hon. Lady raises, I am sure that she will recognise that the vast majority of level 7 apprenticeships were being used by people later in their careers, who already had degrees and who wanted management training, so we have had to look at whether that is sustainable and right. However, she raises an important point about a scheme in the university in her constituency. We need to get more young people into medicine, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I will ensure that that particular offering is looked at and that she gets a full reply.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, too, offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House? I concur with what he said: as a Parliament, we are better when we collaborate.
I want to raise a constituency issue. Trade union reps do a fantastic job representing their colleagues, communities and professions. However, a rep at a school in York has been suspended for carrying out trade union activities and raising employment rights. Will the Leader of the House raise this grievous matter with Cabinet colleagues? Our reps working in public services should not be suspended for raising concerns about issues such as funding across our education system. Can pressure be put on the multi- academy trust, which is completely unaccountable, to reinstate this representative?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the case my hon. Friend raises. She is right that our trade union representatives do an important job in our workplaces, providing a link between employer and employees, and ensuring that people have the standards and rights that they are entitled to at work, and that they are working in healthy and safe environments. I will ensure that the case she raises is looked into. We are taking steps to ensure that academy chains are held to account in the same way as local councils.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I note that the Leader of the House did not announce whether time on Thursday 3 April would be allocated for debates determined by the Backbench Business Committee. If we are given that date, we will have a statement from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on children in temporary accommodation, followed by debates on the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy and on access to sport and physical education in school.
If we are offered time on Tuesday 8 April, the last day before the recess, we will have a debate on the reward of a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne—and I advise the Leader of the House never to cross Jim Shannon. There will then follow a debate on matters to be raised before the Easter Adjournment.
In Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on the retrospective accountability of the construction industry, which is vital. Next Thursday there will be a debate on the prevention of drugs deaths and a debate on the first anniversary of the Hughes report on valproate and pelvic mesh, which has been raised at business questions many times. On Tuesday 1 April there will be a debate on eating disorder awareness. On Thursday 3 April there will be a debate on waste incinerators, followed by a debate on Government support for Thames Water. On Tuesday 8 April, the day before the Easter recess, there will be debate on the persecution of Christians.
In addition, it would be much appreciated if we could be advised of the dates for the estimates day debates in May. Unfortunately, House business seems to completely disrupt the meetings that we are meant to have, but I sent a letter to the Leader of the House about potential opportunities for 90-minute general debates when Government business is likely to finish early.
Last week I hosted a meeting in this place of Rotary International representatives on the eradication of polio across the world. We heard from Dr Hamid Jafari from Amman, Gulcheen Aqil from Pakistan and Aziz Memon from Pakistan, as well as Dr Sir Emeka Offor from Nigeria. We have invested millions of pounds in trying to eradicate polio across the world. Unfortunately, the new International Development Minister was not able to attend because of short notice of the change of Ministers, and we understand that. We also know that there is a reduction in overseas aid, which I make no comment on. However, we want to see a statement from the International Development Minister on which programmes will be preserved and which ones will be cancelled. At the moment, there are only two countries in the world—Afghanistan and Pakistan—where polio is still rife. If we cut those programmes, the risk is that polio would rear its head again across the world and all the money we have invested would be wasted. Can we have a statement next week on that particularly important subject?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Blackman, you are the last person I should be chiding for using a Member’s name, not their constituency, in the Chamber.
Lucy Powell
Obviously I would never cross the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—of course not. His criticism or praise is very important to me.
As ever, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) outlined some really important debates that the Backbench Business Committee is facilitating. I will look very kindly on Thursday 3 April and on the Tuesday before the recess in the usual way, and I hope that our meetings can be rearranged very soon.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the eradication of polio and for all his great leadership and work on this issue over many years. It is an issue close to my heart: my mum had polio as a youngster, and she suffers from the consequences of that even today. The Government strongly support global efforts to eradicate polio. As he will know, decisions on the future of the overseas development aid budget are subject to the spending review, but I will absolutely ensure that his powerful and strong representation has been heard as part of those conversations.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
My condolences to the shadow Leader of the House and his family.
As a physiotherapist prior to being elected to this place, I was delighted to welcome members of all 14 allied health professions to a roundtable in Parliament this week. They account for about a third of the NHS’s entire workforce and work tirelessly to improve patient care. Fundamentally, they all agree that allied health professions are sidelined and that their roles are often misunderstood. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that we should have a debate in Parliament on the importance of AHPs and the crucial work that they do in the NHS?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. It is good to see that she is taking her experience from her previous job as a physiotherapist and providing strong leadership here in the House on those issues. She is absolutely right that AHPs provide a huge contribution to our NHS. Without physiotherapists and others, we would not be able to get people well, fit and healthy again and able to continue with their life and their work, so I absolutely support her request for a debate.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My condolences to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Interestingly, his comments and his eulogy to his father at this particular time bring into stark relief the absence in too many families of positive male role models for many young boys growing up. We all ought to be concerned about that.
We have a real problem at the moment, because we have not really debated the use of slave labour in products in the UK. There is a really interesting point here, because in America right now companies that have failed to interrogate their own supply chains are being sanctioned—not knowing is not good enough. Many of them are actually in use in the UK, including three in particular. A parent company, Donghai Jaisolar Technology, is being used at the Ministry of Defence; Hongyuan Green Energy, which has been sanctioned by the USA, is in use over here, and so is Jiangsu Micoe Solar Energy. Other companies, such as Jinko Solar and Canadian Solar, are ever present, and they are all essentially guilty of the use of slave labour. Can we have a proper debate about how we can stop that, as the Americans have been doing for some time? Surely we now need to sanction companies that use slave labour to get cheap advantage.
Lucy Powell
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I know he has long campaigned on and its implications for the UK. He is absolutely right to raise it. We should not tolerate slave labour being used in any of the products on sale or being used in this country, and we need to do more to expose and have transparency around that. I think that would make a very good topic for a debate, but I will certainly ensure that relevant Ministers update this House on how we can have the economic security and transparency to ensure that that does not happen.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I too offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House—Torquil Norman sounds absolutely great.
Parc Bryn Bach women have recently won the Welsh cross-country championships, beating the likes of Cardiff and Swansea running clubs to lift the trophy. Will the Leader of the House please join me in congratulating this small club from Tredegar on its achievement? Those runners have made their fellow club members, including me, very proud.
Lucy Powell
I thought my hon. Friend was inviting me on a cross-country run there—the answer would have been a clear no. I join him in congratulating the cross-country club from Tredegar of which he is a member on winning the Welsh championships.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. I agree that at a time when boys and young men are lacking role models, the memory of his father is a powerful example of why dads matter.
King Edward’s school in Bath came third in the national reading champions quiz. I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in congratulating that school on its wonderful achievement, but reading for pleasure is now at an all-time low. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to improve reading proficiency among children of all ages?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating King Edward’s school. We discussed many of these issues last week, as it was World Book Day when we met in the Chamber—we shared powerful testimonies about the importance of reading, access to school libraries, book schemes, and all the literacy work that goes on. I absolutely support the hon. Lady’s call to make sure that reading for pleasure is central to our education.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Across my constituency, in towns such as Corbridge, Ponteland, Prudhoe, Haltwhistle and Hexham, people are very passionate about the environment and the natural world, so they will have been disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition junk her party’s environmental commitments. Does the Leader of the House agree that moderate Conservative candidates should do some soul-searching and tell the people of Northumberland whether they plan to put planet before party?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I think we saw the Leader of the Opposition go to a whole other planet this week—Planet Zog, maybe, or I am sure there are many others. My hon. Friend is right that not only is tackling climate change important for the future of our climate, but it is vital to providing the jobs of the future that we need in this country and the energy security that will protect us from the likes of Putin in the future. It also means that all of our constituents will have lower bills over the longer term, which is why the Leader of the Opposition’s announcement this week was a completely mad thing to do.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I send my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. His father sounds like an incredible man, and I certainly loved playing with my Polly Pocket, so I thank him for that lovely memory this morning.
Aplastic anaemia is a life-threatening blood disorder. Although it is rare, it can affect hundreds across the country, but there is no information about it on NHS England’s website. Sadly, the constituent who brought this issue to my attention, Mr Jenkins, has passed away from the condition, but I promised his wife that in his memory, I would continue to raise aplastic anaemia and ensure that it gets listed on the NHS website, as it currently is on NHS Inform in Scotland. In light of NHS England being disbanded, can the Leader of the House raise with Cabinet colleagues the question of how we can ensure that rare conditions are recognised? Those conditions cause great distress and isolation, and I want to make sure that does not happen in the future.
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s passing from that rare condition, and congratulate her on bringing this issue to the floor of the House on behalf of his wife. She is absolutely right: rare conditions, which are often raised with me at business questions, often do not get the attention or the signposting that they desperately need. I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full response.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
May I too extend my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House? His father sounds like a wonderful man.
I recently visited Chase Recovery in my constituency. It is a community-based, peer-led rehabilitation programme, designed for those who experience substance misuse and are seeking a new abstinent life filled with meaning and purpose. I met Paul and Cara while there, and their passion for their work is inspiring and infectious. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on the work they do, and will the House hold a debate on the importance of innovative, community-based services when it comes to sustainable, long-term recovery from substance misuse?
Lucy Powell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Paul and Cara on the work they do on rehabilitation in her constituency. She highlights once again the important role of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation to ensure that people are healthy and successful in life in whatever way. Often those services are delivered by fantastic volunteers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House referred to his admirable father’s national service in the course of his tribute, and that took place during a cold war that was prevented from turning into the third world war by the presence of American forces in NATO, led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Up to now, that has always been a senior US army or other officer. Reports are now saying that in the Trump Administration’s latest move away from the security system that prevented a third world war until the collapse of the Soviet empire, America is proposing to give up the post of SACEUR and allow a European or Canadian—prior to annexation—to take it over. May we have a statement about what the Government are doing to prevent such a dangerous and foolish outcome from proceeding?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that our strength and security in this country, in Europe and across the world come from our very strong alliances with Europe and with America through NATO. Our commitment to that is unwavering, and that has been a critical component of peace and security around the world over recent years. I am sure he will appreciate that I will not provide a running commentary on the Trump Administration, but he will recognise that the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and indeed the Prime Minister have been incredibly forthcoming with updates and providing details to this House, and I will ensure that they continue to do so.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My sincere condolences go to the shadow Leader of the House.
Hundreds of thousands of households across this country live on unadopted estates. They can be in that status for a great many years—I am hearing up to 10 years. In my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, I have estates where certain streets have been built, for example by Taylor Wimpey, and residents are just charged council tax, but on other streets, perhaps built by Persimmon, residents are being charged not just council tax but a monthly fee. Fortunately, my local Labour councillors are campaigning against companies such as FirstPort, because they see that as an absolute outright scam. Can I therefore urge the Government to allow a meeting with the Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), or indeed a debate? I fear that this issue is being felt right across the country, and it is an absolute scandal.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is right that this issue is being felt right across the country. We have called it fleecehold, and that is for a reason. It is why we want to end these leasehold estates for good. We have already ended leasehold for new housing, and we will be ending new leasehold for flats, too. We are bringing forward the commonhold White Paper and, later this year, the draft leasehold reform legislation. We look forward to working with him and his local councillors to end fleecehold for good.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House.
Plans to install electricity pylons across my constituency are causing huge concern to many of my constituents. We have a Pencader-based cable-ploughing company, ATP, which specialises in the innovative spider plough technique. It has a low impact on the environment and has laid underground power lines all over Europe, including here in the UK. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating this local success story, which offers an efficient, ecologically friendly, environmentally friendly and, most importantly, efficient way of addressing our energy infrastructure needs?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises an important matter, and I know that the building of new pylons is an issue of concern for local people in many constituencies. We need to build the energy infrastructure of the future, which includes new pylons, but we are bringing forward measures to ensure that those who live near new pylons will receive £2,500 off their energy bills in the coming years. Putting cabling underground is an innovative approach, and the example that she gives is one that I am sure the Secretary of State will be keen to look at.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
May I, too, offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House?
Women’s rights have come a long way; indeed, we have had three female Prime Ministers, and we now have our first female Chancellor and a female Leader of the House. However, many women and girls in the UK are still being denied the right to feel safe in their communities, on the streets, in their homes and even online. Although charities and Governments continue to work tirelessly to combat sexual violence—indeed, our Government have a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls—some of my constituents say that many agencies, including the police, still do not take sexual violence seriously, respect victim-survivor testimonies or take serious action to stop the harm. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We really do have to have shorter questions. Can the hon. Gentleman please get to his point?
Jas Athwal
Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on how state agencies can work to protect victim-survivors better?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Tackling violence against women and girls is a national emergency, which is why this Government have a really ambitious mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls within a decade. That will take a huge effort. We have already taken a number of steps, such as banning sexually explicit deepfakes and taking action on stalking and spiking. We are introducing many other measures in forthcoming Bills, and I look forward to debating them with him.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. I have spent many happy hours looking for lost Polly Pocket pieces.
The Leader of the House has had many invitations to the Scottish Borders, and I extend an invitation for her to come to the Langholm Common Riding, which is a fantastic event where the cornet leads a cavalcade of horses to check the town’s boundaries. But if she were to come to Langholm right now, she would find that people are very unhappy about a proposed cull of feral goats on the moorland surrounding the town. A company called Oxygen Conservation took over a large part of that moor for the purpose of rewilding, but local people are dismayed that its first action was to propose a cull of goats. Whatever the merits or otherwise of such a scheme, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that organisations such as Oxygen consult local people and do not just ride roughshod over their views?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the invitation to his constituency. I have had many invitations to the region, and I hope to come good on them one day.
This has become a very big issue in his constituency. I understand that a petition about this matter has garnered much support, and he is absolutely right: rewilding or nature preservation organisations really ought to work with local people to ensure that their wishes are considered.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I hope the spring equinox has put a spring in your step this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Every Saturday, people from all around Bedworth join the weekly parkrun in the Miners’ Welfare park. After the run, the Mayor’s Café and the garden centre, run by People in Action, are often full, but the town centre remains relatively empty. Bedworth is receiving £20 million from the plan for neighbourhoods, so I have launched a survey to see what residents feel their town centre needs. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on support for businesses on our high streets and in our town centres?
Lucy Powell
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly do not feel like a spring chicken any more, that’s for sure.
I am really pleased to hear that Bedworth is receiving £20 million from the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a really important scheme to make sure that our town centres and village centres get the regeneration support they so desperately need.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I, too, add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House and his family. His father—from defending our country to improving our children’s happiness and increasing our cultural awareness—had an incredible life, and one of which I am sure he can be proud.
The Government’s new Crime and Policing Bill promises significant reforms to policing in this country. However, it is concerning that no money motion was passed for the Bill, especially when the need to strengthen community policing to ensure the successful implementation of these reforms is urgent. Will the Leader of the House commit to moving a money motion that specifically allocates funding for community policing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It may be helpful if I point out that policing measures, as criminal justice matters, do not require a money resolution, as I have just been advised by the Clerk. I am not sure if that is of assistance either to the hon. Member or to the Leader of the House. I call Luke Taylor if he wants to complete his question.
Luke Taylor
It seems you may have pre-empted the end of my question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would very much appreciate some clarification.
Lucy Powell
I am happy to answer the question anyway, because the hon. Member raises a really important matter. This is a big Bill, with lots of good and important measures in it. It is one of my favourite Bills, not least because it will give the police the powers to seize quad bikes and off-road vehicles, which is very popular in business questions, as well as many other popular measures. However, he is absolutely right that, unless we have the police officers on the street to operationalise these powers, our constituents will not feel the benefit. I can assure him that these measures are fully costed, and we are committed to 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers alongside them.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I associate myself with all the words of condolence to the shadow Leader of the House, despite all the hours I have spent trying to find bits of Polly Pocket to placate my children.
My right hon. Friend is aware that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority published its timetable last week for paying out compensation to the infected and the affected. Following that, Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, made it known that he intended to write a further report in response to the complaints he has received from the victims about the timetable for the compensation process and the adequacy of the Government’s response. Can she update us on the promised debate on infected blood on the Floor of this House?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I know he has campaigned on for a long time. I am sure he recognises that, certainly in recent years, the process has been too slow for many of those infected and affected by this terrible scandal. That is why we moved at pace after the general election, when we first came into office, to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Funds are now going to the infected, and the statutory instrument to take that forward is being considered upstairs on Monday. We have had two debates so far since the election and three statements to this House, but I will, as ever, ensure that the relevant Minister is totally open with this House and that we have plenty of opportunity to debate these important matters.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
A short while ago, I met members of the Brewood and Codsall dementia support group in my constituency, and they raised the issue of the increasing number of people being diagnosed with early onset dementia and the difficulties of supporting them. Could we have a statement or a debate in Government time on how we can support those with early onset dementia, including earlier access to pensions because such people’s life expectancy is so much shorter?
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Member raises a good point. Dementia gets raised a lot in business questions and, I know, in Health questions. We are committed to early diagnosis and to getting up the diagnosis rates. He raises a particular issue about access to pensions that I think requires further consideration, and I will certainly raise that with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Being deaf should not be a barrier to sport. I am so pleased that Macie White, a Derby North constituent, has been selected to be part of GB’s deaf women’s football team competing in the Deaflympics in Tokyo later this year. Macie has to fundraise to cover the costs of her expenses. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the GB team good luck? May we have a Government statement on how we can encourage participation and sponsorship for deaf sports at both grassroots and elite level?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to draw attention to a really important issue. I join her in congratulating Macie White on making the GB deaf women’s football team and wish her well. I hope that in raising it today, the team maybe gets the extra sponsorship and support it so deserves.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
My constituents will be concerned by reports in the media this morning about a Government report that shows the cost of net zero will: impact negatively on GDP by 2030 by some 10%, increase national debt, increase the risk of a financial crisis, and hit the poorest the hardest. Given that the report was suppressed from the Department for Business and Trade by the previous Government, and given this Government’s enthusiasm for transparency, will the Leader of the House confirm that the report will now be released to the public to enhance debate on this issue?
Lucy Powell
First of all, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman: I think he has a new role as chief adviser to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), because they seem to be on the same page this week. Like her, though, I am afraid he is wrong on this issue, because we cannot ignore net zero. It is not just important for the climate, but absolutely critical to lowering bills, creating jobs and creating the energy security we need. Not taking action on net zero will actually cost us a lot more in the long run than taking the steps we are taking to invest in the jobs and lower bills of the future.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I extend my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. It says a lot about him that he is here in this place doing his duty today.
Last month, the mayor of the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Councillor Barry Panter, tragically died in a traffic accident. Although we were from different political traditions, he and I got on well and he was always very kind indeed to me. Last night, members of the borough council met to pay tribute to Barry. Sadly, the chair did not have enough time to read out my tribute. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House join me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) in mourning his loss, extend our collective condolences to Barry’s wife Beatrice on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, and give thanks for his noble service to our armed forces, the South Wales police force and our community in Newcastle-under-Lyme?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in passing on the Government’s condolences and pay tribute to Barry Panter for his contribution to public life, both as a former police officer and dedicated public servant. My hon. Friend has served his constituents very well today.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I, too, offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House on the loss of his father, who sounds like a very fine gentleman indeed.
The Leader of the House will, I am sure, welcome the visit to the United Kingdom this week of the new Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney. Canada is, of course, a great friend to the United Kingdom and the new Prime Minister is very welcome. However, the Leader of the House must surely see that the UK economy is suffering from growth flattening, inflation above target and unemployment on the up—all as a result of the economic model adopted by the Chancellor and endorsed by the former Governor of the Bank of England, who was one of her advisers before the election, no less. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate to discuss how printing money, raising taxes and adding more costs to businesses has driven up prices and damaged jobs? Will she accept that former Bank of England economists and Governors seem to have little clue about how the economy actually works, which is bad for Britain and bad for Canada?
Lucy Powell
I would gently remind the hon. Gentleman —I can see he knows what is coming, because he is grimacing already—that under his Government we saw inflation go to 11%, the economy crashing, taxes raised to their highest in 70 years and debt out of control. We have had to come along and put the economy back on a stable footing, and that has meant taking difficult decisions. We need to invest in our public services and put the economy back on a stable footing. I am afraid we will not be taking lectures from the Conservatives on that.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I pass on my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House, whose father sounds like a modern-day Father Christmas.
As a child, together with my mother and sister, I experienced a period of homelessness. It was an incredibly difficult time for all of us. Thanks to the kindness of family and friends, we had a support network to get us through it, but sadly, that is not the case for everybody. This Friday, I will be joining residents from across my constituency at Doncaster Rovers football club for the Snooze in the South Stand event—an initiative that gives participants a powerful insight into the daily reality faced by too many people who are fighting homelessness in our communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising those organising and taking part in this important event and recognise the steps the Government are taking to reduce and eventually get rid of homelessness altogether?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for using his own experiences to highlight the important issue of homelessness. I join him in wishing well everyone taking part—including my hon. Friend himself—in the forthcoming Snooze in the South Stand event. He is right: we have to tackle the root causes of homelessness. We have put more money into tackling homelessness, we are ending no-fault evictions and we are absolutely committed to one of the biggest house building programmes, including in social and affordable housing, that this country has ever seen.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I add my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. As of today, while ultrafast broadband is available in Chester, only 19% of premises have access. Villages in my constituency that are within a few miles of Chester city centre, such as Waverton, Littleton, Christleton and Rowton, have an average download speed of just 10 megabits per second, as against the UK average of 69.4 megabits per second. These villages did not qualify for Project Gigabit, as they were classed as urban rather than rural, despite being in the countryside, and they are outside the boundaries of the city of Chester, so are not included in urban-focused projects. Would the Leader of the House consider providing an opportunity for the issue to be properly addressed in the House in the form of a debate on broadband speeds in rural areas?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the roll-out of fast, full-fibre and gigabit broadband has been too slow, especially in rural areas such as those in her constituency, which sound like they are between urban and rural. This Government are committed to that roll- out by 2030, but I will absolutely ensure that she gets an update on what is happening in her constituency.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
May I pass on my own personal condolences to the shadow Leader of the House? He and I have known each other ever since he entered this House. He made a fitting and moving tribute to his late father.
Every family in Rochdale, including mine, has a relative or friend who has benefited from the superb end of life care provided by Springhill hospice. I want to pass on the hospice’s thanks to the Government for providing £111,000 in new funding just this month as part of a £100 million investment in hospices across the country. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Greater Manchester hospices provider collaborative, which visited Parliament this week to show the NHS just how much innovation and expertise hospices can provide to the palliative care movement?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I was sorry I could not join my hon. Friend and other Greater Manchester colleagues at the event with the Greater Manchester hospices provider collaborative earlier this week—I saw the photos—and I fully support his work on this. I will take this opportunity to thank Springhill hospice in Rochdale. I am really pleased it has had £111,000 of extra investment thanks to this Government, and I hope it will continue to flourish.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
May I also express my sympathy to the shadow Leader of the House? I knew Torquil, his father, very well for many years. I worked in the toy industry in competition with him and worked with him on many charities. He created some fantastic toys, not just Polly Pocket, but the big yellow teapot, the a la carte kitchen and the big red fun bus.
Clive Jones
Torquil Norman created all of those when he started the very successful public company, Bluebird Toys. He brought fun to millions of children across the world and, in doing so, he had the most wonderful life. The right hon. Member and his family will have much to celebrate in the coming weeks and months remembering him. All those associated with the toy industry will have been very sad to hear this news today.
For months, one of my constituents in Wokingham has been trying every morning at 6 am to book a driving test, but is left waiting in an online queue for half an hour with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency system, which suspects that he is a bot. Actual bots somehow get through, buying up test slots and selling them off at a premium. My constituent does everything right, but the system does not work for them. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to address the frustrating shortages of driving tests?
Lucy Powell
First, let me thank the hon. Member for his tribute to Torquil Norman. I am sure that if the shadow Leader of the House were able to respond to his question, he would want to do so by thanking him dearly for painting another lovely picture of his father.
Lucy Powell
I did not realise that Torquil Norman created Bluebird Toys, and all of the toys that that involved, so I think all of us owe him a great debt for inventing such fantastic toys.
The hon. Member raises an important issue about the DVSA on which we get many complaints. People are waiting too long to get their driving test slots. I know that other colleagues have raised that matter with me in the past, and will probably raise it with me today as well. Perhaps they might club together to get a Backbench Business debate on this important matter.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I was extremely relieved to see my constituent, Rebecca Burke, safely returned to her family in Monmouthshire on Tuesday after her ordeal in America. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to wish her well after her detention at the border for 21 days due to a mix-up with her visa. Although I am delighted that she is home, I was really disappointed and actually quite shocked to hear that she was transported to the airport in the USA in chains despite doing absolutely nothing wrong and posing no risk. The family want me to convey my thanks to all those at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and at the consulate who helped to bring this awful ordeal to a close. I ask the Leader of the House to support me in securing a meeting between the Burke family and the Foreign Secretary so that they can feed back their difficult experience with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the FCDO and lessons can be learned.
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent, Rebecca Burke, has now safely returned home and I am very sorry to hear of the experience that she suffered in the US. I am glad that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was able to help. The Foreign Secretary was in his place for the early part of her question, but he did not hear all of it. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I join others in sending my deepest sympathy to the shadow Leader of the House for his loss.
I recently attended the awards for the Grimsby and Cleethorpes scout group, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I were glad to give up our Sunday afternoon to attend the event. When we go to such events, we can see not just how valuable it is for the young people concerned, but how important it is that the adults and the scout leaders give up their time to help develop the young people. I know that if I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on this matter in Government time, she will suggest that I go to the Backbench Business Committee. However, as a member of that Committee, I am aware of how heavy the demands are. Therefore, I join the Chair of that Committee in asking the Leader of the House for more time, so that I will not have to wait too long for my scout debate.
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Scouts for their work and all the adults who support them. The Scouts are vital for our young people, and I thank him for making time on his weekend to support them. As ever, I hear the strong representations of the Backbench Business Committee. The Chair and I are due to meet again soon to discuss perhaps more creative ways to find further slots.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We are expecting an important statement at midday, so if Members keep their questions short and the Leader of the House provides snappy answers, we might get everyone in.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Like 1% of the population, I suffer from coeliac disease, an autoimmune disease in which the gut attacks itself if the sufferer eats gluten. There is no treatment other than a gluten-free diet. The cheapest loaf of gluten-free bread can cost six times the price of one that contains gluten. Despite that, prescriptions for gluten-free bread are being restricted across England by integrated care boards, leading to coeliacs facing economic hardship and putting themselves at risk of cancer and osteoporosis. This must be reversed. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the availability of gluten-free prescriptions across England?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend has made a strong case—I did not realise that gluten-free products were so expensive. He is right to point out that they are necessary for coeliac sufferers such as him. I am sure that that would make a good topic for debate.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I recognise your request for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I offer my condolences and say how much I identify with the maxim “turn up at the finishing line”, having stood eight times to get here and having been successful twice.
Given the countless families in my part of Somerset who have adopted or are special guardians to children and young people, many of whom are living with significant challenges and trauma stemming from their treatment in early life, the adoption and special guardianship support fund is a lifeline for essential therapeutic support. I have written to the Minister, and I understand that applications for therapy that started this financial year can carry on into the next one, but there is no news yet on the future of funding, leaving many families in limbo. Can we have a debate to enlighten us on when the Government will make an announcement on the fund, and how they propose to support adoptive families to ensure that they can access therapeutic support when it is needed?
Lucy Powell
Adoption support is important. The uncertainty about the fund has been raised with me as a constituency MP, so I am well aware of it. I will ensure that when I get a response about it, I will pass it on to the hon. Lady.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Let me start by extending my deepest condolences to the shadow Leader of the House. Clearly, his father was a remarkable man.
Stoke-on-Trent has a rich history reflected in the architecture found across our six proud towns. As part of English Tourism Week, I was delighted to welcome colleagues from the national lottery heritage fund to our mother town of Burslem, where we discussed to how unleash the potential of our beautiful buildings with the right support. We must safeguard our heritage buildings, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the regeneration of our towns and how the Government can support them?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to hear of the work in Stoke-on-Trent to restore heritage buildings and my hon. Friend’s work with the national lottery heritage fund. It is vital that industrial heritage is also considered heritage. I will support him in raising these matters.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The M5 motorway in Somerset is being closed ever more frequently and for longer durations. This causes great inconvenience to businesses and residents, occasionally gridlocking the town of Bridgwater. Can we have a debate in Government time on the policy of National Highways for when and for how long it closes our motorways?
Lucy Powell
I know how frustrating that kind of road closure can be on constituents and those travelling. Poorly planned roadworks and highway agency plans can be devastating. I will support him in raising these issues with Ministers and hopefully in the House.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I recently visited the fantastic Tilehurst junior youth club in my constituency, and even enjoyed a stint running the tuck shop. It is so important that people across our country have access to a safe place to play and socialise outside of school. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the Government’s plans for Young Futures hubs and improvements to services for young people?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are committed to the Young Futures programme, which, as she will know, is progressing well. I will ensure that the House is kept updated on it; that will give her a chance once again to praise the fantastic work of the youth club in her constituency.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Sincere condolences to the shadow Leader of the House on the loss of his father.
Mass deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals must be our ultimate policy objective. Will it be logistically straightforward? Absolutely not. Is it necessary? Absolutely, yes. It is mass deportations or a mass amnesty, and I choose deportations. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate in Government time on how we can deport the numbers required on a rapid timescale that is acceptable to the British people, who reasonably expect our borders to be policed and the law to be upheld?
Lucy Powell
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that these matters are not as simple as he might suggest. The Government are absolutely committed to protecting our borders. In fact, we have returned more illegal migrants than have been returned in recent years, and the number is going up and up. We have introduced the Border Security Command, which is already taking action at source, and we need to work internationally to ensure that people do not want to come here illegally in the first place. We must take a range of actions; presenting some false easy solution does not do the issue any good at all.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Access to justice is a real issue in Cornwall, which is in effect a legal aid desert. In my previous life, when I first came to Cornwall, I ran an employment law clinic at Citizens Advice in Falmouth. Citizens Advice does great work, but it struggles with funding and recently had to stop its drop-in surgeries. Cornwall needs a law centre. Many urban areas have them, and I have willing volunteers. Will the Leader of the House please ask the appropriate Justice Minister to meet me to discuss the routes to getting such a centre, and finding the funding?
Lucy Powell
I will arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend, who is right that the availability of law centres— I am lucky enough to have one in my constituency—is vital to ensuring that people get the justice they deserve.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Following Santander’s disappointing decision to turn its back on Ilkley and close the bank branch there, Link has recommended that our town gets a full banking hub, which I have long campaigned for. That is welcome news, but it should not have taken the last bank closing for us to get one. Meanwhile, in Keighley, bank branch after bank branch has closed, but there is no sign of us getting a banking hub. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on getting banking hubs open without our waiting for an area’s last bank branch to close? Will she ensure that banking hub services are accessible, with full cash access?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member will know that in recent years—since long before we came to government—we have seen a huge acceleration in the closure of banks on our high streets because of banks’ changing practices and decisions. The Government are committed to bringing in 350 banking hubs. We have allocated 200, and 100 are already open. I will ensure that he gets an update on the banking hub for his constituency.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Potholes have plagued motorists in Buckinghamshire for too long, damaging cars and making drivers, pedestrians and cyclists less safe. I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering more than £20 million in funding to Buckinghamshire council to fix those potholes, and I am working hard to get Labour councillors elected on 1 May to ensure that the investment delivers results. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government’s commitment to our road infrastructure, and ensure that it keeps getting priority in Parliament?
Lucy Powell
Filling our potholes is a really important action that the Government are taking. We want to fill another 7 million potholes over the course of this Parliament. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is working with her council, and with the councillors whom she is hoping to get elected later this year, on getting the potholes fixed in her constituency.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I valued the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones). I offer my condolences, and my time, on a separate occasion, to discuss the ideas for the future that the shadow Leader of the House set out.
BT has threatened to close down the K6 telephone box in Sharrington, in my constituency, which is a vital lifeline for an area with a poor mobile signal. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, an ambulance driver used the phone box to make an emergency call. Last Friday, we rallied 50 locals to queue outside the phone box to make calls and prove its importance to BT. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time about the importance of phone boxes to rural communities, and the protection of vital rural services?
Lucy Powell
Phone boxes remain important for many of our villages and towns across the country, as well as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. He has taken the opportunity this morning to mention the phone box in his constituency, and I will ensure that he gets a good reply about it.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, particularly in the parish of Willaston and the town of Nantwich, have been in touch about significant delays in receiving mail from Royal Mail. They often go weeks without receiving a single piece of mail, and then receive a whole stack of letters weeks later. As I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates, that results in my constituents missing important correspondence, including about hospital appointments. When might we have a debate on Royal Mail’s performance?
Lucy Powell
I can absolutely identify with what my hon. Friend describes because I have had many similar issues in my constituency. I know that there are systemic problems in Royal Mail to do with staff morale and systems that it uses, which mean that people do not get a service that they can rely on. I advise my hon. Friend to raise that directly with Royal Mail—and perhaps with the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), as I did on behalf of my constituents, because the Committee holds regular accountability hearings with Royal Mail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of my party, offer my condolences to the shadow Leader of the House on the loss of his dad? My dad died 10 years ago, and there is not a day when I do not think about him. I am sure the hon. Member will be the same.
The Chinese Communist party’s long-term strategy for Tibet through to 2049 involves tightened rules for religion, in order to deliberately suppress Tibetan Buddhism and religious identity. The aim is to bring religion totally under the control of the state, to ensure that religious views and feelings are supplanted by loyalty to Chinese cultural nationalism. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to commit to raising with counterparts in China the urgent need for additional protections to safeguard the human right to freedom of religion or belief, and will she ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that these concerns remain central to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s diplomatic engagements with China?
Lucy Powell
Those issues absolutely remain central to our diplomatic relations. The Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), are here, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. We stand firm on human rights; we make that very clear in our discussions with China, and with anybody else.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We have a very important statement coming in just one minute. Final question: Chris Webb.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Blackpool pleasure beach in my constituency was named the best seaside park at the UK theme park awards. World-class attractions such as the pleasure beach brought an estimated 23 million people to Blackpool last year. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the pleasure beach and all the attractions in Blackpool, and encourage everyone to have a staycation in the UK this year?
Lucy Powell
I can absolutely encourage everyone to go to Blackpool, have fish and chips on the promenade, and perhaps go on the Big One, which I am too scared to go on. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend there soon.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for her responses this morning.
Conflict in Gaza
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With the permission of the House, I shall make a statement about the conflict in Gaza. In January, I outlined to the House the deal agreed between Israel and Hamas. It was a moment of huge hope and relief. In the weeks that followed, hostages cruelly detained by Hamas were reunited with their families, and aid blocked by Israel finally flooded into Gaza. A path out of this horrendous conflict appeared open. It is therefore a matter of deep regret that I have to update the House today on a breakdown of the ceasefire and yet more bloodshed in Gaza.
On the night of 18 March, Israel launched airstrikes across Gaza. A number of Hamas figures were reportedly killed, but it has been reported that over 400 Palestinians were killed in missile strikes and artillery barrages. The majority of them were women and children. This appears to have been the deadliest single day for Palestinians since the war began. This is an appalling loss of life, and we mourn the loss of every civilian.
Yesterday morning, a UN compound in Gaza was hit. I can confirm to the House that a British national was among the wounded. Our priority is supporting them and their family at this time. Gaza has been the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, and I share the outrage of the UN Secretary-General Guterres at this incident. The Government call for a transparent investigation, and for those responsible to be held to account.
The UK is working closely with partners, such as France and Germany, to send a clear message. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities. We urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. Hamas must release all the hostages, and negotiations must resume. Diplomacy is the one way to achieve security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The House will know that the ceasefire in Gaza had lasted for almost two months—the result of dogged efforts by Egypt, Qatar and the United States. The deal reached in January saw the nightmare of captivity for 30 hostages end, and the bodies of eight further victims of Hamas returned to their loved ones. We all remember the joy of seeing Emily Damari reunited with her mother and family. Desperately needed aid began to flow back into Gaza—food, medicines, fuel and tents. Children in Gaza had respite from relentless fear. The severely injured could cross the border again for treatment. Palestinians had begun to return to their homes, and to consider how to rebuild their lives.
In the first days of the ceasefire, the UK moved swiftly to invest in the peace. We released £17 million in additional emergency humanitarian funding for the promised surge in aid. We brought our total support this year for Palestinians across the region to £129 million. We accelerated work on the pathway to reconstruction, supporting our Arab partners’ very welcome recent initiative. We worked at every level to support negotiations for a permanent ceasefire and the return of every single hostage in a backed extension to phase one of the current deal.
But negotiations have been gridlocked for several weeks. Hamas has been resisting calls for the release of further hostages in return for a longer truce. Israeli forces did not begin to withdraw from the Philadelphi corridor as agreed, and on 2 March, the Israeli Government announced that they were blocking all further aid deliveries until Hamas agreed to their terms. For weeks now, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked, leaving over half a million civilians once again cut off from clean drinking water and sparking a 200% surge in the price of some basic foodstuffs—a boon to those criminals who use violence to control supplies.
As I told the House on Monday, this is appalling and unacceptable. Ultimately, of course, these are matters for the courts, not Governments, to determine, but it is difficult to see how denying humanitarian assistance to a civilian population can be compatible with international humanitarian law. Although it is important to say that I could have been a little clearer in the House on Monday, our position remains that Israel’s actions in Gaza are a clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law.
The consequences of the ceasefire’s breakdown are catastrophic. For the families and friends of the remaining 59 hostages, including Avinatan Or, the agony goes on. Hamas’s kidnapping of those people and treatment of them in captivity, the cruel theatre of their release, depriving them of food and basic rights—those are acts of despicable cruelty. Hamas must release them all now.
Palestinian civilians, who have already endured so much, now must fear a re-run and a return to days of death, deprivation and destruction. Civilians have once again been issued with evacuation orders by Israel. Only 4% of the United Nations flash appeal is funded—not even enough to get through to the end of this month. Health centres have had to close, even as the devastated Gazan health service has to treat another surge of those wounded in strikes.
Hamas can have no role in Gaza’s future, but a collapsed ceasefire will not bring the hostages home to their families, an endless conflict will not bring long-term security to Israel, and a deepening war will only set back the course of regional normalisation and risk further instability, shortly after the Houthis resumed their unacceptable threats to shipping in the Red sea.
Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, I have spoken to Secretary Rubio, to EU High Representative Kallas and to UN emergency co-ordinator Tom Fletcher, and I will shortly speak to my Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa’ar and Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa. We and our partners need to persuade the parties that this conflict cannot be resolved by military means. We want Israel and Hamas to re-engage with negotiations. We continue to condemn Hamas, of course, for their actions on 7 October, their refusal to release the hostages, and their ongoing threat to Israel, but we are also resolute in calling on Israel to abide by international law, lift the unacceptable restrictions on aid and demand the protection of civilians.
Many months ago, only weeks into office, I concluded that there was a clear risk of Israel breaching international humanitarian law in Gaza. It was that risk, which I first set out in the House back in September, that meant that the Government suspended relevant export licences for items for use by the Israel Defence Forces in military operations in Gaza. The actions of last week only reinforced that conclusion. In the days and weeks ahead, we will redouble our efforts to restore a ceasefire, but we will also continue to work with our partners on the security, governance and reconstruction arrangements. Those issues are not going away. There remains no military solution to this conflict. A two-state solution remains the only path to a just and lasting peace.
At this Dispatch Box in January I called the ceasefire deal
“a glimmer of light in the darkness”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 511.]
It feels like the darkness has returned. Former British hostage Emily Damari said that the resumption of fighting left her heartbroken, crushed and disappointed. I am sure that she speaks for the whole House. But we must preserve hope for the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza, and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long. We will keep striving for a return to the path to peace. I commend the statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement.
We all mourned the loss of innocent lives in this appalling conflict. The death of the UN aid worker and the injury to a British national are tragic, and our sympathies and thoughts are with their families. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update on the direct engagement that he has had with key interlocutors in the region to ascertain the facts of what happened? Has he been updated by the Government of Israel on their investigation?
The onward transition at the end of phase 1 of the ceasefire agreement was always going to be challenging. This is a difficult and fragile moment for the middle east, but several basic truths remain unchanged, including the urgent need to return to their loved ones the 59 hostages captured by Hamas terrorists during the atrocities of 7 October. That is vital for achieving a sustainable end to this horrendous conflict. The incredibly brave families of those held hostage remain firmly in our thoughts, and we should be very clear that the onus is squarely on Hamas. Hamas could agree to release these hostages now and avert any escalation. This is the moment for the UK Government to show leadership with the international community and exert maximum pressure on Hamas to release these hostages.
We should all fully understand who we are dealing with here: a brutal Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that seeks the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state, uses its own defenceless people as human shields and has ruthlessly eradicated fundamental freedoms in Gaza. Anyone who has read the shocking report from Lord Roberts on 7 October, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, will have seen the harrowing details of the real-life consequences of Hamas’s total disdain for human dignity, utter disregard for human life, visceral antisemitism and murderous intentions: their organised brutality, murder, rape and torture, indiscriminately targeting babies, children, women and the elderly. As the Prime Minister himself once said, Hamas bear responsibility. Is that still the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s position?
It is abundantly clear that Iranian-backed Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza, and we have raised this many times in the House. What exactly are the British Government doing at this moment in time to bear down on Hamas and work with partners to put an end to this brutal regime? What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the capabilities of Hamas and the ongoing threat that the terrorists pose to peace and stability in the region? Do the Government support the US proposal for securing the release of hostages? What is his vision of the next steps? Does he believe that phase 2 of the ceasefire remains within reach, or is he considering alternative solutions?
There is too much at stake for Britain to be a bystander. We must be a proactive player with involvement. The Foreign Secretary mentioned his talks with France and Germany, but what discussions is he having with Egypt and other regional partners? We need Israel to continue seeing the UK as a trusted partner. The strength of Britain’s relationship with Israel also matters for our wider influence in the middle east. If we undermine our relationship and influence with Israel, we also lose influence across the middle east.
Careless comments do not help, including the Foreign Secretary’s remarks in this House on Monday, for which he has been rebuked by the Prime Minister. Will he apologise to the House and to Israel? The Foreign Secretary’s focus should be on securing the release of the 59 remaining hostages, and this House should be united in that. Those hostages have been held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October, and their release is important for a sustainable end to this conflict.
Let us be clear: Hamas have no respect for international law, human life or human rights. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must be unequivocal that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel? We must have no more poorly judged decisions on arms exports designed to placate Government Back Benchers.
On the question of aid to Gaza—[Interruption.] On the question of aid to Gaza, which Government Back Benchers would perhaps like to take seriously, I have said from the Dispatch Box that we expect detail about the Government’s practical response on the ground. How are the Government working to unblock the situation, and what is happening to British aid that is already in the region or en route? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Israeli counterparts in recent days? What is his assessment of the reports of Hamas stockpiling aid and the impact this has on distribution to civilians in need? Has he held discussions recently with the Red Cross on its important work on hostage release and aid delivery? Could we be doing more to support the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross?
On the region more broadly, as the parliamentary commission report makes crystal clear, we cannot ignore the role of the regime in Tehran, which has its fingerprints over so much of the inhumane suffering and bloodshed that we see today. We need action to deter Iran’s malign agenda, so what options are on the table for tackling Iran and the flow of weapons and support to its terrorist proxy? What hard power options is the Foreign Secretary considering in respect of the Houthis? I did not receive an answer to that in the House on Monday. I also asked the Foreign Secretary on Monday whether Britain is in lockstep with the United States, but he did not answer that. Now is the time for him to provide clarity and clear answers.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and let me make clear regarding the charity worker who was injured, that of course our ambassador and the Foreign Office are in touch with his family. As she would expect, we have made representations to the Israeli Government, and I will be speaking to the Israeli Foreign Minister in the coming hours.
The right hon. Lady talks about Hamas, and I have said at this Dispatch Box that the scenes of those young men in balaclavas with Kalashnikovs parading hostages are obscene, and I condemn them. I said in January that we would continue to stand with the hostage families, and we will. There are still dozens of families waiting, hoping, praying that their loved ones can return, but the right hon. Lady will also have seen overnight that many of those families are saying that this is not the way to bring them home. They fear that as a consequence of this resumed action, their loved ones will perish, and I thought that the tone of some of her remarks did not sit with what I see coming out of Israel at this time. No one could not be absolutely touched and affected by the gaunt and malnourished hostages paraded around in a sick propaganda exercise. We all condemn Hamas.
The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. What we are doing, and what the previous Government did, is supporting the Palestinian Authority with reform. There has to be an alternative to Hamas, and that alternative is the Palestinian Authority. We must work with it; we have to give people hope and prospect that is not about terrorism, and that is about supporting Prime minister Mustafa in all his efforts. That is what we have been doing, and why we have been working particularly with the Arab Quint. She asked about how we are working with partners in the area, and there was to be a conference, a gathering, in Egypt this weekend. It has been postponed, but it will be important that we attend that gathering, and work with our Arab partners. I put on record our support for Egypt and Qatar in their conversations with Hamas. She knows that we do not talk to Hamas, but we do work with those partners who can.
The right hon. Lady asked about future operations in the Red sea, and she knows well that I would never comment from the Dispatch Box on operational issues in the Red sea. She asked me if there is any moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government. Of course there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israeli Government, and none of us has ever suggested that that is the case. She asked, rightly, about the role of Iran. She is right about the malign affect of Iran in the region, and we will act to ensure that it does not get the nuclear capability that it is seeking to secure —I discussed that issue with Secretary of State Rubio and my counterparts in France and Germany.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his passionate and articulate plea for peace from the Dispatch Box. In doing so he speaks for us all, and I know that he has witnessed the suffering and feels it very deeply, as we all do. The renewed bombing in Gaza cannot be justified, the renewed siege of Gaza cannot be justified, and it is difficult to see how either of those things are compatible with international law. It will be for a court to decide, and there will be a reckoning.
The question, however, is what is going to happen now, because whatever it is that the British Government are doing in the region, it is clearly not working. What is plan B? Now that the Israeli Government have abandoned the fragile course of peace, what is plan B for the west bank, which still faces the threat of annexation? Following reports that the strikes may have American endorsement, what is plan B when it comes to uniting our international allies, to make sense of this senseless violation of the peace process? We must ensure that this is met not just with words, no matter how passionate or articulate. We have to do something internationally and with our allies. It is time to stop talking about it, and to do something.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I know that she was in the region recently, discussing these very same issues at the Knesset. I understand that the US envoy, Steve Witkoff, is flying into the region as we speak, and I hold out hope that we can once more get a ceasefire that gets us to the plan, which was to the end of the Passover period—I cannot give up hope on that. She says that we must have more than words, and she knows, as I do, that the business of diplomacy is words, conversations, and using our influence to bring this about. That is why we are working closely with the United States, with our Arab partners and, of course, with our E3 partners, in particular, and the European Union at this time, and I will do everything I can to get us back to that ceasefire.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Israel’s resumption of its military campaign in Gaza is heartbreaking for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and for the world. For two months, the fragile ceasefire provided space for the release of hostages and, until early March, the flooding of Gaza with vital aid to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians. The resumption of fighting now threatens the lives of Israeli hostages still held in captivity by Hamas, and of Palestinians, who have already seen their homes and communities devasted by 15 months of war. A new ceasefire must be secured as soon as possible. To that end, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Israeli Government on rapidly recommitting to a ceasefire?
Even before the resumption of military operations, the Israeli Government had cut aid routes into Gaza, as well as the supply of electricity. That was illegal and wrong, contravening Israel’s obligations under international law. In this House on Monday, and today, the Foreign Secretary stated that Israel’s aid blockade was a breach of international law. Will he outline what action he is taking to ensure that there are consequences to breaching international law? Hamas must now immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, the treatment of whom while in captivity has been despicable. We are also deeply concerned by reports that a British bomb disposal expert has been injured in an explosion at a UN facility in the strip, and our thoughts are with their family. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on his safety and condition?
Arab states have a vital role to play in supporting the transition back to a state of ceasefire. Their plans for the reconstruction of Gaza also provide a pragmatic proposal for rebuilding the strip, particularly when compared with the reckless proposals put forward by Trump, who described his intention to remove Palestinians from Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has engaged closely with Arab partners in the region around their plans for reconstruction? As conflict returns to Gaza, we must also give Palestinians hope, and show them that we support their right to statehood. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UK must now move to officially recognise a state of Palestine, as a vital part of a two-state solution that offers dignity and security to Palestinians and Israelis?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I can assure her that, since the outbreak of renewed hostilities, I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio and to EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, and we are closely co-ordinating. Just last Friday I met the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, in New York, where we discussed the issues in Gaza. Of course, I expect to speak to my counterpart Gideon Sa’ar, and to Palestinian Prime Minister Mustafa shortly. We are working particularly closely with our E3 partners, and the hon. Lady will have seen that there was a closed meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, at which we made strong representations. She will also be aware that these issues were discussed, and she will have seen the communiqué that flowed from the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting last week in Canada.
As I have now said on 10 occasions since September, Israel’s actions in Gaza are at clear risk of breaching international humanitarian law. The Government have been clear all along that we are not an international court, and we could not make a judgment as to whether Israel has breached international humanitarian law, but I made a decision back in September, based on whether there was a clear risk, and for that reason we have suspended those sales to Gaza, and they will continue to be suspended.
On the British charity worker who has been wounded, we are of course in contact with his family and I intend to keep the House updated.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work that he and his team are doing behind the scenes on this horrific issue. It is quite shocking that the shadow Foreign Secretary appears unable to say the word “Palestinian”. As someone who used to be an international aid worker and was in Gaza, let me say that the lives of Palestinian aid workers are every bit as valuable as the lives of international aid workers. More than 170 Palestinian children have been killed this week alone, and yesterday the Israeli Defence Minister threatened the ethnic cleansing of Gaza—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will assist the shadow Foreign Secretary once the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has finished her question. Please continue.
Melanie Ward
Yesterday, the Israeli Defence Minister threatened the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. What action is the Foreign Secretary taking to stop that and to hold the Government of Israel accountable for their actions?
Mr Lammy
Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool and Isreal must restart the aid immediately. A lot of diplomatic activity is going on at this time. As I said, Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the middle east, has flown into the area and we are in touch with the US. I am working closely with the E3 and the EU. In fact, I will be speaking very shortly to my French counterpart. We have not given up hope. I sense that there has been a loss of hope that we can get back to the ceasefire from hon. Members in the Chamber, but I tell them now: this Foreign Secretary has not given up hope that we can get back to the ceasefire. It is my job to try and do the best to deliver that, and that is what I intend to do in the coming hours.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the point of order absolutely relevant right now?
Priti Patel
I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the suggestion—a misrepresentation—that I have not spoken about the Palestinian Authority in this House, because I have done so from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is a very sensitive and important debate. We need to ensure that language is temperate and respectful at all times. Our constituents are watching, as indeed is the world, so we must ensure that we in no way inadvertently misrepresent our colleagues. The right hon. Lady’s point is noted. We will now continue because we have a lot of people to get through. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Foreign Secretary has said, in particular that we have to give hope to the Palestinian people. To be fair to the Israeli Government position, Hamas could solve the problem now by releasing the hostages. Having said that, does the Foreign Secretary agree that is quite wrong for any member of the Israeli Government to say that the Gazan people could rise up against Hamas? If they did that, they would be tortured, at best, and probably killed. The people of Gaza are victims of Hamas as much as anybody, and it is quite wrong for the Israeli Government to inflict collective judgment on the people of Gaza: that will bring death, destruction, more radicalism and we will never get the hostages home.
Mr Lammy
The Father of the House speaks with tremendous authority. As I have said, none of us stands with Hamas; we all want to see Hamas removed, but an alternative to Hamas has to be provided. It seems to me that the alternative is the Palestinian Authority and working alongside people to undermine Hamas. We also have to see the end of Hamas. There are ways to bring that about—we did it in Northern Ireland, with de-arming —but they are best done through diplomatic and political solutions, not military endeavour.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The double standards and injustice we are witnessing on the international stage are truly appalling. It is obvious that Isreal is breaking international law, as every serious legal expert on international law has pointed out. It is shameful, frankly, that the Government refuse to state that about Isreal but will rightly do so about Russia’s violation in Ukraine. I say to the Foreign Secretary that the concern and outrage that he expresses at the Dispatch Box is not ending the bloodshed. When will we get the scale of sanctions on Isreal that its war crimes demand?
Mr Lammy
The conflict has gone on for 526 painful days. I recognise the strength of feeling after more than 49,000 people have been killed in Gaza—a staggering number of people. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on any further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we keen those issues under close review.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It has been estimated that in the opening salvos of this appalling aggression, the Israelis killed 80 Palestinian children in the space of 51 minutes. There have been reports of children going through amputations without anaesthetics because of the blockade, and that leaflets were dropped across Gaza last night threatening extermination. Surely even for the Government, the Israelis have now crossed a monstrous red line. The Foreign Secretary talks about “equivalence”. I am assuming that he believes that the Palestinian civilians and their lives are equivalent to the lives of Israeli citizens, and are also equivalent to the lives of Ukrainian citizens. This morning, Ministers were on the airwaves offering British troops to keep the peace between Ukraine and Russia. What is it about the Palestinian people that means they are less deserving of that kind of protection?
Mr Lammy
A whole generation of Gazans are growing up in the most unbearable conditions, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been a champion for those children—children who we saw rummaging around in the rubble; children who are now orphaned; and the many thousands of children in Gaza who are out of school. It is absolutely right that he brings their plight to the attention of the House. But the way forward that we were shown back at the beginning of January was through a ceasefire, negotiations to get into phases 2 and 3 of that ceasefire, and a horizon for a two-state solution. That is what I will continue to fight for.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all share the Foreign Secretary’s shock, anger and frustration at the breakdown of the ceasefire and the deaths that we are seeing in Gaza. As today’s debate shows, words matter. I want to follow up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), given that we are now hearing reports of ground activities in Gaza, led by Israeli forces. Israel Katz, the Defence Minister, claimed that the “evacuation” of Gaza would resume and he is threatening “total devastation”. Those are not the actions of a Government who want peace; they are the actions of an increasingly authoritarian Government who are more interested in their own political survival than in the survival of any innocent civilian, be they Palestinian or Israeli. This is not what the hostage families want to see, and we should speak for them as much as for the innocent civilians in Gaza and the Palestinians whose lives are being lost. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Foreign Secretary be clear that we do not agree with but condemn the words of Isreal Katz, as they are not going to bring forward the ceasefire or uphold international law if they are left unchallenged?
Mr Lammy
I do condemn those words and I would ask Minister Katz, who is very experienced, to withdraw them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The language that we use in this conflict matters. We know what has happened and the Foreign Secretary has reminded us today: for weeks, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked. To say that Isreal “risks” breaching international law for having done that is to say that this country does not see those acts as a prima facie breach of international law—that is how it will be heard in Tel Aviv. Is that really the Government’s position?
Mr Lammy
The Government’s position is based on the law that was set out in our export licensing regime, which the right hon. Gentleman supported in the last Parliament. The language of that legislation, if he looks at it closely, states that I, as a Minister and on behalf of the Government, have to make an assessment of clear risk. That is the language that I have used 10 times in this House since September. I stand by it, and so should he.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his absolute commitment to the end of the fighting in Gaza, the return of the hostages and, ultimately, a two-state solution. I am contacted by constituents of all backgrounds, and of all faiths and none; they stop me in the street. They see the mutilated bodies of babies and the consequences of the blockade on humanitarian aid, and they say to me, “What are this Government doing about it? What are you doing about it?” Will he say to my constituents now what action the British Government will take in response to Israel’s actions in Gaza and the west bank?
Mr Lammy
Let me make it clear that when my hon. Friend talks about the horrors in Gaza, she should reassure her constituents that the United Kingdom announced £129 million of funding for the occupied territories just in the last year, which included £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; that we are very clear that humanitarian aid should not be used as a tool; and that UK support has meant that more than half a million people have received essential healthcare, 647,000 people have received food, and 284,000 people have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene as a result of the British taxpayer.
In terms of what we are doing, I have been in this House for 25 years. My hon. Friend knows that this is about diplomacy. I wish that I could switch this off from this Dispatch Box. She knows full well that I cannot do that, but what I can do is engage in the issues in detail. It is a hard grind. I know that this is hard for many in this House, but that is how we bring about a ceasefire.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), mentioned the all-party parliamentary group’s report on the atrocities committed on 7 October 2023, which was brilliantly researched by Lord Roberts and a whole series of different individuals. The document is almost 500 pages long and contains the evidence of what happened not only on that day, but subsequently. I commend it to the Foreign Secretary to read, because in future it will be the definitive history of what happened on 7 October. Will he therefore look at the fact that 59 hostages are still in captivity? It is understood that only 24 of them are alive—probably only barely alive—and 35 are dead. The reality is that there is an opportunity for the deal, as proposed by the United States, for a ceasefire to continue, for the release of the hostages and for Hamas to lay down their arms. That is still open to the terrorists in Hamas to take up. If they do so, we can then all unite across the House and call for the end of death and destruction.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those hostages. The question now is: how do we get those remaining hostages home, and is the action that we have seen in the last two to three days likely to bring them home or to see more of them perish? I want to stand with the many hostage families who say, “Can we give the talks a chance to succeed?”, because I think military action is unlikely to bring them home.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
We have all been absolutely horrified to see the devastating impact of Israel’s military airstrikes. The Foreign Secretary rightly said that this is an appalling and unacceptable loss of life and that our Labour Government oppose the resumption of hostilities. Does he agree that there is no military solution to this conflict?
Mr Lammy
Let me state again: there is no military solution to this conflict. It is a conflict that has gone on for 17 months—had there been a military solution, it would have been found by now. The way forward is a political process and getting back to those ceasefire negotiations.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The inhumanity and depravity that we witnessed on Tuesday defies belief, but it shows that after 17 months, Israel understands fully what impunity is, because Netanyahu shattered that fragile ceasefire, killing 400 civilians sheltering in tents—mostly babies and toddlers—knowing that there would be absolutely no consequence for his action. Can the Foreign Secretary think of any other conflict at any other point in history when the UK would have accepted one of its closest allies and military partners designating babies and toddlers as legitimate military targets?
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s language. I think the whole House also understands that this is one of the most complex of atrocities. There are atrocities on both sides of this conflict; I just remind him of the scenes of those murdered horrendously on 7 October. What we need now is more light and less heat.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
This ceasefire must be desperately salvaged for the 59 hostages—they and their families have lived through hell for 530 days now—and for the innocent people of Gaza, who need aid, safety and security and have themselves lived through hell in that time. I worry that Hamas state that they want to repeat the actions of 7 October. They are committed only to endless war. What can this Government do to ensure that they have no role in the future of Gaza?
Mr Lammy
Reports have come in that Hamas have now started firing rockets into Israel and sirens are at this time sounding in Tel Aviv. I condemn Hamas’s rocket attacks. I want to reiterate that the only way through this is to get back to a ceasefire. It is unacceptable that Israeli civilians are running for cover and that Palestinian civilians are finding that the casualties are rising. There can be no place for Hamas in the future of Gaza, which is why we are doing everything to help the reform of the Palestinian Authority; we believe that they must play a role in Gaza’s governance in the months and years ahead.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Despite a huge investment in our relationship with Israel over so many years, we appear to be reduced to the position of spectators on a touchline, shouting at the players and being largely ignored. To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that our lack of leverage—if any—is a consequence of policy decisions taken in Washington?
Mr Lammy
I think it is clear that the efforts of US envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump brought us to a place where we had a ceasefire. Sometimes it can feel futile; diplomacy can feel very hard. The words of parliamentarians can feel like they have no effect, but everything that every single one of us as Members of Parliament did in those 17 months also led to that ceasefire in January. We wish that we could have brought it about sooner, and now we must act to get back to that ceasefire as quickly as possible.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is obvious that saying that we strongly oppose hostilities and that we are appalled by Israel’s action is having absolutely no effect on Netanyahu, who said of the death of 400 Palestinians—most of whom were women and children—that it was “only the beginning”. It is not right that the ordinary people of Palestine should suffer because of the actions of Hamas. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we now need to send a stronger message to Israel and go further, perhaps by suspending all arms licences to Israel and recognising the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
We are three days into a resumption of fighting. That is three days too long, and I have lamented the loss of life numerous times already in the Chamber, including in my statement. However, three days means that there is more diplomacy that we can deploy to get that ceasefire back, and that is what I intend to do over the coming hours and days.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is never easy to come to the Chamber and make a statement on an issue as complex as this one. We all watched with horror as Israeli prisoners were released—not released in a sombre, dignified way, but paraded about as an example of the control that Hamas had. As far as Hamas were concerned, those prisoners were not human beings; instead, they were trophies of abuse and hate. Those scenes were etched into the minds of people across the world. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, now as much as ever, Israel must show her strength and her friends, and show Hamas to be the murderous scum that they are? Will he reaffirm his pledge to support those who stand against the evil personified by the Hamas terrorists?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. Once again from this Dispatch Box, I condemn Hamas, condemn their activities, and condemn them for not releasing those hostages. That is the way out of this: release the hostages, let us get back to a political process and a ceasefire, and stop firing rockets into Israel.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary and his team for what I know are personal diplomatic efforts to play the UK Government’s part in making sure that we can return to a ceasefire. However, in the past few days, hundreds more women and children have been killed in Gaza. We have now had confirmation from the Foreign Secretary that a British national UN aid worker has been wounded, and aid continues to be blocked. For Palestinians, hope is moving far away. Will the Foreign Secretary further reiterate his commitment to the Government’s diplomatic efforts, and will he also give us a sense of what the UK Government are doing at this moment—in which there is such darkness for the Palestinian people when they think about what may be coming in the coming days—so that we can quickly return, not only to a ceasefire, but to longer-term hope for that region?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend asks what we are doing. I refer her to the communiqué that my G7 partners and I released, which contained a lengthy section on the situation in Gaza, discussing it with seven of our closest partners. I then flew to New York to meet Tom Fletcher to discuss the situation on the ground. I met our colleague in the European Union, Kaja Kallas, just this week to discuss these very issues, and I know that she intends to be in the region to discuss those issues face to face with Israeli counterparts. My hon. Friend will have seen the work of our UN ambassador, Barbara Woodward; there was a closed session at the UN, during which these very same issues were of course discussed with intensity. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that all efforts are being made, and of course we are supporting the reform of the Palestinian Authority. That is why I will be speaking to Prime Minister Mustafa a little later today.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a tragic fact that wherever they occur, military conflicts result in the death of innocent civilians, among them many children—we witness this day in, day out on our TV screens. Israel has an absolute right to take action to recover the hostages, but I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the continuing bombardment of Gaza will not achieve that of itself. Does he agree that one thing it does achieve is to risk radicalising the younger generation to become the Hamas supporters of the future?
Mr Lammy
That is a huge concern, because we want to provide hope for those people, and we want to provide an alternative to Hamas. I repeat that there have been 17 months of bombardment, and if that was going to work, it would have worked. It has not worked, and going back to that means—as night follows day—that at the end of any military exercise, Hamas will still be there and we will still come back to a political process. Let us continue with the political process and the ceasefire talks now; let us extend phase 1 to the end of the Ramadan-Passover season, and let us work hard to get to phase 2.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Foreign Secretary mentioned, the ceasefire provided a glimmer of hope for the innocent civilians fleeing the constant bombardment and bloodshed, and for the innocent hostages waiting desperately to be reunited with their families. For Israel to breach that ceasefire is indefensible—the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure should not be justified under any circumstances. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work he is doing and the personal efforts he is leading behind the scenes, including on the recent statement by the UK, German and French Foreign Ministers. As he knows, leadership requires honesty with our friends and telling things how they are. Will he commit to the UK showing leadership in providing international clarity to end this cycle of violence, and clarity on the really serious issue of international law breaches?
Mr Lammy
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing her moral clarity to the Chamber this afternoon. Of course I can confirm that we will continue to do all we can, and we stand by the judgments that we made back in September when we assessed that there was a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza—blocking the entry of humanitarian aid, cutting electricity that is essential for drinking water, the forced displacement of civilians, and now indiscriminate bombing that is killing and maiming many, many children. Those are not just clear risks of a breach of humanitarian law; they are clear breaches, and it is just not enough to say that we do not like it. I want to ask the Secretary of State a very specific question: has he explicitly asked the Israeli Government whether any UK-made arms or arms components were used in the mass air strikes in recent days that broke the ceasefire and have caused untold suffering to civilians?
Mr Lammy
In making our assessment of a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law, we suspended arms sales to Israel, and I stand by that decision.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Of the 170 children killed in Israel’s deadly day of bombing in Gaza on Tuesday, three of them were brothers. They were sons of Karam Tafeek Hameid: Hassan, who was nine, Mohammad, who was eight, and Aziz, who was just five. Their father told the BBC:
“They used to play around, have fun…They wanted to be doctors, teachers.”
I am also the father of three sons, and it disgusts me that Israel’s actions seem to treat Palestinian children’s lives as somehow more expendable or less precious than those of Israeli children. Is it not time that we had a diplomatic coalition of the willing—maybe starting with the E3 countries of the UK, France and Germany—to call out Israel’s appalling crimes in Gaza, not just through words but through actions?
Mr Lammy
As the father of an adopted child, I feel personally the plight of the many, many children in Gaza who have been orphaned, and who are subject to exploitation as a result of the fact that they now have no parents. It breaks my heart that more horrors could have been deployed against those who are now injured or bereft—who have lost their parents—so I understand the strength of my hon. Friend’s feeling. That is why I am doing all I can, particularly with E3 partners, to try to halt this behaviour.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Have the Government received any indication or formed any view about what the current Israeli Government would do if—admittedly against all expectation—Hamas were to release all the hostages forthwith?
Mr Lammy
That is a very good question, and it is certainly a matter I have discussed with the United States envoy, Steve Witkoff. Indeed, I have discussed it with the Israeli Government. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a lot of politics in Israel, and it is my sincere hope that these judgments are not being guided by political calculation when they cut to the core of human life. I say to those in Israel: listen to the hostages’ families and listen to the way out of this. Let us get back to a ceasefire, because I am quite sure that at the end of any military exercise, the risk is that fewer hostages will be alive. Either way, the Israeli Government will have to get back to negotiation, because military endeavour will not see the end of Hamas.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I think we have all been shocked and horrified to see the escalation in Gaza over the past few days. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words today. What work is he doing with the international community and directly with the Israeli Government to lift the blockade on aid and ensure that it can get to the Palestinian people, particularly given the escalations we have seen in recent days?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. We have to lift the blockade on aid in particular, and that is why we have increased our funding at this time. We will be working closely with partners in the region to get that aid in. Let me also take this opportunity to say that I remember meeting the families of three British workers killed in the World Central Kitchen attack: John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson. It is nearly a year since that attack, and their families want and deserve justice. There are many other families and many Palestinians who have lost loved ones, with more than 350 aid workers killed in this conflict. We cannot see the continued killing of aid workers in any conflict, and we condemn it in this House.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I begin with a quote:
“Annihilate, smash, eradicate, erase, crush, shatter, burn, be cruel, punish, ruin, crush. Annihilate!”
That is the genocidal voice of the Israeli Government as posted on X only last night by Itamar Ben-Gvir as he was reappointed as a Cabinet Minister. The Foreign Secretary recognised this week that Israel is in breach of international law. What further evidence does the Prime Minister need to recognise that, and for the UK Government to end their complicity in these crimes by stopping support for the Israeli Government committing atrocities against the Palestinian people?
Mr Lammy
If those are the words that were used last night, and I have not seen them all, then I condemn them categorically from this Dispatch Box.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his update. What we are seeing is clearly appalling. The signals coming from Defence Minister Katz are absolutely clear: the Israeli Government seek the total destruction of Gaza and they see the occupation of west bank as their objective. The leverage over Netanyahu’s Government is from Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, so my question is simple. Other than once again reviewing all the arms licences, and perhaps withdrawing them, and putting in place sanctions against Israel, what leverage do the UK Government have over Israel in this circumstance?
Mr Lammy
I cannot comment on future sanctions designations, but I refer my hon. Friend to the sanctions I announced back in October raising concerns in particular about settlements and settler violence, particularly in the west bank. I condemn the expansion. We have seen more expansion this year than in any other year. I want to reassure him that we keep sanctions closely under review.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Millions around the world saw in real time last night the destruction of life, the loss of children’s lives, more destruction and the Israeli attempt to annex northern Gaza, if not the whole of Gaza. That is clearly what the whole agenda is about. Israel continues to commit war crimes through the denial of food, water and electricity to the people of Gaza. Will the British Government confirm that they are in breach of international law? Secondly, will we cease all military co-operation with Israel, including arms supplies and the use of RAF Akrotiri as a staging point for the delivery of weapons?
Mr Lammy
I condemn any attempts to annex Gaza or the west bank. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the past. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on operational military matters, but I have been absolutely clear about our assessment. Under the legislation that he and I supported when it was put through this House under the last Government, the assessment is about there being “a clear risk” of a breach of international humanitarian law. I remind the House gently, as a lawyer, that that assessment of a clear risk is a low standard, but on the assessments that I have seen and continue to see, that is my assessment. I therefore think the right hon. Gentleman should be comforted that we are not assisting in what we are seeing in Gaza.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
May I correct my right hon. Friend when he uses the words “both sides”, since neither the Israeli Government nor Hamas represent the interests of the Palestinian people? We need to recognise that they do not have the voice necessary to bring them the protection that they need. However, I want to raise the definition of genocide. Many times, my right hon. Friend has rightly said from the Dispatch Box that it is for the courts to determine whether or not a genocide has been committed. Can he say what efforts he has made to ask the courts to make such a ruling?
Mr Lammy
As my hon. Friend probably knows, I meet from time to time with those who lead our international humanitarian law architecture, including the International Criminal Court in particular and the International Court of Justice. These are constitutional matters for them, and we must stand by the separation of powers, and therefore it is right that they get on and do their proper work. We as politicians make our judgments, but we are not courts. We cannot pronounce that from this Dispatch Box—certainly not on behalf of a Government. In a free democracy, Back Benchers are of course free to say whatever they feel in this House, and that is proper, but speaking on behalf of a Government, it must be right that courts make these determinations.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The latest scenes coming out of Gaza are truly horrifying. UNICEF says that the reported killing earlier this week of more than 130 children would be the largest single-day child death toll in the past year. As a mam and a mamgu—and just as a human being, actually—I find that truly abhorrent. Is the Minister comfortable with the possibility of UK arms being used by Israel against children and, if not, will he end, not postpone, all arms sales immediately?
Mr Lammy
I refer the hon. Lady to what I have already said, to my statement back in September and to my reassurance that we are absolutely not in the business at the moment of selling arms that could be used in Gaza under our licensing decisions—save, of course, for the decision we made on F-35s. That is because, in looking at the supply chain and recognising risks and conflicts in other parts of the world, including in the Euro-Atlantic, we had to make some serious judgments.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Failing to act in the face of Israel breaking the ceasefire in such a violent manner has consequences: it undercuts moderate voices in Israel, damages the UK’s reputation internationally, and compromises our support for international law and the rule of law. Will the Foreign Secretary look again at Government policy on recognition, sanctions, trade and arms supply while the atrocities continue against Palestinian civilians?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of recognition, which I know is dear to him and others in this House. It is a serious issue. He knows that recognition, in and of itself, does not deliver a two-state solution. He knows that we want a two-state solution and the recognition of a Palestinian state, but that is best done as part of a process that actually gets us to two states. He will recognise that the decision by other partners to move to recognition has not alleviated the suffering before our eyes, which is why there must be a careful balance. I recognise that different Governments and Members will come to different judgments, but I am holding out for two states—including an actual state for the Palestinian people, which is a just cause—and not just for a symbolic act.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Along with a billion Muslims around the world, I began my fast on Tuesday morning, having taken some food and water, with the screams of 400 innocent men, women and children ringing in my ears, as they were burned alive in their makeshift tents. I object to the resumption of the conflict and the cessation of the peace deal. The Israelis have continued to kill hundreds of people, including freezing babies, and to proceed with the Gazafication of the west bank through the removal of 40,000 people.
The Minister will be aware of the peace deal that was available in May 2024. According to President Biden, the hostages are not a priority for the Israelis—a sentiment that was echoed just the other day by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which accused Mr Netanyahu of “complete deception”, and said that
“the Israeli Government has chosen to abandon the hostages.”
The fact is that the Foreign Secretary is aware of all this, as we continue to provide Israel with military support and the use of our air base in Cyprus, and to give it moral, economic and political support. I hope that he takes my sincere question as it is meant. He has spoken passionately about his heritage and his ancestors, who were shackled in the chains of slavery. To unshackle his own chains, will he immediately cease all arms licences? Despite the £6.1 billion-worth of economic ties between Israel and the UK, will he impose economic sanctions, and put in place a viable process for recognising the state of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman brings powerful rhetoric to the House this afternoon. Notwithstanding the horrors of the conflict that has begun, we are three days into it. In the end, it is the ceasefire that will alleviate the suffering. It is my job to use all endeavours to get back to that ceasefire. That is my job, and that is what I intend to do.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In recent weeks, I have heard my constituents express their relief, but also their fear that this exact moment would come. I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work that he has been doing to secure a lasting peace, and I am glad to hear him speak of the need to send a clear message to Israel that the resumption of airstrikes is unacceptable, but I worry that this message will be heard only if it is conveyed through both words and actions. Can he reassure my constituents that he is looking at what further actions may be needed, including on sanctions, to get back on the path to peace?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on further actions or sanctions; I just pray in aid what I have already said about diplomatic efforts. I hope we can see the resumption of a ceasefire as soon as possible. All power to US envoy Steve Witkoff in the coming days, as he seeks to use US influence to bring that to pass.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for having made time to meet me, so that I could share some of the concerns outlined by many people in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Nobody has a monopoly on decency and compassion; some Members of this House ought to keep that in mind.
The scenes from Gaza on our TV screens have been beyond horrifying. The breaking of the ceasefire has seen more innocent people killed. Without question, we need all hostages to be released, and we need this war to end now. What specific discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the rest about the noble aim of saving the lives of innocent people, and delivering the long overdue two-state solution that we desperately need?
Mr Lammy
I met many partners at the G20 a few weeks ago, and as my hon. Friend will know, I have also spoken to many partners, particularly from the Arab Quint, on the phone. I suspect that I will be in the region in the coming weeks as a consequence of what we are now seeing.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
This destruction and killing during the holy month of Ramadan is horrific and inhumane. Yesterday, with colleagues from this House, I met Palestinian students studying in the UK. One did not know if her family members were alive. Another could not attend because she had just heard that her father had been killed the night before. We must ensure that the international community works together to outline the consequences of the attacks for the Israeli Government. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK Government will abide by any International Court of Justice rulings regarding breaches of international humanitarian law in the region?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Over 400 people have been killed, the majority of whom were children. Aid supplies have been blocked and aid workers killed, and the rhetoric from Israeli Ministers is getting worse. All this has happened under a ceasefire. I know these matters are complex, but at what point do we change our posture towards the Israeli Government?
Mr Lammy
When we are talking about Israel, we should remember that we stand alongside the Israeli people at this time, and we think of the many hostages who are underground and in desperate conditions in Gaza. Israel is a democracy, which is why we see people taking to the streets and making their voices heard. We see a heated debate in Israel as the best way forward.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the International Development Committee returned from Geneva following our inquiry into international humanitarian law. The message was very clear: the IHL framework is robust, but we are failing on adherence and compliance. Under IHL, aid workers should be protected. I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said so far, but the death toll continues to rise in Gaza, and most of the aid workers are locals. Can the Foreign Secretary expand on what we will do to protect aid workers, including through the ministerial group for the protection of humanitarian personnel? We met representatives of that group yesterday.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We continue to work with UN colleagues to ensure that aid workers are protected, just as we continue to work with our EU colleagues on that. We condemn the tremendous loss of life in the worst conflict for aid workers, and we continue to call for justice, particularly for those killed in the World Central Kitchen, and for a proper investigatory process in Israel that sees accountability for such acts.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for today’s statement, and for all the work that he and his team have been doing over so many months to try to find a resolution. The actions of Hamas are both brutal and unacceptable, but for a democratically elected Government to bombard innocent civilians, and to deprive them of food, water and medical supplies, is totally reprehensible. The Foreign Secretary is quite right to say that words are the language of diplomacy, but sometimes symbols matter too. Given the fear that Israel’s ground invasion is an attempt to separate the north from the south, leading to annexation, is it not time to recognise the state of Palestine and show that we stand with the people of Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend, and I recognise the strength of feeling in the House about wanting to see, alongside Israel, a home for the Palestinian people that is safe and secure. However, as I have said to her before, we keep this issue under review, and we work with close allies such as France on these issues. My own judgment is that the moment will be right when there is a process that actually leads to two states. I had hoped that, as a result of the ceasefire back in January and our getting to phases 2 and 3, we were getting close to that process, and I will do everything I can to get us back to that place in the coming days.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Like many, I was horrified to see the resumption of airstrikes in Gaza and the loss of so many innocent lives this week. Civilians in Gaza and the remaining Israeli hostages, who were abducted in the appalling Hamas terror attacks of 7 October, desperately need a ceasefire back in place, and the hostages must be released. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in condemning comments from the Israeli Defence Minister, who threatened the total destruction of Gaza? Will he also be clear that the terrorists of Hamas can have no role in the future of Gaza?
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his relentless efforts to bring all parties back to the negotiating table. I think we have all been horrified by the scenes we have seen on TV, the resumption of the violence that has seen the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, and the blockade of lifesaving aid. We must never forget the hostages, who are waiting to come home, and their families, who are waiting for them, as well as the horrors they have experienced. Given the emails of concern that I have received from my constituents, I must say that people are now asking: what next? They are doing so because, despite all these efforts, we have reached a point of utter desperation and hopelessness. Can he give assurances that arms licences will continue to be under regular review, and that sanctions will be actively considered? I hope that both those measures will bring people back to the peace table.
Mr Lammy
Arms licences are of course continually reviewed, and as my hon. Friend would expect, we always keep sanctions under review.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
In recent days, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured, and once again, many more are being displaced. The humanitarian situation is getting worse in Gaza, as Israel refuses to let through the aid trucks. The crossings have been closed for 18 continuous days, which is surely a breach of international law. More than 1 million people have been left without food parcels, and one in five pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers are malnourished. We need a return to the ceasefire and the return of the hostages, but the actions of the last week demand that the UK Government take further action. Israel continues to breach the terms of the ceasefire. We should not do a trade deal with Israel while the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is a real possibility. I urge the Foreign Secretary to consider sanctions against some of the key Israeli actors. What further actions will he take in the light of these recent escalations?
Mr Lammy
I have dealt at the Dispatch Box with much of what my hon. Friend raises, but let me say that although the UK has differences with the Israeli Government, we do not have differences with the Israeli people. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade has taken the decision to restart negotiations on a free trade arrangement with Israel. There have not been any ministerial meetings, but it is important that we do not act against the people of Israel, many of whom are taking to the streets at this very time.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Bombing civilians and preventing access to basic humanitarian supplies as a tactic of war is a war crime. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for his tireless diplomacy. A call for a full, transparent investigation is welcome, as is a call to return to a ceasefire. However, given our strong opposition to the return of hostilities, and the bombing by the Israelis, we must now go beyond persuasion. Their actions are incompatible with international law. Is it not time to make a direct response beyond persuasion? What stronger options do the Government have, which would assist diplomacy? I know he cannot speak about specifics, but can he confirm that these options are being considered, so that we can send a clear message now, and help stop the bloodshed?
Mr Lammy
As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, we of course have an arsenal of diplomatic tools, which we deploy as appropriate and keep under review. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything we can to get back to that ceasefire.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have been in touch in recent days to express their horror and their devastation at the loss of life in Gaza after Israel resumed the bombing. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to say that diplomacy is the only way to end the bloodshed, but can I push him on the resumption of humanitarian aid? It is unacceptable that we have a continued blockade. What levers do we have to get Israel to end the blockade on aid, and what is the likelihood of aid going in in the coming days?
Mr Lammy
I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, and I can imagine that her constituents are reacting with real horror to what they are seeing at this time.
There was a lot of comment about humanitarian aid —the inability to get aid in and the barriers to getting aid in—that I heard from some colleagues in Israel, but when we got that ceasefire, the number of trucks crossing exceeded expectations and the aid suddenly got in. It has now been, I think, 16 or 17 days since the aid stopped, and there will be tremendous suffering as a result. Aid should never be used as a tool in any conflict, and that is why we want to see the resumption of aid. We now know how many trucks can get in, so let us get back to those numbers.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I would like to commend my right hon. Friend for all the hard work he has been doing to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, and indeed for maintaining accountability to this House, as he has done today, in so much detail. It is devastating that Israel has resumed the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian civilians. While the ceasefire held, there were comments from those on the Treasury Bench about the possibility of a trade deal between the UK and Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary agree—surely he does—that a trade deal between the UK and Israel must be completely out of the question now that the ceasefire is over?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend has made her views known. There have not been any ministerial meetings on any such trade deal. I always want to keep in mind the Israeli people—such a deal is not, as it were, for the Government; it would be done on behalf of the people of Israel—but Ministers will have heard, and the whole House will have heard, her remarks this afternoon.
Disabled People’s Access to Transport
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Transport Committee. Ruth Cadbury will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for me to make a statement to the House to mark the publication of the Transport Committee’s first report of this Parliament. Our report is called “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”. It brings to a conclusion work done by our predecessor Committee, on which I sat for a while in the previous Parliament, and for which we thank it.
The report first sets out the evidence we receive from disabled people about their experiences of using transport networks in this country. Their experiences will come as no surprise to most hon. Members, whose constituents tell us about rail stations that remain stubbornly inaccessible, taxi services that have refused carriage because of assistance dogs, and being left high and dry at airports or on trains when they have booked passenger assistance that just does not arrive on time. No mode of transport is free from problems, despite most notionally having accessible facilities and policies.
Those failures affect people with all kinds of disabilities and access needs. The needs of wheelchair users and people with sight loss might seem obvious, but the Committee also heard from people with health conditions who need easy access to toilets and from those with autism, who describe how overcrowded or unpredictable transport affects them. Perhaps most shocking of all, 60% of disabled people who responded to our survey said that almost every journey was beset with problems. More than a third said that more than once a week they decided not to make a journey because they knew it would be too complicated, too unsafe or that things were likely to go wrong. That is simply an unacceptable infringement of people’s human rights to go to work, to access education, health care and family, to participate in society and just to have fun. Transport is not an end in itself. It is supposed to be an enabler. But far too often it is disabling people. Around one in seven in the UK population have a disability. One respondent to our survey told us:
“There’s an assumption that disabled people’s time is less valuable—that it’s okay to make us wait for a rail worker to turn up with a ramp. I’ve been late to important meetings because of this, and it makes me feel like a second class citizen…I barely go to see my mum or friends at home because the transport is so bad for wheelchair users I don’t know how I’d do it. It’s affected my friendships, relationships and working life, and it's embarrassing. I just want to be able to use public transport like everyone else.”
In theory, we have laws to promote accessibility and equality, but they are clearly not working. There is a raft of equality legislation and specific regulations about transport that, if implemented consistently, ought to guarantee access and freedom from discrimination. From the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty to the minutiae of vehicle regulations, we have the framework. On policy, in 2018 the Government adopted an inclusive transport strategy that aimed to achieve:
“equal access for disabled people using the transport system, with assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier, by 2030”.
Ministers in the previous Government told the Committee they thought progress towards that goal was on track. The reality seems to be completely at odds with the rights and with policy aspirations.
Our report aims to set out why that is and what should be done about it. We set out examples of accessibility being deprioritised, often because it is seen as too impractical or costly to achieve it. Plans for implementing step-free access on the rail network, for example, have been beset by halting progress, and many of us are still awaiting an update on the Access for All step-free projects at our local stations. We argue that a certain level of failure seems to be deemed acceptable by transport providers, such as when providing Passenger Assist services. We describe how accessibility is not taken into account early enough in the process of policy development, such as when proposals to close railway ticket offices wholesale made it to consultation. The public said no, but they should not have had to. We discuss the vital role of sufficient staff who are well trained in how to support travel needs of people with different needs.
A change of mindset throughout the system, from the top down, is needed urgently. Failures should be vanishingly rare, not commonplace. Access to transport must be recognised as a human right, not as a matter of customer service. Concrete plans and real resources need to be put behind a new inclusive transport strategy, one that sets out a realistic pathway to achieving that goal of equal access.
The routine, everyday nature of access failures stood out in our inquiry, but it is punishingly hard to hold anyone to account for failures. Seeking redress, or even just reporting them to the responsible body, is a huge, exhausting and often thankless burden. In theory, individuals can take legal action under the Equality Act, but it is costly, risky and time-consuming, so few cases are brought. Even when cases are successful, lasting systemic change does not happen. More of the heavy lifting needs to be done by regulators and enforcement bodies. They currently often have neither the mandate nor the resources to involve themselves at a low enough threshold. Only long-standing, organisation-wide failures tend to be pursued, and only then when informal measures have been exhausted.
As a result, while individual disabled people often lose count of the number of occasions on which they have been failed, regulators can generally count on the fingers of one or two hands the number of formal enforcement actions that have been taken. We must bring that into balance. There have to be consequences for failure. That is why our report asks Ministers to move towards a more robust active enforcement regime. We invite Government to consider whether a single body, with expertise in and responsibility for accessibility across transport modes, would be a more effective model. We recommend a unified service to receive and triage accessibility complaints, to ensure they reach the relevant operator or authority, to follow them up if not resolved and ensure that systemic issues are identified.
We also ask for a review of the legal framework to replace the patchwork that has grown up ad hoc over time. Users find it difficult to know what they are entitled to, operators find it difficult to know what they have to provide, and changes in technology and travel trends leave gaps in the law. In our report we invite the Government to consider whether a framework based on more explicit standards would be more effective, and that the framework’s design and outcome must include disabled people at every stage.
To conclude, I thank not only our predecessor Committee for taking the evidence on which this report is based, and the Committee staff who worked so hard on the inquiry and the report, but, more important, those who gave evidence, especially about their own experiences of travelling as a disabled person and their expert analysis of what is going wrong. I particularly thank Claire Lindsey, and Alan Benson, a champion for disabled people’s rights on transport who sadly passed away last year. Alan and Claire took me through London at the start of the inquiry and opened my eyes to the issues that affect people with autism, and those with restricted mobility, when travelling.
The words of disabled people, quoted throughout our report, are a call to action that we expect the Government to heed. Our Committee will hold the Government to account for doing so, and for bringing reality in line with rights. I commend our report to the House, and we look forward to receiving a considered response from the Government in due course.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for the report, which is most welcome. I will read it with interest. She referenced the Access for All programme, which hit the buffers during the previous Parliament with fewer than half the promised projects coming to fruition. She said much about what went wrong. How confident is she that we can avoid such problems happening in future?
Ruth Cadbury
The report has 29 recommendations, but the last one is the most important: an overarching body with responsibility for standards enforcement across transport modes, which would replace the hotchpotch of laws, policies and processes that disabled people must navigate with a more effective approach to asserting the rights of disabled travellers.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for such a brilliant report. I welcome the commitment to an accessible road map as part of Labour’s transformational Great British Railways reform. What positive role does my hon. Friend see this road map playing in improving accessible travel across the country?
Ruth Cadbury
I agree that the formation of Great British Railways provides an opportunity to bring together all the players in passenger rail, many of which have different standards, different policies and different training regimes. With a single commanding body, I think we have a real chance of bringing those processes together. However, that does not stop rail operators carrying out their responsibilities day to day. It is not just about policies, but about how it works every day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have several minutes only, so questions and answers must be short.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I compliment the Transport Committee and its Chair on this report, which, from what I have read so far, is absolutely excellent. I have two very short points for the hon. Lady. In London, ticket offices were closed by Transport for London some time ago. Does the report include anything about the possibility of reopening those ticket offices or having better information available for people, particularly those with sight or hearing difficulties, going to stations? Secondly, there are still a large number of underground stations with no lift access whatsoever. What evidence has she had that Transport for London will bring forward a programme to make all underground stations fully accessible for everyone?
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Under our proposal, TfL would need to be part of that new process. Take the example of Vienna’s 100-year-old U-Bahn system, where there is a programme to make every station accessible within 30 years. London is bigger, and it is a bigger challenge, but it is not impossible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Transport Committee member Laurence Turner.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose determination as Chair has meant that this important report from the previous Committee has seen the light of day. Does she agree that the reasonable adjustments framework under the Equality Act is the right one, and that the problem is the lack of implementation and awareness? If we had clearer statutory guidance, as exists in some areas, disabled passengers and other transport users would face fewer barriers.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my hon. Friend for the support he gave me in drafting the final parts of the report. He is absolutely right. Disabled people and operators currently use a system that is a hotchpotch of sometimes conflicting and very complex bits of legislation, some of which was brought over from EU law and some from the Equality Act. When that is addressed, it will be much clearer to bring forward more specific regulations.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Committee Chair for bringing forward this report. Access to transport relates not just to disabled people, but to parents with pushchairs, people with luggage and so on—it benefits us all. I am often contacted by constituents about the condition of lifts at Sutton station. A focus on accessibility—with investment not only in improving step-free access, but in maintaining it—is an opportunity provided by the reforms to transport under Great British Railways. Does she agree that the Government should focus not only on the roll-out of additional step-free access, but on better maintenance and better programmes to ensure that the existing facilities remain accessible for as long as possible?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In addition, thanks to digital technology, we now have real-time knowledge of when a lift is working or not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Transport Committee member Alex Mayer.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Our report highlights that the understanding of disabilities has changed since many of the relevant laws and regulations were put in place. This issue is about not only ramps for wheelchairs, for example, but conditions such as neurodiversity. Does my hon. Friend agree that making transport more accessible for those with hidden disabilities is important, not least because, for economic growth, we must use the talents of all?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, Claire opened my eyes to her needs, with things like having to find an access information point outside the station where she can summon Passenger Assist so that she does not have to go through the confusion, noise and crowds of a station, as well as the design of the walls in tube stations, which impact her ability to move through a station. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: hidden disabilities are as important as those we can see with a wheelchair or a white stick.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Londoners often complain about their train service, but actually it is pretty good, with the overground, the underground and Network Rail. However, it is barred to many disabled travellers—taking an example at random, Kew Bridge and Gunnersbury stations, which serve my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Select Committee Chair, need step-free access. What can we do to change feasibility studies into actuality in such places?
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for raising the issue of the two stations where both of our constituents need step-free access. I have not yet had an answer from the Rail Minister on the Access for All programme for those two stations, but I will keep chasing.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work on this important report. I have been campaigning to make Atherstone station in my constituency more accessible, and I will be using this report to help achieve that goal. The previous Government recklessly overpromised on Access for All, misleading disabled passengers who have been left stranded for too long. Does my hon. Friend agree that disabled people have been let down over the past decade, and that this Government are right to tackle the situation now and improve services for the future?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the criticisms of the existing Access for All programme is the expense of the projects that have been delivered. Having a road map of the station upgrades to provide certainty and consistency for contractors would speed up the delivery and reduce the cost of delivering lifts in the stations where they are so badly needed.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Chair for this excellent report and for shining the light on such an important issue. I can think of numerous times when I have been on a bus and have had to be very curt with the driver to argue on behalf of a disabled person in a wheelchair who wants to use the space, after the driver has blatantly told them to wait for the next bus. That sort of thing is unacceptable. Does she agree that we need to look at the enforcement of the equality legislation as it stands and at better training and awareness so that disabled people in wheelchairs can use public transport?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who chairs of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. As I said, the culture change goes from the top to the frontline, and staff need both to be trained and to have the confidence that they will be supported if they do assert the rights of disabled people.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As the parent of a wheelchair user with a severe sight impairment, I see many of the issues the report highlights on a daily basis. The report highlights the issues with aviation and the difficulties the Civil Aviation Authority has faced in enforcing regulations on behalf of wheelchair users and people with a severe sight impairment. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government to fully consider the recommendations of the aviation accessibility task and finish group when it reports in the summer, along with the principles of my Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, to finally make changes for disabled people on airlines?
Ruth Cadbury
I was happy to be a co-sponsor of my hon. Friend’s Bill on aviation accessibility. I fear that one of our findings was that the CAA puts too much emphasis on what it calls “reputational enforcement”, rather than proper enforcement. The relevant Minister in the previous Parliament said that the CAA needs additional powers, and I hope this Government will support those words.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and her Committee for a fantastic report. Will she join me in congratulating disability rights activists such as my former constituent, Sam Jennings, who I know is thrilled by the report, which I hope my hon. Friend would be happy to hear? It is important that we congratulate these activists, who have been looking for a report like this for a long time. Sam certainly opened my eyes to a number of different issues. If the Government accept these recommendations, which they should, it will be due to their fantastic activism.
Ruth Cadbury
People such as Sam are amazing activists. As I have said, they were major contributors to our inquiry, but they also need to be major contributors to the solutions.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act: Finance Act 2025.
Knife Crime: Children and Young People
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we begin the debate, may I remind Members of the House’s rule on matters sub judice? Members should make no reference to live criminal cases in which a suspect has been charged.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime amongst children and young people.
First, let me place on the record my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this time in the House of Commons Chamber. I also thank all those from both sides of the House who supported my application for a debate on this topic.
There are some issues that I believe rise above the Punch and Judy vaudeville that characterises so much of our political debate. I called for this debate because I believe it is a topic that Parliament needs to discuss bravely, honestly, frankly and robustly; I believe it transcends party politics and party lines; and I have been calling for it for several years—since long before I became a Member of Parliament.
I wholeheartedly welcome this Government’s pledge to halve instances of knife crime over the next decade. The previous Government sought to tackle knife crime but, sadly, were unable to do so effectively. Although I do not doubt either Governments’ intent and desire to achieve that aim, I am sceptical that this Government will fare much better than the last.
For all the hype and the fanfare, this is an issue that repeatedly falls by the wayside, until it is thrust back into the spotlight with the tragic death of yet another child. Put simply, I do not believe that Governments of any hue have shown the mettle required to tackle this with the resources, approach and focus that is required.
There are no easy solutions to this issue. The Government’s most recent data shows that of 19,903 offences resulting in a caution or conviction for possession of a knife or offensive weapon, juveniles aged 10 to 17 years old were the offenders in 18% of cases. A community sentence was the most common sentence given to those 10 to 17-year-olds—61% of all knife and offensive weapon offences across that age demographic.
Over the past decade, 10 to 17-year-old offenders showed the biggest decrease in average sentence length, with a 25% decrease from 8.1 months in March 2014 to 6.1 months in March 2024. Around 70% of youth offenders were committing their first offence. In the 12 months to March 2024, 57 young people aged under 25 were murdered with a knife or sharp object, 17 of whom were children aged under 16. In 2023, the most recent year for which the data is available, just 6.5% of knife and offensive weapon offences resulted in immediate custody. With a 93% chance of not going to prison, why should anyone carrying a knife fear the law?
Before becoming the MP for Huntingdon, I spent a decade working in London and lived in Haringey, north London. At that time, Haringey had the second highest rate of knife crime in London. It is difficult to explain what it is like to live in an area of London where murders and stabbings become so commonplace as to elicit little more than a shrug from local residents; where police tape closing a road or a local park is normalised to the point of merely being an inconvenience; where the murder of a child does not make the national news; and where five children being charged with murder does not make the national news, as with the case of the murder of taxi driver Gabriel Bringye in 2021.
This desensitisation is but one part of the problem. Over a three-year period, there were at least a dozen fatal stabbings within a mile of my front door. Several of those victims were children. Half of those arrested in connection with the crime were children, as were the perpetrators too. I remember the murder of 16-year-old Stelios Averkiou. He was stabbed multiple times by his assailant after he resisted his mobile phone being stolen in Lordship recreation ground. I was in the park shortly afterwards and saw the aftermath. I remember for weeks afterwards the handwritten posters on the trees around the park asking for anyone to come forward with information.
I remember the murder of 17-year-old Anas Mezenner, fatally stabbed near Turnpike Lane station in another fight over a mobile phone. The 17-year-old boy guilty of the stabbing had dozens of videos of himself on his own phone posing with large blades. While on remand, in a recorded phone call, he had stated:
“Just wanted my little chinging to get it, my first little juice on my blade. It’s just gone in my man’s arse...The whole 15 went in down his arse.”
Anas died from a fatal stab wound to the buttocks from a knife with a 15cm blade. All five charged with the murder were children.
I remember the murder of 17-year-old Ali Baygoren, stabbed in the neck twice outside his home just across the road from the Tottenham Hotspur stadium. His murderer, a 16-year-old boy, was on bail having only nine months previously stabbed a 14-year-old boy in a dispute over a lighter, leaving a knife buried in his chest. That boy survived. There are dozens more.
On Tuesday, a 17-year-old boy was stabbed after a mass brawl involving young men armed with machetes erupted in Forest Gate, east London. On Monday afternoon, a 15-year-old boy was stabbed in broad daylight in Turnberry Park in Birmingham. On Saturday, a 15-year-old was stabbed in McDonald’s in Southall, and two 14-year-olds were arrested. Last Friday, in Oxford, a 16-year-old boy was stabbed, and two 13-year-olds and a 12-year-old were arrested. Last Thursday, a 15-year-old boy was stabbed at the Bobby Moore Academy in Stratford. Three boys were arrested.
Last week in Yorkshire, a 15-year-old boy was found guilty of the attempted murder of a 14-year-old girl with a samurai sword on a camping trip last November. She suffered 10 wounds, including damage to a lung and her liver. The forensic pathologist’s report said that she was lucky not to have been killed. The court heard claims that he had been offered £20 by a friend to attack her.
These are not isolated incidents, but a daily occurrence across the country. These are vicious, feral, deranged attacks that are traumatic for the victims and for those involved, yet they are often little more than a passing headline in a list of other, more newsworthy, tragedies.
We are all aware of the role that social media plays in this context and how its algorithms can facilitate a dangerous influence on young users. For children and young people, their world is small, often limited to their school, their friends and people they know in their neighbourhood, but with access to social media that changes. Their world remains small, but the issues within it are amplified—blown out of all proportion.
In its 2021 paper, “Knife Crime in the Capital”, Policy Exchange wrote that
“the frequency with which young people associated with gangs are confronted with violent videos on social media shifts their perception of normality, desensitising them and increasing the chance that they will react violently. It also reinforces the perceived need to carry weapons for protection.”
In the intervening period since that paper was written that same influential factor has rippled outwards to children who, although not associated with any gangs, exist in a very online world where it is all too easy to become seduced by the belief that carrying a knife is a normal and essential aspect of everyday life, that the threat of attack is ever-present, and that carrying a knife is a key component of self-defence.
Police forces have even now altered their approach to sharing images of weapons seized during operations, after feedback that this in itself contributes to the process of desensitisation and simultaneously makes young people feel that their local area is unsafe, thus encouraging them to carry a knife themselves. But we need look no further than the social media platforms that we ourselves use: Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok. I use YouTube every day, but scratch the surface and we can find harmful content, such as scoreboard videos outlining who has stabbed or killed whom in localised turf wars for gang supremacy. These scoreboard videos brazenly chase clout, highlighting those involved, outlining who “wetted” someone, who “burst” someone else, who “bussed their case”—got away with it in court—and who therefore remains dangerous and at large. This illustrates that those involved can often enjoy a degree of impunity.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for making such an impassioned speech. He has just outlined some of the role of the social media companies. Does he agree that the same rigour that we rightly use to catch some of the perpetrators of these crimes should be applied to the social media giants who refuse, in some cases, to take down really explicit and graphic images on their websites, saying that they do not breach their content policies?
Ben Obese-Jecty
That is a very valid point. The social media companies themselves know full well that this content is there and could easily create an ability to moderate it. These are billion dollar companies and if they wanted to take down this stuff, they could. It is about willpower. It is part of our responsibility in this House to make sure that that happens.
Fear of being stabbed or killed far outweighs any fear of the police. We only need to watch one of the videos I mentioned to see how an endless immersion into this world can cloud people’s judgment.
When I asked a Justice Minister whether such videos could be used as evidence to prosecute the Government’s new law of possession of a knife with violent intent, I did not receive an answer, and I am not sure whether the Minister quite understood what I was making reference to. I ask the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire whether she could address that specific point in her summing up at the end of the debate.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on making an impassioned speech. He is talking about the dangers of social media influencing boys and young men. One of the key aspects of that is their role in society and the lack of clear role models. Will he join me in paying tribute to the former England football manager, Sir Gareth Southgate, who, in his Richard Dimbleby lecture this week, articulated the importance of role models and of boys and young men getting involved in active sports, so that they then become normalised in that setting and are not drawn into this dreadfully violent world?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree, and I will mention later the interventions to try to get people in a more collegiate and embracing atmosphere. Role models are a valid issue. Sadly, my speech is already long, but I would have loved to cover that in more detail, because it is a huge part of the reason why young men are drawn into this type of violent world.
Scoreboard videos are inextricably linked to drill music, which is a genre but also the medium by which various groups-cum-gangs are able to taunt their “opps”—the catalyst for multiple stabbings, often fatal. The line between gang and group is blurred to the point of irrelevance. Meanwhile, the media either does not know or does not care. Inner-city black youths are, consciously or unconsciously, expendable and interchangeable, overrepresented in statistics as both victim and perpetrator. The soft bigotry of low expectations makes black culture ripe for exploitation as a cheap way to appear edgy, irrespective of the upstream impact. Large media corporations, even the BBC, play their part in the creation of this milieu, leaning into it and giving it validation. The cynical valorisation of the most detrimental aspects of urban black culture and the celebration of criminality via musicians is one of the most toxic overarching influences in pushing this issue into the mainstream.
Irving Adjei, aka Headie One, went to prison three times as a teenager, including for dealing crack cocaine and heroin. In June 2019, Adjei was arrested for possession of a knife following a stop and search. While on bail, Adjei completed his UK tour, released his album, which reached No. 5 in the UK charts, appeared on Stormzy’s album “Heavy Is the Head”, played Glastonbury and was featured on BBC Radio 1. He was used in an advertising campaign for JD Sports alongside heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua, and fronted an advertising campaign for Adidas that December. That is the same Adidas that ran its “No More Red” knife crime awareness campaign alongside Arsenal FC just a couple of miles down the road shortly after that, but it is also happy to run an advertising campaign with a rapper on bail for possession of a knife. The hypocrisy of brands such as Adidas is off the scale.
Less than a month after launching the Adidas promo, Adjei was sentenced to six months for possession of that knife and went to prison for a fourth time. He was released that April. Six months later, his single was No. 2 in the charts, he had praise lavished upon him by The Times, and he has never looked back. How does that convince anyone that there is any penalty whatsoever for carrying a knife? If anything, it has been an asset for someone like him because of the edginess that I referred to.
In September 2019, The Guardian published a piece about UK drill rappers OFB, who hail from the same Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham as Irving Adjei. It stated that the drill group OFB is
“trying to move the genre beyond the violence for which it has been demonised”.
The interview was with two of the three in the group: Bandokay aka Kemani Duggan—the son of Mark Duggan —and Double Lz. It casually mentions that the third, 17-year-old SJ, is “not around today”. Several months later it transpired that SJ, aka Jayden O’Neill-Crichlow, was “not around today” because he was on remand for his part in the murder of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck seven months previously.
O’Neill-Crichlow was one of five young men, four of whom were teenagers, who received lengthy sentences of 20 years-plus after they arrived on Wood Green High Street on a Friday night armed with machetes, a handgun and a shotgun. They shot at Gabbidon-Lynck, missed and hit a packed Nando’s restaurant, and chased him down the street, eventually cornering him in a hair salon where he was shot and brutally hacked to death. For his part in the murder, O’Neill-Crichlow was sentenced to 21 years. I remember this because it happened 300 metres from my home.
I challenged the author of the piece about why it was appropriate to write a puff piece about a group who had one member on remand for murder. He cited that it was an editorial decision by The Guardian. Last year, Kemani Duggan was sentenced to five years in prison for possession of a Tokarev pistol and .22 calibre ammunition, with intent to cause fear of violence—the violence for which drill music has been “demonised”. That is precisely the type of irresponsible media valorisation that illustrates my point.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House this horrific catalogue of embarrassing incidents—embarrassing to Members of this House and previous Administrations, because we have been asleep on the job. The legal authorities were able to stamp down on last summer’s riots in Southport so effectively by taking tough measures; does he agree that that is called for now? Talk about reducing the incidence of knife crime by half over 10 years is totally inadequate. Immediate action is needed to make an example of this type of crime and deter others from participating.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree. The law simply does not act as a deterrent to many of these people. They are far more scared of their immediate surroundings and the danger posed to them in everyday life than they are of being arrested by a police officer, knowing full well that they are unlikely to go to prison unless they have done something as heinous as some of the acts that I have described.
Ciaran Thapar, the author of the piece that I just described, appeared before the Youth Select Committee last December in his new role as director of public affairs and communications at the Youth Endowment Fund. There, he explained how drill was an outlet for those involved to express the trauma that they have experienced in their lives. Adverse childhood experiences are a key part of fuelling the likelihood of vulnerable individuals becoming involved in knife crime. There is a broader question here about immigration, particularly from countries where experiences of trauma, brutality and war are contributing factors in youth behaviours within multicultural inner-city communities. The Youth Endowment Fund does important work on knife crime, and its toolkit is often cited as a key resource in providing the tools required to reach children.
Last week I spoke to Sharon Ward, the serious violence duty co-ordinator in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, covering my constituency of Huntingdon. The serious violence duty was introduced by the previous Government in January 2023, and requires local agencies to share data and information to help identify the root causes of serious violence occurring locally. When I spoke to Sharon about this in depth, she explained that they use a multi-agency public health approach, addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that an individual will become a victim or perpetrator of violence in the first place.
The most vulnerable time for children and young people is from 3 pm to 6 pm, as well as later in the evening from 10 pm until 2 am. Diversionary activity is key to reducing those vulnerabilities. Sharon outlined how the path to becoming involved in violence is a slippery slope, where participation in antisocial behaviour is linked progression to more violent crime. I am sure that the subject of funding for youth services and cuts under the previous Government will be raised. I have focused on less discussed aspects of this wider issue in my speech; however, the part played by youth workers in reaching children and young people who are vulnerable and at risk of embarking on the wrong path is well-documented.
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough currently have 41 interventions funded by the serious violence duty. They range from sport-based interventions to mentoring and relationship building, but all are designed to help those assessed as vulnerable. We must also be mindful that it is not simply about children from certain backgrounds—children from all backgrounds are vulnerable to exploitation by gangs. Those children do not realise that they are being exploited because of the way that they are being groomed—they are given new trainers, a PlayStation game or a bike by an older person they look up to or are fearful of, seemingly with no strings attached. Then they are on the hook and owe them at best a favour, or at worst a debt.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. He has made the point about children a number of times. Does he agree that educating our girls and our boys about the importance of respecting themselves and each other is an important part of tackling not just knife crime but all crime? Does he also agree that it is a matter for all Governments to do much more on prevention and early intervention?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. Children seem to find themselves in a general atmosphere in which there is a constant need for validation and for them to twist themselves into something that they are not. My honest belief is that social media has played a huge part in that. It comes across as a facile answer to give, but when we delve into it, it is far more complex and damaging than we are prepared to credit.
Any child can fall into criminality in this way. Sharon explained how parents need to be part of those discussions and alert to the warning signs. It is vital that schemes such as the serious violent duty continue to be funded, though I ask the Government to ensure that such funding is approved well ahead of time, rather than within a few weeks of its end, given the uncertainty that that often generates.
I welcome the Government’s decision to ban zombie knives. Any steps taken towards reducing the chance of a fatal stabbing are a move in the right direction, but we must not smugly pat ourselves on the back and assume that that is all that is required. I was as critical of the previous Government’s attempt to ban zombie knives as I am of this one’s—not of the intent but of the way that it is announced as the solution rather than a tiny piece of the overall problem.
Zombie knives account for just 3.6% of fatal stabbings, the same as a lock knife. Screwdrivers are a more commonly used weapon. However, by far and away the most common is the kitchen knife: 52.6% of fatal stabbings involve the type of knife that we all have and probably used this morning or last night in our own kitchen. Yes, the zombie knife should be banned, but given its use in a small minority of fatal stabbings, that is not the panacea that it is presented as.
There have been proposals to change kitchen knives to have a rounded rather than a pointed tip, as outlined in research by Professor Graham Farrell and Toby Davies, and as championed by Idris Elba in his drive to tackle knife crime. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what consideration has been given to that idea, but we cannot pretend that kitchen knives are not and will not continue to be easily available to anyone with the intention of using one.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important and passionate speech. Historically, my area of Fife has not been synonymous with knife crime, and we want to keep it that way, but the possession of weapons in Fife has increased by 50% in the last year. Does he agree that figures like that, along with concerning recent footage on social media of a young man brandishing a knife shortly before he was attacked, are a warning sign that we need to act now to prevent worse developments?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. Areas that traditionally have not been plagued by such violence are increasingly finding it rippling out into their communities. It is no longer just in large cities and areas that we would traditionally associate with it; we are finding it slowly moving into the suburbs. We need to nip this in the bud if we can to prevent any more tragedies.
A key question is: why are children now prepared to murder other children? It cannot be ignored that we see countless examples weekly—even daily—of a child being stabbed by another child. When did children develop a nihilistic worldview and a willingness to take the life of another child? In my previous career as an Army officer, I instructed new soldiers in phase one training, so I know how long it takes to train a teenager to be prepared to kill. How and why are some children developing that mindset all on their own?
Fear is a huge driver of knife-carrying. The Ben Kinsella Trust’s “Keeping Young People Safe” report illustrates that it drives the normalisation of carrying a knife. In the report, two thirds of respondents to a survey of some 10,000 young people said that they harboured anxiety about knife crime. Shockingly, the survey shows that children as young as 10 or 11 years old are considering carrying a knife. Though the numbers are very low, that shows that the idea of carrying a knife is within the scope of children who have only just stopped believing in Father Christmas.
Are children murdering other children solely out of fear? These children are not actually under threat—these are fights over little more than perceived slights—but somehow we have reached a stage of such frenzied paranoia among children of school age that they believe not only that they need to carry a knife, but that taking a life is somehow a reasonable, rational response to these situations. There is a sensible argument for access to therapy as a potential solution, but I appreciate that that is easy to suggest and unrealistic to facilitate and implement.
I have gone on long enough; I want to give others an opportunity to speak. I hope to hear many important and interesting contributions from hon. Members. I open the debate to others.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for bringing this important debate to the House. This is a national emergency and a huge threat to our society and our young people. I wish to associate myself with many of the things he said, and I totally agree that we have to stop this. I am not interested in who said what and when politically; I am interested in all of us working together to resolve this issue. We have to deal with it.
I will give a voice to victims and families, because it is important that we remember that behind every stabbing there is a victim, and behind every victim there is a family. I wish to mention two in particular. My constituent Beverley Davies has been to see me a few times. Beverley’s son was stabbed over 120 times on Parbold Hill in Lancashire a few years ago. Alex was his name, and he was 18. The individual who murdered him was also 18. They met online on a platform that was used to lure Alex to his death. Beverley feels wholly let down by the justice system and the support and communications that she has received since this appalling event. The justice system around the country is piecemeal. It must be improved for our victims and families.
Child A survived the Southport attack—she was stabbed over 30 times. She and her family live in my constituency. I will not give her name or that of her parents, but I asked them if they wished to have their voices heard today in the Chamber. I commend them, because they asked me to read out the following statement.
“We welcome tougher laws around the purchase of knives and the wider work to reduce knife crime. We are extremely focused from our direct experience on male youth violence against women and girls but also recognise that knife crime crosses many other areas of our society and tackling this is complex. To reduce knife crime, and other acts of violence perpetrated by young men and boys against women and girls, we must look at the motivations, the narratives and the environments they are immersed in. For us, this is the hard work; the work that requires sustained commitment.”
That commitment must come from us. The statement goes on:
“The work to reduce knife crime must begin before young people go out to obtain a knife. It is sensible to make it harder to purchase knives and to tighten the law on carrying knives. These are tangible solutions that provide quick reassurance and ‘results.’ But, if a young person is looking for a knife, then we are too late, and they are already on a path to causing harm.
We must support parents, caregivers and schools better, not only in how they identify and support young people who may be at risk to themselves or others—we can all agree that these pathways need overhauls, and the Southport inquiry will serve this purpose—but, before that, working with all children, establishing the fundamentals of healthy relationships, friendships, and girls and boys being equal.
Our young people must be exposed to counter-messaging from what they may be consuming online, or at home. The work required is vast and complex but the long-term reduction in knife crime will only be seen if we go back to the start and raise our children better.
In the context of violence towards women and girls, current topics are important. Netflix’s show ‘Adolescence’ has opened a conversation about our children’s exposure to harmful messaging and themes about women and girls. We are grateful for the coverage happening this week, which is further highlighting the terrifying impact of Andrew Tate and others on vulnerable young boys.”
I commend that child’s parents for having the courage to write that. They are clearly concerned that this will happen again. I urge all hon. Members of the House to please work together for the victims and the families. Let us please deal with this once and for all.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate, and for his thoughtful speech. I join him in paying tribute to Ciaran Thapar, whose work took place in my constituency. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who made a moving statement on behalf of his constituents. I grew up near Parbold Hill and Southport, and it grieves me deeply to hear about the appalling violence in both those communities.
I rise to speak in this debate on knife crime with great sadness, because today, just after 5 am, a young man lost his life on Coldharbour Lane in my constituency after being stabbed. I visited the scene this morning and stood at the police line as the forensic officers undertook their work. I spoke with community members who were confronted with the shocking aftermath of this violence as they went about their day. I thought about the family, whose day would begin with a knock on the door from police officers, and the utterly devastating news that their loved one would not be coming home ever again. It is hard to feel anything but despair in these circumstances.
I know that hon. Members across the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the young man who lost his life. We do not yet know his identity, but we know that there will be people who loved him, and who are suffering the most visceral pain and loss today. I also pay tribute to the emergency services who attended the scene this morning.
When this young man’s name is released, it will join the names of others who have lost their life to serious violence and knife and gun crime in my constituency since I was first elected to this place in 2015. They are Jude Gayle, Kyall Parnell, John Ogunjobi, Donnell Rhule, Glendon Spence, Dennis Anderson, Beatrice Stoica, Filipe Oliveira, Chino Johnson, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Wong. Each one was loved by their family and friends, and each one leaves a community traumatised by their loss and the circumstances of it.
When a knife or gun crime is reported in the media, we see the names in the headlines for a few short hours, and maybe again if the case comes to trial. We never hear about the ongoing trauma left behind in the local community, and the sense of loss felt not only by the immediate family but everyone who watched that person grow up and saw them out and about daily, those whose children went to school with them, and those who recognised and knew them. There is a sense of fear among parents that next time, their child might be the victim, and there are the mental health consequences of living with loss, fear and anxiety.
The causes of knife crime are complex. We need to take a public health approach to it, as though it were a disease. We should understand its pathology and take steps to prevent it taking hold, stop its spread, and treat the causes and the symptoms. I introduced a private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament to stop the availability of the most horrific weapons on our streets. I have met the lead consultants in the emergency department at King’s College hospital, who described the horrific injuries that are inflicted by machetes and zombie knives—weapons that can cut through bone, and serrated blades that inflict the most complex injuries on internal organs. They spoke about the survivability of many such injuries, compared with wounds inflicted with domestic knives, and described machetes and zombie knives as
“weapons of war on our streets”.
No one in our communities needs a machete or a zombie knife for any legitimate purpose, but they have been readily available for purchase online for as little as £10. I therefore welcome the Government’s action since July to further restrict their sale. I want further action on domestic knives. In particular, we should look at whether further restrictions can be introduced regarding age verification of those purchasing knives with pointed blades. I also want action further up the chain, to tackle those who exploit and groom our young people into serious violence—the county lines exploiters, the drug dealers and the serious organised criminals who are not spoken about enough in these debates.
In my constituency, in part because of the tragedies that we have experienced, we have seen inspiring responses from community organisations working with public services. The embedding of youth workers in hospital emergency departments was pioneered by Redthread at King’s College hospital. They provide options for young people who have been injured, or have seen their friends injured, allowing them to access support to keep themselves safe. I welcome the Government rolling out that intervention in other parts of the country.
I am also grateful to the Mayor of London’s violence reduction unit for funding Ecosystem Coldharbour through the My Ends programme. Ecosystem Coldharbour is a coalition of grassroots organisations working with young people and families in the Brixton part of my constituency. It has been working for the last three years and has delivered some really impressive results. It has built up the trust and confidence of young people and families, so that they can access help and support. It provides mentoring and training opportunities, and leads the community response when tragedies occur. It delivers trauma support to families and communities. Our communities feel empowered by that work. It is particularly inspirational to see a group of mothers who have all lost a child to serious violence working together, under the banner “Circle of Life Ignite”, to support each other and prevent further deaths.
I am inspired by the way that young leaders have been equipped through that work. I pay tribute to the work of Abdoul Lelo, an extraordinarily impressive young man who has been working with McDonald’s in Brixton to embed a youth service in the restaurant. It takes support and positive opportunities to young people where they are. There are also benefits for the staff, who have often felt unsafe and overwhelmed in their workplace. I also pay tribute to the work of Sergeant Nigel Pearce from central south basic command unit, who has pioneered a different approach to community policing, based on trusting and listening to the community, and responding respectfully and supportively to their needs and experiences. If we had more officers working in this way across the Metropolitan Police, trust and confidence in policing would be much higher.
The partnership in my constituency is called Ecosystem because of the belief of the organisations in it that all the solutions to serious violence are in the community—but the community needs help and resources to find them. That is what we have had through the violence reduction unit. My plea to the Minister is that funding for such vital work be put on a long-term footing, so that we can keep on delivering and working to tackle the scourge of serious violence. In fact, as the Minister thinks about the design of the Government’s Young Futures project, I invite her to visit Ecosystem, because we have much good practice to offer for the development of that national programme.
The debate today is about young people and knife crime, but to tackle the scourge of knife crime, we must properly understand the nature of the problem and who is affected. Of the victims who have been murdered in my constituency since 2015, only two were under the age of 18. The majority were young men in their 20s, a cohort who grew up at a time when funding for youth services was being stripped away, who may find themselves unable to access employment often due to minor criminal convictions, who often have very poor mental health, who are accessing deeply damaging online content and for whom society can seem like it has very little to offer. There is currently no protocol or good practice for tackling serious violence in that cohort. The only part of the system obliged to try to help is the criminal justice system, if the person in question has committed a crime. Social services have no formal role or responsibility and mental health services are not designed with this cohort in mind, despite the fact that they are so often traumatised by the experiences, what they have witnessed in their communities and what they have seen their friends go through.
If we want to end the cycle of violence in our communities, we must turn our attention to that group. They are siblings, cousins and parents to the next generation. The key to prevention must therefore lie in helping them to turn their lives around, making support services more visible in our communities, making it easier to ask for help through services that are designed with their needs in mind and properly resourcing effective rehabilitation.
I welcome the Government’s focus on halving knife crime. My communities have suffered far too much from its devastating effects and we continue to suffer today. I urge the Minister to work with us to devise services and interventions based on the experience in our communities, because we utterly reject this violence and we just want to see it stop.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I call the next speaker, I want to try and get everybody in, so please can people stick to around four minutes?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on knife crime among children and young people, an issue that continues to devastate communities across the country. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing the debate.
Very few people can say that they are not deeply concerned about the rising levels of knife crime, particularly among children and young people. As has been heard from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in the early hours of this morning a young man was stabbed and killed in Brixton, a town centre that we share along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). Our thoughts go to the young man and his family at this time. It is a tragedy, but even more sadly, it is a tragedy that we hear far too often.
The latest figures show that there were more than 50,000 knife-related offences in England and Wales last year. Alarmingly, around one in five knife possessions involved young people under the age of 18. In 2023-24, there were 53 records of homicides using a sharp instrument where the victim was aged between 13 and 19 years. Though those statistics are alarming, we have to remember that they are not just numbers but young lives that are being lost, and with each one comes a family that will be left grieving and a community that is scarred.
I know that many hon. Members will point to the need for more policing, increased stop and search and harsher sentencing, and restrictions on who can buy a knife as solutions. Indeed, successive Governments, including this one, have introduced measures along those lines to tackle the surge in knife crime. I certainly will not stand here and argue that we do not need to review how we police the issue, although I believe that increased policing measures such as stop and search need to be thoroughly thought-through and must be intelligence-led. Increased policing and sentencing are not the only solution and cannot work on their own. Youth and knife crime are a wider societal issue that require a holistic approach. If tougher sentencing and more stop and search powers were all it took, we would have solved this crisis a long time ago. We cannot take reactive steps alone; we have to take preventive ones.
I know Conservative Members do not particularly enjoy our pointing out their record in government, but we cannot let this debate go by without mentioning the impact of the past 14 years. This is not a political point but a factual one, because over that time we saw the systematic dismantling of the support systems that helped keep young people away from crime. Research from the YMCA showed that youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010, with over 750 youth centres closed and the number of youth workers falling by a third to 1,662 full-time equivalent roles. The result has been fewer spaces, mentors and positive role models for young people.
A recent Unison report revealed that in England 1,036 council-run youth centres were closed between 2010 and 2023, and only 480 remained open in April 2023. Funding for Sure Start children’s centres, which provided early intervention and family support, has been decimated. Funding for police community support officers, who play a vital role in building trust between police and young people, has been drastically reduced. School budget cuts have squeezed pastoral support, mental health provision and behavioural interventions, increasing exclusions overall. The link between school exclusions and serious violence is well known. Excluded children often fall through the cracks. Many enter pupil referral units where gangs recruit vulnerable young people. Others disengage entirely, making them more susceptible to criminal activity. Those cuts have consequences, and when young people lack support, opportunity or hope, they become vulnerable to criminal exploitation. Gangs step in where the state has stepped back. It is no coincidence that as these services have disappeared, knife crime has risen.
Conservative Members cannot ignore the direct correlation between austerity and serious youth violence, but equally Labour Members cannot either. If we maintain the cuts or extend them even further, that is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. As a starting point for tackling youth violence and knife crime, I strongly urge the Government to look at reversing the cuts and investing in youth services.
I also urge the Government to look at how local councils tackle the issue. I point to my council in the borough of Lambeth. Lambeth Made Safer was launched in 2021 by Councillor Jacqui Dyer. It takes a public health approach to violence reduction, focusing on prevention, early intervention and community-led solutions. It prioritises targeted outreach, family support and investment in community initiatives. It is obviously woefully under-resourced, but it is the sort of initiative and community-driven approach that should be rolled out nationwide. There is no single solution to this crisis, but we can begin to address it by ensuring that young people have the wraparound services that we know prevent them from being involved in, or the victim of, crime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We will now start with a formal four-minute time limit.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate. Knife crime continues to cast a dark shadow over our communities, claiming young lives, shattering families and leaving a trail of devastation in its wake. Last year, 10 people were stabbed every week in Birmingham—a statistic that is both alarming and unacceptable. Within my constituency covering Erdington, Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott, the B23 postcode has been particularly affected. In 2023, it recorded the highest number of knife-related incidents in the entire city, but behind those statistics are real lives, real families and real pain. When knife crime tears through families, it destroys lives and devastates entire communities.
Just weeks ago, this crisis struck my family, turning our world upside down. My nephew—a kind-hearted, wonderful young man—was brutally attacked in an act of senseless knife violence. His crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. While his wounds are healing, it will take months for him to fully recover. The emotional trauma inflicted on him and our family, however, is immeasurable. This is a pain no family should ever have to endure, yet it is a pain that far too many are forced to bear.
Knife crime thrives in the shadows of neglect. Fourteen years of austerity under the last Government gutted our communities, stripping away 70% of the support systems that once guided and protected young people. In Erdington, the closure of the Malcolm Locker youth centre in 2014 marked the end of the last council-run youth service in my constituency. The cuts have left a void that is too often filled by despair and violence. I am glad that this Government have recognised the problem of knife crime and included provisions to address it in the Crime and Policing Bill, but we can and must do more.
I have always said that prevention is better than cure, and while the police play a vital role in tackling crime, a sustainable solution requires a preventive, community-led and partnership-driven approach. In Birmingham, we have inspiring examples in organisations like Bringing Hope, which I have worked with for many years, which works relentlessly to tackle knife crime among children and young people. Similarly, the YMCA in Erdington is unwavering in its dedication to our young people. On my recent visit, I celebrated with them the purchase of 83 flats, ensuring that young people have safe places to live and access to the support they need.
Initiatives like those show us the way forward. We must create greater aspirations and opportunities for young people, offering them a future beyond a life of crime. That requires long-term investment in our communities, our youth services and the organisations already making a difference, saying that we can always go even further upstream to support families and end deprivation in communities like mine.
My nephew did not deserve what happened to him—nobody does. Yet too many families are still left to feel this pain, and too many young people are still becoming victims. We can no longer afford to be complacent. Every moment of inaction puts another young life at risk. We must come together across the House and within our communities to break this cycle of violence.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for bringing forward this important debate and for his moving speech. I also want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton)—I am sorry for what happened to her family.
Knife crime devastates communities across the country as organised criminal gangs lure children and young people into county line networks and organised criminality. Too many communities have seen children criminally exploited, and sadly we have seen the devastating consequences of knife crime in my constituency. In Huddersfield, Khayri Mclean, 15, and Harley Brown, 17, sadly lost their lives to knife crime in recent years. These were young lives cruelly taken too soon. Too many parents are dealing with consequences that no parent should have to face. Communities are left broken, and too many children and young people are left with mental scars.
The Home Secretary’s announcement of Ronan’s law, along with the launch of the coalition to tackle knife crime, the Young Futures prevention partnerships and the Young Futures hubs, are all welcome and important steps forward. By introducing stricter regulations on online knife sales and developing an extensive understanding of the root causes of knife crime, we are making it harder for young people to access those weapons in the first place and encouraging different, safer pathways. The measures are welcome, but alone they will not be enough.
Hon. Members have raised social media companies and the use of Spotify by gang members and so-called influencers, whereby algorithms are unfortunately driving this divisive behaviour, but that cannot be seen in isolation from what is happening on the ground. Kirklees council, covering my constituency of Huddersfield, has seen a 70% decrease in funding for its youth services since 2010. We know the loss of youth services has been linked to a 14% rise in youth crime within six years of the closures. We must invest in youth services, community outreach and early intervention.
Despite the difficult financial outlook, many incredible organisations support young people in my constituency, including Positive Stepz, Conscious Youth, Central Stars youth club, Team KickStart, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower, Boxpower and Temple Well-Being. The deputy mayor of West Yorkshire has also introduced an A&E navigator and community links programme, as other Members have mentioned. Those help to identify and signpost young people to the right support networks at the earliest opportunity.
Those organisations deliver outstanding community services to our young people, offering them experiences, opportunities and environments that allow them to thrive. However, despite their best efforts, the financial constraints that they face have resulted in many having to reduce their services. They continue to have to fight for small pots of funding, which is not sustainable in the long term. The evidence is clear: when youth services are cut, young people suffer.
Will the Minister provide details of when the Young Futures hubs will be introduced? I am keen for Huddersfield and towns like ours to be early adopters, alongside cities. We must also give communities the tools to tackle this problem from the ground up. It is usually local people and local communities who best understand the issues, but they often find themselves fighting against the system rather than being supported by it.
No parent should ever have to bury their child, and no community should have to live in fear. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from across the House, alongside the Government, to stamp out this epidemic of senseless violence.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for bringing this debate to the House, and I commend colleagues for their powerful speeches.
It is clear that there is an undeniable consensus across the House on the need to get this right. However, consensus alone is not enough. A national crisis has devastated families and shattered futures, and it continues to cause damage. The Office for National Statistics reported 50,000 knife-related offences in 2022-23. In just one year, 50,000 lives were affected, and there were 50,000 incidents of fear, injury and, sadly for some, tragedy.
In my Gillingham and Rainham constituency, we had several incidents in recent years, including the stabbing of a 17-year-old boy in the town centre by two other young people. Members across the House will be familiar with visiting local schools in their constituencies, and many will agree that students are often the toughest crowd—never shy of asking direct and uncompromising questions, with a grilling that would put any Select Committee to the test. Time and again, however, one issue persists: safety. Students ask me why they should feel afraid to walk through their high street in the evening, why their communities do not feel safe, and why more is not being done to protect them.
It troubles me that most of that stands in stark contrast to my own experience growing up in the very same community and in the same area. I wish to tell those students that the fear and the sense of abandonment that they feel today is not inevitable. Some of it is the direct result of years of neglect. In reality, the Conservatives left behind a legacy of cuts and, at times, indifference to the futures of young people across this country. They dismantled the very support systems designed to keep young people safe: £1 billion was stripped from youth services, 760 youth centres were shut down, and 4,500 youth workers were lost. The evidence is clear: every £1 invested in youth work prevents greater costs down the line.
In viewing knife crime as the public health crisis that it truly is, we must recognise that the principles of upstream prevention have never been more pertinent. The truth is that by the time a young person picks up a knife, we have already failed them. That is why the Government’s coalition on knife crime is a significant step in the right direction, allowing us to get to the root causes of knife crime, not just the symptoms. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to bringing back neighbourhood policing, which will work towards restoring the trust and presence that have been dismantled. Communities such as mine are desperate for officers who will build relationships, prevent crime before it happens and reassure those who have lost faith. However, we cannot arrest our way out of this crisis. We must invest in young people, not only to steer them away from crime but to offer them a future beyond it.
Like many others, I have binge-watched the compelling drama “Adolescence”, which highlights so well the toxic online culture that our young people are exposed to.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we think about violence against women and girls, and role models for young men, we need a greater focus on protecting the future of our young men, including by thinking about how we can help them to deal with the challenges they face, in order to make them safer and give them space within our communities?
Naushabah Khan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must support our young men. The start of that journey is to tackle the toxic and concerning material found online. We must ensure that the social media companies, with their billions, are doing the right thing in managing that content, which I do not believe they are doing at the moment.
We must tackle head-on that culture that seeks to legitimise and glorify misogyny, gang violence and exploiting vulnerability. We must prevent our young people from being dragged into a cycle of harm before they even realise what is happening. This is our opportunity and our responsibility to work across parties to break the cycle, rebuild what has been lost, and assure our communities that never again will a generation grow up believing that carrying a knife is their only protection, option and future.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate and for his powerful speech.
The devastating impact of knife crime is felt at the heart of my Vauxhall and Camberwell Green constituency. The most heartbreaking thing I do as an MP is speak to a parent who has just heard that their precious son or daughter has been taken away far too young by knife crime. No parent should have to bury their child. When I sit there trying to comfort a family through something so horrific, I glance over their shoulders and see the pictures of that smiling face—of the innocent young life that has been robbed. I should never have to get used to that, but we all have to do it as Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) highlighted some of the statistics, and as awful as they are in their own right, we must remember in talking about them that someone loved every single one of them—a friend, an aunt, an uncle, a brother, a grandparent, a mother, a sister, a family. They are now devastated about losing someone who had barely started their life.
Let me touch on the wider impact of knife crime on communities, which we do not focus on enough. When I was on the London Assembly, I authored the “Gang Associated Girls” report, in which we considered the impact that knife crime can have on girls and young women, who, if we are honest, may not often be viewed as the immediate victims of knife crime but who go through long-term trauma as a result of their experiences. In a number of incidents, it is young women and girls who are the first at the scene. It is the same young women and girls who help the community grieve. It is the same young women and girls who organise the funerals. And when the glare of the media has gone and the incident is out of the news cycle, it is the same young women and girls who go back to lay flowers at the cemetery, remembering the key anniversaries. Even if those young women and girls are not presenting at hospital after knife crime, we must remember that this is also about their long-term trauma. It is important that we do not forget their voices in this debate.
That is why we need a holistic approach to address this issue. The whole community needs to come together if we are to break the vicious cycle of knife crime and the chain of trauma that impacts so many of our young people, robbing them of their future. It saddens me that just a few weeks ago there was a tragic shooting in my constituency, and in line of sight from a playground at a primary school was the blue line that says, “Police line do not cross”. Imagine the impact on those children.
It is vital that we continue to work across parties to address knife crime. It is not about politics; it is about young people dying on our streets up and down the country. I am pleased to see the Government committing to the Young Futures programme, which will champion the vital youth workers who are the lifeline that many of these young people need. If we are honest, those youth workers have not been paid properly, and many have lost their jobs and seen their youth centres close. We need to continue speaking about this, and I know that the Government will continue to work with us to make sure we address the vicious cycle that is robbing so many of our young people of their lives.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and all those who have worked to secure this important debate on knife crime, which has been a deeply vexing issue in our society for decades. Today, we are once again at a point where further action is needed to save lives, as we have heard in so many powerful contributions from Members across the Chamber.
I was pleased to see in the excellent briefing for the debate by the Safer Knives Group that Professor John Crichton of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has brought his expertise to the work of that group. His study on knife crime reduction in Scotland showed that the Scottish violence reduction unit’s strategy of targeting young men carrying knives in public led to a 69% reduction in offensive weapon charges and a 50% drop in sharp instrument homicides between 2005 and 2016. These approaches show that restricting immediate access to knives reduces offences and saves lives, but crucially, as other Members have pointed out, they must be complemented by preventive approaches to knife crime focused on possession of knives among young people and on awareness.
At the time of that important work being initiated, there was huge concern in Scotland about the levels of knife crime. In 2010-11, the police in Scotland caught someone with a knife every 90 minutes. In 2009, the Scottish Parliament held a knife crime summit following a petition brought to the Parliament by John Muir of Greenock, whose son Damian was murdered with a knife in 2007. It was a privilege for me to work alongside John in his campaign, in my role as shadow Justice Secretary in Holyrood at the time. Although John’s campaign did call for tougher penalties for knife crime in sentencing, it also focused on the need to raise awareness of the trauma that so often follows someone’s decision to carry a knife, for which there are often many complex reasons, as we have heard today. John went into schools to take his powerful personal message to young people, which really had an impact at the time.
Today in Scotland, sadly, there is a worrying trend on knife crime in the wrong direction. The crime statistics for Scotland show that in 2023-24, there were nearly 11,000 offences of handling of an offensive weapon—an 11% increase from the previous year—and there has been an increase in homicides. In Methil in my constituency, the community has been particularly disturbed by social media posts of violent attacks in the community. In one post, a young person brandished a knife, and they were later attacked with a knife and slashed in the face. The fear is that if further action is not taken to address these incidents, more young people will be seriously injured and could lose their lives.
Scottish Ministers must ensure that local police have the resources they need to deal with these incidents, alongside the other interventions in the community that are required to support these young people. We must have the right legislation in place to restrict the sale of knives, so I welcome the measures brought forward by Ministers, particularly in the aftermath of the horrific attacks in Southport, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) spoke powerfully about.
We are once more at a point where further measures are urgently needed to protect our young people from knife crime in communities across the UK. The impassioned calls for action from those whose lives have been devastated by these crimes have been given voice by Members across the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) spoke powerfully about her personal experience. This must move us all. I am confident that these voices have been heard and that this Parliament will act and do more to protect our young people from knife crime.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Norfolk, as a rule, is a safe county with a generally lower than average rate of crime. It is a wonderful place to live, and many people who grow up there, as I did, have a fantastic childhood, but that is sadly not the case for every young person. We face an increasing challenge with the intertwining of knife crime and county lines activity in our area, which is having a devastating effect, and I will focus my remarks on that element.
Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have met Emma and Phil Dix, whose 18-year-old son Joe was tragically stabbed to death in my constituency in 2022. Three young men were found guilty of his murder. Joe’s parents have spoken about how they feel Joe was exploited by county lines drug dealers and became trapped in a vicious cycle. I want to quote what Emma, his mum, has said:
“I don’t think we’ve really tackled the root cause of why people are carrying and using knives, particularly in Norfolk. Unfortunately, we’ve buried it under the sand for quite a while. Some of it’s going to be related to mental health, exploitation and grooming as well. We know that with a lot of incidents caused through county-lines, people won’t go to the Police due to their fear of repercussions.”
As the Minister knows, the term “county lines” refers to the mobile phone lines used to take orders of drugs, and it has been strongly linked to violent offences, including knife crime. I recently met her to discuss this issue, and I welcome her engagement on it. It is also a focus for police in Norfolk. Since its creation five years ago, Norfolk’s county lines team has reportedly investigated more than 200 phone lines, with 213 charges and more than 570 years in prison sentences. I welcome that, because it is vital that those running these lines, who so often cruelly exploit young people, are brought to justice.
Emma and Phil have since set up the Joe Dix Foundation, and they have welcomed the Government’s plan to recognise child criminal exploitation as a stand-alone offence in the Crime and Policing Bill. They have also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation, and I wonder whether the Minister could reply directly to that in her response. Their story, like that of so many families across our country, underlines why this Government’s commitment to tackling knife crime is so important, and it is why I welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing it.
To tackle county lines and knife crime among young people, we must focus on prevention, intervention, education and tackling the root causes. I welcome the recently launched coalition to tackle knife crime, which Emma and Phil are members of. It is a welcome collaboration, because it is only through listening to the voices of those on the ground that we will find solutions to these issues. I recently held a youth engagement forum with community groups and young people across Norwich North, and the overall message was the importance of multiple organisations collaborating on early intervention measures to prevent young people from going down dangerous paths and to give them opportunities.
I agree strongly with the call for a public health approach. As a councillor in London, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I saw that at first hand, as well as the work of many community groups there. In my constituency, organisations such as the Joe Dix Foundation, MAP, Norfolk YMCA, Sprowston Youth Engagement Project, Future Projects and the district councils all do fantastic work, and I pay tribute to them.
Most importantly, we must listen to young people. Young people at that roundtable raised a range of issues we have covered today, including the need for more youth-friendly spaces, the lack of opportunities for work experience and employment, and the need to tackle online harms. I particularly welcome the Young Futures programme and the hubs that will be set up. Only by taking a holistic approach to combating knife crime will we begin to pull it out at its roots. I am clear that collaboration with young people and those on the frontline is key.
The Youth Endowment Fund has highlighted many of the most effective solutions when it comes to reducing violent crime. We have the evidence. With this Government, we have the political will. We have consensus on both sides of the House that we must work together to tackle knife crime, because none of us can sit back while precious lives are being lost and young people’s lives are being destroyed.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this vital debate. Knife crimes among children and young people are some of the most devastating incidents to occur in our constituencies. Last summer in Southend East and Rochford there were multiple machete attacks on our beaches and high streets. That was incredibly troubling, and I set about meeting the families and businesses affected. I am also currently in the process of commissioning a youth summit to see what we can do, and to find the gaps in the community and the things we do not know, through the eyes and voices of our young people.
As hon. Members may or may not know, Essex is in the top 10 counties for reported knife crime. As parents, friends, and family members of young people, I am sure we all feel sheer horror when we hear about incidents involving knives, and every single offence is one too many. As a young man, as a boy, I was attacked a number of times with a knife, and I was very lucky to survive. It broke my mum’s heart, knowing that she could not protect me every time I left the house, and that is one reason why—I have not shared this story publicly too widely—I have spent the last 20 years mentoring and supporting young people. I can see how hard it is traversing neighbourhoods, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) said, sometimes someone is just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Knife crime ruins lives, and this debate is particularly tough having known people, including childhood friends, who lost their lives from knife crime or drug crime. I have sat in the living room talking to families who have lost a young person, and that is a scenario and setting that no one ever wants to go through. The pain that you see and feel emanating from the parents and family because of the loss of that young person is something you just cannot describe.
I wholeheartedly welcome our Labour Government’s commitment to halve violent knife crime in a decade, and we have not wasted any time to deliver on that commitment. Ronan’s law introduces stricter online sale regulations to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of young people. That includes new offences such as possessing a knife or an offensive weapon with intent, and it increases the maximum penalty for manufacturing, selling, hiring or lending prohibited weapons. It creates new offences of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing, which are often associated with county lines.
It is essential not only that we ban the selling of machetes and sharp weapons, but that we make kitchen knives safer and have a strategy of prevention. Young people in Southend East and Rochford, much like in other coastal communities, face a unique set of challenges. The conversation today is not just about urban communities, or even immigration; it is about validation, self-esteem, boredom and role models, or the absence of them. Such things are huge contributing factors to what we see playing out, with the violence that our young people are enacting on each other. We have high unemployment and high levels of health inequality, and we often feel the brunt of the lack of transport and connectivity. The changes that the Government are proposing cannot come quickly enough.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents across Luton South and South Bedfordshire who have sadly had to come together to stand against knife crime on too many occasions in recent years. There were consistent failures by the previous Conservative Government to toughen up legislation on dangerous weapons, as well as a failure to ensure proper funding for our police forces. As we have heard from many Members across the House, and I agree, sustained cuts to youth services combined to allow a knife crime epidemic to take hold in our towns and cities. Knife crime destroys lives, devastates families and leaves lasting trauma on communities, and behind every one of the statistics is a person whose life remains ever changed or, sadly, was needlessly lost.
Sadly, in Luton we are all too familiar with the devastation that knife crime causes, but perhaps I may reflect on one case: the shocking murder of Azaan Kaleem, AJ, in 2018 when he was just 18. From darkness must come light, and AJ’s mum, Roseann Taylor, is that light. I was honoured to present her with a Knife Angel community award, to recognise her dedication and selflessness in using her own story as a mother who lost her son to raise awareness of the impact of knife crime, and for her ongoing work with young people in knife crime prevention. That award was named after the Knife Angel sculpture—an amazing statue over eight metres tall that was created from 100,000 surrendered knives and based in Luton town centre last summer as part of its ongoing tour. It is a powerful symbol and catalyst for discussions about knife crime and violence, with the aim of educating and raising awareness, particularly among young people.
As the Knife Angel left our town, we marked the event with a vigil at St Mary’s church, a candlelit walk of remembrance, and a closing ceremony in St George’s Square. We remembered all those lost to knife crime, and committed to eliminating that violence by inspiring positive choices. Lots of brilliant organisations are working to make that happen, while also dealing with the sad reality of what continues to take place. Bedfordshire violence and exploitation reduction unit’s “Just Drop It” campaign is working with local partners to encourage our young people to take a brighter path by going knife free. Wingman Mentors, who have worked with Bedfordshire VERU, are installing lifesaving bleed kits across our community as a step to try to avoid loss of life after a stabbing. Similarly, the Luton, Dunstable & Surrounding Kenyan Community Forum youth group created a safe card, with help from the group’s youth co-ordinator, Mwangi Muturi, which shares vital information about what to do when helping the victim of a stabbing. Sadly, that was created following the death of a young friend.
Unlike the Conservatives, our Labour Government have been ambitious in our mission to get knives off our streets and ensure that people across our towns and communities are safe from violent crime, with our commitment to halve knife crime in a decade. Our Labour Government have already banned the ownership of zombie-style knives and machetes, and measures in our flagship Crime and Policing Bill will go further to crack down on knife crime. Like others, I welcome the emphasis on prevention through our Young Futures programme and other initiatives.
Tackling knife crime is also an important part of the police and crime plan of Bedfordshire’s Labour police and crime commissioner, John Tizard, working jointly with Bedfordshire VERU. Will the Minister inform the House whether any additional funding will be announced for Bedfordshire VERU to ensure that it can continue its excellent work to keep our local community safe? Taken together, these measures will directly improve support for children and young people who are sadly often most at risk of being perpetrators, but also victims, of knife crime.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this important debate.
Knife crime among children and young people is a national emergency that should shame us all. With 3,000 knife crime offences involving children reported in the year ending March 2024, this crisis cannot be ignored. Each one of those offences represents a young person caught in violence—someone’s son, someone’s daughter, someone who deserved better.
In Croydon, where we have some of the highest rates of knife violence in London and where too many young people have lost their lives, we know the impact of knife crime only too well. In Croydon, Elianne Andam, a 15-year-old described by those who loved her as “vibrant, bright and loving” was taken from her family on her way to school, in an act of violence that is beyond comprehension. Too many young lives have been taken too soon, too many communities are living in fear of the next tragedy and too many families are being left in unimaginable grief.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to halving knife crime over the next 10 years and the urgency with which they are taking action, including going after the criminal gangs that are grooming our children into crime and trafficking them across the country, introducing Ronan’s law to crack down on the online sale of knives, and banning zombie knives, However, it is not enough to be tough on knife crime—we must be just as tough on its complex causes.
I welcome this Government’s plans to roll out the Young Futures programme. As is often said, it takes a village to raise a child, but with universal youth services seeing a 73% cut in funding since 2010 and young people often stuck for years on waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services, where is that village today? What can young people point to that demonstrates that this country is willing to invest in them, to back them and to support them? I urge the Government to move faster in prioritising the wellbeing of our children because, as is also said, if a child is not embraced by the village, it will burn it down to feel its warmth.
In Croydon, in partnership with the Mayor of London, organisations are working tirelessly to provide support to young people and to rebuild that village around them. They include Redthread, which is working in Croydon University hospital; the groundbreaking My Ends programme; Reaching Higher, which supports young people in schools, communities and at home; Croydon Drop-In, which offers free mental health support; and Croydon Youth Consortium, which is driving collaboration between local youth charities. Croydon is leading the way in giving young people a stake in their community.
However, due to impending budget cuts Croydon, which is London’s youngest borough, is on the verge of losing its youth engagement team. That team provides a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. It provides outreach and runs youth hubs in hard-to-reach areas. Put simply, Croydon’s youth engagement team saves lives.
As the Government build their Young Futures programme and look to create a national youth strategy, I urge the Government to ensure that they work with and not against the grassroots organisations that know their communities best, provide long-term funding for youth-centred provision in local areas and look at increasing statutory protections for local youth services, so that they are given the priority they deserve.
Knife crime among children and young people is devastating, but not inevitable. Now is the time to invest in prevention as well as enforcement, to listen to those working on the frontlines of this crisis and to give our young people the support they need, because our communities, families and young people deserve better.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
This is a timely debate, as Members considered the knife crime provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill only last week. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on granting time for it, and thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for his compelling speech. We have heard some emotional speeches, which show the empathy that Members on both sides of the House have for victims of knife crime and their families.
Over the years, I have met constituents who have had their lives irrevocably changed by knife crime, whether it resulted in the murder or a loved one or a serious injury. I have spoken with mothers who have lost their children, and adult children who have lost their elderly parents after they were stabbed to death. Knife crime can affect anyone, and the pain that the surviving family members live with after such horrific events is palpable.
The Minister will know that I want to talk about harm reduction; I have spoken about this in this House, and with her, on several occasions. Two thirds of knives that have been identified as having been used to kill people are kitchen knives. That is in deaths where we know what the weapon is. That statistic should not be surprising; many murders are unplanned and committed on the spur of the moment with little thought, and kitchen knives are the weapons most readily to hand.
There has been much in the media this week about the new Netflix drama series “Adolescence”, which is a commentary on the many problems faced by young people growing up, not just knife crime, but it highlights how an easily accessible weapon can be used to cause devastation and change the course of many people’s lives forever. For years, bereaved families, support groups, youth groups and schools have called for the Government of the day to do something tangible to stop this, and to allow children to have a childhood. Their calls are now joined by prominent voices such as those of Idris Elba and Stephen Graham, the latter describing a “pandemic of knife crime” in our country.
I know that this Government are listening and want to make a change, but we need to do it quickly and thoroughly. The previous Government’s measures did not go far enough. The new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill go further, but more can still be done. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and replace them with kitchen knives with rounded tips, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned. It is well documented that pointed knives are more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries—injuries that are far more likely to be fatal. Rounded knives are much less likely to cause lethal injuries, and most of us rarely use the pointed end of a kitchen knife when cooking.
The Crime and Policing Bill limits the purchase of new knives, but there are already millions of pointed kitchen knives in drawers around the country. The safer knives group, of which I am a member, has suggested a pilot scheme to convert pointed kitchen knives into safer, rounded-tip knives. We need to encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives, and to discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential.
As I have said, making knives safer is only one step in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries. Education, intervention and support, following the methods of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, would produce long-term solutions. It is also vital that we collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. Information, policy changes, legislation and expert advice are all important, but it all has to lead to a change of behaviour, so that communities stop killing each other with knives, and that must be a national priority. I know the Minister agrees with me on that, but we must see action, and we all have to work on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The epidemic of knife crime is an issue that I have addressed many times in this place, although never in a debate specifically targeting its impact on children and young people. I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on such a significant matter.
In Britain, we face a hard truth: young people are increasingly involved in violent crime, and the cycle is becoming ever more entrenched. Figures from the Ben Kinsella Trust show that across the country, some 614 young people under the age of 24 have been killed by knife crime in the last 10 years, 17 of them being 16 years old or younger. Children are being exposed to the tragic normalisation of stabbings. We have sleepwalked into a scenario in which many young people feel it is safer and easier to carry a knife to defend themselves. In this context, threats of punishment are unsurprisingly failing to deter violent behaviour. Knife crime should be treated as the societal disease it is, and we cannot afford to just treat the symptoms any more. If this Government are to truly tackle knife crime, they must address its roots—the deep-seated factors that drive young people to such violence in the first place.
To tackle knife crime, we must stop it before it starts. We must use a public health approach that addresses the root causes: fear, trauma, lack of opportunities, and social exclusion. This approach has many tenets—some of which I will outline today—and begins with education. When young people carry knives, it is often out of fear, not necessarily a desire to harm others. A study by the Ben Kinsella Trust revealed that over one in three young people do not feel safe in their own communities. Some 36% do not feel safe walking the streets, and two thirds report anxiety over knife crime in their area. The teenage brain is wired differently from that of adults; we know that a tendency towards impulsive and risky behaviour is much more common during adolescence. Studies show that in many cases, knife crime occurs in the heat of the moment, when an altercation could have been resolved without serious injury if a weapon had not been present. That is exactly why we must address knife crime before it happens—before a knife is pulled from a pocket and the situation escalates beyond control.
Education can play a principal part in challenging the misconception that carrying a knife somehow makes a person safer. We can teach young people the real consequences of carrying such a weapon—how it destroys lives, impacts families, and perpetuates fear among their peers and in communities.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech that I think all of us across the House would agree with. I have spoken a number of times with Harlow police about knives and knife crime, not just in Harlow but across Essex. They do a lot of work with schools. Does he agree that it is important that schools fully engage with the police on these issues, and do not feel that there is stigma in doing so? All schools need to engage with that process.
Luke Taylor
I completely agree. I will come on to that later in my speech. I have spoken to the organisers and leaders of the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. They spoke about the challenge of getting into some schools to talk about knife crime, because of the perception that talking about it was a problem in itself. That was so frustrating to hear.
We need to have honest, open conversations with young people in schools. Teachers must be equipped with materials to educate the next generation, so that we break the cycle of violence. Even if a child is not at risk of committing a knife-related offence, educational programmes serve a critical role. They can teach children about the consequences of knife crime long before they consider carrying a weapon. That is vital. We need to reach young people and win the war for their hearts and minds before the prevailing climate of fear and the harbingers of toxic mindsets start their offensive. I urge the Government to consider introducing mandatory personal, social, health and economic lessons on the consequences of weapons possession, and to put the principles of restorative practice on the curriculum, in recognition of the great work of groups such as the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. We teach children from an early age about the dangers of diseases caused by smoking or alcohol; why, then, are we not having open discussions with them about the health risks associated with carrying a knife? Creating safe spaces for discussion, and building relationships with young people, can ensure intervention before thoughts of crimes arise, and deaths can be prevented.
To fully realise the nourishing, community-focused element of a public health approach, though, we must invest in youth services and community programmes that engage young people. Winning the war for hearts and minds means providing young people with opportunities to build skills, pursue education, and find alternatives to gang culture and criminal activity. However, as was mentioned in many speeches, we have seen a dramatic decline in youth services funding over recent years, with cuts totalling £1.1 billion since 2010. This has left too many young people without the support they need.
Investing in youth services is not just about providing safe spaces; it is about providing young people with alternatives to violence, so that we break the cycle of crime, shift the culture of violence, and empower communities to work together to prevent crime before it escalates. The targeted early help and integrated support team at Sutton borough council in my constituency does exactly this kind of work, offering opportunities to young people who are not often afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives. However, these programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice, and violence reduction services. Those grants are subject to constant uncertainty, often approved at the last minute and often only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, preventing proper forward planning. We must do better than that. We need to consistently get serious funding to these initiatives in a timely manner. I echo the calls from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about funding for these community schemes.
Lib Dem Members will continue to push the Government to make youth diversion a statutory duty, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. That will ensure better outcomes for young people and less strain on police resources, but let us be honest with ourselves: police resources are already strained beyond breaking point in too many places, and education and early intervention alone are not enough to properly implement a public health approach. Visible community policing starts with actual police numbers in our London boroughs. To tackle knife crime, it is important for young people to see bobbies on the beat in London. Their active and engaged presence creates a sense of safety and security. We have to get back to meaningful community policing, returning the police to their proper duty as a positive, engaging arm of the state in people’s lives.
Building trust between young people and the police is also crucial. This trust communicates that there is no need to carry knives for protection, as young people know that the police are there to keep them safe. As I have said before, when 17-year-old Ilyas Habibi was stabbed to death outside Sutton station in my constituency in December 2023, he was just minutes away from a police station. If we cannot expect visible policing in town centres and the areas closest to police stations, how little have we come to expect of community policing? To be clear, that is not a criticism of the police, but a criticism of successive Governments and mayors, who have consistently failed to get the police the resources they need to do their job. In London, far too many police are abstracted away from the communities they are supposed to serve to help plug gaps.
I was deeply concerned to learn of Sadiq Khan’s budgeting decisions, which have led to dedicated police officers in schools in London being removed. Under the “A New Met for London” plan, officers will no longer be stationed in schools as part of the safer schools officers programme. While the plan claims that officers will still work closely with schools, the change reduces the consistent direct contact between officers and young people. That contact is crucial in building relationships with young people to foster trust. There should be plenty of positive interactions and experiences with the police throughout young people’s formative years. That can be achieved through school assemblies or classroom workshops. Young people need to understand that the police are there to keep them safe on the streets and are not the enemy, but when sparse police resources are focused on only the most extreme forms of deterrence, such as live facial recognition and stop and search, and when there is no community focus, it is unsurprising that they do not.
The hallmark of a meaningful public health approach that invests not just money, but serious political capital, is that it brings together all groups in our communities. It creates a coalition of care, breaks down the silos between projects, and builds a team across society committed to doing what it takes to rescue young people. On behalf of countless experts, professionals and parents, and on behalf of young people, I implore the Government to build that team, to create that coalition of care and to finally implement a meaningful public health approach to knife crime.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
First and foremost, I pay my respects to all those mentioned today who have lost their life due to knife crime, and to their families. Too many families and communities have been and are being torn apart by knife crime. I welcome the constructive, compassionate and collaborative approach that Members from all parts of the House have taken to the debate. This matter is far too important, and the impacts are far too devastating, for anything but a shared focus on addressing and reducing this most violent of crimes. We cannot allow ourselves to be back here in a few years with more names and more stories, but no meaningful progress. No family, friend or school should lose a loved one to knife crime, yet far too often, that is the reality.
As others have done, I put on record my gratitude and admiration to our courageous police officers across the country who work tirelessly and fearlessly to help keep us and our communities safe. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this vital debate, and for its emphasis on knife crime among young people. We all recognise the prevalence and impacts of knife crime as a whole, but the nuances that affect young people are integral, and developing an understanding of this problem—both as it stands today and as it will develop in the future—is important.
As my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said, the world that young people occupy is multilayered. It is a hybrid of online and offline, where boundaries merge, coercion persists and the reality of the consequences of actions are too often overlooked until it is too late. Young people are being exposed to things at a much younger age than ever before, and the impacts of normalising, and desensitising them to, crime and violence are still not fully understood.
Although the number of hospital admissions for knife crime has declined from its peak, the figure remains far too high. We know the impact that knife crime has on young people, so we must work to get knives out of perpetrators’ hands. Thanks to research by the Youth Endowment Fund, we have a relatively clear picture of knife crime rates among young people. A small but by no means insignificant number of young people carry offensive weapons. In the last two years, 5% of the 13 to 17-year-olds surveyed admitted to carrying offensive weapons, 47% of which were knives. This illustrates that while only a minority of those involved in serious offences are knife carriers, their impact on communities is significant. Of course, that is a nationwide figure, and rates will be significantly higher in parts of the country where knife crime is especially prevalent.
Over the past decade, a number of steps have been taken to reduce knife crime. Although violence against the person has decreased significantly since 2010, knife crime remains stubbornly high. This suggests that specific, targeted action is required to reduce knife crime offences, particularly among young people. Much-needed measures to close loopholes and introduce restrictions on zombie knives were put forward and passed under the last Government, and implemented by the current one.
Additionally, I welcome the measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that replicate those in the last Government’s criminal justice Bill by placing more stringent rules on knife possession and expanding police powers. Three key measures outlined in the Bill—the creation of an offence of possessing a bladed item with intent to harm, the increase in the maximum penalty for selling weapons to under-18s, and the power to seize, retain and destroy bladed articles—have all rightly been included. Increasing the penalty for those selling knives to under-18s is clearly a step forward in enforcing stricter laws and protecting young people. Ensuring that there are penalties for a range of weapons being used by young people is vital, as the police have highlighted that individuals use social networks specifically to advertise a range of weapons to under-18s.
Stephen Clayman’s review provides a detailed assessment of the online sale of knives. I understand that the measures drawn from the assessment will be introduced as amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister what impact she believes they will have on knife sales. Does she expect a significant reduction in accessibility for those who currently acquire weapons online? When considering online sales, we must not be naive. Data shows that a significant number of weapons held by young people are kitchen knives, which, as noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, are widely accessible.
As Members of different parties have highlighted today, engagement, prevention and police interventions are crucial tools in not only preventing individuals from committing crimes but protecting young people, who are far too often the victims of offences committed by their peers. Stop and search saves lives and must play a role in addressing and preventing incidents of knife crime, by disrupting and removing weapons from the streets. The police must have the necessary powers to prevent crime, because far too many lives are being violently cut short. Research published in the Oxford Journal of Policing found that attempted murders could be reduced by 50% through stop and search. Knowing that the police can stop and search is a powerful deterrent.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. Yes, the police have a vital role to play in dealing with knife crime. Does she agree that our youth workers, who work with some of the most vulnerable young people up and down the country, are also a key defence in stopping knife crime? In some instances, young people who are caught up in a vicious cycle of crime trust youth workers more than they trust the police.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member, who is so engaged and invested in this issue, for her comments. Youth workers, teachers and guardians—anyone whom a child trusts—are important in addressing this issue, and we must ensure that everybody has the powers and that society has the powers needed to address knife crime. Any action that helps reduce knife crime is an action that we should be looking at.
As well as stop and search, emerging technologies—for example, devices that allow the detection of knives at a distance and in crowded streets—could allow officers to more precisely identify and remove knives from would-be perpetrators. Alongside enforcement, prevention and early interventions require attention, and the Conservatives did make advances on that while in government. Between 2019 and 2024, violence reduction units were funded in areas of England and Wales where there was a prevalence of violent crime. According to Home Office evidence, these have led to a statistically significant reduction in hospital admissions for violent injuries. Since the funding began, an estimated 3,220 hospital admissions for violent injuries have been prevented in these funded areas.
We must also ensure that the police have the ability to be in the right place at the right time. As we have heard from Members across the House, too often it is being in the wrong place at the wrong time that leads to injury through knife crime. This is particularly crucial for young people, who congregate in hotspot areas, so ensuring that our police forces have the resources to increase patrols and increase their presence in such areas plays a key role in both prevention and response.
I acknowledge that the Government have placed significant emphasis on the delivery of Young Futures hubs to identify the young people most at risk of being drawn into crime. While we all recognise the benefits of providing support to young people, the effectiveness of the hubs will depend on implementation. Resources must be distributed effectively to ensure that young people receive the support they need, particularly given the range of activities that the Government intend the hubs to carry out alongside the reduction in knife crime. May I therefore ask the Minister how the hubs will be structured, and what work will take place outside their physical spaces to ensure effective engagement and early intervention?
We have seen police and crime commissioners using their independence to explore programmes that can provide earlier interventions. For instance, Thames Valley PCC Matthew Barber’s Operation Deter Youth ensures that youth offending services make contact with under-18s arrested for weapon or violent offences within 90 minutes of notification of arrest, followed by a house visit within 48 hours. I am not asking the Minister to be prescriptive, but will she ensure that police forces have the Government’s backing to trial innovative techniques such as knife scanning and new preventive techniques to help save young lives? Fundamentally, what are her plans to change the mindset that has developed that enables children to stab and murder other children?
Reducing knife crime among young people is a critical task for this and any Government. When we hear the names that we have heard today of some of the many—too many—young lives that have been lost to knife crime, we are reminded that these are not just statistics, but devastating events that bring untold anguish to families. We must do everything possible to bring down the numbers.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Let me start by thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) for securing this debate on an issue that matters enormously to us all. As ever, his opening speech was, as is his way, eloquent, thought-provoking and challenging. It ranged widely, including on the role of social media—he referred specifically to drill rappers’ music influencing children and young people. I refer him to the important work of Project Alpha based in the Met, and the role that the Online Safety Act 2023 will have as its provisions come into force, along with Ofcom.
There have been many insightful and heartfelt speeches, and I am grateful to every Member who has spoken. In particular, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), who spoke on behalf of the victims’ families. I am sure the whole House would like to thank the parents of child A in the horrific Southport attack for what they had to say.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) all spoke with such knowledge, and they have done a huge amount in their local areas to tackle knife crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) spoke in a very personal way about the attack on her nephew, and how it had affected him and her family. Again, I hope the whole House will wish her nephew well in recovering from that attack.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) gave us the Scottish perspective. It is always useful to hear what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) spoke very personally about being the victim of knife crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has spoken to me at length about harm reduction and rounded kitchen knives, and I reassure him that nothing is off the table when it comes to tacking the scourge of knife crime and saving young lives. The Home Office is considering a proposal on rounded kitchen knives.
Before I deal with many of the issues raised this afternoon, I want to comment on the prevailing message of the debate. No matter what side of the House we sit on, whatever party we belong to and whatever constituency we represent, we can all agree that knife crime causes enormous harm in our communities. It is destructive and all too often deadly. Too often, those affected are teenagers and young people with the rest of their lives ahead of them. We all know that when someone carries a knife or a dangerous weapon, the potential for bloodshed is always only ever seconds away and each fatal stabbing triggers a trail of devastation. First and foremost, there is the victim deprived of his or her future. Then there is the victim’s family, left to come to terms with the most unimaginable loss. There is also an impact on the wider community when these incidents occur. While we discuss policies, legislation and initiatives, we must always keep the individuals and the families affected at the forefront of our minds. On that note, I take the opportunity to say that my thoughts and prayers are with all those who have suffered as a result of knife crime. I also thank all our police and emergency service workers who have to deal with knife crime in our communities.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the great work done by PCSOs Nikki, Demi, Gavin and others in my constituency to prevent knife crime, and the Reel Rod Squad in Bedworth, which encourages young people to put down knives, take up fishing rods and enjoy the peace of the water instead?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling the House about the excellent work in her constituency, in particular the role of the PCSOs.
Time is short and a lot of questions were raised with me. If I do not have the chance to answer all of them, I will write to hon. Members specifically. The House will know that, under the safer streets mission led by the Home Secretary, we are driving a whole-of-Government approach to halving violence against women and girls, halving knife crime, and restoring confidence in the policing and justice system. As a part of that, the plan for change sets out our key reforms to strengthen neighbourhood policing, tackle antisocial behaviour and improve public confidence in law enforcement.
On offensive weapons, any effective response must include action to get dangerous knives and weapons out of circulation and off our streets. We have already demonstrated our commitment to putting in place stronger controls in the months since the general election. We implemented the ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes on 24 September. It is now illegal to sell or own those weapons. Furthermore, we committed in our manifesto to banning ninja swords. We have consulted on the legal description and are progressing our plans to bring forward an effective ban later this year.
A number of hon. Members referred to online sales. We are clear that we need stronger checks in place to prevent under-18s from being able to purchase knives online, which is why, last October, the Home Secretary commissioned Commander Stephen Clayman, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for knife crime, to carry out a comprehensive review into the online sale and delivery of knives, which was published on 19 February. We are taking immediate action on a number of key recommendations from the report.
We have also announced Ronan’s law, named after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed in June 2023, following dedicated campaigning by his mum, Pooja Kanda. Ronan’s law will comprise a range of measures including requiring online retailers to report any bulk or suspicious-looking purchase of knives to the police, and the introduction of a new offence of possessing an offensive weapon with intent for violence.
The Home Secretary has also announced that the Government intend to strengthen age verification controls and checks for all online sellers of knives at the point of purchase and on delivery. As raised by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, we will be bringing forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to enact our manifesto commitment to introduce personal liability measures for executives of online companies that fail to take action against illegal knife and offensive weapons content.
The coalition to tackle knife crime, announced by the Prime Minister in September 2024, brings together campaign groups, families of those who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted and community leaders, united in their mission to save lives. It is important that we have the lived experience of young people in that coalition, and we are working with our member organisations to ensure they have a platform to hear those young voices share their views, ideas and solutions for making Britain a safer place for the next generation.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships, including my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal). We know that too many children and young people today are facing poorer life outcomes, including becoming involved in knife crime, because they are not effectively identified and supported early on. This can be caused by limited life opportunities or because they are particularly vulnerable. To address these issues, we have committed to the creation of the Young Futures programme, which will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships to intervene early on, to ensure that this cohort is identified and offered support in a more systematic way.
The Young Futures hubs will bring together the support services that tackle the underlying needs of vulnerable children and young people, making them more accessible to those who need them. The hubs will promote children and young people’s development, improve their mental health and wellbeing, and prevent them from being drawn into crime. The Young Futures prevention partnerships will identify children and young people who are vulnerable to being drawn into crime and violence, including knife crime, antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, and divert them by offering them effective and evidence-based support in a more systematic way.
I will refer briefly to county lines and child criminal exploitation, which was referred to by a number of hon. Members. County lines is the most violent model of drug supply and is a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Through the county lines programme, we are and will continue to target exploitative drug dealing gangs and break the organised criminal groups behind the trade. We know that knives play a huge part in that. [Interruption.] I can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you want me to conclude.
There is so much more to say on this, but, in conclusion, I again want to congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon on securing this debate. We have to get a grip of what is, as we said in our manifesto, a national crisis. The public want change and we are determined to deliver it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Ben Obese-Jecty to wind up quickly.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Knife crime among children and young people has, for too long, been a stain on this country and our communities, and a blight on our collective social conscience. The increasing involvement of children, both as perpetrators and victims, cannot and should not be ignored. It is this, at its heart, that collectively we must change, and I look to the Government to grasp the nettle on that. Although the public health approach that they are likely to adopt has merit, there is need for a sustained, impassioned intervention to prevent our children from becoming murderers, and to remove this fictional threat that they are buying into to make them feel safe even when they actually already are.
I thank all Members who have spoken for taking the time to contribute to this important debate, and for paying tribute to those who have lost their lives. I am pleased that we have been able to put heat and light on some of the often overlooked aspects of the cause of this issue and on the potential solutions too.
There is much to do in addressing the root cause of this issue, and we have tried to cover myriad factors as broadly as we can, but I am conscious that this topic is too broad to solve in just one debate. I hope that, collectively, we have raised issues that give the Government pause to consider when developing their own strategy to achieve their aim. I would dearly love it if none of us ever had to raise the issue of knife crime in this House again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of knife crime amongst children and young people.
Coastal Communities
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered coastal communities.
I am delighted to be leading my first ever debate in this Chamber, on the vital topic of coastal communities. I am very grateful to Members from across the House who supported my application for the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
This is the first debate on coastal communities of this new Parliament, and it could not come soon enough. There are a number of traditional divides into which people break our country: rural versus urban; affluent versus deprived; industrial versus agrarian. However, the divide between coastal and inland communities is often overlooked, yet this divide has wide-ranging impacts and leads to a unique situation for these areas.
In fact, many of my constituents in North Norfolk may share far more similar experiences with our coastal siblings in Cornwall, almost eight hours away, than with those just half-an-hour down the road in Norwich. What coastal communities across the country often feel is that, despite the incredible contribution they make to our country economically, culturally and environmentally, the system is not working for them. Our health and economic outcomes are poorer than those of our inland neighbours. Our environment is battling the challenges of climate change, coastal erosion and the sewage dumping scandal. But, despite that, the Government do not seem to think that we are worthy of proper representation in the form of a dedicated coastal communities Minister.
I turn now to the health challenges faced by our coastal communities. In 2021, Professor Sir Chris Whitty published a landmark report into the health outcomes in seaside towns and coastal communities. What he uncovered was shocking. We have higher rates of poor health and disease. The rates of cardiovascular diseases and cancer are higher, and those diagnosed with these diseases have poorer outcomes. They also suffer with them for longer.
Data shows that, on average, residents in Hull live more than 25% of their lives in poor health—around a quarter more than the national average. That results in a lower quality of life and wellbeing, a greater reliance on the health service, and shorter lives overall. The work of Hull’s public health department, under the leadership of Mike Ross and the Liberal Democrat-led council there, to tackle these challenging statistics is commendable, but coastal health inequalities need to receive more direct Government attention.
The disparities in life expectancy that were found are particularly shocking. I want to take Members on a brief tour of my Norfolk neighbours to outline this point for them. To the east of my constituency is Great Yarmouth, and to the south is Broadland. These areas are very nearby, they share similar amenities in many situations, and they have shared frustrations with the A47. However, a baby born in Great Yarmouth has a life expectancy four years shorter than that of one born just over the border in Broadland. Both these babies would be proud Norfolk residents, both live within touching distance of our Broads national park, both may even grow up sitting in adjacent seats at Carrow Road football ground, but the challenges that we face in coastal towns and communities means that there would be a disparity in their health, in their wellbeing and even in how long they live. For communities so nearby, so similar, this cannot be seen as an acceptable status quo. Our coastal communities deserve to live longer, better, healthier lives than they do now.
North Norfolk faces its own coastal health challenges. We have lost the Blakeney surgery, which served many coastal villages with otherwise poor transport links. Benjamin Court reablement centre has been closed down—for now—removing a vital asset that allowed local people to recover outside of hospital and nearer their families. Cromer hospital also needs the support and funding to provide more services closer to our coastal communities, preventing them from having to travel to Norwich for vital healthcare.
Professor Whitty points out that coastal communities share many more of these challenges with each other than with their inland neighbours. It was clear to him that action needed to be taken. We all listened to him when he was on our TV screens during the pandemic, and I hope that the Government will take his advice just as seriously now.
Our coastal communities are major economic drivers. We have a thriving tourism industry, which contributed £17 billion a year to our economy before the pandemic struck. It supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Our hospitality industry plays host to talented hoteliers, chefs, publicans, chip shop owners and many more. A visit to the Blakeney hotel, enjoying lobster and crab at Rocky Bottoms in West Runton, a pint at the Hill House in Happisburgh, or some dessert at Crumble Crib in Sheringham, are all excellent ideas for anyone taking a trip to our part of the world. Tourists have been doing this for centuries. Jane Austen sang the praises of Cromer in my constituency in “Emma”, describing it as
“the best of all the sea-bathing places”,
although I must say that the whole of North Norfolk qualifies for that level of praise.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My constituency could not be further from the sea. However, I have spent many happy holidays in Cromer and Sheringham, and I am delighted that he has been returned to the House as the representative of those wonderful communities. Will he tell me how wonderful Cromer, Sheringham and the North Norfolk coast are? I prefer to swim in the sea in Sheringham rather than Cromer—does he agree?
Steff Aquarone
I make absolutely no comment on the latter question, but I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution—no advance sight was given of my speech. Her presence here serves to remind us all that it is not just MPs representing coastal communities who have a stake in their prosperity. I thank her for her almost perfectly timed words.
In more recent times we had the 2024 pier of the year in Cromer. The excellent North Cottage in Cromer, run by Andrea and Jerry, was recently awarded self-catering accommodation of the year at the Suffolk and Norfolk tourism awards. Cromer also plays host to a Banksy artwork from his 2021 tour of the east coast. The artwork, of a queue of hermit crabs looking on at empty shells, highlights one of our greatest challenges in coastal communities: second homes and the wider housing crisis.
In North Norfolk we have been plagued by huge numbers of second homes and empty homes. Outside the City of London, we have the highest number of empty or infrequently used homes in all of England. These properties are carving the core out of many small and historical communities, and in too many cases contribute very little back. Our poorest are sitting on ever growing waiting lists, while the rich treat our coastal villages as a setting for a Jane Austen-era summer jaunt, leaving them to suffer for the rest of the year.
In Wells-next-the-Sea, 40% of the town is second homes and holiday lets. In some parts, only one in 10 homes is someone’s main residence. I am delighted that, after years of lobbying, we are able to levy a 100% council tax increase on those second homes. That will bring in £1.7 million for the district council, allowing it to support more affordable housing and provide homelessness services.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Jane Austen mentions not only Cromer but Ramsgate—in “Pride and Prejudice”—although certainly in a less salubrious way than she may have referred to Cromer. Ramsgate and Wells-next-the-Sea share the concerns that the hon. Member mentioned about short-term holiday lets. Does he support the calls that many colleagues and I have made for not just a registration scheme but a licensing scheme for short-term holiday lets, in order for local authorities to be able to control and shape their own local economies?
Steff Aquarone
It is not ideological; we must be pragmatic in these things. The right sort of holiday lets can bring in welcome tourism to North Norfolk, but there is a safety issue regarding regulation, which I am very sympathetic to. I would be very interested in talking in more detail about our shared interest in this matter at another time.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate that affects so many constituencies around the country. In Sea View Street in Cleethorpes there has been a noticeable uptick in the number of Airbnbs. That street has a unique identity, and the Airbnbs are taking away from the impact of local businesses and the local tourist trade, because they are using those shop façades. Does he think that more should be done to reduce the Airbnbs and protect the unique identity of some of these shopping streets?
Steff Aquarone
I do think that more should be done. It is a classic example both of unintended consequences from the explosion of a successful tech platform that was originally designed for people to let out spare rooms and is now a mainstream booking platform, and of the inevitable fact that legislation moves more slowly than life. Again, I would be interested in a further discussion on that topic, which affects us both.
In Cornwall—we are not alone in the struggle—about 14,000 second homes are sitting empty, while it is also in the midst of a critical housing crisis.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member surprised to hear that Reform is campaigning locally in Cornwall against second homes, yet nationally it voted against taxes on second homes?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I am a little surprised. I am not too familiar with Reform’s tax policies, but I am not sure whether that is just me or most of us. Nevertheless, I hope that I have done my neighbour, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), a favour by raising some of the challenges in his constituency. I am sure that he will be most supportive of whatever is in its best interests.
Cornish Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), are fighting hard on this issue, to their great credit, as are many in the House. Our coastal economies do, however, face struggles. From 2009 to 2018, half of coastal towns saw a decline in employment compared with only 37% of inland communities. We have much higher rates of self-employment and part-time employment and, by the nature of our tourist-driven economy, we have significant seasonal variation as well. Many small local businesses are deeply concerned that, after years of feeling left behind, increases to national insurance could squeeze them even further; for some, it might be the final straw.
Our economy is also changing to meet the opportunities of the future. Coastal communities have been at the forefront of the renewable energy revolution and are key parts of the manufacturing process for wind turbines or hosting the sites where the cables for their energy make landfall. In Bacton in my constituency, there are amazing opportunities for carbon capture and storage and for hydrogen generation as we undergo a green transition. Our coastal communities have so much economic potential and opportunity just waiting to be unlocked. I hope that the Government can support and enable them to flourish in the years to come.
One of the most special things about our coastal communities is the environments that they possess. Visitors to Salthouse marshes in my constituency might be lucky enough to catch a glimpse of the migratory snow bunting. Moving north, in Holkham and over the border in Holme dunes live some of the ever-decreasing number of natterjack toads. Those are precious, unique and environmentally important landscapes and areas, but they face significant challenges, too.
Anyone who lives in a coastal community will have been furious at the shameful sewage scandal, which has been unfolding for years. The tainting of precious beaches through the dumping of raw sewage by water companies is a national disgrace and shows no regard for the importance of the coast to its wildlife and residents. I am delighted by the work that we have done locally to secure blue flag beaches for much of North Norfolk, but there is still so much to do.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The hon. Member talks about the environmental challenges of our coastal communities, one of which is that many of them face thousands of pylons along hundreds of miles moving electricity from one place to another. Does he agree that we need to find a way to put those cables underground to protect our beautiful coastal communities?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I am pleased to associate myself with the sentiment behind his remarks. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), when he was Energy Minister in the coalition, who scoped out the possibility of an offshore ring main for East Anglia, which is an even better solution than trying to bury cables under the ground.
Our coastal communities are also on the frontline in facing down the effects of climate change. I have spoken many times in Parliament about the coastal erosion that we face in North Norfolk—I make no apology to hon. Members for sounding like a broken record—but, as a result of man-made climate change, North Norfolk’s coastline villages such as Happisburgh, Trimingham and Overstrand are rapidly being claimed by the North sea.
We are not alone in this fight, as communities along the North sea coast are facing similar worries, and new modelling shows that the concern is more widespread than previously thought, with areas of the south-west now under threat of erosion too. My constituents look at projects such as the Thames barrier, where we have rightly taken bold steps and built infrastructure to protect communities from the effects of rising sea levels and extreme weather events, and wonder whether the Government would deliver the same level of attention to them. I will not allow our communities to be left behind or written off. We must fight climate change and mitigate its impacts, which we are already facing.
A fantastic book by Madeleine Bunting, “The Seaside: England’s Love Affair”, charts the story of our seaside towns over the past several decades. It is a story of decline that must be reversed, but it is also a story of hope and resilience. I can absolutely see the balance she describes: the fragility of life clinging to the cliffs, but also the social strength, the raw beauty and the economic opportunity. Supporting our local coastal economies does not have to mean billions in investment; it needs advocacy and action at the top table and the right support from Government to help people help themselves. Madeleine Bunting gave the Reynolds lecture in 2023 and made this salient point:
“Seaside towns don’t fit into the public debate about the North South divide. Nor has their decline ever dominated the national narrative in the way that inner cities did in the 80s as a focus of public policy or like the former mining and industrial towns. Seaside towns have been left to struggle with their own decline.”
I have covered just some of the key pillars of the challenges that our coastal communities face, as well as their resilience and our opportunity as a whole country to support them. What frustrates me greatly is that despite the wide-ranging and various challenges, responsibility for supporting them is fragmented and siloed across Government. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place; however, his remit contains only the communities aspect of our coastal communities. We have unique health challenges, economic challenges and opportunities of major environmental importance. Our coastal communities are too important to be bit parts of different portfolios, and we urgently need to take a holistic approach to supporting them, understanding how the different factors interact with one another. We need to be able to see and understand the impact of economic outcomes on health and wellbeing and how environmental challenges and renewable energy opportunities can go hand in hand.
That is why I have been calling for the creation of a Minister for coastal communities to give us a specific representative, speaking up for our areas in Government. That call has cross-party support, with MPs from across the House supporting it in the previous Parliament. I hope that the wide range of Members present today shows the Government that a similar consensus still exists for getting us a seat at the table and making the needs and opportunities of coastal communities heard and acted upon.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, as I am keen and excited to hear the contributions from all those present about what makes their communities so special. I hope that everyone will think about how coastal communities have impacted their lives: whether as a summer holiday destination, a weekend getaway, a university town or the place they have called home for generations. Let us think about why they matter to us and what they have given to us all, not just in economic contribution but in memories and in experiences. There are the memories from holidays with family and loved ones; the laughter and smiles at building sandcastles on our beaches as a child or with children of our own; the timeless enjoyment of windswept fish and chips warming us as we watch the waves crash against the shoreline; the way that Turner or Constable captured coastal beauty in their art works; and coastal walks, arcades, swimming, surfing and even seal spotting. Let us remember what coastal communities have given to us. Today, we can come together and make sure that we give back to them, protect them and let them create many more memories for generations to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Members will have noticed that there are a lot of people on their feet wanting to speak, so I will try and get as many people in as I can. I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
For nearly four decades, our seaside towns have shaped the outcome of elections. Yet, despite that significance, we have been overlooked, struggling with deprivation, economic decline and crumbling infrastructure.
The crisis is particularly evident in my constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood, which bears the scars of deindustrialisation and the decline of the fishing industry. Income deprivation is rampant, job opportunities are limited, health inequalities are stark and our infra-structure is in disrepair. Coastal residents, on average, earn £2,800 less than those inland, and crime and antisocial behaviour is 12% higher. Our health crisis is also dire, with residents 15% more likely to suffer an early, preventable death. Cancer mortality rates are 9% higher on the coast, and our rates of respiratory disease are three times the national average.
Our coastal properties are also a third cheaper, leading to more houses in multiple occupation and poorer living conditions. These challenges are not abstract numbers; they are the lived reality of families struggling to make ends meet, young people seeking opportunities that do not exist, and communities suffering from the daily impacts of “dirty business” and historical contamination. Labour is working to reverse that with its ambitious plans to grow the economy and its commitment to fix the NHS.
Blackpool North and Fleetwood was founded on ambition. Our forefathers envisioned thriving model seaside towns, combining prosperity, tourism and industry. Yet, sadly, today they are a shadow of that vision. It is time to restore that ambition with real investment and leadership. The Government’s move towards regulatory reform is essential, but our communities are impatient. They have been let down for too long and need to see tangible delivery now.
To truly deliver, we need a Minister for coastal communities. Coastal communities face unique challenges that require a dedicated voice in government—a Minister who understands our specific needs and ensures they are addressed through a co-ordinated, strategic approach to investment and regeneration. While top-down reforms provide essential structural change, they must be matched by bottom-up solutions shaped by local knowledge and intelligence. A Minister for coastal communities could help us seize private sector investment in the clean energy transition to enable growth now, revitalising our docks, improving transport links and creating long-term sustainable employment. Coastal communities have been part of this country’s success for generations. It is time we gave them the investment and leadership they deserve, or we risk losing them forever.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
As a native of a coastal community in Devon, I am well versed in the challenges that living there presents. However, we must also highlight the opportunities its presents. It is all too easy to depict coastal towns, cities and communities as run down and tired—places where people retire or only have work six months of the year when the tourists roll in. While there is undoubtedly a lot of truth in that, there is also a huge amount to value and celebrate about our coastal communities, because if there was not, why would people flock from right across the country and, indeed, the world to visit?
My constituency of South West Devon has the significant suburbs of Plymouth, Plympton and Plymstock, and swathes of the coastal South Hams and Dartmoor. The challenges the coastal community in my constituency face are much like those elsewhere, including housing for local people and transport connectivity.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend has begun what I am sure will be an exquisite speech, and she hits the nail on the head when she talks about transport connectivity. One of the great problems that unites all our coastal communities is that it is difficult to get anywhere. For a community like mine in Dumfries and Galloway, it is 80 miles to the nearest hospital. Perhaps rather than a new Minister looking at coastal communities, we need existing Transport Ministers to put their foot down.
Rebecca Smith
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and although my constituency is a long way from his, we too have significant problems with transport. We are on a peninsula, and if the trains stop, we cannot get in or out, so I completely understand the need for a focus on transport. We also have the health and education inequalities that have been mentioned, and the new Government’s attack on businesses with increased employer national insurance contributions. That affects not just businesses but our local St Luke’s hospice and vital community pharmacies such as Tubbs in Newton Ferrers. The changes to business and agricultural property relief are also threatening the future of long-standing family businesses.
Arguably, one of the biggest opportunities for South West Devon is the continuing growth of the marine autonomy hub at Turnchapel Wharf in Plymstock. With over 300 years of history as a shipyard and naval base, it was sold 20 years ago by the Ministry of Defence and bought by Yacht Havens group. Over the last 12 years, it has invested in the hub and attracted more and more marine-based businesses, with a specific focus on marine autonomy, developing autonomous vessels for the future of scientific surveying, defence and humanitarian work at sea.
The development highlights some of the unique opportunities we can have in the coastal community of South West Devon and Plymouth. With the easiest and quickest access from land to deep water in the country, my constituency is perfectly placed for businesses looking to do sea trials underwater—a niche but essential opportunity for our local coastal community. Last Friday, Thales delivered the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy from my constituency. The project is part of the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation, and it has served the French navy as well as the Royal Navy.
It is vital, however, that we do not fall into the trap of looking at coastal communities solely through the lens of built-up areas, towns and cities. The coastal communities in my constituency have a wide range of identifying factors. As the Government’s local government reorganisation work progresses and councils across the country consider how they can best serve their own interests, it is important that they look at the interests of the places that they seek to absorb. Edging Plymouth, a unitary authority with its own proud identity, with part of Devon county council and two district councils will mean a very different future for much of my constituency, but taking in the rural character of communities such as mine is essential.
Although the population of towns and cities such as Plymouth may significantly outnumber the population in the rural parts, it is essential to place value on both population size and land mass. Identity matters, and people often choose to live where they do to be close to the sea, but that does not always mean that they are in built-up towns and cities. Local government reorganisation must be in the best interests of everyone, not just people in urban areas, be they on the coast or not.
To conclude, the previous Government recognised the challenge faced and invested significant sums of money in communities such as mine to help them close the gap with non-coastal communities. Going forward, we must be proud of coastal communities, which are such a key part of our national identity as an island nation. I am committed to finding the balance between pursuing opportunities and tackling the challenges that we all face.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to represent East Worthing and Shoreham, a fabulous stretch of the stunning Sussex coast where the sea meets the shore at our beautiful collection of towns and villages, which then give way to the breathtaking south downs.
Too often, coastal towns have been treated as after- thoughts. Once vibrant hubs of industry, culture and trade, too many now struggle to cope with rising inequalities, economic stagnation, climate change and a housing crisis that is forcing families out of their neighbourhoods. However, there is hope on the horizon and the tide is coming back in. The new Labour Government are committed to steadying the ship, pulling our coastal communities out of the sewage-blighted murky waters, and setting sail towards a brighter future.
The housing crisis in our coastal areas cannot wait. The skyrocketing cost of housing has made it nearly impossible for many of our young people and working families to find affordable homes. House prices in my constituency have risen by 20% in the past five years, but wages have not kept pace. The median house price is £380,000—almost £100,000 higher than the national average—but our median weekly wage is lower than others across the country. The new homes that the Government will build cannot come soon enough to ensure that local families are not priced out of their communities, and people’s children and grandchildren do not have to move away to get on in life. Indeed, that was a huge factor in last year’s election campaign. I met a couple in their 80s who were voting Labour for the first time ever because their working adult children were still unable to afford a home of their own. They were not just first-time Labour voters; this lovely couple met 60 years ago at the local Conservative dance party. The Labour Government are not only making it easier for people to own a home of their own; we are also, through our Renters (Reform) Bill, supporting the 17% of households in my constituency in the private rented sector by ending no-fault evictions, banning rent bidding wars and driving up standards. I am glad to be part of the work of Labour Members to bring an end to the exploitation of residents in coastal communities like mine by poor managing agents, who take them for a ride with excessive charges and poor service.
We are addressing the issue of climate change. We are committed to building a climate-resilient future by investing £2.65 billion in flood defences. I will make the case for East Worthing and Shoreham getting its fair share of that funding, given our experience of flooding, including in Shoreham, last April. We are also acting on the causes of climate change through our aim to achieve 95% clean power by 2030. I am proud to support an extension of the Rampion wind farm in the sea just beyond our shoreline, which will produce enough electricity to power the whole of Sussex if completed.
We need investment in our coastal communities, not just for the residents living in them but to revive our tourist economy and give us the opportunity to show off the delights of our splendid seaside towns. Time is short and I cannot talk about too many of them, but they include Worthing pier, which suffered a closure last year, and Worthing lido, which I hope we can restore.
The time for change is now. Our coastal communities have given so much to the country over the years, and it is time that we gave back. I hope that will come in the form of a coastal communities strategy, so that the Government can deliver real change for our neighbours.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing the debate, and for his excellent speech. My constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East is a coastal community. It boasts beautiful views of nature, bustling ports and delicious local produce. Peterhead is the largest fishing port in Europe, with a huge daily fish market. Fraserburgh is a fantastic port town and my home. Fraserburgh harbour has developed a £300 million master plan, which, if brought to reality, could deliver more than 1,000 new jobs. Portsoy has a remarkable harbour with unique local products. Each July, Portsoy hosts the Scottish traditional boat festival, which celebrates the craft behind boats with tremendous events and music. There are many more coastal communities, such as Buckie, which has a large marine industry.
Golfing is a popular leisure pursuit in the constituency, with many world-class golf courses found right across it; Cruden Bay and Fraserburgh are only two among many. Across Scotland, there are more than 2,000 active Scottish fishing vessels, and three quarters of them fish primarily in inshore waters. The inshore fleet is diverse and includes trawlers, creelers, netters, dredgers and divers. In 2019, there were an estimated 14,092 people directly employed in the seafood sector, many in remote coastal and island communities.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Fishing is far more than an industry; it is part of our identity in coastal communities. Does the hon. Member agree that a sustainable inshore fishing industry is vital to our economic growth?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
For the industry to be sustainable, it must have access to labour. The inshore fleet in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, like the one in mine, will doubtless be crying out for labour to come in from foreign countries. It is not able to because of the way the visa rules are structured.
Seamus Logan
I believe the Prime Minister himself agreed with me on the issue of labour shortages very recently.
Some 95% of commercial fishing jobs are located in areas of Scotland that, together, are home to less than a third of the total population.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that we desperately need a proper, fully thought out fishing strategy to support this vital industry in our local communities?
Seamus Logan
That is a reasonable point, but some of these matters are devolved, so it might be difficult to have a UK-wide strategy.
In 2021, Scottish exports of fish and seafood were valued at £1 billion, accounting for 60% of total Scottish food exports and 63% of total UK fish and seafood exports. Scotland’s seas around our shores make up over 60% of the UK’s total waters. However, fisheries need confidence to operate. Aberdeenshire council’s recent decision to cut the night-watch service at Macduff harbour is ill thought out and economically illiterate. This is despite an economic development plan for the harbour that was accepted by the council’s harbours sub-committee only last December, in which it highlighted that the harbour supports around 280 jobs and injects £11.2 million into the local economy.
There are many things I could complain about—depopulation, unemployment, poor access to healthcare or transport infrastructure, which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) mentioned—but let us look hopefully to the future. The continued growth of Scotland’s renewable energy sector will be an essential feature of our future clean energy system and a potential key driver of economic growth for many of these communities, not least in my constituency. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) about pylons. None of the cables that are coming ashore in my constituency will see any pylon development within at least 10 to 15 miles of the shoreline, which is very reassuring.
An abundance of renewable energy resources creates opportunities to meet domestic needs, to exploit new technologies in carbon capture, wave power and hydrogen production and to export low-carbon energy to others in these islands and to Europe. These developments bring great hope to many struggling coastal communities in Scotland, not least my own.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate, which is timely and overdue. I am glad to hear from Members who live in coastal communities all round this great country about the places they represent, many of which—this is where I am grateful to my parents—I visited on caravan trips around the country when I was younger. The tourism industry in this country will be pleased about this debate, but I am also grateful to hear about the challenges and inequalities that many of our communities face.
The report by Professor Chris Whitty was important for me when I was working at the NHS; it fleshed out some of the unique challenges that many coastal communities share, including inequalities in access to healthcare, and in health and employment outcomes, as well as transport difficulties—the list goes on. The coasts of this country are not only the interface between land and sea, but the interface between many of the greatest challenges that we face as a country. I am pretty certain that every Member in this debate will be able to give examples from their constituency of high levels of inequality, of social deprivation, or of challenge, often against a backdrop of beautiful, stunning landscapes, access to nature, and places where people want to live, and where many—not just those on holiday in a caravan—want to visit on a daytrip, or retire to.
It seems a terrible shame that somehow we have got ourselves locked into a system in which places that should be among the most desirable in the country face some of the biggest and most entrenched challenges. Some of those challenges are intrinsic to being by the water. For example, damage to buildings and the maintenance cost of housing and infrastructure is higher at the coast, yet that is not accommodated for in a lot of our public spending decisions, when we think about our infrastructure and how we support people in maintaining their houses. If anyone goes to Sheerness in my constituency and looks around, they will see that much of the social housing in that coastal town is damaged and degraded, largely because of the impact of the sea. It also faces the financial challenges that the rest of the country faces.
Sittingbourne and Sheppey has some unique features. It is a rural community, but there are two industrial towns in my constituency. There is a coastal community with nature reserves and wildlife, but there is also big industry, big power stations, and massive paper mills. There are real opportunities that I think we can capture and build on. The reason I have twin towns in my constituency is because of the sea and access to water, yet we are not taking advantage of that in transport terms. I very much endorse the call for a Minister for coastal communities, but the one thing I would really like the Government to commit to is developing a cross-cutting coastal strategy that addresses all those needs.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna). I do not need to repeat everything he said, because it all applies in spades to my constituency, which is very much a coastal constituency, which includes not just Harwich, but Manningtree, Mistley, Brightlingsea, and West Mersea. Those are all places of varying economic prosperity, but I wish particularly to talk about Harwich because it is so typical of what has happened to very prosperous Victorian port towns, where glorious terraces of grand houses would be worth millions if they were near London, but instead they are bedsit territory for some of the most unfortunate in our society who find themselves getting off the train and looking for somewhere to stay.
Having said that, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) said in his opening remarks—I thank him for securing this important debate, although obviously we have much too short a time—these places are full of potential. Harwich is a unique historic town. It is where the Mayflower sailed from in 1620. The captain of the Mayflower lived in Harwich, and his house is now a museum. When we say to the Americans, “Do you realise that you originally came from Harwich?” their eyes are opened. They think it is all about Plymouth, but they are not right. When we tell them what they could come and see, and that instead of some fake Victorian steps, they could come and see the real house of the captain of the Mayflower, they are amazed. It was an important Napoleonic port, it grew from a wonderful medieval naval base to being a very important naval base during the first and second world wars, and the entire German submarine fleet was gathered in the estuary.
Harwich is full of potential. We have the freeport, the offshore wind industry and wonderful manufacturing businesses, providing stable employment to their workforces. The place is full of potential, but I worry that without being championed by our own Tendring district council, which has done a marvellous job but is being lined up for abolition, we will not get the same support. When he winds up, will the Minister assure us that coastal communities will get the same support, under the new local government set-up, that they have always enjoyed from their district councils? I have my doubts, I am afraid, so I would be most grateful if he can address that.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
In many ways, my constituency of Southport is a typical coastal community and, like many coastal towns, it has seen better days. It is coping with challenges that do not necessarily impact inland areas to the same extent. Part of that negative change is due to the nature of the town’s economy, but a big part of it is due to its geography: it is a seaside town.
What made many of our seaside towns successful originally—the sense that they were a trip away from the big city and that people could travel for miles through the countryside to get to them—now militate against us. While it once might have been appealing for families from Manchester to take a packed lunch to the seaside and enjoy the scenic train route through Lancashire, it is no good for our commuters to still be stuck on that scenic route, trundling across the north-west to get to work and back every day. What was once our strength has now become our weakness.
Austerity has hit us hard too. The former Government removed in excess of £200 million a year from the local area. The multiplier effect of that has had an impact on private businesses in the town because when so many customers see that their wages are not keeping up with prices, then small businesses fail. We have seen a lot of that in Southport in the past decade.
Austerity manifests itself in different ways in different areas, and in my town austerity has manifested itself most prominently in the closure of the town’s seaside pier. A botched repair job 25 years ago means that there are now structural problems estimated to cost over £10 million to fix. The pier is in local authority ownership, and thanks to the previous Government, the local authority has not got the money to bring about the necessary repairs. I have been campaigning on innovative ways to ensure that piers across the country are safeguarded for the next generation.
This Labour Government have more coastal MPs than at any point in our country’s history, as is evidenced by the overwhelmingly empty Conservative Benches. The common issues faced by coastal towns are felt keenly by my colleagues on the Labour Benches. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Government are willing to commit to support our coastal communities and I too put on record my wish to see the creation of a specific Minister for coastal communities. The issues our areas share are so specific to the coast, common to each other and important to our residents that Government will gain greatly from a dedicated Minister ensuring that the views of our towns and areas are heard in this place.
I am sure that if government steps up and meets some of the challenges that our towns face, the decade of national renewal that we know the country needs could be implemented.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. With an immediate two-minute time limit, I call Siân Berry.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am pleased to speak in the debate and I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing it.
In 2019, a House of Lords report on the future of coastal communities called Brighton
“probably the UK’s most successful seaside community,”
and we are. I am very pleased that the city council has recently set up a new seafront development board, and I have already had a positive meeting with its chair to discuss how we continue to make our seafront better, to support and grow our city’s wonderful reputation for heritage, music, the arts, shopping, amusement, community action, diversity, nature and wellbeing.
As others have said, there are currently no Government funding schemes specifically for coastal areas, and there is no ministerial focus; I echo the comments of everybody in this House on that. We need focus on the specific challenges that our coastal communities face, because austerity and Brexit have bitten Brighton’s communities too. Our people have big problems with housing costs, holiday lets, employment, health, transport and health inequality, which all need dealing with.
Seamus Logan
Does the hon. Member agree that Brexit has done immense harm to places such as Brighton and other coastal communities?
Siân Berry
I could not agree more. The amount of different sectors of the economy in Brighton and Hove that have remarked to me on the impact of Brexit is huge, not least the cultural industries.
I will echo others and talk a little about the regularly appalling state of our sea water, which is a genuine threat to our success. Southern Water has been taken to court and found guilty of criminal behaviour and lying, yet we still have sewage overflows off the south coast on a regular basis. I have met sea-swimming groups and individual constituents who have been very sick after swimming in the waters around Brighton, and the only way to get that properly under control is public ownership. My Green colleagues and I will continue to push for that in this Parliament.
I will very quickly shout out Lucy Davies, the brilliant and enthusiastic new director of Brighton Dome. When I met her recently, she told me about the excellent collaboration happening between cultural institutions along the Sussex coast. The coastal catalyst programme will support creativity and culture for young people from Bognor Regis to Bexhill, and it is exactly the kind of co-operative work that needs to happen.
There is no single solution to the challenges that impact on our coastal communities, but we need ambition, vision, a dedicated Minister and a proper package of strategic initiatives and funding. As MPs we can help by working together and with local leaders to build on the ideas, build up new initiatives that we all agree our communities need because of their very special natures, and put on the pressure for that to happen.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
For too long, coastal communities such as Blackpool have been left behind. Despite our stunning coastline, proud heritage and incredibly resilient people, Westminster has neglected us for far too long. Now, with a new Labour Government in place, we have the opportunity to turn the tide to ensure that Blackpool and other coastal communities finally get the support they deserve.
Nearly one in two children in Blackpool live in poverty. I recently submitted a report to the child poverty taskforce based on the experiences of parents and those working with children in Blackpool. Almost 90% of those surveyed said that financial strain was damaging children’s enjoyment of childhood. That is unacceptable, and we must change it.
Blackpool’s economy has long relied on tourism and associated job roles that historically have been seasonal, insecure and low-paid. Local efforts have done much to create a year-round economy, and the Government must support them. That means targeted investment in the sectors that can provide long-term careers, helping businesses to grow and expanding skills training to prepare our workforce for the future. With the right support, we can unlock Blackpool’s full potential.
Patrick Hurley
Does my hon. Friend agree that with the new Government, north-west towns have the best opportunity for a generation to turn the tide on years of Tory decline and ensure that their best days lie ahead?
Chris Webb
I completely agree. I have many happy memories of my hon. Friend’s constituency of Southport. My family would go from Blackpool to the Pontins in Southport, but my dad would always go the long way round on the motorway so it felt like we were going further away than we were.
As I was saying, this does not mean turning our backs on tourism and hospitality: it means investing in them. However, the rise in employer national insurance contributions presents a significant challenge to them, and jobs are at risk. If we are serious about growing our economy and supporting working people, we must give this sector the support it desperately needs. A 12.5% VAT reduction for hospitality and tourism would boost turnover, creating nearly 300,000 jobs over the next decade and delivering billions in tax revenue. That is the kind of bold, ambitious action that places such as Blackpool need to thrive.
For too long, places such as Blackpool have been left behind, but with the right plan and with the determination to see it through, we can change that. My constituents demand a voice, so I am also calling for the appointment of a dedicated Minister for coastal communities. The last Labour Government rebuilt our cities; this new Labour Government have the opportunity to rebuild our forgotten coastal towns. We must deliver a cross-Government strategy dedicated to improving the health, wellbeing and prosperity of coastal communities. The chief medical officer has rightly said that
“strong, targeted, long-term action”
can lift our coastal towns and create a fairer, healthier and more prosperous future for all. My constituents deserve nothing less.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate. We desperately need a Minister for coastal communities, as has been highlighted in some outstanding speeches this afternoon. The fact that my constituency of Torbay is the premier resort for the United Kingdom is of great pleasure to me—we have six blue flag beaches across the bay. However, once upon a time at the turn of the 20th century, Torquay was the wealthiest town in the country. Sadly, Torbay is now one of its most deprived communities, and is the most deprived community in the west of England.
One wicked issue that faces us is pollution in our seas. While we have those lovely blue flag beaches, from time to time—particularly with climate change and the propensity towards heavier water use in the summer—our sewage system gets overwhelmed. It is a great sadness that locals have to look on the Surfers Against Sewage app to determine when it is safe to swim in our seas. We also face wicked issues and challenges in our NHS, including our crumbling hospital.
Steff Aquarone
Does my hon. Friend agree that hospitals face challenges not just with their state or accessibility but with the affordability of housing for NHS workers?
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend is spot on. Whether we are in North Norfolk, North Devon or Torbay, we face challenges with our NHS, and we also face a lack of affordable housing. We have seen that challenge put on steroids by the pandemic, during which we saw house prices and rents rise, with people fleeing from metropolitan areas to live in coastal communities. Let us ensure, with the appointment of a dedicated coastal communities Minister, that coastal communities are not left on the edge, geographically or economically.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the coastal parliamentary Labour party and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for coastal communities, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). We are in danger of violently agreeing with each other, so I will not repeat much of what has been said—needless to say, much of it also applies to East Thanet.
What I will cover, however, is the potential that coastal communities have to drive economic growth across the country through our people, our heritage and our environment. Take the Government’s mission to build 1.5 million homes; East Kent Colleges Group is working with house builders and construction companies such as WW Martin, offering apprenticeships to develop the next generation of workers. There is a demand for non-graduate jobs in our community, and if we tap into that potential, there is no reason why it could not be workers from coastal communities who build those 1.5 million homes across the country and refurbish our shoddy, draughty and damp housing stock.
It is important that we build on people’s identity and heritage to develop resilient coastal communities. In East Thanet, we have tapped into our artistic heritage of Charles Dickens and J.M.W. Turner—the Turner Contemporary gallery in Margate is a monument to what can happen when energy and resources are focused on regenerating coastal towns. Of course, our natural environment is not just a nice-to-have; it is an integral economic asset. However, we cannot talk about increasing opportunity without first providing people with security. How can people look to the horizon when they are having to watch where they step? This is a mission-driven Government with five missions to transform the country.
Patrick Hurley
Does my hon. Friend agree that a strong enabling state, bringing forward those five missions and investing in a progressive industrial strategy, can help our coastal towns thrive in the next decade?
Ms Billington
Indeed, we need a place-based approach with that active state. If we want economic growth that reaches all parts of the country, invest in coastal communities. If we want public services that really improve the experience of people who are most alienated because of state failures, invest in coastal communities. If we want to create an environment that works for nature and people, invest in coastal communities. I am speaking not just about financial investment, but about investment of Government time, energy and focus.
When colleagues and I were trying to work out which Department would be answering this debate, we literally did not know. While I am obviously delighted to see the Minister in his place, the issues raised in this House today span all Departments, whether that is Health, Transport, Environment, Education, the Home Office, the Treasury or many others. I simply note that if there is not one Minister who fits the portfolio, there should be one—a Minister for coastal communities who can focus on regenerating our towns and growing our coastal economies.
I will end with a point about the previous Labour Government. In the 1990s, cities were not the places they are today. That Labour Government had a relentless focus on improving them, and the regeneration we have seen is testament to what can be delivered. Coastal towns are in the same position now, and the Labour Government have not only—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be aware that I will call the first Front Bencher at 4.38 pm. That means that not all Members will now get in. They might consider that when making interventions.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate. It is an honour to be here today among MPs representing coastal communities. I represent Southend East and Rochford. I was born on Green Street in east London, and growing up I spent a lot of time going to Southend for days out, as a lot of east-enders did at the time—they still do, in fact. However, tourism has changed, consumer habits have altered and industries and coastal communities are typically centred around agriculture, social care, retail and hospitality, which are all usually low-paying sectors.
According to the independent commission on neighbourhoods, Southend East and Rochford contains 17 neighbourhoods identified with the highest need. High deprivation and a lack of social infrastructure has had a knock-on effect on life expectancy, education outcomes and job opportunities. Where someone lives should not negatively impact their future.
My constituency is a centre for creative arts and heritage buildings, such as the Freight House, the Kursaal, the Cliffs Pavilion, Southchurch Hall and more. Residents have a passion and a determination to create a sustainable future for Southend East and Rochford, as do I, but we need a coastal communities strategy that differentiates coastal communities from our inland and rural partners and seeks to address the unique challenges we face. For long-term change, we must diversify industry in coastal communities, so that hospitality, heritage and tourism can thrive alongside finance, tech and industry.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Our coastal communities are likely to have higher deprivation living alongside great wealth. They are often creative hubs. Cornwall attracts many artists and musicians, and Falmouth has the world-class Falmouth University, which grew out of a 100-year-old art school. People come from all across the country and the world to visit our beaches and coastline. However, I am worried about the shore management plan, and managed alignment poses a risk to our beach cafés, car parks and economy in Cornwall.
The port of Falmouth is still very significant: we maintain and repair ships, including military ships, we host cruise ships with new green energy onshore plug-ins, and we have plans to regenerate the port to service floating offshore wind and to reinstate the freight railway. However, wages are lower than the national average, many jobs are seasonal and insecure, and hospitality businesses struggle with low margins. The permanently lower business rates that will be introduced in April next year after the business rates discount expires will help a great deal, as long as the rate is permanently lower than the current rate, rather than the full rate from pre-covid. Skills shortages are significant, particularly in hospitality, but also in other skilled professions, and house prices are 13 times wages.
There are 24,500 properties for short-term let in Cornwall, up 30% on 2019, while 27,000 households are on the social housing waiting list. Second homes account for nearly 5% of our housing stock. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill, but we also need a toolbox of measures to tackle second homes and short-term lets, including a registration or licensing scheme. Good holiday companies are actually calling for safety inspection measures, and for the closure of the business rates council tax loophole.
In addition, Cornwall has faced underfunding in health, social care and education for years. I, too, support the call for a broader Government strategy on coastal communities, because every policy affects us in potentially different ways from in urban areas.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Today I want to talk about the wonderful, world-renowned cockling industry in Southend West and Leigh. Forgive me if this sounds a bit niche, but I am sure the House will agree that industries such as cockling are important to all of us in coastal communities—to preserve our heritage and cultural identity, boost tourism, and increase prosperity and employment.
Leigh-on-Sea has been synonymous with cockling for—wait for it—1,000 years. The industry is a vital part of Leigh-on-Sea’s heritage, with the old town’s cockle sheds serving as a reminder of its maritime past and a huge boost to our tourism sector. The North Thames cockle fishery, which is one of the oldest in Europe, has implemented measures such as seasonal operations and total allowable catch levels to ensure the sustainability of cockle stocks, and it was given a Maritime Stewardship Council’s sustainability award in 2019. It is a perfect example of sustainable fishing.
However, there are issues that need to be addressed, as I heard from our fifth-generation firm of cocklers, Osborne’s fishmongers. I was told that people in this country do not eat much shellfish, especially the younger generation. This is not a trade that we want to die out, and I support initiatives such as Seafood in Schools and Fish Heroes. The cockling industry in Leigh-on-Sea brings significant economic benefits to the local community, but it faces several challenges. Its representatives have told me that increased pressure to operate more efficiently and sustainably requires long-term investment. After the new cockling licences were finally passed by Parliament following delays in the previous Parliament, Osborne’s and others would like to see their individual licences granted.
Preserving local industries, such as cockling in Leigh-on-Sea, is vital for coastal communities. We must continue to support them.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My constituency of Scarborough and Whitby includes some of the most beautiful towns and villages in the country, but it also has some of the worst health outcomes. We have talked a lot about older people in this debate, and I will use my time to talk about younger people.
I am excited by the opportunities that the advent of renewable energy offers young people in my constituency. Scarborough university technical college is already training the engineers of the future, who will work on the wind farms off our coast. The Construction Skills Village in Eastfield is training apprentices in bricklaying, plastering and other trades to help build Labour’s 1.5 million new homes. However, we must deliver year-round, non-graduate careers for our coastal kids and ensure that funding is funnelled not into cities and universities, but into coastal communities. Only by doing this will we deliver on our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for being so brief. That brings us to the Front Benchers.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate—although, on a beautiful day like this, I am sure I am not the only one pining for the beach.
Great Britain is an island nation with a proud maritime history. Coastal communities are central to our cultural identity, our national heritage and, of course, our economy, yet time and again they have been overlooked by Governments in London. From under-investment in infrastructure and transport to the devastating impact of water pollution and the broken business rates system, coastal communities face unique challenges that require targeted solutions. It is time for proper investment, fairer funding and a real plan for the future.
My constituency of West Dorset is home to the famous Jurassic coast—a UNESCO world heritage site—and as in many coastal communities, tourism is an essential industry for the area, but it also places increased strains on local infrastructure, public services and emergency response teams. Although Dorset experiences a 42% increase in population during peak seasons, such rural and coastal areas remain chronically underfunded. The current funding formula fails to account for rurality, and for the seasonal population fluctuations that we experience. Rural local authorities face higher service delivery costs, yet the Government’s decision to repurpose the £100 million rural services delivery grant on a new need and demand basis has removed a crucial lifeline for councils trying to provide transport, emergency services and social care in remote areas. That is simply unacceptable.
One of the greatest threats to coastal economies and to public health is the ongoing sewage crisis, and the figures are staggering. In 2022 alone, over 320,000 sewage spills were recorded across England. As a result, England is ranked among the lowest for water quality in Europe. Meanwhile, water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022 alone, and £51 million in executive remuneration between 2020 and 2021, all while failing to invest in critical infrastructure to prevent these spills. It is nothing short of a national scandal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the creation of a clean water authority to replace Ofwat, as well as stronger regulation, increased funding for water regulators to hold polluters accountable, and a dedicated Minister for coastal communities to oversee regulations on sewage spills and coastal protections.
I must raise the issue of business rates. Small businesses are vital to coastal economies, yet the broken business rates system is holding them back. The Government’s plans to slash relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 75% to just 40% will be a devastating blow for many small coastal businesses that are still struggling to recover from the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. That is important, because tourism numbers are still down a third on pre-2019 levels. The UK tourism sector directly employs over 3 million people, but it has experienced heightened job insecurity and reduced hiring rates since that time. Our tourism sector needs targeted support, not short-sighted tax hikes.
As Members have outlined, coastal communities are also facing a housing crisis. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a 500% council tax surcharge on second homes in housing-shortage areas, new planning restrictions on second homes and short-term holiday lets to prioritise local housing needs, and a requirement for all holiday let owners to pay council tax, ending the loopholes that let them avoid paying anything at all. These measures will help protect the character of our coastal towns and ensure they remain thriving communities, not just seasonal destinations.
Post-Brexit fishing and farming policies have left many coastal communities struggling. The last Government’s botched Brexit deal threw the UK fishing industry into turmoil, and as we approach the end of the transition period in 2026, uncertainty is growing. Too many fish are exported abroad for processing before being reimported, leading to higher costs, increased emissions and lost job opportunities. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers and fishermen, greater investment in local fish processing facilities to create job opportunities and boost local economies, and a £1 billion boost for the environmental land management scheme to support sustainable and nature-friendly farming.
Healthcare remains a postcode lottery in rural and coastal communities. In West Dorset, only 14 NHS dental practices serve a population of 101,000, leaving many without access to care. People living in coastal communities across the country face stark health inequalities compared with those in other areas. Reports, such as the one by Sir Chris Whitty, consistently show that rural communities experience poorer health outcomes driven by deprivation, limited access to healthcare and persistent workforce shortages. These challenges are not inevitable; they are the result of neglect. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a strategic small surgeries fund to sustain struggling rural GP services, and a dental rescue package to fix the broken NHS dental contract and guarantee urgent dental care for all.
Edward Morello
I am afraid I will not, because I am very keen for my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk to have time to wind up.
Digital exclusion remains a pressing issue. Many coastal businesses and residents lack reliable broadband and mobile connectivity, impacting everything from emergency response times to economic opportunities. The Government must commit to full-fibre broadband and reliable mobile coverage for all coastal and rural communities.
Coastal communities have long been overlooked. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and others have eloquently outlined, it is time for a dedicated Minister for coastal communities to ensure that our voices are heard in every Government decision. We deserve clean waters, thriving businesses, secure jobs and infrastructure that meets our needs. It is time for bold action, not just warm words, if we are to secure the future of our coastal communities for generations to come.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to wind up, on behalf of the official Opposition, this debate on the importance of our coastal communities, of which my own constituency is a proud one. Those communities are rich in history, industry and natural beauty, but they face significant challenges. They are home to thriving tourism, fisheries and local businesses, but they continue to struggle with economic inequality, housing pressures and environmental concerns. It is our duty to ensure that coastal communities receive the attention they deserve. In that spirit, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate. His opening speech showed clearly that he is committed to his constituency and cares deeply for the people he represents.
Many hon. Members touched on the unique and impressive heritage of their respective coastal communities, from their evolution as trade hubs, shipbuilding harbours, bases for fishing fleets and tourist destinations, to the modern and diverse settlements of today. I hope hon. Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will permit me a minor indulgence as I add my homage to my coastal constituency.
Straddling the Hamble river, from which my constituency gets its name, the communities that line this strip of the Hampshire coastline are as venerable as they are beautiful, snaking down from charming Curbridge, past beautiful Burseldon and stunning Swanwick, all the way down to Hill Head into the Solent past scenic marinas and yacht clubs and many wonderful pubs, which, as the weather warms up and the sun comes out, I will be pleased—as I am sure all Members across the House will be—to visit more and more often. It is a hard life being the MP for Hamble Valley, but someone has to live it.
However, it is not all blue skies and calm waters all the time. As Members have said, there are challenges facing coastal communities, and we cannot ignore their impacts. As in my constituency, coastal towns and villages struggle with restricted accessibility from poor transport links and increasing environmental risks, higher than average unemployment compounded by seasonal job instability, disparities in housing income, lower educational attainment and the upward mobility of skilled workers causing a brain drain that further exacerbates all those issues.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that there is currently no national strategy for coastal areas. Coastal towns are usually low-population areas and are often conflated with rural areas, which obscures their unique challenges. As we have touched on, coastal communities are already grappling with economic inequality, yet this Government continue to burden them further. Average annual pay in coastal towns is £4,700 lower than in the rest of Great Britain, and their national growth rates are much lower despite the historical industrial and commercial strengths they exhibited in the past. Now they face tax increases, declining support for high streets and rising employment costs, which threaten to undo years of progress in just a matter of months.
Instead of fostering economic growth, we are seeing policies that stifle local businesses and weaken our high streets. For example, with the Government’s hike in employer national insurance contributions to 15%, we can see the fallout that poor economic choices deliver. Businesses I have spoken to, including pubs and restaurants in my constituency which rely on seasonal tourism and are already struggling with high costs, are now having to make difficult decisions about laying off staff, not taking on more staff, and, in extreme circumstances, closing venues. That is the exact opposite of what our local businesses need. The Government say that their first priority is delivering growth, yet the policies they have chosen to implement will bring about yet more economic uncertainty, financial worry and labour market instability in coastal communities.
With the Government’s recent housing algorithm changes, we are also seeing dramatic increases in housing targets in coastal communities. In coastal communities near Hamble Valley, such as New Forest, Fareham and Gosport, we are seeing targets rise by up to 105%. Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset and North Yorkshire are all being tasked with delivering thousands of new homes, yet infrastructure and public services are not keeping pace.
Many of our coastal communities depend on a strong and sustainable fishing industry. The previous Government worked hard to strip EU-imposed quotas that constrained our fishing fleets. However, this Government’s continued pursuit of closer alignment with the EU raises serious concerns about access to UK waters post-2026.
Paul Holmes
I do not have time, I am afraid.
The previous Government made significant investment in our coastal communities. Through the coastal communities fund, £229 million was invested across 369 projects, creating over 7,000 jobs and bringing more than 3 million visitors to our coastal area. Furthermore, the future high streets fund, town deals, the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund provided much-needed support to local economies. These initiatives renewed town centres, safeguarded businesses and created thousands of training opportunities, but we see no commitment to continuing them today. The Government have already announced that there will be no new funding for the towns fund, which I think is a betrayal of the commitments made to our coastal communities.
Coastal communities are an integral part of our national identity, and yet they continue to be overlooked by this Government. Instead of supporting local businesses, they raise taxes; instead of investing in our high streets, they cut funding; instead of protecting our fishing industry, they seek closer ties with the EU that threaten our independence. It is time for this Government to change course. We must ensure fair housing policies, sustained economic investment, a strong and independent fishing industry and robust flood defences. Our coastal communities deserve better, and I urge this House to take action to protect their future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate and for the way he led it. He said that it was his first opening speech—it was an excellent one. I admire both the poise and the clarity with which he spoke in his first Backbench Business debate. There are clearly more excellent debates to come, but he will struggle, I think, to top today’s topic. The official record of this debate will read like a love letter to our nation’s coastal communities—one in which we can all see ourselves and our treasured memories, whether we represent a coastal community or, for Members like myself who do not, spent our childhoods at Southport, Blackpool, Skegness or elsewhere around the country.
The hon. Gentleman set out very clearly the opportunities for our coastal communities—be they tourism, energy or natural beauty—but also the profound challenges, which were echoed in the contributions of a number of colleagues, such as slower economic growth, higher levels of deprivation and real challenges in healthcare. He said that he felt the system does not work. I share a lot of that, and I have some suggestions for how the system might change. The hon. Gentleman was also very clear that he would rather that a dedicated Minister respond to the debate, rather than me—I will try not to take it personally, and will address that directly in a moment.
First, I want to cover a number of contributions from colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) spoke about the integral challenge with housing in coastal communities, with too little building for too long. This Government are going to change that, with a million and a half homes in this Parliament. I say to colleagues, and to anybody listening who is passionate about their coastal community, that the way to ensure that is done in the right way—a way that respects local heritage, local demand and areas of natural beauty—is to be involved in the local planning process. That is how to set the blueprint for excellent development in our communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said, that will bring jobs as well, with opportunity for all-year-round jobs, great careers and skills.
Of course, that conversation on housing includes an important point that was raised by a number of my colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which is the matter of second homes and short-term lets. She and I have spoken about that a lot over the years, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). This Government are introducing a short-term let registration scheme to protect the spirit of our communities, notwithstanding the importance of short-term lets to the economy. We are abolishing the furnished holiday lettings tax regime to remove the tax incentive that short-term let owners have over long-term landlords. From this April, councils can opt to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes. However, we recognise that more will need to be done, and we are very keen to have that conversation with colleagues. We are considering what additional powers we could give local authorities to enable them to respond to the pressures created by short-term lets and holiday homes.
A number of colleagues, including—perhaps unsurprisingly —my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), made important points about healthcare. I would trumpet the Government’s 10-year health plan to reform the NHS, which coastal communities in particular will benefit from. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is sitting on the Bench next to me. With the three big shifts—the move from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention—there is a lot in that plan for coastal communities. Again, I encourage colleagues to lean into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) draws me on cockles. Osborne’s sounds like it is the real backbone of his community, but, clearly, it is facing some real hurdles. If it is of any value to him, I would be very keen to meet the firm’s representatives and have the chance to have that conversation in full.
My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) and for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) touched on partnerships with central Government, local government and local communities. I can point to significant money coming from this Government: £90 million for housing redevelopment in Blackpool, and £40 million for the further education college and the new civil service hub. We believe that Blackpool’s best days are ahead of it, and I am very keen to work with my hon. Friends in that regard.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) talked about the strong opportunities for development in the private sector. I would add to that the £4.4 billion for the naval base at Devonport. We also have the excellent tool of the freeport that we can work on together to draw in investment, which I and my colleagues are very keen to do.
The subject of freeports takes me to the Essex coast and to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). He wanted to hear from this Dispatch Box a commitment to his community, and I can give him that commitment. Our renewed commitment to freeports, which we inherited from the previous Government, shows that we believe in the potential of his community. There are changes to local government coming, and the possibilities of devolution are outstanding, but I know— I will speak to this point later when I address the matter of a dedicated Minister—that his community has the skills, the knowledge and the experience to shape the area for the better and build it for the days ahead. Our commitment is to give it the power and the tools to do so, and I am very happy to recommit to that today.
Ms Billington
Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government understand that there is a clear distinction between the challenges in rural communities and those in coastal ones? I noticed that the Liberal Democrat spokesman used the words “coastal” and “rural” almost completely interchangeably, and we know that the levels of deprivation and the challenges in coastal communities are significantly different from those in rural communities. Can he give me that confirmation from the Government?
Alex Norris
That is an important point. Rural communities can be coastal communities and vice versa, but not always, and their challenges manifest very differently. The challenges that come from being a community at the end of the line can be significant and profound, and we absolutely accept that.
I turn to the point that the hon. Member for North Norfolk made about having a dedicated Minister. As other colleagues have said, I think he is selling himself short. The reality is that this is not about having a Minister in government pulling the lever for North Norfolk, Hamble Valley or anywhere else to transform its community. This is an inside job. The promise from this Government is to shift power and resource from this place to those communities, so that they can change things for themselves. We have made a down payment with our plan for neighbourhoods, which covers Peterhead, for example. I hear some of the frustrations, but giving communities power and resources is a way to rebalance things, and it will enable them to change things for themselves. Of the 75 areas in the plan for neighbourhoods, 25 are coastal, which will mean a £500 million commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) talked about the independent commission on neighbourhoods, and much of its work is reflected in what we have done.
I say gently to the Opposition spokesperson that we want to move away from the broken begging bowl culture of levelling-up funds, where communities were pitted against each other, to more long-term sustained funding based on the needs of a community. The money is one thing, but, for me, the power is the real thing, and it underpins our plan for change. I am talking about the shift of power from this place to our local communities that we are seeing through devolution. We already have five elected mayors representing coastal areas, with two more still to come in May—Hull and East Yorkshire and Greater Lincolnshire. That gives those communities powers over housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more, so that they can shape their areas.
Six more areas are coming down the line, including five coastal communities in the devolution priority programme. That is a shift of money and power from this place to coastal communities to take on the challenges that they have had in the past and, in partnership with central Government, to build very exciting futures—be they in tourism, in climate or in housing. That is what this Government offer. That is what the future offers, and that is something to be really excited about.
Steff Aquarone
I am immensely grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions and for echoing my call. I want to mention a couple of points that I thought were exceptionally noteworthy. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the pride and opportunities in their areas, not just the challenges. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke about the challenge of being asset custodians of piers and other such things. I was delighted to hear the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington) talk about the opportunities for skills development and young people.
Time does strange things in coastal communities. I leave hon. Members with a final image that I thought of as I listened to colleagues: the volunteer lifeboat crews off the North Norfolk and how much they do to support and protect all of us in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered coastal communities.
Face-to-face GP Appointments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to hold this Adjournment debate on face-to-face appointments with GPs. I ask hon. Members listening and watching to go back to October 2023 and imagine that they have abdominal pain and some blood loss. They seek a GP appointment and they are given a telephone appointment. They are given a diagnosis of endometriosis and prescribed some painkillers. This diagnosis, sadly, turns out to be incorrect.
They then move forward, still in pain, to mid-December 2023. They receive a letter with a gynaecological appointment for the end of January 2024. But they are still in deep pain. The pain intensifies. Their husband rushes them to the urgent treatment centre at Pilgrim hospital, where a doctor sees them and reaffirms the diagnosis of endometriosis. The doctor says, “As you are being looked after by a GP, there’s nothing more I should do.”
Over the next two weeks, the pain intensifies, to the point where at the end of December 2023, they are rushed to A&E. It is just before new year. They are told to come back for tests on 2 January 2024. Those tests reveal some problems and some lesions around the liver. They are put on a two-week cancer pathway with more tests, CT scans, MRI scans and an endoscopy. On 2 February, they are given the results of those tests. Sadly, the cancer has spread to such a degree that nothing more can be done. Just three days later, they pass away.
It is impossible to imagine or to understand this, but it is the tragic story of Laura Barlow, aged just 33, the mother of three young daughters: Summer Skye, Bonnie Rae and Bella-Mia. Her husband Michael Barlow is here in the Gallery with friends. His campaign, after the tragic loss of his wife Laura, is for more face-to-face appointments, and for patients to have the right to one if they feel they need it.
It is worth looking at the context of face-to-face appointments in our healthcare system. Going back some six years to 2019, around 80% of all GP appointments were face to face. According to NHS England, for the last two months, the figure is just over 64%. How do we compare to other nations? In European nations with different healthcare systems, the average is 84% or 85%. We have some 20% fewer face-to-face appointments than some of our international peers.
I am just a layman, not a doctor, but it must be common sense that an experienced, highly skilled, professional GP looking a patient in the eye to physically assess them face to face must give patients the greatest chance of a correct diagnosis. Sometimes, a GP will spot something that the patient was not even aware of.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. GP face-to-face appointments are a massive issue in my constituency, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are probably inundated with constituents asking about the same thing. People —more often than not, elderly people—phone the emergency number at half-past 8 in the morning and hold on till 5 past 9. After they have held the phone for 35 minutes, a voice says, “By the way, you’re too late.” The system is not working. To be fair to the Minister, I understand that changes are coming. We need to know what they are, and whether they will improve the system. If they do not do so to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, my constituents and me, something is drastically wrong, and that needs to be addressed immediately.
Richard Tice
The hon. Member makes some excellent points. There is clearly a place for telephone appointments. When researching the topic in more detail, I was astonished to find that of the gap between the 64% or 65% of face-to-face appointments and 100%, telephone appointments represent some 25% and Zoom or Teams appointments are just 5% to 7%. I would have thought it would have been the opposite. Surely it is better if GPs can see the pain that might be etched on a patient’s face.
We can look at the broader context—at what is happening to our population, and to the number of GPs, and at the pressures on GPs—and ask: is that why the percentage of face-to-face appointments has collapsed so significantly? In England, there are 6.5 million more people than in 2015—an increase of some 17%. Interestingly, the number of GP appointments increased in that period by a similar percentage, give or take; it went from just over 300 million appointments to over 360 million appointments. In fairness, and with due credit, there has been a recent increase, month on month, in GP appointments, which is to be commended, but it seems strange that the number of full-time, fully qualified GPs has barely moved in those 10 years. It is true that there are more trainee doctors and trainee GPs in the system, but the number of fully qualified, full-time-equivalent GPs has basically stayed static. That means, of course, that the number of patients that a GP has on their books has increased significantly, from over 1,900 per GP to over 2,300 per GP. We can therefore understand the increase in pressure on them. Given those health needs, they will feel the need to see as many people as possible, so we can see the temptation to hold telephone or Zoom appointments.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that there is a place for telephone appointments if a GP is giving guidance and support, or making a referral, but that any diagnosis should be made face to face?
Richard Tice
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. This comes back to the basic concept of common sense. It must be easier for a GP to make the correct diagnosis when seeing someone face to face. We all make mistakes, but when our medical professionals on the frontline, whom we all admire, are under pressure and tired, and they make mistakes, that can have devastating, life-changing consequences.
We will never know the difference it may have made if Laura had the correct diagnosis in October 2023, but it must be right to give all patients the best opportunity. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who I have interacted with in the Chamber, is absolutely determined to make reforms across the healthcare system. He has started actively, abolishing NHS England, making changes to the Department, and doing much more. That brings me to what else can be done.
We can look at the pressures on GPs. I was astonished to read that almost 50% of all GPs are thinking of retiring in the next five years. Almost 50% of them cite the increased pressure of bureaucracy, paperwork and administration. Surely we want our trained GPs in front of patients; we do not want their time being absorbed by unnecessary burdens and paperwork. If that is driving our GPs away from the noble profession of curing and helping people, we have to look again. I hope the Health Secretary, the Minister and colleagues will drive a change in processes.
When I was with people in my constituency of Boston and Skegness recently, doing more research, I was astonished by what I found when I spoke to a GP and liaised with her. She gave me some examples of bureaucracy clogging up the system. For example, if a GP refers a patient to a consultant in hospital, and the consultant says, “Yes, the patient needs this, but I also need to refer them to another speciality just down the corridor in the same hospital,” that cannot be done directly. The consultant has to write back to the GP. That letter goes through the post, with a hundred other letters a day. Then the GP has to refer the patient back to a different consultant, with that different speciality, down the corridor in the hospital. That lacks common sense.
It appears that if the consultant wants to prescribe medication to the patient who has been referred, they are unable to do that directly; they have to refer back to the GP, who has to spend more time providing the prescription. That appears to lack common sense. If the consultant wants to request blood tests, on many occasions that will have to be referred back to the GP, by letter or maybe by email, so that the GP can request those tests. All that leads not only to delay for the patient, and to time being consumed, but to more work for the GP, who we all surely want to see more patients face to face.
There are other situations that seem to be clogging up the system. Take our old friend GDPR. It is well-intentioned, but when I went to a pharmacy in Boston a few weeks back, the pharmacist said, “We have the same software system as the GP surgery, right next door to us in the same building, but because we have different modules, and because GDPR does not let the modules talk to each other, it leads to increased delays and a lack of productivity and, for patients, a lower-quality service.” They went on: “We could do so much more. We could relieve the GPs of some of the work they are doing, so that they could see the patient face to face.”
Then, a week later, I was in a care home in Boston, with carers and experts in the room. We were talking through the issues. They said, “There are processes and procedures that we can do that we are not allowed to do, so a GP has to do it; or we have to request an ambulance from the hospital, clogging up ambulance waiting lists or clogging up A&E corridors, when we could do those procedures.” Again, the great concept of common sense cannot be applied. I think we all know that we can do so much better than that.
Then there is the issue of referrals. When a GP makes a referral to a consultant, that referral often gets assessed by a non-clinician as to whether it is correct. I would have thought that we should be able to trust highly trained, highly skilled professional GPs and back their judgment on the frontline. If they think someone needs to be referred to a consultant, surely that does not need double or triple-checking. Again, that delays good patient care and causes more blockages for the GP, more admin and more paperwork.
Then there are our friends at the Care Quality Commission: an important supervisory process and concept. I hear about the processes, the box-ticking, the patient panels—all that is just more admin, more time and more resources consumed outside the core function of face-to-face treatment and care for patients. It therefore seems that this is not a party political issue, but one of driving continuous improvement in our healthcare system, and of the Department, as it moves forward with the reforms we all want to see, saying, “Actually, let’s look at all the processes. How do we reduce the blockages? How do we remove any unnecessary paperwork and burdens? How do we improve the technology?”
Indeed, artificial intelligence, which is so recent, is a huge opportunity for healthcare and technology in healthcare, and for GPs to, for example, double-check or triple-check their own diagnoses. These are great opportunities facing us, but most fundamental of all, we must give our GPs every support, every ease of progress and the right technological assistance behind the scenes in the back office, so they can face all of us when we are unwell and need treatment, because that is when they can use their experience, wisdom and knowledge to get to the right diagnosis.
It would be a tribute to Laura—it would be her legacy—for patients to have the right to see a GP face to face. Easing the processes would make life easier for GPs and would make them want to stay in the profession, because they know that face to face they will achieve a great and noble cause and good.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for raising GP access, which is a vital matter to many of our constituents. I want to start by paying tribute to Laura Barlow’s family, friends and loved ones and to her husband Michael, who is in the Gallery. It is a terrible tragedy that Laura’s cancer was not caught earlier, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the significant number of people who signed the petition shows real strength of feeling on this heartbreaking case.
When people are asked what their top priority for the NHS is, the chances are they will say, “Fix general practice” because GPs are the front door to our national health service. They are the first port of call for millions of people, and they perform a vital service by delivering care in communities across our country. Let me be crystal clear from this Dispatch Box: GPs must provide face-to-face appointments, alongside remote consultations. Online services must always be provided in addition to, rather than as a replacement for, in-person consultations. Patients have a right to request a face-to-face appointment, and practices must make every effort to meet their preference unless there are good clinical reasons to the contrary, such as in cases where the patient tests positive for an infectious disease.
There are clear benefits to attending an appointment in person. GPs pick up cues from body language and foster a more personal relationship with their patients, and that is important if we are to bring back the family doctor. Last year, GPs delivered 380 million appointments throughout England. Two thirds of those were in person, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the figures for his integrated care board in Lincolnshire are in line with the national average at 65%. It is possible that, in some practices, defaulting to remote appointments was a temporary and necessary measure during the pandemic, but in some cases, that may have become a habit that has become difficult to shake. Let us be clear that this is not the fault of GPs per se; it is the fault of the last Government, which left them underfunded, understaffed and in crisis. That is why we are doing everything we can to remedy the downward spiral that GP services have found themselves in after 14 years of Tory neglect and failure.
I was absolutely delighted that the general practitioners committee England voted in favour of this year’s GP contract last month. It is the first time that the contract has been accepted in four long years. The reformed contact agreed between the Government and the GPC will improve services for patients, make progress towards our health mission and, crucially, require practices to make it possible for patients to go online to request an appointment throughout the duration of core opening hours. That will free up time for patients who prefer to call or visit in person.
Those changes are backed by an extra £889 million, representing a cash growth of more than 7% in overall contract investment, bringing total spend on the GP contract to £13.2 billion this financial year. That is the largest uplift to GP funding in a generation, and it means we are beginning to reverse a decade of a dwindling share of NHS resources going to general practice.
It is not just about resource and funding, however. We are bulldozing bureaucracy for GPs, so that they spend less time pushing paper and more time seeing patients like Laura. We are training thousands more GPs, modernising the booking system, ending the 8 am scramble and bringing back the family doctor. Those measures should make it possible for GPs to guarantee a face-to-face appointment for all who want one.
The Government are committed to shifting the focus of our NHS from hospital to community. We will move towards a neighbourhood health service, improve continuity of care for those who would benefit from seeing the same clinician regularly, which is associated with better health outcomes and fewer A&E attendances, and we will drive the shift from analogue to digital by ensuring that all practices are employing the full functionality of GP Connect.
Let me turn to cancer. The Government are determined to tackle the biggest killers. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has announced that a national cancer plan for England will be published later this year. The plan will put patients at its heart and will cover the entirety of the cancer pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care. It will seek to improve every aspect of cancer care and the experience and outcomes for people with cancer. Our goal is to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer over the next 10 years. The plan will spell out how we will improve outcomes for cancer patients, speed up diagnosis and treatment and ensure patients have access to the latest treatments and technology. We will bring this country’s survival rates back up to the best in the world.
Our NHS belongs to the people. Those are not just my words; they are in the NHS constitution. Fourteen years of Tory failure left our NHS broken but not beaten. Everything this Government have done since the election has been geared towards saving the NHS and giving it back to the people. We are putting power back in patient hands, because it is their health service and it must work for them. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced reforms that will shift power away from the centre. Patient choice is at the heart of this Government’s commitment to build an NHS fit for the future, and all patients should be offered face-to-face appointments when it is in their best interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 14 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Government amendment 1 lets the Secretary of State make regulations that determine the date, or dates, when clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 come into force. The other provisions of the Bill in clauses 9 to 14 come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.
This amendment seeks to overturn the amendment passed in the other place that places a 12-month delay between the creation of Skills England and commencement of key parts of the Bill, including the clauses that transfer functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to be exercised by Skills England. It was hugely disappointing that, despite broad support for the urgent need for reform, peers in the other place voted for that delay. Reform is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver. After 14 long years of complacency and neglect, this Government are driving high standards, and we have a plan for change. A delay will benefit no one.
Skills England is already operating in shadow form and, once the Bill is passed, it stands ready to become a fully operational arm’s length body. The leadership is already in place, with the chair, the vice-chair, the chief executive officer, the deputy CEO and a full team of senior civil servants already working as one. The work is well under way; Skills England reported on skill gaps in September last year. It is connecting decision making across regional and national Government, as well as working closely with training providers, trade unions and employers. It is collaborating with businesses to develop sector plans for the forthcoming industrial strategy.
Skills England is working with closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to access skills needs to identify shortages in occupations. That will help to identify and grow our domestic skills pipeline over time, which will reduce our reliance on overseas workers. We need to build our own skilled workforce, and Skills England is moving ahead. The Bill gives it some of its key tools, but there is no case for delay, and I commend Government amendment 1 to the Committee.
Government amendment 2 would remove clause 14(2) of the Bill. It is normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords to require the insertion of a standard privilege amendment such as subsection (2). This formally recognises the privilege of this House to control charges on people and public funds. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedure, we now remove the privilege amendment so that any such charge is imposed by this House, rather than the House of Lords. I commend Government amendment 2 to the Committee.
Clause 11 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions contained within the Bill. This is a standard clause for all legislation. Clauses 1 to 7, clause 9 and schedule 2 extend to England and Wales. Clause 8 extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 10 to 14 and schedules 1 and 3 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I have already touched upon clause 12 as part of Government amendment 1, which states when the provisions of the Bill will come into effect. Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill, as amended by Government amendment 1. Furthermore, as is standard practice, clause 14 gives the Bill a short title by which it may be known once it becomes an Act. The short title given is the
“Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025.”
I commend clauses 11, 12 and 14 to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Clause 11 talks about the geographical extent of the Bill, which it says is England and Wales. This is a very small point, but it is worth noting that the Bill and decisions under it will actually affect other parts of the UK as well, not least because they affect degree apprenticeships and higher education. For example, the University of Strathclyde is a leading provider of graduate apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships across Scotland and England; I will return to that overlap later on.
On a more substantive note, Government amendment 1 seeks to overturn the one-year pause inserted in the House of Lords. Why did peers insert that? Why was there so much debate, and such wariness about this Bill? First, because there were good reasons that standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. We heard from all parts of the House of Lords that this Bill is a centralisation and, alongside other changes the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships, starting with the Budget. Rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. It is abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago—yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues.
Thirdly, peers had—and we have—real concerns that the reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s impact assessment, which states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:
“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill…This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”
Fourthly, peers inserted the delay because of concerns about what will happen as DFE tries to absorb all the staff of IfATE. Lord Blunkett, who was one of the most interesting speakers in the Lords, said:
“My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200…there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.
When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”
He continued:
“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
That argument is somewhat different from the others. His argument, as somebody sympathetic to the creation of a body like Skills England, albeit outside the Department, is that it needs time to establish its own culture and balance, and to grow and develop some roots, before the IfATE elephant steps into the Skills England rowing boat.
Since we last met as a Committee, we have received further written evidence from the Skills Federation, which brings together 18 employer-led sector skills bodies, representing more than 150,000 employers. They add their voices to the concerns. The organisation warns:
“Transfer of IfATE functions risks disruption and a focus on operational rather than strategic priorities…The movement of functions and the people that carry them out will always be challenging. It is important that the transfer is planned effectively, and the time taken to think through the implications for IfATE staff, but also the impact on the system. Compromises will no doubt have to be made to balance the need for pace with the requirement to retain operational continuity.
However, there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”
That is a direct reinforcement of the argument that Lord Blunkett made in the Lords. It is very sensible advice to take our time.
In contrast to employers’ groups, Ministers say there is no time to wait. In truth, there is no great obstacle to the Department doing all the things it might want to do, and establishing Skills England a little bit more before that big transfer of staff, but Ministers want to take this one-year pause out of the Bill with their Government amendment 1. They would be wiser to listen to the grey-haired people in their own party, such as Lord Blunkett, but it seems they are not minded to do that.
This group also includes Government amendment 2 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment. For the benefit of those following the proceedings, as the Minister said, the Lords automatically insert these amendments when there is legislation starting in the Lords that involves levies and taxpayers’ money, to avoid formal infringement of the Commons’ privileges over those things.
There is nothing unusual about that, but the privilege amendment is put in as a deliberate reminder that the Bill has a significant impact on spending of both levy and taxpayers’ money. The sums involved here are non-trivial—it is billions of pounds of spending, governed by IfATE today and by the Department for Education in future. The ongoing chronic uncertainty about the Government’s plans to allow employers to take money out of apprenticeships is not just damaging for business—it is damaging on a significant scale.
In the last Bill Committee sitting, the Minister promised to write to me to set out the Government’s position on the 50% flexibility. I hope she will tell me today when that letter is likely to appear, because businesses are starting to raise the alarm ever louder.
Since the Committee last met, even more businesses have come out with criticisms. Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses.” She said that some employers had told the BCC that they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future. She called on the Government to lay out a clear timeline for reform and said that threats to cut the levy before it had even been established are “worrying and destabilising”.
Likewise, Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said:
“there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years…Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.”
That is a very important warning.
This is all happening against a backdrop where other types of technical education covered by IfATE are shrinking too. I am old enough to remember when Labour MPs spent years saying that adult skills spending was not generous enough—yet yesterday we learned that the DFE is to cut adult skills budgets by 6%. Amazingly, that came out at the same time as the welfare reform Green Paper, which overshadowed it and mentioned training 18 times. In the Chamber the other day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an argument—a good argument—that it is better to get people into training rather than parking them on benefits; yet elsewhere, at the very same moment, DFE Ministers were cutting the training budget.
Skills England was supposed to bring a joined-up approach to policymaking. There is not much sign of that here. Instead, it will reinforce the concerns of those who want technical education to be more independent and employer-led.
I ask the Minister a specific question on the funding that IfATE regulates. Yesterday, we got an announcement on schools funding. The Association of School and College Leaders and the Confederation of School Trusts are warning that the funding only covers part of the costs of the national insurance increase and is leaving schools with a funding gap ranging from 10% to 35%—but at least schools are getting the funding announcement before the start of the financial year, albeit only days before.
Technical education is not so lucky. Colleges and 16-19 institutions will have to wait. They will be told their allocations this May and will be paid in September, even though they will have to start making the increased tax payments from the start of the new financial year in just a few days’ time. As James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association points out:
“16 to 19 funding is uncertain at the best of times, but this year colleges are also waiting for their post-16 budget grant allocations (scheduled for May) and a decision on the 10 per cent T-level uplift…This is all very late in the day”.
He is right. Once again, technical education is being treated as the poor relation.
We already know that independent training providers and specialist colleges will not get any compensation, and it is unclear how much of next month’s national insurance rise will be covered by the grant. Can the Minister stand up and reassure the sector today that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the grant? Or will they, like schools, find that they have been short-changed?
I will not labour the point, but many people, including employer groups and very experienced people on the Labour side, have warned about the rush to bring these powers and functions into the Department and the effect that that will have on the Government’s own plans for Skills England. Ministers would be sensible to listen.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, for these proceedings today. I rise to speak against Government amendment 1 and, by extension, in defence of clause 12 as it came out of the other place.
To be clear, we want Skills England to succeed, and clause 12 as drafted will help Skills England to succeed. It is a breathing space clause, allowing Skills England to operate for a year before it has to absorb IfATE’s functions. The Minister just described it as disappointing that this clause was inserted by the other place. I do not think it is disappointing at all. It is a very good thing. It is not anti-Skills England. It is a pro-Skills England clause to give the new body its best chance of success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and I did not confer in preparing our notes for this morning, but I, like him, was very struck by what another former Sheffield MP, the noble Lord Blunkett, said in the other place. He noted that with the transfer of functions, close to 200 people would transfer from IfATE over to Skills England and, in his words,
“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
Skills England has a really important function to perform. Were it to be hampered in that because of operational complexities and difficulties, that would be deeply regrettable. To understand why this is significant, it is important to note that Skills England and IfATE have different shapes—as an analogy, think about different depths and breadths. Skills England will, at least initially, prioritise 10 sectors: the eight sectors identified as growth-driving sectors in the industrial strategy. Added to those we have construction and health and care, which are also essential to some of the Government’s other missions—so eight plus two makes 10. It will develop skills needs assessments for each of those 10 priority sectors to feed into the industrial strategy planning process.
In the noble Baroness Smith’s very helpful letter to peers on 18 March, she says that work is under way on the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy. That begs the question: what about the other two? They are also identified as being crucial to Government missions. Another question: what about the other volume sectors of employment in the economy? I worked in hospitality for almost 20 years before coming to this place. Hospitality is a fundamental part of our economy; hospitality and retail along with care form the biggest employers in our country. There is sometimes a danger with being mission-led that, if something falls slightly outside the scope of the mission, it gets slightly overlooked. I know that many in those sectors would be keen to hear more about that.
On top of the three big volume sectors of hospitality, retail and care, we could also add admin and support—four sectors that collectively historically have accounted for about a quarter of gross value added in this country, but account for about three quarters of the people in the country who are low paid. For many social justice and equality reasons, those sectors need to have proper focus.
That is what Skills England is currently planning to do. IfATE does something rather different and is on a different scale. That goes back to what I was saying about the difference between depth and breadth. IfATE creates and maintains over 600 occupational standards for apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications. It works with employers to develop, approve and review occupational standards. It creates and maintains the occupational maps, which group together occupations into 15 routes. It approves, reviews and ensures the quality of approved technical qualifications and their alignment with the occupational standards, and it develops, reviews and approves apprenticeship standards.
Skills England is initially looking at a narrower set of sectors, but with a much broader remit for those sectors; that is what I mean about the difference between breadth and depth. It does more than IfATE, and each of the additional things will, in its own right, take a lot of work to properly establish. That is why I say that clause 12 as currently drafted is a pro-Skills England clause: it seeks to give Skills England the best opportunity to achieve those ends.
Each of the three elements of Skills England’s remit is big. It will, first, identify where skills gaps exist and, secondly, work with the Industrial Strategy Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to address them. Those are the two bodies that have typically been mentioned in the Government documentation, although recently Ministers have also started mentioning, importantly—it should not be overlooked—the Labour Market Advisory Board, which the noble Baroness Smith spoke about in the House of Lords recently. Thirdly, Skills England is to identify the training that is accessible via the growth and skills levy. Each of those is a very large undertaking that will take time to establish.
Let us take them in turn. First, Skills England will identify skills gaps. On the face of it, that might sound straightforward, but it is not. The first question is: what constitutes a skills gap, and what level of detail are we talking about? Are these individual job roles, groups of job roles or industries? It is also necessary to distinguish between skills that need to be provided systemically, in our education and training system, and skills that firms themselves should be able to train for.
We all know that filling vacancies can be difficult. In my constituency, which has had very low levels of unemployment over the past 10 years or so, it is the No. 1 thing that businesses talk about. It is obviously related to skills gaps, but it is not necessarily the same thing as skills being absent. The Minister talked about the need to home-grow our labour, but a key question for firms that are importing labour—this is relevant to some of the sectors I mentioned—is whether they can be persuaded to make the investment and take on, in some cases, the risks involved in not bringing in labour from abroad. That is a question for individual firms. It is also a question for some whole sectors or sub-sectors.
A real example is social care. Most people would say that it is perfectly possible to train people up to work in social care, but for a potentially complex set of reasons—I do not intend to go into it today, and we do not have time for it—people do not want to go into social care. When business leaders complain to us about the lack of skills, they are typically not talking about the sorts of things that can be certificated. They do not say, “Not enough people have grade C or above GCSE maths,” and they do not say that not enough people have a BTec in such and such or an apprenticeship in something else. They mostly talk about soft skills, or what are called soft skills—some soft skills really are soft skills, but some of them are what in business terms are more properly called behaviours: self-discipline, turning up to work on time and so on. It is not clear to me how that set of soft skills—in my experience, the No. 1 thing that businesses talk about—relates to the work of Skills England.
To come back to the specific questions about the skills required for particular sectors or individual job roles, there is also the question of how far into the future Skills England is looking. Is it talking about how we fill the skills gaps we have today, or about the future effect of artificial intelligence on the labour market, and what we should be planning for 10 or 15 years hence?
There is also a question about the level of ambition. There is a certain set of skills required—craft skills and so on—to fill the vacancies we have today, as jobs exist today. But it is also true that this country has a productivity gap against the United States, Germany, France and others. By the way, that has been true every year since I have been alive—I think I said that last Thursday as well. I am 55 today—I do not mean it is my birthday today, but I am 55 now—so that is quite a long time. If we were being really ambitious, we would not ask what skills we need to fill the jobs that we have today, but what we need to do to make up that skills gap, and what skills are needed to fulfil that.
In identifying where skills gaps exist, Skills England will also have to deal with localities, because jobs exist in certain places. It will have to work with devolved Administrations and with mayors, and mayors will have their own views about the skills gaps in their areas. Will there be a hierarchy of analysis? At what level is Skills England going to identify gaps, and to what extent will that fall to the local area? I will come back to that later. It is also true—I have experienced this myself when talking about the adult education budget, for example, with mayors and local authorities—that, quite rightly and understandably, local governance structures and leaders often want more power to be devolved to their local area. Skills England will have to find its place in what can be a tense area.
There is also the question of LSIPs—local skills improvement plans and local skills improvement partnerships. In the debate on this subject in the other place, Lord Lucas said:
“The word I hear is that LSIPs have been a real success, as they are effective and flexible. It takes a couple of years for the DfE to evolve a qualification but LSIPs can do it in weeks, because they are so focused on the actual local employer need and work closely with a provider.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC125.]
The Liberal Democrat, Baroness Garden, said:
“I think it is important that the Secretary of State must set the priorities for LSIPs and review them regularly to ensure that their priorities are reflected in national strategies for the creation of standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC106.]
The Minister herself, Baroness Smith, said:
“LSIPs and the employer representative bodies that develop them will also provide important intelligence to Skills England to inform its assessment of national and regional skills, both now and in future. They will work with Skills England to resolve skills gaps.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC128.]
However, in her letter to peers two days ago, she wrote that Skills England is now—already—responsible for oversight of LSIPs and relationship management for all 38 of the designated employer representative bodies, but also that LSIPs will be a joint responsibility between mayoral authorities and those employer representative bodies.
Devolution is increasing, so the other part of the background is the English Devolution White Paper. At the same time as we are creating Skills England to be the uber skills authority in the land, the foreword to the White Paper, in the hand of none other than the Deputy Prime Minister herself, says:
“We will give Mayors strong new powers over...skills, employment support and more”.
The White Paper states:
“The majority of the Adult Skills Fund is devolved…but we need to go further”,
continuing:
“Strategic Authorities will take on joint ownership of the Local Skills Improvement Plan model, alongside Employer Representative Bodies, which set out the strategic direction for skills provision in an area.”
The question for Skills England, therefore, is how that will work in practice. Clearly, it will take a lot of time and work to make the new structures operational, at a time when the structures themselves are changing in so many areas, with the devolution White Paper being implemented. This is complicated architecture anyway, but potentially something is still missing: ultimately, how we match up demand and supply.
The Chair
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is slightly out of scope. I would be very grateful if he would just stick to the different clauses that we are debating today.
Damian Hinds
I am very grateful for your guidance, Ms Furniss, and of course I will ensure I do. In my defence —obviously I am not arguing with your judgment— I am trying to illustrate the large number of things that this new body will have to figure out. As Lord Blunkett said, if, at the same time, it is taking on the enormous existing role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, with 200 people coming on board, that makes it harder to figure all these things out, with which I think we all wish the new body and its leadership the very best. But of course I take your judgment.
The Chair
Order. I am sure the right hon. Member wishes to hear the Minister fairly soon in response to his comments.
Damian Hinds
Of course I do, Ms Furniss. The different parts of Government that the new body will deal with include the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a well-established part of the machinery of Government but takes its commissions from the Home Secretary. This is a quote from gov.uk:
“The MAC bases all recommendations on what it sees as being in the interests of the resident population, taking account that migration has different effects on different groups.”
There will be conflicts between that aim and the aims of Skills England, and who will resolve those conflicts?
The new body will also work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which is an expert committee reporting to the Business Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is made up of experts, as the name suggests. Interestingly—we will perhaps come on to this in relation to some of the new clauses—the Government will legislate to establish that body
“in statute when Parliamentary time allows”,
which raises the question of why they will do so for that one and not Skills England. It suggests that there is perhaps a hierarchy of these bodies.
There is also the Labour Market Advisory Board. It reports to the DWP’s Secretary of State and its aim is to support the DWP
“to better understand the current state of the labour market, to help design policies and strategies to address key challenges”.
I will not go through all the things that it is supposed to do—[Interruption.] The Government Whip encourages me, but I would not risk your wrath, Ms Furniss, despite her best efforts.
Suffice it to say that there is again a cut-across, because of course, in terms of getting people back into work, which the DWP is focused on, there is some tension. Will Skills England be able to ask, for example, for changes in the conditionality regime operated by the DWP and the jobcentre network, to improve skill matching? Will there be better join-up between DWP work coaches and the National Careers Service?
Finally, the third thing the new body is to be responsible for is potentially the biggest and most controversial of all. In the rubric that the Government put forward, they said the new body would “identify the training” that is accessible via the growth and skills levy. I do not think they actually mean “identify”; I think they mean it will specify what is available to be paid for through the growth and skills levy. I will not go through all the arguments about the levy, but the new body will have to, and the 12 months envisaged under clause 12 would be a good time to do that. It will have to think about the levy’s real purpose and the distinction between firm-specific skills and training, sector-specific skills and training, and generic transferable skills and training. The levy’s purpose was to increase the total amount of investment in human capital in this country, to help our productivity gap and fill job vacancies, and the new body will need carry on with that purpose.
I hope I have given us a flavour—there is more—of the enormous strategic challenges and the enormous job of work for these very good people. There are some very encouraging signs in the appointments the Secretary of State has made, but what these people have to take on is enormous, and we want and need them to succeed in this endeavour. It would be far better to stage the approach, so that Skills England is established first, then takes on the great strategic roles working across Government and throughout the economy, and then, 12 months later, subsumes IfATE.
Janet Daby
The right hon. Member speaks of the enormous challenges; might I point out that the enormous challenges were left by the previous Government, which he was part of? The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston were both previously in the Government, so it is only right that I set the context of the failings of the previous Government before I attempt to respond to the many, many points, views, opinions and ideas that were offered.
To put it into context, the previous Government had 14 years to deal with the skills problems and the crisis we are facing today. UK employers reported that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. Would Members from the previous Government like to respond?
Damian Hinds
That is not really the way we do it in Parliament. You respond for the Government.
Neil O’Brien
We ask you a bunch of questions. I do not know whether you have noticed, but you are the Minister.
Janet Daby
Across the UK, almost one in 10 of more than 2.5 million roles in critical demand—
Janet Daby
More than 90% of those roles require periods of work-related training or education.
Janet Daby
The point I am making is that the last Government did not solve the skills shortages. The last Government held back growth and opportunity. This Government are moving forward. We want to boost skills through Skills England. The last Government prolonged uncertainty.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister encouraged us to intervene. One of the things Labour complained about a lot in opposition was what happened to the adult skills budget. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced a 6% cut in the adult skills budget? Can she explain how that fits with the Government’s constant rhetoric—as in the welfare cuts debate just the other day—about getting people out of unemployment and into training? How will a 6% cut help to move people from welfare into training?
Janet Daby
Ms Furniss, I fear we are straying far away from the purpose of the Bill and what needs to be achieved.
Janet Daby
I will continue to respond. Skills will power this mission-driven Government.
Janet Daby
This mission-driven Government have a plan for change. The need to boost Britain’s skill is crucial. We need skills to drive growth, to build homes, to deliver energy security and to build an NHS fit for the future. We want to move forward and make sure—
Janet Daby
I am sorry, Ms Furniss. This is very flustering.
As I said, we have had 14 years of complacency and neglect from the previous Government. Following the reforms they introduced, including the apprenticeship levy, apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than 30%. It is concerning that fewer young people are benefiting from apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts for those under 25 are down by almost 40%. That is why, since the Prime Minister announced it in July 2024, Skills England has been operating in shadow form in preparation for full establishment.
The teams responsible for Skills England’s broader strategic functions are already operational and are establishing links with their counterparts in IfATE. By combining the analytical and regional functions, it is already delivering in shadow form. Detailed transitional planning has taken place to ensure that the functions moving to Skills England from IfATE will transition smoothly with no break in service. The planned continuity in staffing and team structures will ensure that occupational standards, apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications will continue to be approved, and T-level contracts will continue to be delivered, supported and monitored.
This approach will also ensure that Skills England maintains the vital links with employers and other partners that IfATE teams have previously established. The Minister for Skills in the other place recently met many peers and went through many of the processes and functions under the Bill. He has outlined that in a letter that is available for the Committee.
The Government are focused on establishing a coherent skills system with more flexible training options to support employers to fill skills gaps while driving growth and spreading opportunity. Businesses are backing the Government’s mission to grow the economy by breaking down barriers to opportunity for young people through our planned reforms.
Neil O’Brien
Speaking of gaps, I wonder whether the Minister will answer my question. Will she stand up and reassure the sector that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the forthcoming national insurance contributions grant?
Janet Daby
I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to proceed further, because there is so much to say.
We have announced £300 million of additional revenue for further education, with £50 million available to sixth-form and further education colleges from April, to help to respond to priorities including workforce, recruitment and retention. We are offering up to £6,000 annually through the targeted retention incentive to attract and retain new teachers in critical subjects. We continue to support recruitment and retention through teacher training bursaries worth up to £31,000, tax free, in certain key subject areas. We are providing support for industry professionals to enter the FE teaching workforce through our Taking Teaching Further programme.
On Skills England’s relationship with the devolved Governments in the UK, its territorial scope is England only. The devolved authorities will be essential partners for it to ensure that our skill systems meet the skills needs of the whole UK labour market. It will be vital for us to work together openly and collaboratively. The Department for Education and shadow Skills England have engaged with the devolved Governments and the territorial offices, and there will be regular meetings.
In devolved areas, strategic authorities will play a stronger role in local skills improvement plans, working with a designated employer representative body. We are currently in the process of reviewing the geographies of LSIPs to ensure that, where possible, they align with the boundaries of devolved areas.
Damian Hinds
The Minister may be about to come to this, but what will be the relationship between LSIPs, and whatever strategies they draw up, and Skills England?
Janet Daby
As I have already said, the devolved areas will work on LSIPs with ERBs and maintain a close and strong relationship with Skills England.
LSIPs provide ongoing mechanisms through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and address skills needs and issues. This supports Skills England’s aim to have the skilled workforce the economy needs at a national, regional and local level.
In response to the question about the impact of national insurance costs on skills and education, the Government have agreed that public sector employers will receive support in recognition of the increase in their national insurance contributions from April 2025. We are also providing £155 million for post-16 schools, academies and further education colleges. That is an increase of over £1 billion in the financial year 2025-26 for the education sector.
Neil O’Brien
Will the Minister promise to publish the methodology of how the figure of £155 million was arrived at? Can she reassure the sector that that sum is enough to cover all the costs of the national insurance increase, including the costs for indirectly employed staff?
Janet Daby
I hear what the shadow Minister is saying and will endeavour to get more information to him on those points. He asked about the flexibility of apprenticeships and levies. I wrote to the Chairs of the Committee yesterday addressing his question, but I understand that that was only yesterday.
Janet Daby
Government amendment 1 is crucial to ensure that Skills England is not unnecessarily held back. Transformation is under way—businesses and employers cannot afford to wait. Government amendment 2 is a normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and clauses 11, 12 and 14.
Neil O’Brien
I meant no disrespect, Ms Furniss, but the Minister promised in the previous sitting that she would write to me. She may say that the letter has been sent, but it has not arrived. It is telling that the things we are debating will be written into law and I have still not—
The Chair
Order. My point was that you were talking from a sedentary position. You had sat down and should have asked to intervene again.
Neil O’Brien
I take your point, Ms Furniss. We are keen to move on to a vote on Government amendment 1, which we think is a big mistake. We have already explained why—I will not recapitulate that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Commencement
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert
“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”. —(Janet Daby.)
This amendment provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Janet Daby
Clause 13 contains provisions to ensure continuity and consistency of functions that are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State. This will allow functions already performed by IfATE to be treated as having been done by the Secretary of State. It includes a provision enabling the Secretary of State to continue things that are in the process of being done in relation to IfATE, immediately before the function was transferred. These will also ensure smooth commencement of the new legislation and transition from existing legislation. These functions may only become clear closer to when the functions are transferred.
Therefore, clause 13 includes a power to address this by way of regulations. Without this clause, there will be no statutory way of ensuring the smooth transition of the functions carried out by IfATE under the current legislation, to the Secretary of State under the new legislation.
Neil O’Brien
This clause is just a reminder that we are trying to make major changes to the engine of our skills system, while the engine is still running. I have already quoted from the Government impact assessment, pointing out that the impact of transition will be to slow down apprenticeship approval numbers—I will not recapitulate that. I will come back later to the challenges these changes to the engine while the engine is still running will cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Janet Daby.)
This amendment removes the Lords’ privilege amendment.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report containing draft proposals for the establishment of a new executive agency, to be known as “Skills England”, responsible for the powers transferred under this Act.
(2) A copy of this Report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Within forty days of a Report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must ensure resolutions are tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the Government’s draft proposals.
(4) If the draft proposals are rejected by either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must, within a period of six months, lay a report containing revised proposals before Parliament, and, within a period of forty days after laying the revised proposals, table a motion before each House of Parliament to approve the revised proposals.
(5) The Secretary of State may not establish an executive agency to carry out the functions transferred under this Act until it has secured, through a motion under subsection (3) or (4), the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
(6) If a motion under subsection (3) or (4) is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make an annual statement in each House of Parliament on the work of the agency.
(7) Within twelve months of a motion under subsection (3) or (4) being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effectiveness of the “Skills England” governance structure in delivering on the organisation's aims and objectives.”—(Ian Sollom.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work.
The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements. The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister.
New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year.
The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do. But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all.
We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position. I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.
Neil O’Brien
I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for a new executive agency, to be known as Skills England, before Parliament within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent.
Complexity and fragmentation within the skills systems are contributing to critical skill gaps in our economy. We need to urgently reform the delivery of skills and technical education without delay—I cannot stress that enough. After 14 years of inaction, we really need to get on with the job and build back the foundations. We plan to establish Skills England as an executive agency requiring a robust and rigorous process. That process applies across Government for all executive agencies. As with all new executive agencies, the approval of the creation of Skills England will be announced to Parliament in a written ministerial statement to both Houses. In line with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will all be accountable to Parliament, and could appear before Select Committees if invited.
The broader governance and accountability framework in which Skills England will operate will be set out in the framework document. All arm’s length bodies have such a core constitutional document, which must be approved by the Treasury. The framework document will detail how Skills England will regularly report on its functions and performance, including by publishing a corporate plan and annual report.
There is a high level of interest among Skills England’s stakeholders, such as the Association of Colleges, which has expressed strong support for the plans to establish Skills England, recognising the critical role it will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda. We have listened to and acted on the contributions of peers in the other place, which is why we have provided even greater transparency about what Skills England will do. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to report within six months of IfATE’s closure. The report will detail which functions are being exercised by Skills England and the impact on apprenticeships and technical education in England. The new clause is therefore not necessary.
We need to address the urgent skills challenges in our economy. There is already a robust approach to establishing and running an executive agency, and the Government have included in the Bill a legislative commitment to a report on Skills England’s functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to reconsider.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for her response. In the interests of time—and lunch—I will not go into detail. I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 3—Framework for Skills England—
“The Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to—
(i) the need to ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality;
(ii) the need to ensure that education and training within the remit of Skills England represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(b) ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively;
(c) give notice in writing to Skills England when setting out other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions;
(d) publish, in such a manner as they think fit, any notice under paragraph (c), and lay a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament;
(e) require Skills England to prepare, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report which includes—
(i) a description of what Skills England has done during the year, including a description of what Skills England has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c);
(ii) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct;
(f) lay a copy of the annual report under paragraph (e) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
Clearly, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has had precisely the same thought that we have, and indeed as many other educators, peers and businesses have had, namely that we should make the Bill actually do what the Government try to pretend that it does: set up Skills England.
As I said in the last sitting, the Bill, as introduced, did not even mention Skills England, the reason for which is that it is part of the Department for Education—in fact, its chief executive officer is a pair of DFE civil servants. Ministers have made their case for this in-sourcing, as they think it will make things faster, and we have made our case for using independents, but so have lots of others. For example, as the Labour peer Baroness Blower pointed out,
“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]
That is the effect of new clause 2; the powers that would be transferred to the Secretary of State would instead be vested in Skills England. The Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:
“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]
That is effectively what new clause 3 would do.
In the previous sitting, I quoted from various industry bodies that are making the case for independence, including the Institute of the Motor Industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. Since then, further evidence has been submitted to the Committee by those on the education side. The University of Winchester, in its submission to the Committee, highlights “four core concerns”, one of which is about independence. It says:
“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body. We believe that the integration within the Department for Education (DfE) is a significant risk, with the current regulatory body being completely independent of external leverage. The current IfATE structure includes a regulatory board which is independent from the DfE, ensuring that outside influence is minimised within the decision-making process. We are, therefore, recommending that Skills England is structured to ensure and protect their regulatory independence from Government and other agencies”.
That is the spirit of our new clauses.
The University of Winchester also worries that in IfATE, at present,
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous. Within the current proposed bill, we believe this breadth will be at risk given the transfer of power from IfATE to an individual in the Secretary of State for Education. This transfer has the potential to lead to situations where ministers can create and/or change standards and assessment plans without consultation with the relevant stakeholders, resulting in apprenticeships which are not fit for purpose or academically appropriate.”
It also notes:
“Currently, IfATE as a regulatory body highlights the importance of technical education, through both its name and its work. The proposed legislation will effectively remove the prominence of this important aspect of industry, undermining its activities and relegating it to the background.”
The university is completely right. Setting up an institute was a core part of the drive to create greater prestige and esteem for technical education, and our new clauses aim to restore that degree of independence from the Secretary of State.
New clause 3(c) and (e)(i) also try to highlight, via an annual report, how the Secretary of State is steering Skills England, and how the body is responding to that. I mentioned earlier the Skills Federation’s submission to the Committee, which brings together 18 employer-led skills bodies and 150,000 employers. Its submission notes:
“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand…Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs.”
Surely that is right, which is why we propose a degree of decentralisation with these new clauses.
In a previous sitting, the Minister made the argument that the Secretary of State might need to write standards directly without external input from a group of people in fast-moving and technology sectors. We argued, in contrast, that those are precisely the kind of exciting sectors where industry input, rather than just ministerial enthusiasm, is most needed. That same argument was made to the Committee by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium—the international professional body for cybersecurity—which wrote:
“While ISC2 understands that Government is seeking to introduce flexibility and agility in the way apprenticeship standards are developed, we contend that without industry involvement in the development of standards, there is a risk that apprenticeships may not adequately reflect the evolving needs of certain sectors. This is especially true for cybersecurity where a changing threat landscape and dramatic shifts brought about by emerging technologies means that apprenticeship standards must stay relevant. It is essential that the voice of professionals and industry, as well as those directly involved in delivering educational provision, be heard whenever the Secretary of State exercises these new powers. Any decision to intervene and directly develop or approve apprenticeship standards or assessment plans should take into account the perspectives of those with hands-on expertise in the sector.”
That is surely right.
We have already voted on a very similar new clause to this—new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire—so we will not press this to a vote. But I want to log the concerns that are being raised by professionals and those in industry about the lack of independence, and I do hope—even though I suspect that the Government will not change their mind about bringing this into the Department—that they can at least find ways in its operating procedures and the way it evolves to try to create that sense of independence, and reassure all those who are worried about the idea of the Secretary of State taking the powers in this Bill to go it alone and write things without the input of those who are actually working in the sector.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. He is right; of course, we have just voted on something quite similar, and that vote was lost by the classic 11 to four margin, with which we have become familiar. But that does not mean the Government cannot do this, and indeed there have been some signs and indications that they might make Skills England a fully independent body on a statutory footing. Most people talk about Skills England in their speeches, but that is not what the Bill, as introduced, does; it abolishes something without actually creating something else, and hands the powers to the Secretary of State, in whose gift it is to hand on.
There was also the question that came up last Thursday about Ofqual, and what the Bill does to that, which I do not think we were 100% clear about. I think the Minister was going to write, but I do not think I have seen that letter—that is not to say it has not come, or been sent, but I am wondering if when the Minister comes to speak, if she could confirm whether that letter has come.
There have always been two fundamental questions about the Bill and the creation of Skills England: the first is about independence, and the second is about who should set the expectations and standards for various occupations—should it be the employers in those organisations or somebody else? There is also a third point, which is relevant to independence, about the heft of this body, putting skills right at the heart of cross-departmental work, and what statutory independence would do to the status of this body.
Particularly in education and training, one of the reasons that we have independent bodies is so that everybody knows that the standards are robust, they cannot be subject to political pressure, and there cannot be a temptation to make it a bit easier to get over a hurdle to make the numbers look better. We have had that system of independence for a very long time, and do to this day, and still will in the future for academic qualifications. As I said the other day, I think independence of this body is important to underpinning parity of esteem. IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body, whereas Skills England will be, as things stand, an executive agency. As a non-departmental public body, IfATE does therefore have some independence from the Department for Education because its functions and responsibilities are set out in legislation approved by this Parliament, whereas Skills England, as things stand, will simply be an integral part or unit within DFE.
When Skills England was first talked about in the King’s Speech, it seemed that it would be established as an independent body. As well as my question on Ofqual, the first of my other questions to the Minister is, what has changed? If that was the intent—perhaps we have all just misread the text—what is different now, that it should not be? Finally, if it is right for the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council to be put on a statutory footing, why is it not for Skills England?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
New clause 2 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. It would transfer the functions the Secretary of State takes on under the Bill to a new body within 12 months.
The new clause would undo significant progress already made by the Government to establish Skills England. It has been operating in shadow form since July of last year. It is ready to take on the functions conferred by the Bill. I reassure Members that we considered different options for the model of arm’s length body for Skills England. It being an executive agency allows us to move fast, much faster than the previous Government did for 14 years. Skills England can take immediate action to plug the skills gaps that this Government have inherited, and we are focused on economic growth. An executive agency balances the independent Skills England’s need to deliver its functions at arm’s length from the Department with being close enough to inform decisions on skills, policy and delivery. That is good practice for all new arm’s length bodies.
The Department for Education will undertake a review of Skills England. The review will take place about 18 to 24 months after it is fully established, and that will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will consider how far Skills England is delivering its functions in the way intended; whether its mix of functions is still aligned to Government priorities; and whether there are alternative ways to deliver the Government’s objectives, including a different model of arm’s length body.
Delay, however, is not an option. We need to respond urgently to critical issues in the skills system to drive growth and spread opportunity. To encourage this Committee, in the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government, we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievements compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023. We remain an ambitious Labour Government. We do not dither or delay, and we urgently need reform to deliver the skills and technical education that is needed. That is what the Bill and Skills England will enable us to do.
New clause 3 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year. It would also require Skills England to have regard to matters such as the quality of training and education, and value for money when performing its duties.
Well-established requirements are already placed on executive agencies for a high level of transparency and accountability in how they operate. That includes the publication of a framework document which, as I have mentioned, is a core constitutional document. It will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills England in accordance with HM Treasury’s handbook “Managing public money”. Once finalised, it will be published online and a copy deposited in both Houses.
The Secretary of State, and Skills England acting on their behalf, is already obliged under general public law to take into account all relevant matters when exercising their functions. Those relevant matters are likely to include the ones in new clause 3. While the Bill was scrutinised in the other place, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Baroness Smith of Malvern, shared a draft copy of the Skills England framework document with peers. She committed to include references to the need for Skills England to deliver its functions efficiently and effectively, and to ensure that training is high quality and provides good value for money.
In response to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on Ofqual, the letter concerning Ofqual has been sent to the Chair of the Committee, and also addresses other issues raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston last Thursday.
I am happy to repeat the commitments that I have already mentioned, but finally, I would like to say there is precedent for non-departmental public bodies being closed and their functions being reassigned to newly formed executive bodies. For example, under the previous Government in 2011, the Standards and Testing Agency was established as an executive agency taking on functions from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, a non-departmental public body, which was later closed.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Report on the impact on T levels
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;
(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and
(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Report on the impact on Higher Education—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the higher education sector in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
New clause 4 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on T-levels. We talked before about the measure in clause 8 to bring Ofqual into the regulation of technical qualifications, and the implication that that is focused on T-levels. I was going to say this anyway, but let me pause for a moment on that point about clause 8 and Ofqual—I have not seen from the Clerks to this Committee the letter that the Minister just referred to. I do not know whether you are about to guide us, Ms Furniss, about whether that letter has been made available to Committee members, but I may simply have missed it.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister said that the letter has been sent to the Chair, but the Chair says that she has not seen it.
Janet Daby
The letter addressing the issues that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire have raised has been sent to Sir Christopher, your co-Chair, Ms Furniss, and I am sure it will be shared in due course.
Neil O’Brien
It is a shame, as this is the last day of this Bill Committee. I do not know whether the letter could be produced before we finish today, but otherwise, those questions will effectively go unanswered because they have not made their way to Committee members. But this was a minor point about the interaction with clause 8 and the decision to bring Ofqual in potentially for T-levels, so I will turn squarely to T-levels now.
I was encouraged by the positive words about T-levels in the curriculum review, but it is very difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, which is what T-levels were intended to be in their initiation by Lord Sainsbury. After the big long debate on BTecs, Ministers in the end decided to add T-levels into the existing alphabet soup of qualifications rather than use them to replace and rationalise that system, which was the original goal of Lord Sainsbury’s project. I should declare an interest in so far as I worked on T-levels back when they were still known as Sainsbury routes. None the less it would still, despite the Ministers’ decision, be possible for them to grow and become a leading part of the system, but that would require a huge push from Ministers. It is difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, and it is much more likely that in the absence of a big push from Ministers that they will stagnate as an interesting, well-regarded and quality niche, but ultimately a small part of the system, which was really not what was intended.
For several years, the DFE has provided a 10% uplift to the funding rates for T-levels as a new qualification, but a couple of weeks ago the Government implied that they would stop doing that this year. They have not made a decision, and providers are now desperate for certainty on that issue. I ask the Minister directly to respond to this: will the 10% uplift be continued or not after this academic year? The sector is now making decisions about this, and urgently needs certainty. The Minister keeps saying that she wants to move fast: the providers, and I am asking her to move fast to give them the certainty on what the funding rate will be, and whether the 10% will continue, because if not, my strong sense is that many providers will conclude that it is not really a priority any more, and not worth the investment of time and resources, which are significant to get these things going. I hope the Minister can address that point, and I give her a bit of notice: will the 10% continue or not—yes or no?
The Government are notionally in a one-year “pause” on the move to replace BTecs, which should give the Government time at least to make up their mind on how they see the future of T-levels. If they want to preserve the option to be ambitious for T-levels, however, they need to keep supporting them now. Those of us who worked on their development and who still support them are not blind to the challenges. Although drop-out rates fell sharply in the last year, they are still high. Even though T-levels are meant to be a demanding qualification, we want young people to get to the end of them.
Although the huge element of work experience is a key advantage and attraction of T-levels to learners, it is expensive and hard to deliver, particularly in a way that is slick and gives clarity to students up front, rather than gives stress. I do not say this every day, but Gordon Brown was right to press the Government to be more ambitious here—
Neil O’Brien
We do not always cheer Gordon Brown on the Conservative Benches, but on that occasion he was absolutely right. Lord Sainsbury, too, is right to want to be ambitious. A huge amount of thought went into T-levels over a long period and on a cross-party basis. They have great potential to rationalise the system and to do what politicians have said for decades they want to do, which is to create a prestigious and clear alternative to the academic A-level route. At the moment, however, T-levels are still a fledgling qualification. They have great potential, but they are in need of a lot of care and attention.
My worry is that, amid all the commotion and disruption caused by the transfer of IfATE staff into the Department, that attention will be lost at the critical moment in the development of T-levels. The looming withdrawal of the 10% compounds my worries that attention will be lost at this critical moment. Our new clause therefore aims to ensure that the spotlight stays on T-levels, so that they do not get lost in all the reorganisation, that we preserve at least the option for them to become a widespread and leading qualification on the technical side, and that we achieve Lord Sainsbury’s vision of a more prestigious and higher-funded set of qualifications, more intelligible to employers, and with simpler routes and much more work experience. There is so much potential in T-levels that it would be a tragedy if they got lost in this reorganisation. That is why we are moving the new clause: to ensure that we continue to closely monitor everything going on with them.
New clause 5 concerns higher education. The Government talk about Skills England bringing everything together, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has pointed out, we can never quite do that—there are always other bodies and overlaps. In this case, for starters, we will have two continuing levy training bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board, or CITB, and the Engineering Industry Training Board, or EITB, as well as the many other bodies that my right hon. Friend mentioned—I am thinking about those involved in skills and supply, which includes the Migration Advisory Committee, as well as the workforce strategies of other Departments, such as the NHS long-term workforce plan, which spans technical education, higher education and apprenticeships.
The other big case in point, of course, is the overlap between the work of IfATE and the future Skills England, and the regulators of higher education. In our previous sitting, we talked about the welcome growth of higher apprenticeships and the Government’s imminent plans to axe them, which we are concerned about, particularly after so much work has gone into them. That is why new clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on higher education.
The Bill is about apprenticeships and technical education rather than higher education, but the two have become increasingly overlapping. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from a little over 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. For some universities, providing degree apprenticeships has become a very important part of their work.
I will not recapitulate the things I talked about in the previous sitting, but level 7 apprenticeships are a powerful tool to enable people to earn while they learn, and to allow employers the freedom to shape higher education to their needs. Employers are choosing—with their own money—to invest in level 7 skills. It would be false to assume that a reduction in funding here would lead to an increase in the lower levels. Contrary to the claims that are sometimes made, level 7 apprenticeships do not cater primarily to major corporations. Less than 10% of level 7 apprentices are in FTSE 350 companies. Level 7 apprenticeships in health and care are a hugely important part of the NHS workforce pipeline. In a previous sitting, I talked about how axing those apprenticeships would blow a hole in the NHS plan over the long term, equivalent to 11,000 senior nursing posts, but that would start right now, as there were 2,040 level 7 apprenticeships starts in health, public services and care in 2023-24.
The creation of the apprenticeship levy had two purposes: to stop employers that do the right thing and invest in their people from being exploited by employers that do not, and instead just wait to poach their staff once they are trained; and to make sure that employers drove and owned the system. Now that they do drive and own the system, we see that their revealed preference is to spend their money on higher and degree apprenticeships.
The growth has been spectacular. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, higher and degree apprenticeship starts grew by 63%, while the growth in level 7 apprenticeship starts was even higher, at 105%. That growth was even faster in some critical sectors. Level 7 apprenticeships in health, public services and care grew 716%. Significant extensions occurred in construction, planning and environment, where they went up by more than 700%, and in digital technology, where they went up nearly 600%. Both are key skills areas for our economy and both are supposed to be key parts of the Government’s industrial strategy.
The Bill changes the balance between the voices of employers and the voices of Ministers. Degree and level 7 apprenticeships are a good example of how ministerial priorities can be very different from employer priorities. I will not repeat the criticisms from lots of employers that I read out in a previous sitting—I quoted the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Management Institute, several solicitors’ firms and those providing higher apprenticeships into local government and the NHS. In this sitting, I want to look at the other side of the ledger and consider the impact on universities, which is the purpose of new clause 5.
I have said before that we would never accept the lack of independence for the academic side that the Bill proposes for technical education. We would not have Ministers setting the curriculums, specifications and exams for GCSEs and then taking on the role of Ofqual and marking their own homework. We would not allow the same for higher education either, in general, but there is a growing overlap between IfATE, which is to be centralised into the DFE, and higher education, which has all kinds of implications.
The context for higher education is a challenging one. The Government have increased fees, but wiped out the gains from that by increasing national insurance, meaning a real-terms cut in resources for universities this year. With widespread industrial action in the sector looming, the Government have also chosen this moment to dramatically lower the threshold for strike action with the Employment Rights Bill. To now axe level 7 apprenticeships, and potentially also level 6, would be very destabilising for universities and could whack institutions that have tried to do the right thing for their community and for those who do not traditionally go to university.
Sixty-six universities now deliver level 7 apprenticeship standards, and some have got really into it. Prestigious institutions such as Cranfield, a postgrad-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they are planning—I suspect that level 7 accounts for a very large part of Cranfield’s UK students. Likewise, York St John University has something in the order of 100 level 7 apprenticeships. Other institutions that are heavily involved include the Open University, Manchester Metropolitan and the University of West London. Given the challenging context for higher education, which is partly a result of Ministers’ own decisions, axing these apprenticeships, which have become quite a big part of their work, could be very damaging.
Given that their action on fees, national insurance and strike action has been a connoisseur-level example of un-joined-up Government, I am not reassured that Ministers have thought through the implications of axing level 7 for higher education.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is my understanding that the Bill, as unamended, does not preclude the continuation of level 6 and 7 degree apprenticeships. I speak as somebody who worked in the higher education sector before coming here and sees the value of them. It is my understanding that nothing in the Bill rules them out at this point.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady is completely correct; this is not the Bill that abolishes level 7 apprenticeships. However, according to Ministers, the Government are planning to abolish those apprenticeships, which I think is a shame. I think I detected a note of regret in the hon. Lady’s intervention, which I certainly share.
New clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill and the actions of Ministers, through their centralisation of power, on higher education, given that there is now this overlap. Someone might think, “They’re looking at a Bill on technical education and apprenticeships. What’s that got to do with universities?” The truth is that it has quite a lot to do with universities, for the reasons that I have just set out. I worry that the Bill’s implications have not been well thought through.
Can the Minister assure us that she has thought this through? For example, can she tell us how much income universities would lose if the level 7 levy funding really is axed, as Ministers plan to do? How much would universities lose if level 6 levy funding is also axed, an option that Ministers are keeping open? I would love answers from the Minister on those questions today. If she does not feel able to give them, I would be very happy for her to write to me. We have tabled new clause 5 to ensure transparency, so that it is at the back of Minister’s minds that, as they take greater control of everything to do with technical education and apprenticeships, they are not just thinking about those things in their own right, although they are very important.
Damian Hinds
In encouraging the Minister to write to him about the effect of the level 6 and level 7 restrictions, will my hon. Friend also ask her to comment on the potential effect of those restrictions on schools—the sector for which the DFE is responsible—and in particular on the postgraduate teaching apprenticeship?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. He will remember from the last sitting that I tried to lay out the incredibly damaging direct effect on our public services that the decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships would have. The most notable effect is on the NHS, where the doctor apprenticeship has already been axed—that is tragic and has left various people who were on it stranded. It will have a particular effect on advanced nursing, which is a critical part of the NHS long-term workforce plan, as well as management throughout the public services, including local government and the town planning skills that the Government claim are desperately needed.
Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, the implications are severe right across the public services, including teaching, where the DFE is the biggest user of this apprenticeship and the biggest beneficiary in the end, which is a terrible irony. That is why we bring have tabled new clause 5, so that we at least have transparency about the effects of Ministers’ actions, and we have it in the back of Ministers’ minds that they will have to explain their decisions, including not just their direct effect on technical education and apprenticeship funding, but their effects on the wider education system.
The Chair
We have located the missing letter, which Members should all now have on their desks. I will suspend the sitting for five minutes while we try to digest it. If the shadow Minister, or anyone else, wants to come back in with something, they are free to do so.
The Chair
I am told by the Clerks that this is an unusual situation. I have to say at the moment that the letter refers to clauses that have previously been debated, so I will not be allowing a debate about it. That is for your information, which you could use on Report, if you chose, to raise the matter again. I do not want you not to have the opportunity to probe further. I call the Minister to respond.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling new clauses 4 and 5 and his discussion of them. New clause 4 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report within one year of Royal Assent, setting out the impact of the Act on T-levels. Specifically, the report would have to include information on the administration and accreditation of T-levels, and whether T-levels were meeting local demand in schools.
T-levels are indeed an excellent technical qualification for students after GCSEs; I concur with the hon. Member on that. On his question about whether the 10% uplift will be continued after this academic year, we will confirm that position in due course, and I will write to him on that point.
Thousands of T-level students have already gone on to jobs, apprenticeships and further study related to the subjects of their T-levels, and we continue to support the qualification’s growth and uptake. Indeed, three new T-levels were launched in September 2024. A new T-level in marketing will be available from September, and we will continue to support providers to deliver and upscale their T-level offers. T-levels are designed by employers based on occupational standards, and Skills England will continue the work that IfATE has been doing to set and maintain the high-quality occupational standards on which T-levels are built. Curriculum content and assessment methods are set by awarding organisations in line with these standards.
The Bill already contains a duty for the Secretary to State to publish a report setting out which of the functions being transferred are to be undertaken by Skills England and the impact on technical education and apprenticeships. The report will provide information on T-levels, given that they are an important form of technical education qualification. Ofqual is an independent regulator for technical qualifications, and is the only body with the power to accredit the qualifications. Through the Bill, we are reintroducing the potential for Ofqual to apply its accreditation power to technical qualifications, when the Secretary of State considers it to be appropriate. That will reopen the door so that the full range of regulatory options is available for technical education qualifications. That will help to ensure their quality and enhance confidence in them.
Damian Hinds
Fortuitously, Ms Furniss, we do now have an opportunity to ask about something in the letter, which the Minister is going through now. I am struggling a bit with this thing about, “If the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.” That is not because I question that judgment, but because I do not really understand what the intent is. What does the Minister believe will be the practical change that comes about as a result? For example, is it about more new qualifications coming in? Is it changing the balance between T-levels and other TVET qualifications?
Janet Daby
My understanding is that there needs to be the option for Ofqual to decide whether to inspect certain technical qualifications and whether they should be accredited. That option needs to be available. At present, it has not been happening since 2002. We continue to support the growth and uptake of T-levels, in line with identifying skill needs in the economy. Skills England will gather and publish information about local skill needs. Skills England will also assess how far available provision, including T-levels, is meeting those needs.
I turn to new clause 5, which would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, within one year of Royal Assent, a report on the impact of the Act on the higher education sector in England. Higher education providers play an essential role in meeting the nation’s skill needs and supporting the growth mission. Many of the jobs and sectors that drive economic growth rely on the skills delivered by higher education providers. It is therefore vital that Skills England works closely with and supports the higher education sector as it delivers each of its three key functions. Higher education providers have a deep understanding of local skill needs and growth opportunities. That provides a rich resource for Skills England to draw on, and it builds its authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy.
Neil O’Brien
I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these higher degree-level apprenticeships to the higher education sector. Will she undertake to write to me setting out what the impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships would be? I mean primarily the financial impact, but also the impact on numbers of students. The information available in the public domain is somewhat patchy, so it would be incredibly helpful to have that at either the point the Government make a decision on level 7 apprenticeships or—even better—before. Will she write to me, so that we are at least on the same page about what the impact on universities of changes to level 7 would be?
Janet Daby
I think the shadow Minister is well aware, having asked similar questions many times, that more information will be coming out from the Government.
Staying on level 7 apprenticeships, we are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people in most need of developing skills and getting a foot on the career ladder. We are cutting through the red tape by removing the 12-month requirement, to support shorter-duration apprenticeships in key sectors. That flexibility will support apprentices in areas such as the creative industries, where training does not need to take 12 months and is currently putting barriers in the way of getting apprentices into key jobs. The Prime Minister also announced the development of new foundation apprenticeships, which will align to entry-level roles in key sectors and help to bridge the gap between employees, skills, staffing shortages and young people ready to begin their careers.
Neil O’Brien
I was a bit disappointed that the Minister would not undertake to write or set out the financial impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships. When I speak to people in higher education, they are extremely worried about that. For some institutions, it will be a damaging blow.
Numerous people, including those I have already quoted, have pointed out that although the Government hope that all this money will flow straight from level 7 to level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, that is very unlikely to happen; it is more likely that it will flow to level 6. It is clear from the Minister’s comments that they are keeping that in crosshairs too, and that they might axe it at some point. That would compound the damage in higher education and our skills system more broadly. I was disappointed that the Government do not want to set out that detail, but I am not surprised.
I was also disappointed that the Minister could not give us any clarity on the 10% uplift for T-levels. People in the sector who are delivering these great qualifications—the Government agree that they are great qualifications—are crying out for clarity. They are making decisions right now. The Government keep talking about how they want to move fast—“We are very dynamic and ambitious”—yet on the things on which the sector wants them to move fast, they are not moving at the pace that people on the frontline would like. That is a great shame.
Likewise, we see with the funding decisions on national insurance that technical education is once again being treated as a bit second class. Schools get a funding decision at least slightly before the start of the financial year—during which the national insurance increase will hit them—whereas those in technical education will have to wait a long way into the academic year, when they will already be paying out significant sums in increased national insurance, to find out whether there will be compensation and how much will be covered. As schools are discovering, that is often a bitter experience, because they find that they have been short-changed by the Treasury.
We will not press the new clause to a vote. We have had a good debate in Committee, and we have set out our concerns, which are pretty serious. I hope that, even if the Government do not change their mind today, we will at least have given Ministers cause to think about how Skills England will operate. If they do not listen to us, I hope that they will at least listen to some of the criticisms, which we have been reading out, from stakeholders in industry and education about the decisions that they are about to make. I hope that they will act on those concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
British Sign Language Week
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv. There are also British Sign Language interpreters in the room for the benefit of those watching from the Gallery. I appreciate that some Members will wish to use sign language during their contributions; I ask them to keep that limited and brief, so as not to creation confusion with the other interpretations available.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British Sign Language Week.
[In British Sign Language: I beg to move, That this House has considered British Sign Language Week.]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank those who have supported today’s debate: the hon. Members who sponsored my application to the Backbench Business Committee; the members of the newly formed all-party parliamentary group on British Sign Language, who had ideas for how to celebrate Sign Language Week; and the British Deaf Association, which campaigns tirelessly to promote the interests of the deaf community. I am delighted that we have live British Sign Language interpretation today, and I am grateful to the House authorities for supporting it. It means that we are able to have members of the deaf-signing community join us in the Public Gallery. [In British Sign Language: Welcome to Parliament, and I hope you enjoy the debate.]
As the theme of this year’s Sign Language Week captures well, BSL is more than a language. For the 87,000 first-language signers in the UK, it represents culture, community and belonging. It is symbolic of a unique way of life—one that empowers deaf people to overcome the barriers they face from birth. It provides connection, not only in the deaf-signing community, but to their loved ones. Sign language creates special moments that other families might take for granted. The first time a parent tells their deaf child, “I love you,” might be using sign.
My daughter has Down’s syndrome and experiences hearing loss, so my husband and I use sign-supported English, which is a form of BSL, as part of our toolkit to communicate at home. To any BSL first-language speakers who are watching, I am going to attempt some BSL throughout this speech, so my apologies. [In British Sign Language: I am trying.]
It is with a real sense of personal pride that I open this debate. It is an opportunity to celebrate Sign Language Week and the rich culture it commemorates, while discussing how we as MPs can go further to improve access and the inclusion of the BSL community. The progress that has been made to date is testament to the determination of deaf campaigners, but British Sign Language is not a new phenomenon; it has existed for hundreds of years. There are printed accounts of a national language of the hand dating back as far as the 17th century, but it was only in 2003 that BSL was officially recognised as a language, and it was not until the British Sign Language Act 2022 that this nominal recognition was translated on to the statute book, with legal recognition of BSL. I pay tribute to the former Member for West Lancashire, Rosie Cooper, for leading that private Member’s Bill through Parliament.
The Act was a watershed moment in galvanising public support, and Rosie Cooper’s exceptional campaigning has left an enduring legacy. The Act legislated for the promotion and inclusion of BSL in Government, and led to the creation of the BSL advisory board, which has done excellent work to put the experiences and voices of deaf signers at the heart of Government. It placed a duty on Departments to prepare and publish reports on the use of BSL in their communications. From May 2023 to April 2024, BSL activity in Government communications doubled, and the overall number of Government Departments that said they had not produced any BSL communications halved, from 11 to five. However, there is still much further to go. Five Government Departments is still five too many.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
[In British Sign Language: Will my hon. Friend give way?]
Chris Vince
My hon. Friend is giving a passionate and knowledgeable speech. Does she agree that, in terms of Parliament, this is a question of accessibility? We want people with BSL as their first language to be able to not only access politics but be a part of it as well.
Jen Craft
[In British Sign Language: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.] As people will see, we have tried to learn some parliamentary signs ahead of this debate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a question of accessibility. If someone is a British Sign Language first-language speaker, there are barriers to taking part in this House. There absolutely should not be. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. There are 87,000 BSL first-language speakers and they absolutely deserve their place here as much as hearing people do. Too frequently, Government consultations, including on the national health service 10-year plan and the welfare reform Green Paper, have BSL interpretation as an afterthought, if it exists at all.
In wider society, we need to see a renewed focus on the needs and interests of the deaf community. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, but support to learn BSL is based on a postcode lottery. Across the country, there is a patchwork of sign language services, with a mix of local authority and third-sector provision. According to research by the National Deaf Children’s Society, almost half of local authorities neither provide, fund nor commission any courses in sign language for families.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate.
In 2023-24, 26 children in north Yorkshire were registered with special educational needs due to a hearing impairment, yet support remains inadequate. To show my support for them and for the other children here today, I will now sign my name in BSL. [In British Sign Language: Alison.] Does my hon. Friend agree that deaf children need access to fluent signers as teachers?
Jen Craft
I completely agree: deaf children need qualified teachers of the deaf. I thank Mrs Smith, who is in the Public Gallery today—an exceptional teacher of the deaf in my constituency. I come back to the point about the patchwork of sign language provision for parents. There is an estimate that the availability of courses has fallen by 34% in certain areas since before the pandemic.
Parents are often told to access support through adult community colleges. While they provide an excellent grounding in BSL, it is usually irrelevant for the kind of conversations that parents need and want to have with their child. For example, my one-year-old daughter did not really have too much interest in how many brothers and sisters I have, what job I want to do or what my favourite colour is, but the signs for “milk”, “mummy”, “daddy”, “play”, “book” and, most importantly, “biscuit” very much caught her attention.
It is also hard for adults who are not naturally adept in learning languages to learn a completely new language in a way that meets their learning needs. I ask the Minister to work with me, the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children’s Society to build a pathway to ensure that parents of deaf children have access to relevant BSL lessons no matter where they grow up.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I was pleased to see plans for a GCSE in British Sign Language following the passage of the BSL Act, but I am concerned that it has still not been rolled out, even though it is an essential step in promoting BSL, increasing the awareness of those who use it, and helping those who are not themselves deaf in understanding how to use it.
One of the most enjoyable things I was able to attend at the end of last year was an event where lots of primary schools in my borough did a Christmas concert. They all sang in English and signed at the same time. It was one of the most encouraging and inclusive events I have been to in a long time. Does my hon. Friend agree that rolling out the British Sign Language GCSE would create lots more opportunities for deaf people, including in employment, which is a matter very much on our minds at the moment, and that the GCSE should be rolled out without any further delay?
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a real shame that the BSL GCSE is not yet part of the curriculum. I understand there are some delays around what a qualification would look like. However, BSL already has a qualification that is agreed by the deaf community and the BSL first-language community. I ask that the Minister goes back to his colleagues in the Department for Education and requests they provide an update on progress, as it is crucial that we have new BSL signers who are confident.
My hon. Friend made a good point about the number of deaf people in employment. Research shows that only 37% of BSL first-language speakers are in work. That is compared to 77% of people who are hearing and without a separate disability. In my constituency, there is no support for BSL first-language speakers to access employment, which is a real shame. That speaks to the experience that BSL first-language speakers and deaf people in general have when they try to access services. They face ongoing challenges in daily life accessing healthcare, employment and a society that often overlooks their needs.
SignHealth, a fantastic organisation that advocates for the needs of deaf people in the healthcare system, says that 67% of deaf people report no accessible method of contacting their GP. The long-term impacts on health and wellbeing are very clear, with deaf people twice as likely to suffer mental health problems as their hearing peers. The deaf community is being held back by a shocking lack of societal understanding of British sign language. Part of that is a lack of awareness that BSL is completely different from spoken English, and that even in written communications there is need for an interpretation.
As parliamentarians, we can be leaders in driving greater understanding of British sign language. Through Parliament and in our constituencies, we can promote the interests of the signing community. Today’s debate is an important signal of our recognition of the needs of BSL first-language speakers. It is the first time ever that live translation is being provided both in the Chamber and broadcast from the studio on parliamentlive.tv. I am now the first MP to have used sign language in a debate in this Parliament, and the first to do so since 2022, I believe.
Next year, I hope to host this debate in the main Chamber, where having live interpreters on the Floor of the House would be unprecedented. I encourage all colleagues from across the House to take advantage of the House’s BSL scheme to learn some BSL, so that they are able to better communicate with the 87,000 BSL first-language speakers. I am sure there are a number in each constituency, so it can only be beneficial. It would be a really big milestone in demonstrating Parliament’s accessibility for deaf signers.
I also hope that in British Sign Language Week next year we can reflect on the progress that will have been made in the intervening months. Nineteen years separated the recognition of BSL as a language and the landmark British Sign Language Act 2022. We cannot wait another 19 years for the next significant step forward. Alongside the British Deaf Association and members of the all-party parliamentary group, I am calling on the Government to go further in promoting BSL.
Ministers need to support the expansion of access to sign language classes. Through national funding, the Government can deliver a universal service of BSL support to the families of deaf children—a national programme of early years intervention that could give every child the opportunity to benefit from BSL. This is about choice. For some parents, the choice to learn BSL may not be the right one, but it is about ensuring that parents have that choice to make. It is about giving deaf children the opportunity to choose their method of communication and the way that works best for them.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I am sorry that my British Sign Language is incredibly rusty, having learned it 30 years ago and not having practised diligently. I want to pick up on what she said about access to learning British Sign Language. Having worked in a council as a lead member for children, families and education, it was evident that growing numbers of young people have speech, language and communications difficulties.
If we can capture British Sign Language as a valid language for everybody, and teach our nursery nurses, early learning teachers and teachers right the way through our schools, that will be so much better. As I understand it, British Sign Language can be taken up to a level 6 national vocational qualification, so there is no reason why every child in this country cannot have a second language, even if it is not one of the traditional languages that we would normally recognise in the academic system.
Jen Craft
The hon. Lady is quite right that there is a real case for children across the board learning some BSL. We never know—for one child, it might spark a lifelong love of the language. Indeed, I believe there is a young girl in the Public Gallery who has her BSL level 1 qualification and she is still at primary school, which shows what is possible and what can be achieved.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
[In British Sign Language: I learned BSL because I created barriers for deaf people, and I wanted to take those down. Is it right that all children learn level 1 at school?]
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend is quite right. All children should be offered the opportunity to learn BSL level 1 at school. As she says, it can only help to break down those barriers to the deaf community and open up our society for those who are BSL first-language speakers.
I will conclude because I know that other Members want to speak, and I want to offer everyone the opportunity to practise their BSL if they have learned some—I very much hope they have. Broadly, the Government must embody the maxim “Nothing about us without us” as they continue to improve accessibility for the deaf community. Deaf signers should lead the design, delivery and evaluation of BSL in Government and across public services. We need to see a commitment to truly embed deaf voices in public service delivery and policymaking.
Sign Language Week does not represent a small minority issue. BSL is the fourth most widely used language in the UK. It is relied on by thousands of families, including my own, and learning BSL opens up access to an enriching community for deaf people to be part of. It provides a special bond and a shared sense of identity, in a society that has historically refused to recognise deaf culture and need.
We owe it to members of the deaf community and the campaigners who have come before us to continue to put BSL on the Government’s agenda. We have the legal framework in place to effect real change, and we now need to turn that into a positive reality.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I suggest five minutes for every speech to start with.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I have not learned any BSL to any competent level, but I promise I will endeavour to do so before next year’s debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this very important debate. I want to celebrate the incredible contributions of the deaf community and BSL users across the United Kingdom. BSL is not just a language; it is a vital means of communication that connects people to their families, their communities and essential services.
I was recently invited to visit MeSign by Steven Francis, who is a deaf person, a teacher of BSL and an incredible advocate for his community. I also got to meet Michelle Teasdale, who was born to deaf parents and founded MeSign, which brings together the deaf community. The pair, and their amazing team at MeSign, hold events that allow deaf people from across Thornaby and further afield to come together. Their amazing organisation tackles isolation and allows deaf people to share the challenges and difficulties they might be facing. They helped me to understand that for deaf people, written English is in no way a direct equivalent to BSL. The barriers and challenges created by deafness mean that reading written English, particularly when jargon-riddled or technical, can be difficult for many. BSL is their first language.
It is vital that public services make themselves accessible to all. All too often, we see that there is investment in translators for those speaking foreign languages, but having access to translation for BSL is a postcode lottery. That is not acceptable, and more must be done. Steve and Michelle told me that my local authority contact centres, many GPs and many local employment services fail to offer BSL interpretation and are not as accessible as in other places. The reality is that technology means that it would be as simple as having an iPad and access to a translation service.
People who want to sort out everyday issues such as council tax bills, or to understand changes to bin collections, are left isolated and frustrated. They lose their independence and have to rely on family and friends to help them. The worst and most heartbreaking example that Steve and Michelle shared with me is about deaf people who use health services having to rely on family members to interpret what they are being told—imagine someone having to interpret a diagnosis for something like cancer to their deaf parents. That is completely unacceptable, and it cannot go on.
Huge progress has been made, but we need to go a lot further. We need to ensure that all public services are accessible and offer BSL interpretation. I will continue to push my local service providers to raise their standards. I welcome today’s debate, as it seeks to push this issue up the agenda.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I will attempt to say [In British Sign Language: Good afternoon] to the members of the public and members of the deaf community who have joined us today.
For more than 150,000 people in the UK, BSL is their first or preferred language. That is 150,000 people who cannot routinely follow debates in this Chamber; 150,000 people who may be unable to read information about how to travel to Westminster or, indeed, anywhere across the UK; and 150,000 people—approximately one in 450 people—whose language has been and continues to be misunderstood and whose communication preferences often go unmet. Their language is misunderstood because BSL, as we have already heard this afternoon, is not a translation of English. Many people do not realise that, but it means that too often service providers believe that they have met the needs of BSL users because they provide webchat or email access to customer services, not understanding that many BSL users may not read English.
The lack of understanding was brought home to me all too clearly a few years ago when I was working for an electricity distribution network. Following engagement with our deaf customers, I recommended that the network introduce video relay access to its customer services. That recommendation was initially met with bewilderment, as customer services had only recently introduced webchat and the view was that the needs of deaf customers were therefore met. After several discussions explaining and re-explaining that BSL is not a translation of English, video relay was introduced to those customer services.
Although a growing number of organisations now provide video relay access to their customer services, many do not. I did a quick check ahead of today’s debate and confirmed that although my constituents in Carlisle and north Cumbria can access their water company by video relay, they cannot access their gas and electricity networks. Considering how vital those utilities are, we need to do more; I will certainly be writing to my local electricity and gas distribution networks after today to urge them to introduce video relay.
British Sign Language is a beautiful language, but its users can face less than beautiful consequences from using it. BSL users can face social exclusion as a direct result of linguistic exclusion. That can negatively affect their employment, education, access to healthcare, and navigation of the justice system and victim support. The concerns that we all have about our public services become doubly concerning when people cannot routinely access information about those services.
That is why the 2022 Act introduced by the former Member for West Lancashire—we have already spoken about it this afternoon—was a major step forward. The requirement to produce a report every three years on the use of BSL by Departments is key to ensuring that Government communications are as inclusive and accessible as possible. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to continuing to improve the accessibility of Government communications to the deaf community and BSL users.
In conclusion, I want to share with hon. Members that earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and I took part in an introductory BSL training session specifically for MPs. I urge all colleagues to look out for it if it is offered again.
Alison Hume
My big takeaway from the training session that was provided here was that the language is a visual language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are therefore excluding many of our constituents without realising?
Ms Minns
I absolutely agree; all of us in this House have some way to go to improve access for BSL users. It is just over a year since the House introduced British Sign Language coverage for questions and statements. That was clearly welcome, but it means that on any given day, over 50% of business in the main Chamber remains unsigned. I therefore hope that today’s debate prompts a further improvement on the signing of the business of this place.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
[In British Sign Language: Thank you.] That is about as far as my signing goes, Sir Desmond, apart from one or two rude words that are not appropriate for the Chamber—it is an honour to serve under your chairship once again. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate and for her continued advocacy as part of the APPG on British Sign Language. I declare an interest as an officer of that APPG.
As a hearing person, I cannot claim to have direct experience, but I will describe the experience of Katie and her son Alvie from Illogan in my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. Katie first learnt that Alvie had been born with hearing loss when he was just seven weeks old. By the time he was 10 weeks old, he had been fitted with hearing aids. The diagnosis came with a flood of appointments, hospital visits and advice from professionals, all of whom were hearing and, through no fault of their own, were perhaps not best placed to understand the needs of a deaf child.
Katie’s initial question was whether she and her family would need to learn BSL to communicate with Alvie. She was reassured that they would not need to, and she accepted that advice with relief. Looking back, however, it seems bizarre that Katie was not provided with the opportunity to learn BSL as soon as possible to begin to communicate with her son.
Alvie struggled to keep his hearing aids on. He was always having fun; at the beach, he would roll them in the sand and throw them into the sea. Alvie’s parents were told to persevere, but they could not help but feel the weight of their son’s isolation during those early years—unable to hear the world around, to engage in conversation or to be part of the joyful moments that many of us take for granted.
Katie’s story is one of frustration and determination. She began to campaign for better access to BSL training for parents of deaf children, and soon discovered that the current support system was failing families. Free or affordable BSL courses were not readily available, and many parents were unable to find the resources they needed to learn how to communicate with their own deaf children.
As Katie worked with the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children’s Society, she uncovered the immense barriers that exist, such as the cost of courses, the lack of funding, and the exclusion of parents from programmes designed to help them. Her goal is simple: she wants all parents of deaf children to have access to BSL. She believes that no parent should have to fight for the right to communicate with their child, especially when a solution already exists.
Through her campaign, Katie has gathered tens of thousands of signatures in support of free BSL courses for parents and guardians. She is determined to ensure that future generations of deaf children will not experience the isolation and frustration that so many adults in the deaf community have faced. Alvie’s journey has been life changing for his family, and while they are making progress in learning BSL, Katie knows that it should not have been that difficult. Deaf children have the right to full communication, and families should not have to battle the system to ensure that their children are included and supported.
Katie’s story is the story of countless families across the UK. I pay tribute to her as a campaigner and a brilliant mum. We must ensure that people can choose to learn BSL freely and access training. I have been so impressed with her work as a campaigner that I was delighted to have the opportunity to employ her as a caseworker in my constituency office. Katie joins us here in the Public Gallery today.
That brings me to two key points: first, it is a tragedy that parents of deaf children in the UK are often advised to choose between BSL and spoken language. I am pleased that the Government are committed to offering a BSL GCSE with the capacity to teach not only signing itself, but the history of the language. This is a fascinating opportunity to make teaching and learning BSL more mainstream. However, I worry that early access to sign language is still not readily available, which means that the richness of the language itself is lost to many people who do not have the chance to access BSL early on.
My second concern is over funding. The Government have inherited a situation where funding for BSL courses is taken from the adult education budget, now the adult skills fund. The fund is aimed at people who want to learn vocational courses who are usually unemployed. This makes it inherently difficult for parents of deaf children who want to learn but who are working. What is more, a postcode lottery exists where many parents, including Katie, simply do not live near an institution with the provision for BSL courses. It is also very difficult for working parents to qualify for funding for BSL courses as a means of communicating with their child.
In conclusion, it is essential that we recognise BSL not just as a language, but as a fundamental tool for communication, inclusion and connectivity for the deaf community. We must ensure that all families, particularly those with deaf children, have equal access to BSL courses, regardless of their location or financial situation. The Government must act swiftly to eliminate the barriers that prevent parents from learning BSL and communicating fully with their children. Let us ensure that future generations of deaf children are supported in their journey towards full inclusion and engagement, and that no family is left to fight a system that should be supporting them.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), my best friend, for securing this hugely important debate—sorry to everybody else! I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), who in April 2021 was the first Member of Parliament to use British Sign Language during Prime Minister’s Question Time, bringing to the attention of the then Prime Minister the fact that there were no BSL interpreters at the then Prime Minister’s press briefings.
I came to this debate not speaking any BSL other than to say “thank you” and “Will my hon. Friend give way?”, which I learned yesterday. To be honest, having tried learning French in the past, I know that I am not very good at languages, so I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock about those who have difficulty learning languages—some would say my English is not great, either.
The contributions that I have heard so far from hon. Members from across the House have really moved me and made me think a lot about my own practice. When I go back to Harlow and my constituency team tomorrow, I will have conversations with them about how we ensure that any engagement that I have with members of the public in Harlow—including my MP surgeries—is compatible with BSL, because what I do not want, and I am sure no Member wants, is our constituents feeling that they cannot have access to their MP in their first language.
I want to talk about accessibility. I declare an interest because I am a member of the Modernisation Committee. It is really important that everyone, no matter their situation, has the opportunity to achieve. I have been impressed in many ways by how accessible the House is. Last week, members of Razed Roof—an inclusive theatre company that I am a trustee of—visited Parliament. Simon, who I have mentioned before, who often relies on physical communication and is wheelchair-bound, was able to get a tour of Parliament, which he enjoyed a great deal. The only slight problem came when we went to St Stephen’s Hall. But clearly there is more we can do. We do not just want to make Parliament accessible; we want to make politics accessible, and not just so that people who have BSL as a first language can access politics, but so they can participate in politics and perhaps even be an MP.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, there are 87,000 people who use BSL as a first language, so I ask the Minister how we can better ensure that they can participate in politics and play an active part in it. It would not be a Westminster Hall debate in which I was taking part if I did not mention young carers: I pay tribute to the number of young people who have to learn BSL to communicate with a parent or loved one. The points made about ensuring that BSL is part of the curriculum and that it is not a postcode lottery are really important, particularly to young carers. We have spoken about the difficulties parents have in being able to access BSL to communicate with their children, but it works both ways.
Of course, I recognise that life exists outside this place and I want to briefly touch on education—another of my favourite topics. The Department for Education has not yet made BSL part of the curriculum, but will give schools the option to offer a BSL GCSE. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) mentioned, a GCSE for BSL was expected in September 2025. Can the Minister tell us how this is progressing? That would be really useful to know. There is also currently no national programme for early years BSL, as other Members have covered.
Let us as politicians work with organisations like the BDA and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to make not only this place, but society, an inclusive place for everyone, including those people for whom British Sign Language is their first language. We should not have a postcode lottery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on setting the scene so well. She spoke excellently yesterday in the Down’s syndrome debate and her speech today was a tour de force.
Perran Moon
I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could try to talk a little slower, because the interpreters might be struggling a little bit.
Jim Shannon
Kate Hoey, formerly the hon. Member for Vauxhall, said, “Whenever Jim Shannon speaks, he gets more words to the minute that any other MP”, so the hon. Member is absolutely right to tell me to slow it down. I will do my best to slow down a wee bit, if that is possible.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Thurrock was a tour de force. It is clear to all of us here that her heart shines brightly, and we thank her for telling her story. I congratulate all the other hon. Members who have had the ability to learn sign language.
The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) referred to one of his staff members; I say to her, keep a tight rein on him! I say that in jest, of course, because we all recognise how hard the hon. Member works.
In Northern Ireland, we have two sign languages. It is part of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We have British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language, because we have two different traditions, and the people of those traditions have the same difficulties when it comes to sign language. Those who want to have British Sign Language can have that and those who want Irish Sign Language can have that as well. In March 2004, the Secretary of State announced the formal recognition of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language as languages in their own right, following similar recognition of BSL in Great Britain.
Some of my staff are very assiduous. I am only as good as my staff—I say that honestly because it is true. When some constituents came into the office who were challenged and had deaf issues, my staff decided that—even though those constituents came into the office with their parents—they would learn some sign language in order to communicate with them. My staff wanted not only to understand what my constituents wanted but to engage socially with them. I think it was the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth who said that when people cannot hear anything, they do not know what is happening around them. My staff felt that it was important to do that small thing. It shows that sometimes we have to do things outside of our own systems.
British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language in Northern Ireland have their own grammar and syntax systems, rather than being visual reflections of other languages. I believe we have a good system in Northern Ireland.
I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in his place. I do not think I have yet been in a debate where he has been responding. I look forward to hearing what he has to say, and to the speeches of the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones).
British Sign Language is the first, or preferred, language of communication for approximately 3,500 members of the deaf population of Northern Ireland, and approximately 1,500 use Irish Sign Language. Schools have incorporated some basic sign language, and I am glad they have—it is another way of doing it.
We have many churches who engage in this. It is no secret that I am a Christian, and I like to understand that we are moving with society. There can be language issues for children at church whenever we are preaching the gospel, preaching the word of God, reading the Bible or praying, so we should have sign language in the church.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland has launched a brilliant new sign language video relay service for deaf people. There is access to the facility—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the SignVideo app or via a call button on the PSNI website. I say to the Minister: if the PSNI has done that in Northern Ireland, perhaps we need to do that here.
I have one last point. Fury from “Gladiators” is deaf, but look at what that lady has done. There is not one man in this Chamber who would take her on, never mind any other lady—I know I wouldn’t, anyway. I will finish by saying this: if Fury can do it, you can do it as well.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG.
I thank Watford Deaf Club, which was kind enough to host a hustings event for the general election in June 2024, and Helen Austin from the club, who has helped to identify some of the many challenges the deaf community face in day-to-day life. At the hustings event I was struck by two things: first, by how disappointing it is that society at large does not adequately consider integrating deaf people into our culture, systems and public life, resulting in a discernibly disadvantaged experience of some aspects of what hearing-able people take for granted; secondly, by how frustrated and upset some members of the community are about that first point. As politicians, we need to be very careful to be inclusive, accessible and available to all our residents. Currently, we are not. I say that with my hand up first, among many.
My local deaf club says:
“We are so glad that BSL was recognised by the DWP in 2003, and that the BSL Act was passed in 2022, but there are still so many issues that BSL users meet every day.”
I know from the comments of people at the club that the issues include BSL interpreter availability. It is great when interpreters are in the room at televised events, such as political conferences and briefings, but they are often hidden in a corner, meaning the angles of vision can be difficult for BSL users viewing events on TV. The deaf community would like interpreters to be front and centre, as they are in America and New Zealand. Their being tucked away makes the community feel like people are embarrassed of BSL and, by extension, them.
Signed TV programmes are put into ghettos, often at unhelpful times, and appear and disappear with no notice. That also makes the community feel second class. Not all programmes are subtitled, and smaller channels are not expected to provide them. Sometimes, automated subtitles do not keep up with the speech, a phenomenon known as—excuse my language—craptions. Certainly, not all programmes are signed. Members of the deaf community point out to me that they pay 100% of the TV license but do not have access to 100% of the programming content they contribute to.
Additionally—and here I confess guilt of my own—not all politicians subtitle their videos, making democracy inaccessible. My local deaf club says:
“We’d love BSL interpreted videos but subtitles would be a good start.”
It is best practice to make social media posts accessible. I try, but there is clearly room for improvement on my own feeds, and no doubt on others’ too.
The community has raised particular difficulties accessing public services. This was raised at the aforementioned hustings event, and it obviously continues to be an issue. NHS access is still unreliable and inaccessible. Let me read a quote:
“Deaf people have to chase staff in their second language to find out if anyone has bothered to book an interpreter for each and EVERY appointment (hospital and GP, or any other NHS service) and fight for one when they haven’t, despite this being their right under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) so should be automatic.
Health services being outsourced is another massive issue. They often find buildings are inaccessible—you have to speak into a box, no way to sign, and no-one seems to know if they are covered by the AIS and, if so, whose responsibility it is to find/book/pay for the Interpreter?”
MP and councillor surgeries have also been raised. How can the community access them and have BSL interpreters present? That is a great idea and I will take it on board for my own surgeries.
Communication with emergency services is a problem as well. My local deaf club has highlighted the case of a member who was sexually assaulted and, despite repeated requests, never had access to a BSL interpreter when talking to the police. That is shocking. It is disappointing that there is no longer a police liaison for the deaf community in my county of Hertfordshire. Many, if not all, of these problems can be solved through basic training and understanding.
It is vital that we take steps here in this place, and when dealing with the big charities as parliamentarians, to make sure that national efforts are made and connected with local communities; otherwise, we risk ignoring people as individuals, and we might create or reform services in ways that do not work for them.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the great deal of concern among the community regarding the forthcoming benefits reforms. Although we await the final details, it is vital to acknowledge that we need to support the community to cover the additional costs of living with deafness. For example, having to pay for BSL interpreters in person or online is a requirement that impacts people whether they are employed or not. This has been an inspiring debate, and I look forward to taking action to address the issues raised today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I have to impose a three-minute formal time limit.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this incredibly important debate. I reiterate her point that we are talking about fundamental communication and giving every person the opportunity to learn and to access all the services they so desperately need.
Communication between children and their parents, families, friends, teachers and the wider community will stop deaf children and adults feeling isolated in society. Currently, there is no national programme for early years British Sign Language provision for deaf children in the UK. Instead, parents are being told that their deaf children do not necessarily need to learn BSL. But when children are taught to sign, it opens up communication and removes barriers for them.
One of the most beautiful things I have seen was my niece, who was only seven at the time, sing “Little Donkey” while signing along. That was to ensure that the deaf child in her class was not isolated during the song. Ensuring that all children can communicate with each other is just as important for socialising—there is a barrier for deaf children, but non-deaf children want to engage with them, so it is important that they can communicate together.
As the British Deaf Association warns us, there are serious life consequences for deaf children’s language, emotional and cognitive development, as well as for their general wellbeing. Deaf children are taught that merely coping is the highest they will ever achieve, but there should be no reason to think that a deaf child is any less able to achieve top grades, their dreams or their career goals than any other child. We just need to open up the opportunity for them.
Families have to pay to learn how to communicate with their child through sign language, and often the lessons are framed around receiving a qualification. For most parents, it is not about the qualification—it is about getting to read a bedtime story or ask their child about their day—but the lessons are often not tailored around communicating with their children. Although it is fantastic that level 1 courses are being offered in local libraries and leisure centres across Leicestershire, we need so much more. Most classes in North West Leicestershire, a rural community, are only offered online, but face-to-face learning is much more effective.
In Sign Language Week, it is more important than ever that we recognise the barriers that deaf children and adults face if they are unable to communicate with their peers. There are very simple solutions. Like the British Deaf Association, I believe that deaf children in the UK and their families have a right to learn British Sign Language and receive the linguistic and cultural enrichment that comes with it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this incredibly important debate.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate during Sign Language Week. Her dedication in advocating for British Sign Language is commendable, and her tireless campaigning is a sign that the 2024 intake of parliamentarians is one of the best.
I am really sorry that I do not have any sign language. My mother lost much of her hearing as a teenager and lived to the age of 93, using aids for as long as I can remember. If she had been able to learn BSL, I am sure her life would have been much easier.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I share the belief of the hon. Member for Thurrock that all deaf and hearing-impaired individuals have the right to participate in society fully and independently. That is not a theoretical right: it is a basic human right that too often remains unrealised.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. When I worked at the Royal National Institute for Deaf People 25 years ago, I learned how important BSL is as a means of communication for deaf people.
Rachel Taylor
BSL is a rich and important part of the cultural identity of the deaf community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that deaf people and their parents have access to BSL based not on whether they can pay for the courses but on need? That would enrich the language and cultural identity of the deaf community.
Clive Jones
I agree 100% with everything the hon. Lady said.
The Liberal Democrats have a long history of pushing for British Sign Language to be given legal status. We have worked for change since one our councillors, David Buxton, became the first deaf sign language politician in the UK to be elected as a borough councillor. He co-founded the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and has extensive experience of campaigning and doing incredible work across the UK in advocating for the deaf community.
In 2022, David fought hard for the British Sign Language Act, which officially recognised BSL as a language in England, Wales and Scotland. That was a significant victory, but we must acknowledge that it was only one step on a much longer journey. Recognition is essential, but it is not enough: we need respect for BSL alongside tangible pathways to a world where deaf people can achieve their full potential.
We are concerned about the previous Conservative Government’s legacy of cuts to British Sign Language interpretation services for deaf people accessing health services. Funding for the BSL health access app was withdrawn, and it is deeply unjust that BSL users currently have to ask for reasonable adjustments through the Equality Act 2010 if they want to access information and services. Furthermore, the adjustments provided are usually written notes, rather than the provision of a BSL interpreter.
We are committed to seeing more deaf BSL users elected to public and political office, and a good step towards that aim is wider access to services in BSL. Extensive research suggests the best time to learn a second language is from the age of six to puberty. The opportunity for access to language experience is crucial, especially for deaf children’s language, emotional and cognitive development. That is why the Department for Education should commission a feasibility study into the introduction of BSL lessons in primary schools, which would embed the teaching of basic BSL from an early age, and offer expert findings to devolved Education Departments to share best practice across the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, we support the rapid introduction of GCSE-equivalent qualifications in BSL in England, which would provide a clear formal pathway for students to gain fluency in British Sign Language. It is deeply concerning that, despite the Government’s commitment to rolling out the qualification by the start of the 2025 academic year, the implementation of BSL in the national curriculum continues to be delayed.
There is a real risk that further delays in implementing BSL qualifications will deprive the next generation of BSL users of the access and opportunities they rightly deserve. Without this opportunity, deaf children may grow up without the proper foundation to navigate the world fully and confidently. That would be simply unacceptable. Will the Minister commit today that the BSL GCSE will not go the way of the Welsh equivalent by eventually being scrapped? Will he also give more specific details as to when Ofqual’s proposed consultation on assessment arrangements and its technical consultation will be launched?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important and timely debate during Sign Language Week. It was great to hear that the all-party group has been re-formed and to hear of her pride in that. It is wonderful to see signing in the Chamber today. We have had some important, thoughtful and very hard-practised contributions from hon. Members. These general debates often bring a new perspective in the very best traditions of this House. We have seen that once again this afternoon.
Claire, from my team, is a signer. I really value her contribution and commitment across my constituency in East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages. She works to make sure that I connect with local young people and users of BSL. She has taught me a little bit, but I must say that I have failed miserably to keep up with it. Robin also taught me some—I am very proudly wearing my badge from my time working with Robin when I was in the DWP. I am not sure whether the Minister will have much time to learn BSL—I wish that I had had time to learn more of it—but I wish him well on that. My time with Robin was very much worth it.
As a former Minister in the DWP, I was pleased to work on the efforts to improve BSL across Government. We made some excellent progress. The Conservatives’ legacy is of working on legislative change and implementing Rosie Cooper’s amazing work on the British Sign Language Act 2022, which was ably supported by my colleague Chloe Smith, who has not left the field when it comes to working on this. Recognising BSL as an official language and rightly improving the reporting duties was leadership from the top of Government on improving BSL in official communications.
Of course, as with everything, there is always more to do. The first report required under the Act was published in July 2023. Although the Act requires a report to be published triennially, we wanted to go further to embed the sea change that we have talked about this afternoon into Government communications, and committed to report annually in the first five years. I am sure that the Minister will reassure the House that his Government will match our commitment and, hopefully, follow suit. In my time at the DWP, BSL and accessibility for all was at the heart of our engagements. I am sure that no campaigner would leave the Minister’s or my office without rightly reminding us not to forget that. We are also rightly proud of the BSL Advisory Board.
Ms Minns
In a rare moment of cross-party agreement, I think the work done on the implementation of the ’22 Act was very welcome. It is also worth noting the Media Act 2024, which extended the quota requirement on BSL programming to on-demand services. That quota is only 5%. Does the hon. Lady wish to comment on whether that quota is sufficiently ambitious?
Mims Davies
As we have heard today, BSL availability for users, through both captions on TV and signing in person, is too low. As the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) spelled out, it would be hard for any of us to say that 5% is enough. We should challenge ourselves on that.
BSL was first recognised as a separate language in March 2003 and has about 150,000 regular users. However, one can find it in early documentation from 1576 in the registry offices of St Martin’s church in Leicester, where a marriage ceremony apparently took place between Thomas and Ursula that showed that love is blind, and can also be deaf. It is wonderful to hear how that passage of love played out. I enjoyed finding that out from one of my colleagues.
It was 50 years ago that British Sign Language was officially introduced with formal recognition. As we have found out this afternoon, there is still a lot to do to embed it into our school system. It is wonderful to have younger BSL users in the Public Gallery today. As many hon. Members have said today, we should note the need for loved ones and carers to get the right advice, as adults caring for little ones, about when deafness touches the lives of a family, and then look at how we can embed it as a route around accessibility.
I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said about means of communication, and how the MeSign team helps to tackle isolation. He said that provision of BSL in Government services was woeful and that more was needed. There is a loss of independence, particularly in NHS and health services, if BSL is not there.
I also want to touch on the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I think it was the first time he has spoken quite so slowly. As usual, he got all his points in and raised the things in his community that make such a difference. When it comes to BSL services in healthcare, the NHS 111 BSL service, across the board, is just not enough. He highlighted some progress, yet also some areas where we are left wanting. That applies to mental health support as well. I talked about isolation earlier on, and I think we can very much improve on that issue.
I turn to some of the questions this afternoon. The most recent report, in December 2024, found important progress in Government communications at the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the DWP. As I said, there is a legacy there, but there is still more work to do. We have heard this afternoon about the changes in Wales; unfortunately, the work across the Senedd has not been enough when it comes to BSL access in Wales. We also heard about the scrapping of the BSL GCSE in Wales in October 2024. The British Deaf Association’s Cymru manager called that
“a slap in the face”.
We have heard today about the real, tangible opportunity for young people if the BSL GCSE were ready for 2025 in England. It is hugely disappointing that a plan of how to deliver that has not been set out. I hope that, on behalf of his Government, the Minister can commit to straining every sinew to see whether that GCSE can be taught in classrooms for pupils and adult learners alike. In fact, in my previous roles, I met many young people who wanted to learn it as a language—something that the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) also pointed out today.
I think I need to conclude, Sir Desmond. [Interruption.] Oh, I do not need to. Well, in that case, I have a couple more points to make. Gosh—how exciting! I turn to BSL accessibility in Government communications and the disability action plan. As the Minister will know, in February 2024, when a Minister in his Department, I took forward a commitment to 32 actions to make the UK more accessible for disabled people to work, live, and—importantly—thrive in. What has happened to the update on that, and what can we expect? As we have heard today, the actions, outcomes and needs of our young people, disabled people and users of BSL have not changed. What is his commitment to the issue in the Department, following the legislative changes that came through in the British Sign Language Act 2022?
We have had absolutely the right conversation this afternoon, and I look forward to the issue being discussed in the main Chamber of the House of Commons next year. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock on bringing forward this debate. As has been highlighted, the interest in BSL, and the need for BSL interpreters, has never been higher. I urge the Minister to outline the steps that the Government will take across all Departments, using his leverage through the equalities role, to increase the communications across the board, particularly in times of national need and national urgency. I was very close to making further announcements about that when I was at the Department.
I hope we have come a long way since 1576 and the act of love that I talked about earlier. Clearly, there is much more to be done in this arena to help people to thrive, move into employment and, above all, feel part of the whole of wider society, with full accessibility for all. I thank everyone for joining us here this afternoon.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We have had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing it during British Sign Language Week and on the initiative of establishing the all-party parliamentary group.
It is not very well known that the Deputy Prime Minister is BSL qualified to level 2. She has this morning posted on social media a signing message in support of British Sign Language Week. She sets out in the message the Government’s commitment and her own commitment to championing BSL and to tackling the barriers that face people in Britain with hearing impairments.
Rachel Taylor
Does the Minister agree that there is still a long way to go to make BSL accessible for everyone who needs it and that it is important that deaf people not only are included in the conversations, but lead them? Does he share my delight in seeing BSL interpreters here today in Westminster Hall, which sends a message to deaf people that they are welcome here?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very glad to do so; I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
This week gives us a chance to celebrate British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. As we have heard, 151,000 people use BSL; 87,000 have it as their first language, and it is the UK’s fourth most widely used indigenous language. That is a very large group of people, with a great deal to contribute to our economy and our society.
It is right to take this week as an opportunity to highlight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, the rich culture around BSL, of which many people are unaware. I was intrigued that American Sign Language is completely different from BSL; I think that arises from its origins not long after American independence when—I suppose understandably—Americans wanted more to do with the French than the British. That has shaped American Sign Language today.
We have heard about the 2022 Act, and I echo the tributes to our former colleague Rosie Cooper and to Chloe Smith, the then Minister. The Act is driving improved accessibility of Government communications and in this Government we are going to implement it in full. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock very reasonably asked why the BSL version of Tuesday’s Green Paper has not yet appeared. I can only apologise for that. The 12-week consultation clock will not start until all the accessible versions are published in early April, with a BSL version among them, so that BSL users will have a full 12 weeks to respond.
The BSL Act requires the Government to publish a British Sign Language report setting out each Department’s steps to promote and facilitate the use of BSL in public communications. The first, as the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) reminded us, was published in July 2023. The second was a bit delayed by the general election and appeared in December. I echo the commitment that she set out to annual publication in those first five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, BSL activity has more than doubled across Government since that first report, but there is still a long way to go, and I have noticed impatience in some quarters about the speed of progress.
The new Lead Ministers for Disability will have an important role here. We discussed the BSL Act and its reporting framework at our first meeting in December, and we did so again in our second meeting last week. We will keep progress under review, and of course I will have the opportunity to discuss there a number of the issues raised in this debate. We will also publish a BSL plan for each Government Department with the third BSL report, which we will be publishing in the summer.
In line with the commitment in our election manifesto, I work closely with disabled people and representative organisations to put their views and voices at the heart of all we do. Since July, I have met a wide range of deaf people’s organisations, along with other disability organisations. We have heard about the independent BSL Advisory Board, set up in the wake of the Act; it is co-chaired by Craig Crowley, chief executive of Action Deafness, who has done a fantastic job. The board has 15 members, mainly BSL users and all with lived and/or professional experience of the barriers facing deaf people.
I have been very impressed with the board’s work, drawing on the experience of its members and their knowledge of those barriers to develop priorities and a focus for its work, including setting up sub-groups on specific issues. For example, the health and social care sub-group is compiling recommendations based on deaf people’s experiences in the health service—we have heard about a number of those in this debate. I have also spoke to SignHealth, which has made the point to me that BSL users often struggle even to make a GP appointment and to communicate basic health information with the NHS. The report of that sub-group, with its recommendations, will appear later on this year.
Over the last year, the board has also discussed deaf access to sport with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It presented at the British Deaf Association conference in Manchester, the theme of which was BSL in the early years, and I am grateful to the board co-chairs and other members for their commitment to improving the lives of deaf people and collaborating in order to do so.
I attended the education summit that the BSL Advisory Board organised at the Frank Barnes School for Deaf Children at King’s Cross last year. There were powerful contributions from senior leaders on the barriers that deaf children and their families face in education. That school is really interesting; it has a bilingual model of education and shares a playground with a hearing school, encouraging interaction between deaf and hearing children, contributing to the inclusion of everybody.
We want to enhance the status of BSL, and I agree with the points made in this debate that the GCSE will benefit BSL users generally, as well as those individual students who take it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
My constituent Sarah has been unable to afford a British Sign Language course for her son, which costs up to £400. I welcome the prospect of a GCSE in BSL, but that support is often unavailable where skills funding is not devolved. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to ensure that families in areas not yet devolved, such as Cornwall, can also affordably access BSL courses?
Sir Stephen Timms
The situation in Cornwall has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). My understanding is that the adult skills fund will be devolved in Cornwall under the recent devolution agreement that has been reached. The fund will be devolved from the coming academic year 2025-26, so there is an opportunity for local decision making in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth rightly made points about the way in which that funding has typically been used in the past, and the fact that the decision has certainly not always been made to provide courses along those lines. Following that devolution deal, there is at least the opportunity to do that.
I assure the House of our continuing commitment to the GCSE. Ofqual is now finalising the assessment arrangements for it, working closely with exam boards and BSL organisations to ensure that there is a fair and reliable assessment process. Ofqual met the BSL Advisory Board on 5 February to discuss that, and I think the board was generally reassured about the progress being made and the commitment to deliver. I am advised that the technical consultation that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked about will be launched in the next few weeks.
Mims Davies
I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurances. The message from the Chamber this afternoon has been about a postcode lottery, and different experiences for families in different parts of the country. I am grateful that the Minister is seeking to reassure and to work with Craig and others. Could the Minister undertake to work with our devolved nations—I mentioned the challenges in Wales and there is further progress in Holyrood—so that the postcode lottery does not extend despite the good efforts of his office?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I would be very glad to meet representatives of the devolved Governments, and to co-operate with them on this, as we do in many other areas.
Jim Shannon
The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a 24/7 video system, so that those who have hearing problems can contact them and somebody can come out immediately. Is that something that the Minister could push forward with police forces on the mainland?
Sir Stephen Timms
I welcome that innovative arrangement; if the hon. Member drops me a line about it, I would be interested to look at it further. That is a similar example to what we heard about some energy companies operating for their customers, and I welcome it.
Another main focus for the advisory board this year is the use of artificial intelligence to reduce barriers. How long will it be before we have a handheld device that will be able to interpret BSL both ways? What might be the pitfalls of that happening? Yesterday I chaired an interesting roundtable at Tata in Bishopsgate, attended by the co-chairs and members of the BSL Advisory Board, representatives of the British Deaf Association, the RNID, Professor Richard Bowden from the University of Surrey, and Professor Kearsy Cormier, professor of sign linguistics at University College London.
At the roundtable Dr Charudatta Jadhav, the principal scientist and head of the accessibility centre of excellence at Tata in India, told us that, while Tata is focusing initially on Indian and American Sign Language, it expects to have a BSL interpretation product within five years. We discussed the ethical and cultural issues around that: how can software interpret the nuances in facial expressions, which I believe are much more important in BSL than in Indian Sign Language? How do developers decide which version of BSL to implement? How will regional accents, which can provide a BSL user with valuable information about the signer, be handled? Those are interesting topics, and as Members have said, deaf people need to be in driving seat in resolving them.
Tech can certainly help deaf people to overcome barriers that too often and needlessly block opportunities that others take for granted. We want more of that potential to be realised. The Government have taken important steps around equal pay and flexible working. On Tuesday, we launched our 12-week consultation on mandatory disability pay gap reporting—including, I am pleased to say, a BSL version of the consultation document. We want deaf people to get the support they need to thrive in the workplace, and we recognise that too many do not at the moment.
Implementing the BSL Act is only just beginning. Let us all keep working together to deliver the access and inclusion for deaf people that all of us want to see. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and to everyone who has contributed to this important and welcome debate. I am grateful to those in the Public Gallery for their interest. I express particular thanks to the interpreters who have supported us today, and I thank Mr Speaker for enabling them to be with us.
Jen Craft
I thank all Members who have taken part, particularly those who took the time to learn some BSL. I also thank the interpreters, who have made it possible for the deaf community to join us.
I have a few reflections on things that were raised. There is certainly a learning point for all Members across the House to consider how we can best communicate with our constituents with hearing loss and those who are deaf, and how we can ensure that we are fully accessible. I will certainly be asking utility companies in my constituency—thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns)—whether they have taken measures to ensure that there is BSL interpretation for those who need it.
I thank the Minister; I am reassured by the Government’s continuing commitment to the BSL GCSE, but I reiterate my plea for a meeting to discuss early years support for parents and universal BSL language support for parents who have a deaf child, because that is sorely lacking right now. I look forward to next year, when hopefully we will be able to have this debate in the Chamber and have interpreters with us. I encourage all Members to show their support, to join us on the APPG and to take away from this debate that we must make sure that not just Parliament, but politics, is accessible for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered British Sign Language Week.
Tourism Industry
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the tourism industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce this debate during English Tourism Week, when people across the country will be celebrating all the fantastic tourism attractions that form part of the fabric of so many of our communities. They range from Land’s End to John O’Groats, from the Needles on the Isle of Wight to the neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkney Islands, and from the Titanic museum in Belfast to the Roman ruins of Colchester. Across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we are fortunate to have unique and interesting tourism attractions. We have them in, I feel reasonably confident in saying, every constituency and every corner of the country.
Tourism is a vast industry. It is worth £145.8 billion to the UK economy, which is equivalent to 6.5% of UK GDP. Tourism supports 3.8 million jobs, and 1.6 million people are directly employed in tourism. Some 328,000 businesses, representing 6.6% of all businesses in the UK, are tourism businesses; 76% of those are microbusinesses. Tourism is the UK’s sixth largest export earner and it feeds into a wide tourism ecosystem, supporting local high streets, hospitality and a wide range of other industries.
This Government have an ambition for our country to reach 50 million tourism visitors a year. It is an ambition that I support, and I hope that in this debate we can examine the role that Government and we in this place can play in supporting tourism nationally and backing our tourism economies locally. I am aware that, as the Member of Parliament for Mid Bedfordshire, I might not be the most obvious voice for tourism in this place. Bedfordshire has been rather left behind by the tourism economy. We are one of the last counties in England without an official local visitor economy partnership. That is despite fantastic attractions such as English Heritage’s Wrest Park, Whipsnade Zoo and Woburn Safari Park—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests following the safari park’s kind hosting of a roundtable and tour of the park for me earlier this year. We also have Center Parcs Woburn Forest, the Wyboston Lakes Resort, Luton Hoo and so much more.
Anyone who watched my debate last year on tourism in Bedfordshire—I am glad to be debating with the Minister on tourism again—will have heard me extol the virtues of Bedfordshire as a place to visit. However, despite those fantastic attractions, our county has a domestic tourism economy of just £250 million and an international tourism economy of just £100 million. We are not a remote county; we have a major international airport, a motorway and a direct rail connection. Bedfordshire’s tourism economy has so much potential to be a key part of growing the economy.
Where Bedfordshire has lagged, it now can lead. The Government have already thrown their weight behind East West Rail, which has the potential to make a real difference to local tourism, setting our county up as a central piece of an Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor that is full of growing businesses and, more importantly for this debate, attractions that embody what it is to be an English county. Like many other colleagues, we have fantastic opportunities in Bedfordshire to deliver new attractions that will boost our tourism economy. The Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park is one such opportunity, and would be capable of attracting 750,000 visitors, creating 1,000 jobs and bringing in an extra £26 million for our local economy. I will continue to bang the drum to get that delivered as quickly as possible.
The other major tourism project in my constituency is the game changer. Looming like a monstrous shark off Amity Island, a prehistoric predator off the coast of Costa Rica or an Italian-American plumber in the Mushroom Kingdom, the Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick would transform the tourism landscape in Bedfordshire. Universal is a game changer for Bedfordshire, but also for the whole UK tourism economy. Getting it right represents a £50 billion economic boost, 20,000 new jobs and 12 million more visitors every year. This Government talk a good game on growth and on growing tourism, but the proof is in the pudding, and for this Government the pudding would have the words “Universal Studios Bedfordshire” written on it. I sincerely hope that they will get this over the line.
With or without Universal, it has become clear that the support available from Government to promote our county is insufficient. Getting Bedfordshire an LVEP would help—indeed, getting an LVEP in all counties that are lagging behind would help enormously—but we must also ensure that tourism is a central consideration of English devolution. We must ensure that there is proper prioritisation in the minds of new mayors and proper funding from local government to allow our regions to shout about all the fantastic reasons to come and stay awhile.
If the Government want to get tourism right, they must provide that funding centrally, and resist the urge to consider local tourism taxes as a silver bullet. For Government, local taxes have the allure of a problem handed down to devolved areas to handle, but they will make the UK even more uncompetitive, introducing additional costs and confusion for holidaymakers at home and abroad.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member’s bold efforts to bring Bedfordshire’s tourism economy to the fore. In Cornwall, our tourism economy is already very much at the fore. Does he agree that it has been a mistake to see the industry as a sort of be-all and end-all in places such as Cornwall? Given the seasonality of the employment, the lack of infrastructure and the many opportunities beyond, it must be recognised that it can sometimes be a mistake to bed tourism so centrally into our growth plans.
Blake Stephenson
It is important that local economies are balanced, and I recognise that in some parts of the country it feels like the economy is imbalanced. Perhaps there are communities suffering from too many tourists, and I am sure that hon. Members may talk about that in the context of Cornwall. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is important that we have balanced economies throughout the United Kingdom. However, tourism in the United Kingdom has the potential to grow without the negative consequences that Government Members may wish to talk about.
The cost of tourism is already far too high. Evidence from the World Economic Forum puts the UK 113th out of 119 countries on price competitiveness. Our visitor visas are uncompetitive internationally: a 10-year visitor visa costs £962, but the United States charges Chinese visitors just £135 for a visa of the same length. Repeat visa applicants face a bureaucratic process that requires them to resubmit their biometrics, which is often a complex process for visitors from rural areas, who may need to travel significant distances to provide their biometrics. Lower-cost, longer-lasting and simpler visas will help to make the UK much more competitive as a tourism destination.
Our international price competitiveness was already low before the Government hiked the price of electronic travel authorisations by 60%—a policy that they admit will cost the UK just over 100,000 visitors every year. That is 100,000 fewer people staying in the accommodation sector, eating and drinking in our pubs and restaurants, and enjoying everything great that Britain has to offer and recommending a visit to their friends back home. The Home Office estimates that that means a cost to the UK economy in the region of up to £734 million over five years—in the same breath as the Government talk about being a Government for growth and growing the tourism economy to 50 million visitors per year.
If we are to achieve the Government’s goal of 50 million visitors per year, we need to make the UK more attractive to visitors at home and abroad, and less attractive as a source of revenue for the Treasury or local authorities. The evidence shows that for every 1% decrease in the cost of visiting the UK, the earnings of the UK’s inbound tourism economy increase by 1.3%. For every £74,300 increase in tourism revenue, a new full-time-equivalent job is created in tourism. Tourism is a growth-generating machine that the Government hold the keys to, but it is a machine that needs more careful maintenance than it is currently getting from this Government. Since the general election, businesses in tourism and its supporting industries have faced significant Government-imposed barriers to growth. Most notably, the Government’s decision to tax job creation and business expansion has left many tourism businesses putting their future plans on ice. Tourism businesses were already struggling, with 19% reporting that they are either in survival mode or performing quite badly.
Profitability for tourism businesses is down. The decision to increase their employer’s national insurance, taxing them for creating jobs and helping to grow the economy, all while reducing business rates relief, will have a devastating impact on the industry. If our tourism businesses fall, the attractiveness of visiting the UK falls with them, and tourism businesses are already falling. Just this month we have seen a theme park in Wales closed, citing national insurance as a contributing factor. As I mentioned earlier, in Bedfordshire we hope to be in the business of opening theme parks, not seeing them slip away. We know that where tourism thrives, it benefits the whole of the local economy, from accommodation providers and high street shops to pubs, cafés, museums and restaurants.
When tourism succeeds and grows, it brings the whole of the local economy with it. When tourism fails, it puts at risk not just the future of UK tourism and the Minister’s growth plan, but the whole ecosystem that it supports. The great British pub is a staple of British culture and a key attraction for visitors to the UK. Pubs like The Bell in Woburn, The Oddfellows Arms in Toddington and the Star and Garter in Silsoe are a key part of what makes Mid Bedfordshire a great place to spend time. One in four pubs believes their future may be untenable, and the Government’s £500 million hit to the cost of our pubs doing business will leave at least some of our destinations without the great British pub, something that is so attractive to visitors. I believe that the Minister is earnest in his desire to see 50 million visitors come to the UK each year, but I hope he will appreciate my concern that we need to do more to ensure that there are thriving businesses here to provide things for those visitors to see and do.
I would like the Government to focus more on supporting our best visitor attractions, including the great British pub and the British high street. We must also ensure that the planning system protects and enhances our tourism offer. That means faster approvals for game changers such as Universal, so that we can continue to be a fantastic place for projects and investment, such as that proposed in my constituency. That will mean better transport infrastructure across the whole country.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate in English Tourism Week. Tourism in the fantastic county of Kent is worth around £4 billion per annum. It supports 77,000 jobs, and there is still unmet need. Does he agree that the reinstatement of Eurostar stopping at Ashford and Ebbsfleet would help the county to grow this vital sector further?
Blake Stephenson
That is a fantastic idea. I was travelling just yesterday on the Eurostar and thinking to myself how great it would be if the train stopped at Ashford and Ebbsfleet and passengers could get off, having come from the Netherlands, to savour the delights of Kent, a county that I know very well. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is a fantastic idea. Perhaps the Minister will have an update on what is happening with Eurostar.
Blake Stephenson
He also might not. Let us see.
Better transport infrastructure across the whole country would help our tourism industry, which would include Luton airport expansion in Bedfordshire—perhaps the Minister has an update on that; or maybe he does not.
That will mean finding the right mixture of development in areas like mine to allow for some of the things that we need to take advantage of the opportunities of tourism. In particular, in Bedfordshire we need more accommodation to ensure that people stay awhile in our communities, rather than visiting for a day and going somewhere else for the bulk of their visit. We will also need to protect and enhance some of our beautiful countryside and landscapes, which distinguish our country and our counties from our international competitors.
The Greensand Ridge national character area in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire is characterised by its ancient and modern woodlands, farms and parkland and the historic look and feel of its small settlements, often former estate villages. Many of those settlements are distinctive Bedfordshire “ends” villages—hamlets or small villages built in a line along the road—but development within the national character area is threatening the character of many of those small settlements. We must make sure that delivering new development does not come at the expense of maintaining our communities as places where people from far and wide will be able to feel a sense of unique local character and pride. If our countryside and our towns become identikit places that we could see anywhere, people who want to experience them can go anywhere. We must embrace what makes Britain, and in my case Bedfordshire, a great place to spend time.
I hope it has come across in this debate that I wish the Government the very best in their ambition to deliver their national visitor economy strategy later this year and to achieve 50 million visitors per year. In me they will find a constructively critical friend willing to work across the House to deliver on the promise of the tourism industry for my local economy in Mid Bedfordshire and the UK’s economy as a whole. I hope that as the Minister continues to shape his thoughts on his strategy, he will consider my remarks in that spirit. I hope that his strategy will set out how the Government will protect and enhance the attractiveness of the UK offer to visitors from overseas and domestic holidaymakers. That means protecting the things that make Britain great, from the high street, the local pub and the beautiful countryside to the many set-piece tourist attractions that we are known for the world over. I hope that his strategy will also set out a coherent plan to make the UK more price competitive with our major international competitors. The Government cannot simply talk growth into being. It takes real decisions—tough decisions—on competing priorities to make the UK more competitive and bring about growth.
I mentioned electronic travel authorisations, but the industry also raised with me things such as tax-free shopping, visa costs and air passenger duty in preparation for this debate. It is clear that more must be done to bring the cost of visiting the UK down to deliver growth in tourism. I hope that the Minister’s strategy will set out, alongside the work his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are doing, how the Government’s plans for English devolution will empower local communities like mine to drive our local tourism agendas. In particular, I would like to see the completion of the roll-out of local visitor economy partnerships so that counties like Bedfordshire can take our place at the tourism table and shout more easily about all the fantastic things to come and do in our county.
I would also like to see the new mayors and local authorities backed with a framework and real funding from Government to deliver local tourism strategies. I believe that it is desirable to tie all these strands together for the Government to commit to tourism as a priority. Including tourism in the industrial strategy and having a dedicated tourism Minister working cross-departmentally —not, as he currently is, a tourism Minister stretched across multiple portfolios and Departments—would be a positive first step towards that.
Finally, the Minister knows that I cannot end my speech without a final expression of hope that we will one day be able to cut the ribbon on a new Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick in Mid Bedfordshire. I know the Government remain locked in negotiations with Universal, and both parties continue to have my full support to do whatever it takes to secure this fantastic investment in my community. I look forward to hearing ideas from colleagues about how we can best support our tourism industry across the United Kingdom.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to speak they need to bob.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. If Members are thinking about where to visit in the Easter or summer holidays, I have a location in mind. It is somewhere visitors can pick up a fossil, take a boat trip, see the sets where “Peaky Blinders” was shot, or feed the giraffes. If Members need any more clues, it is the heart of the industrial revolution. If Members are still guessing, the answer is Dudley, with its zoo and castle, the Black Country Living Museum and, of course, the historic canals and caverns, where people can enjoy a leisurely boat trip or the beauty of the canals as they go for a picturesque walk.
Dudley borough had 9.6 million visitors in 2023 and has a visitor economy of £447 million. Dudley has something to offer everybody. Its tourism sector has supported a wide range of jobs, from retail and zoology to site managers and tour guides, and is an integral part of the society and fabric of Dudley. It is therefore time we push forward with a plan to revitalise the tourism industry with a fresh start. I must stress that plans to talk about tourism cannot just focus on hotspots like London or coastal towns; they must also focus on towns that are rich in culture and history.
The Black Country Living Museum, for example, has carefully reconstructed shops, houses and industrial areas that represent the Black Country’s history. It was a pleasure to hear that the museum had a record-breaking year in 2023, with 380,000 visitors, including 53,000 students and pupils. I want to encourage more visitors to come to Dudley, not just for the day but overnight, to stay and expand the nighttime economy, so that our bars and restaurants can benefit from the fantastic offerings of the tourism industry.
The nature of supporting the tourism sector is that every £1 spent is multiplied by visitors spending money on attractions, restaurants, hotels, bars and taxis. There is a remarkable opportunity for the Black Country at the moment, offered by the Dudley Canal Trust: the proposed plan by Dudley Canal and Caverns to extend the unique area from the Dudley canal to the Wren’s Nest. It would be great to connect both areas. It is a UNESCO world heritage site, where people can take a fossil home; it is a secret gem in the Black Country. Its prehistoric geology and nature is a beauty to be seen. I believe that the area should be more connected. The project is estimated to attract half a million tourists in the first eight years of opening if completed.
It is integral to see Dudley from a different lens, as a place where new meets old. It is crucial that we recognise the value of the entire tourism ecosystem, from small businesses to hotels, restaurants and larger attractions, but we need Government support to ensure that we have the resources and infrastructure to succeed. Stagnation in the tourism industry will come if we do not invest. There are far too many empty shops in Dudley town centre. If the tourism industry could be supported, it would attract more businesses to open.
I have two simple requests: will the Minister meet me to discuss the fantastic project to connect Wren’s Nest to the Dudley canal to boost tourism in Dudley, and will he work closely with regional towns such as Dudley to ensure that they are at the centre of the Government’s plans for tourism?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I will not impose a formal time limit, but there are eight people trying to take part in the debate, so please be considerate when you give your speeches. I know somebody who will definitely be very considerate, so I call David Mundell.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Edward—I will certainly try. I want to make two general points and then a specific point about my constituency. First, I very much welcome the announcement that the Tour de France will begin in Edinburgh. As I represent a very large constituency in the south of Scotland, it seems to me inevitable that it would have to proceed through my constituency in order to reach England. I therefore make that plea, particularly given that cycling has become so important to the Borders part of my constituency, with the Tweed valley being a world-class mountain biking venue. The mountain biking community has transformed the economy, particularly of the former mill town of Innerleithen.
My second point is a more general one. I think the Government and others can do more to ensure that tourists come out of London. The majority of tourists come into London. We all pass this crowded centre around Parliament and see the streets teeming with people. Of course London has great attractions, but so does the rest of the United Kingdom. We have heard about Dudley and Bedfordshire. We need to encourage tourists to leave London and see the rest of the United Kingdom. In that regard, I hope the Minister and the Government will continue to work with the Scottish Government on their objectives of promoting Scotland. As the Minister would expect, my view is, of course, that it should be Scotland within the United Kingdom, not Scotland as a separate entity, as sometimes they have been moved to suggest.
Like other Members, I obviously advocate the benefits of my constituency. Because it is very large, if I tried to list the attractions and facilities there I would run the risk of missing some, but it is a very scenic, rural area. I am very pleased that Government support is continuing for the Clydesdale Way, which will link cycle and walking routes in the south Lanarkshire part of my constituency, and for the redevelopment of the Crook Inn, a historic inn in the Borders, which will now have a bunkhouse to support walkers and cyclists.
Recently, the Dumfries and Galloway part of my constituency received a disappointing setback when an article appeared in The Times on 26 February by a journalist called Gabriella Bennett, in which she said:
“I hate to say it, but I won’t be rushing back to southwest Scotland.”
Journalists in national newspapers sometimes do not realise the impact they can have on local businesses and communities. The article is not just wrong but ill researched, because Ms Bennett says:
“Once you get to Dumfries and Galloway and moon over the nature, there isn’t an awful lot left.”
Well, she obviously took no time to find out about the plethora of distilleries, art galleries, delis, cafés, restaurants, museums, outdoor activity centres, off-road cycle centres, castles, public gardens, National Trust houses, farm parks, children’s activity centres, history tours, guided art tours, golf courses, independent retailers, the planetarium and book and record shops, to name but a few.
I am delighted to say that there has been a fightback. An article by Jane Morrison-Ross—the chief executive of South of Scotland Enterprise—entitled “Please give southwest Scotland a chance” appeared in The Times in response. She said:
“Dumfries and Galloway has more to offer than cookie-cutter tourism”.
That is exactly the position. It is a unique offering, but it is not the same as the offering that, say, Universal Studios or a historic industrial centre offers to visitors. Each of our communities has something unique to offer, and we should not be disparaged for the fact that we are remote and rural, and that we luxuriate in our rurality, the scenery, the quietness and the natural environment.
However, Dumfries and Galloway has other features, one of which would appeal particularly to the Minister: the new £2 million destination spa at the Cairndale Hotel in Dumfries, which is already attracting national attention as one of the best spas in Scotland. It takes up 1,300 square metres over two floors and features a thermal pool, an aroma steam room, Himalayan salt and infrared saunas, a herbal lounge and a private bathing suite. I know the Minister would be very welcome in those premises.
David Mundell
I am inviting you, because it is a flagship new development in the constituency.
Ellisland farm near Dumfries, which I visited recently, has had a substantial investment of nearly £500,000 from the National Lottery Heritage Fund. That iconic location, which is the former home of Robert Burns, plays a crucial role in Scotland’s history and identity. It will be an immersive visitor experience.
I could go on, Sir Edward, but I will not go on for too long. I will mention the Grey Mare’s Tail, the fact that Moffat is the dark sky town and the eagle town, Annan harbour and Annandale Distillery. Of course, I must mention the iconic Gretna Green, which has been for so long the United Kingdom’s leading wedding venue. If anyone is so minded, there are some very attractive packages on offer. I hope that, in my brief contribution, I have well and truly suggested that Ms Bennett, in her Times article, was completely and utterly wrong about Dumfries and Galloway, and that it is somewhere well worth visiting.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I assure my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, that we love south-west Scotland—almost as much as Dudley.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Tourism in England is a vibrant and essential part of the country’s economy, given the rich tapestry of historic landmarks, cultural experiences and natural beauty. From the bustling streets of London to the serene landscapes of the Lake district, England attracts millions of visitors each year. The UK Government play a crucial role in supporting and promoting tourism, and ensuring that the sector continues to thrive and contribute to the nation’s prosperity.
England is renowned for its diverse tourist attractions. London, the capital city, is a global hub of culture, history and entertainment. Visitors flock to iconic landmarks such as the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and the British Museum. The city’s vibrant art scene, world-class dining and shopping districts make it a must-visit destination.
Beyond London, cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool offer unique cultural experiences. Manchester is known for its rich industrial heritage and vibrant music scene, while Birmingham boasts a vibrant and diverse culinary landscape and impressive architecture. Liverpool—of course, the birthplace of The Beatles—attracts music enthusiasts from all over the world.
The English countryside is equally captivating. The Lake district, a UNESCO world heritage site, offers stunning landscapes, hiking trails and picturesque villages. The Cotswolds, with its charming stone cottages and rolling hills, provides a quintessentially English experience. Coastal towns such as Brighton, Polperro and Whitby offer beautiful beaches and a relaxed atmosphere.
The UK Government recognise the importance of tourism and have implemented various initiatives to support the sector. The tourism sector deal, introduced in 2019, aims to boost productivity and investment in tourism. That initiative includes the creation of tourism zones that bring together local businesses and organisations to develop co-ordinated strategies for growth. Those zones focus on increasing off-season visits and enhancing the visitor experience.
The Government are also investing in skills development to ensure that the tourism industry is well equipped with a well-trained workforce. Two new T-level courses in cultural heritage and visitor attractions and catering have been introduced to provide specialised training for future industry workers. Additionally, the Government are working with industry partners to deliver 30,000 apprenticeships a year by 2025.
In response to the covid-19 pandemic, the tourism recovery plan was launched to assist the sector’s recovery. That plan includes measures to support businesses, protect jobs and promote domestic tourism. The Government are also focusing on making the UK the most accessible tourism destination in Europe by 2025, aiming to increase the number of international disabled visitors by a third.
The Colne and Holme valleys that I represent are rich in cultural heritage and community spirit. The Marsden Mechanics, a historic building in the village of Marsden, serves as a vibrant community hub and hosts a variety of events, workshops and performances. The canal in Slaithwaite is another local gem, offering picturesque walks and boat trips that showcase the area’s natural beauty. Those valleys are also known for their lively festivals that bring together residents and visitors alike.
In Colne valley, the annual Marsden jazz festival attracts music lovers from far and wide, while the Slaithwaite moonraking festival celebrates local folklore with lantern parades and performances. Last but not least is Holmfirth, a charming market town that offers a unique blend of natural beauty and cultural heritage, known for its picturesque landscapes and as the filming location for the iconic TV series—I am testing people’s ages here—“Last of the Summer Wine”. [Laughter.] They are laughing, so it is fine.
Chris Bryant
He was in it—the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)! It was the third series.
Paul Davies
I certainly cannot answer that.
Visitors to Holmfirth can explore the winding streets, stone cottages and of course the River Holme. There are many art galleries, festivals and live events, and the fantastic Picturedrome, an early 20th century cinema that now serves as a popular venue for concerts and performances. Amazingly, we also have Holmfirth Vineyard, which produces local wines and capitalises on the area’s unique microclimate.
Outdoor enthusiasts will enjoy the fantastic scenery, the fantastic walks and hiking. We have a wonderful facility, the Holme Valley Camping and Caravan Park, which I visited quite recently. It is ideally suited for people to come and enjoy all the wonders of the Holme valley.
Tourism in England is a dynamic and vital sector supported by comprehensive Government initiatives. From the bustling cities to the tranquil countryside, England offers a variety and a wealth of experiences for visitors. Holmfirth in particular stands out as a charming destination in West Yorkshire, offering a mix of cultural attractions and natural beauty that captivates all who visit.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. The theme of this year’s English Tourism Week is supporting people and places to drive growth, which is a sentiment that I fully support—and not just because it refers to driving and I have the world-famous Silverstone in my constituency. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Tourism brings so much to our areas. As my hon. Friend noted, South Northamptonshire may not have the illuminations of Blackpool, the beaches of St Ives in Cornwall or the famous Giant’s Causeway of County Antrim, but in addition to our racing jewel in the crown, we have the Stoke Bruerne museum alongside the Grand Union canal; Tanks-alot, a tank driving experience in Helmdon; Salcey forest, a medieval royal hunting ground; Wollaston Museum; Towcester Museum; some beautiful grade I listed churches; some gorgeous gardens such as the Evenley Wood garden; and beautiful high streets in Towcester and Brackley, the latter of which hosts the Brackley’s Got Talent summer show and the former a midsummer festival. Visitors do not need to go to my alma mater of Oxford to see history in action. They can go to Sulgrave Manor, a Tudor manor and the ancestral home of George Washington, the first President of the United States of America.
It was recently announced that a local visitor economy partnership for Northamptonshire has been approved by the Government and the tourism body VisitEngland. That is great, as it comes in the year in which the wider country of Northamptonshire hosts the women’s rugby world cup and celebrates 75 years of Formula 1, alongside a cultural programme remembering the anniversary of the great fire of Northampton. It is the first step in a long journey to unlock funding and support, and to allow us to compete on the national stage.
I applaud the Government’s ambitious strategy to grow inbound tourism to 50 million visits by 2030, but I return to the theme of this week—supporting people and places to drive growth. Many people who run tourism businesses do not feel that support, because they are worried by the Budget announcements on employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage increases, alongside the reduction in business rates. Those policies do not help them to grow.
In response, the Government often just cite the £22 billion black hole or 14 years of chaos, but I gently remind them that that is of little comfort to those business owners. Dismissing years of hard work with a slogan, while pushing on with harmful measures, does not do justice to the worries that they are facing. I implore the Minister to speak to the Chancellor ahead of her spring statement next week and ask her to think again about how she can support our employers, grow businesses as they so desperately want to, and hire young workers and give them their first jobs in our local communities. All those things are slipping away under this Government.
I want my destinations to continue—unlike Oakwood theme park in Wales, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, which has announced its closure, with national insurance a contributing factor. Our tourist destinations are based on not just bricks and mortar, but the very people who run them, and we must remember them in all that we do. During the upcoming Easter recess, I urge Members to support their local pubs, take a day trip to their local tourist attractions, and help to preserve the heart of our local communities.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this debate. Tourism is a cornerstone of life in South East Cornwall. From the beautiful sand beaches of Whitsand bay to the historic harbour at Polperro, our coastline is a true gem. Visitors come to Looe for its fishing heritage and vibrant seafront, while the wild beauty of Bodmin moor offers a stark contrast to those picture-perfect seaside towns, and Port Eliot is a stunning house and gardens with a rich cultural tapestry. Whether it is surfing, sailing, hiking or simply enjoying a Cornish pasty with a sea view, South East Cornwall has something for everyone, attracting visitors from across the UK and internationally.
We are so proud to welcome visitors, but we must also ensure that tourism works for the people who live year-round in Cornwall and other coastal communities such as mine. Those communities are distinct from inland neighbours in ways that bring both pride and specific challenges. Tourism brings jobs and investment, but our local services, housing and infrastructure must be able to support residents and visitors alike.
Many industries in my constituency are tied to tourism, and they struggle outside the peak seasons. They rely on the summer booms to sustain them through the quieter months. Although we must celebrate everything that tourism brings, it cannot be our only route to prosperity. We cannot have local families and businesses sitting idle, waiting for the summer season to return. It is important to have balance in our community, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned.
Supporting tourism is not just about increasing visitor numbers. As other Members have said, it is about ensuring that the communities sustaining it can flourish year-round. That means investing in local infrastructure, transport and housing, so that coastal towns such as mine are places where people can afford to live, work and visit. Supporting our local attractions enriches our lives at home and boosts the economy. South East Cornwall has so much to offer. Our community is resilient, but we certainly need recognition and support for the work that goes on year-round.
Labour now represents more coastal seats than ever before. We have the opportunity to deliver the sea change around our coastal towns that is so desperately needed.
Anna Gelderd
It was terrible, but it had to be done.
I ask the Minister to outline what support the Government will provide to areas such as South East Cornwall, where tourism is a key part of our economy, to ensure that tourism is sustained and managed, and that it grows sustainably. It is vital that my local community is equipped to thrive in the long term, and that our coastal towns remain vibrant and resilient not just during the peak season but year-round.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his passion for making the best of our potential. Other hon. Members have raved about their constituencies, and it will come as no surprise that I will do something similar. The only difference will be that at the end, I expect everybody to sign up for a trip to Strangford—they can book their flights on British Airways, Aer Lingus or however they want.
In Northern Ireland, tourism generates some 4.9% of GDP. It is important for us, contributing £750 million to the local economy each year. The industry offers a high number of entry-level positions, and we are proud that it provides training particularly for young people. It is one of the few sectors where the majority of employees are women, so there are specific opportunities for more ladies to have jobs in the sector.
External visitors were estimated to have taken some 3.3 million overnight trips to Northern Ireland in 2023. Expenditure associated with those trips was just short of £1 billion, meaning that tourism is worth almost £1 billion as an export business. In addition to that, 2.1 million domestic overnight trips were made by local residents in 2023. We also have a very strong connection with our Scottish Gaelic cousins. There have always been relationships, friendships and families between Scotland and Northern Ireland. My ancestors came from the lowlands of Scotland to Northern Ireland, so that is important to me. Those are some of the things that we can work on.
The central economic theme for Ards and North Down borough council is tourism, which creates jobs, wages and opportunities. We have not yet come close to the potential that we hold, but my local council is working on displaying to the world all that we have to offer. From Airbnbs with stunning sea views to sea-bathing facilities for those who are game enough to try wild-water bathing, from beauty salons to beautiful vistas, and from tours at the world-class Echlinville distillery to rounds of golf on our second-to-none courses, Strangford has it all to offer. From water sports to dolphin-spotting boat tours, in or out of the lough, there is so much for every age to partake of.
We also have a rich culture and history, from our historical monastic trail—St Patrick’s, obviously—to one of the top 10 gardens in the world in Mount Stewart, excellently run by the National Trust; that is a place to be visited. From world war sites to modern day marvels, it is all served with a side of the warmest hospitality and the tastiest home-cooked, farm-fresh food that one could ever hope to have. I defy anyone in this House and further afield to try to offer the mix that Strangford has naturally at its fingertips.
Here is the issue. When someone looks up city breaks or adventure weekends, they will have to scroll to find Northern Ireland. I believe that does a disservice to the entirety of the United Kingdom. We are very proud to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; I say that every time because it is what I believe, and what I think we need to focus on. Although I recognise the benefit of an all-Ireland approach to tourism promotion on paper, in reality we are the poor cousins. That is why I ask our four strong nations to do more to promote each of our nations individually. England is more than London, in the same way that Northern Ireland is certainly more than the Giant’s Causeway, as phenomenal as that is.
We need to promote the quick, hour-long flight between London and Belfast, and the removal of APD would help with that. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to air passenger duty as one of the issues that constituents had brought to his attention when he talked to them over the weekend. No one who comes to Northern Ireland on a break regrets it; most people just do not know it is an option. If someone books their flight well in advance, they can get it for slightly over £100. If I try to change my flight on the night it costs almost £500. I will not be doing that, but I give that as an example of where British Airways have you—but I cannot use that terminology as it would not be appropriate.
The benefits of tourism are clear. There must be no barriers to enjoying this United Kingdom as whole. I wish the Minister well, and he has got a keen interest in this. He shows his enthusiasm for this issue, and I know that when we seek the questions we will get the answers. He will encourage us in our quest to put tourism at the top of what we are.
Colleagues of mine made their way to St Patrick’s day events in Washington in an attempt to secure a two-way traffic of holidaymakers between us and the States. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referred to one President of the United States; we in Northern Ireland can claim 18 Presidents who were Ulster-Scots, with that history and those cultural links. We believe that our historical and cultural connection with the United States is special. It highlights our shared history, and the possibilities in the future. It is hoped that the success of that trip to Washington will be seen in increased visitor numbers.
The history of this nation is an attraction, but our biggest attraction is the strength of the character of our people. Nothing encourages me as much as the people I meet. The people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Wales, Scotland and England as well, are always very hospitable and chatty, always engaging socially, and always trying to help. That is the sort of nation we have, and the sort of tourism we can build on. We can offer more people more opportunity to be involved in our tourism industry. This rising tide will certainly lift all the ships around this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and invigorate our tourism industry once more.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate. I am sure my husband, who is a Bedfordshire native, would have very much enjoyed his hymn to Bedfordshire. It has been a real pleasure to be a part of this debate, and to listen to Members from across the United Kingdom speak with such pride about their communities and extol the virtues of a visit.
Estimates show that visits to the UK are set to rise to above pre-pandemic levels, but in recent years the growth and prosperity that the tourism sector provides to our economy have been hampered. The pandemic is, of course, the primary explanation of the huge reduction in the number of people visiting the UK, but another key factor is Britain’s exit from the European Union. In response to a survey asking individuals why they would not consider travelling to the UK, around 60% of respondents identified political uncertainty as a deterrent, and around 45% cited potential increases in post-Brexit travel and accommodation costs.
The UK tourism sector directly employs approximately 3.1 million people, and businesses reliant on tourism-generating revenue have reduced hiring rates since 2016. That has impacted people’s livelihoods: individuals reliant on the tourism industry have experienced heightened job insecurity due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic and Brexit. During a cost of living crisis, it is so important that people feel secure in their fields of work.
My constituency is home to a number of popular tourist destinations, including Richmond Park, after which my constituency is named. The decline of tourism to the UK has been felt by businesses around my constituency, because the park itself hosts 5.5 million visitors every year. Many of the hospitality businesses in the area rely on the footfall that the park attracts, and I have already received multiple emails from constituents saying how concerned they are about rumoured cuts to the park’s police department, which will detract from the tranquillity and safety of Richmond Park.
The park police conduct excellent work in the Royal Parks across London, ensuring that criminal activity and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. The service they provide ensures that Richmond Park remains one of London’s top tourist destinations. The tourism industry is tied to so many different sections of our society, and that is just one example of how insufficient funding for an important department can have a knock-on effect.
I am also the proud representative of Kew Gardens which, according to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is the 13th most-visited attraction in the UK, with just under 2 million visitors in 2023. If anyone is thinking of something to do this weekend, I recommend a visit to Kew Gardens, particularly to see the blossom and magnolia in their peak season—I swear that it is the best place in the UK to be this weekend. At the moment, they are accompanied by a musical soundscape from students of the Royal College of Music, so it is well worth a visit.
If people are looking for something to eat or drink afterwards, I can recommend a visit to the Original Maids of Honour tea room, just over the road. It is named after the dainty little tarts that have been baked since Tudor times. Henry VIII was allegedly so taken with the recipe that he kept it under lock and key at Richmond Palace, which can unfortunately no longer be visited because it burned down in the 15th century.
Kew Gardens has been suffering from the continued suspension of rail services. The District line and the Mildmay line have seen repeated cancellations and suspensions of services, particularly over the past year. I have heard directly from the director at Kew Gardens how those have affected visitor numbers, not just to Kew Gardens itself but to all the nearby businesses and services. That goes to show how cuts to transport or railway maintenance impact our tourism sector.
Tourism plays a huge role in ensuring the viability of our businesses, and we want the Government to reflect that role by upgrading its status with a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality. They could provide a holistic view across Government Departments and help to resolve not just some of the issues in my constituency, but issues raised by hon. Members throughout the debate. Promoting our tourism sector should be a focus for the Government. The appointment of a dedicated Minister would provide much-needed oversight and forward thinking to drive tourism and investment in the UK.
In addition, the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure, and our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to our economy and employ millions of people. Our globally renowned creative industries attract visitors to the UK, and we are proud to be home to some of the most visited galleries, theatres and sports venues in Europe. Many of the creative industries intersect with tourism, and the Liberal Democrats support measures that allow creative industries to flourish, which means making tourism more accessible.
We want to ensure that people everywhere can enjoy the benefits of sport, music and the arts. One such measure would be to rejoin Creative Europe. The creative industry is one of the many sectors that was severely damaged by the catastrophic Brexit deals patched together by the last Conservative Government. The increased red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy and increased costs associated with travel, trade and hiring have left many creative industries struggling. Will the Minister commit to bolstering our tourism and supporting our cherished creative industries by committing to rejoin Creative Europe?
Tourism does not just enrich us economically. The benefits of expanding our horizons would allow for opportunities more broadly. As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement that allowed EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, while UK nationals are limited to a 90-day visa waiver when they visit the Schengen zone. That makes tourism challenging for more people—a further example of the appalling deal that the previous Conversative Government secured. By addressing this inequality and bringing forward a more reciprocal agreement, we could encourage more people to travel and explore, broadening opportunities for all British people—that should be central to any Government policy.
I take this opportunity to renew Liberal Democrat calls for the Government to consider entering into a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. We have been talking about this a lot in Parliament—
Sarah Olney
We have! We have had countless debates and I have mentioned it on many occasions at Cabinet Office questions—my more usual home. Indeed, a Petitions Committee debate is scheduled in this very Chamber for Monday afternoon, when we will doubtless raise the issue again. I urge the Government to consider such a scheme and the opportunities it would create for young people. Some of the recruitment pressures the tourism industry faces could be alleviated by considering the merits of a UK-EU youth mobility visa.
To summarise, the tourism industry in the UK has been blighted by Britain’s exit from the European Union and the catastrophic deal the previous Government reached with our neighbours. This has impacted the viability of our businesses and the job security of millions of people. I encourage the Government to take the steps outlined in my speech to help to bolster our tourism sector.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to praise some of today’s fantastic contributions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and making a passionate speech, not least in respect of what he called “Universal Studios Bedfordshire”, with which I wish him all success. I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar). As someone who was born and brought up in Walsall, not too far from Dudley, I can attest to the wonderful Black Country and what Dudley has to offer. She made a wonderful case for that.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) took us on a tour of the whole of the UK—the urban and the rural—and that was very much appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) gave a wonderful tour of her constituency. If I visit her there, I am torn between driving a tank, visiting Silverstone, or doing something at a much gentler pace and visiting some of the churches. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the important issue of coastal towns and sustainable tourism. Our good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—a friend of all of ours—made a wonderful case for his constituency. He made the case for wild-water bathing—I guess the clue is in the name—golf and whiskey, which sounds like a perfect holiday. I am sure someone will take him up on that.
I want to single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who gave a wonderful, succinct tour of his constituency. Although I noticed that I did not get an invite to the spa, I recognise how much of a one-man tourism champion he is for his constituency. I hope Gabriella Bennett was listening; hopefully she will reconsider her views—and maybe he will give her a tour of the constituency as well.
As we heard from a number of hon. Members, tourism is at the heart of our local economies across all four corners of the UK. Each region’s unique history and heritage draws people from all over the world to visit the UK. Whether it is a golf trip to Scotland, a visit to the incredible Titanic museum in Belfast, a walking holiday in the stunning Welsh hills, or a trip to London—or anywhere else in England—there is something exciting to do wherever people are in the UK.
Just yesterday, in the glorious spring sunshine, the shadow Secretary of State and I visited the Charterhouse in central London, which has a fascinating history dating back to the 14th century. The Charterhouse now acts as a museum, a charity caring for people over the age of 60, and a venue for many different events, with the museum gaining support from the national lottery heritage fund. As evidenced by my visit yesterday, we have a thriving heritage sector—in my view, unrivalled the world over.
There are so many other reasons to visit the UK. We have a wonderful hospitality and nightlife economy across the United Kingdom, incredible sports venues and competitions, and some of the most remarkable natural landscapes in the world. In England alone, the tourism sector contributes more than £70 billion to the UK economy annually and employs more than 1.6 million people directly, with millions more benefiting indirectly.
For many of those people, those jobs are essential lifelines. There are thousands of students and other part-time workers who work hard all summer to give themselves that extra bit of cash over the academic year. Some of our retirees busy themselves during the week by volunteering at a local museum or a stately home. Put simply, the UK’s tourism sector impacts us all and we should be incredibly proud of it.
That is why English Tourism Week is a critical opportunity to celebrate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire again for tabling this debate at such an apt time in the calendar. The Government have an ambition to achieve 50 million visits; I support them in that ambition, but they are yet to unveil a clear strategy, so I look forward to hearing more; I am sure the Minister will enlighten us on how he is progressing with the release of that strategy. There are many thousands of businesses that rely heavily on a thriving tourism sector, and it is urgent that the Government do all they can to help champion it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire alluded to, I must also look at the impact of the recent Budget. Many hon. Members from across the House have championed tourism in their constituencies, but it is impossible to ignore the dark cloud that looms over the tourism industry. Inevitably, the disastrous Budget by the Chancellor has created a perfect storm for the UK’s tourism sector.
The shadow Culture, Media and Sport team hosted a roundtable in February and heard from representatives across the UK tourism sector who were deeply concerned about the rising cost of national insurance contributions. It is estimated that the hospitality industry will incur an extra £1 billion-worth of costs for 774,000 workers who will be newly eligible for employer national insurance in April when the Chancellor’s tax rises kick in. In particular, it appears that the lowering of the threshold will cause enormous damage to the industry—but do not take it from me; take it from the chief executive of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, who said:
“The change to employer NICs is one of the most regressive tax changes ever.”
Perhaps the Minister can comment on that, because it is a serious concern that many people in the hospitality and tourism sector are raising. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire raised the important issue of pubs, and I hope the Minister will talk about those concerns too.
It is not just the rise in national insurance contributions that will have a huge impact on the tourism sector, however. The shadow Culture, Media and Sport team have also heard from representatives of the UK’s most recognisable historic houses and stately homes at our recent roundtable, where they articulated the devastating impact of both business and agricultural property relief changes. Given that the Government have set a target of 50 million annual visitors by 2030, and that almost a quarter of respondents in VisitBritain’s most recent sentiment tracker said they would visit a heritage site on their next trip, we cannot afford to put our heritage at risk—but I fear Labour is doing exactly that.
A survey in December 2024 by Historic Houses found that 87% of respondents would be impacted by the changes to BPR and APR, meaning that cash will be diverted from business investment, salaries, repairs and maintenance. Staggeringly, 41% of respondents said they will have to make redundancies or freeze the hiring of new staff. That might mean that some of our most beloved heritage sites are less sustainable and attractive to foreign visitors, less able to recruit local staff—often in rural areas—and less likely to remain open for the public to better understand Britain’s rich history. Many of these sites are vital to rural communities and now they are being put at risk, which puts those communities at risk too.
With many businesses in the tourism sector already on the edge, it is deeply concerning that the Chancellor’s decisions last October may push them over the cliff edge. The rising cost of national insurance contributions, minimum wage increases, union-enhancing legislation reminiscent of the 1970s and the reduction in business rates relief could have a terrible impact on businesses in the sector: that is what they are telling us. More importantly, it could mean that thousands of people looking for part-time work this summer, especially in rural and coastal communities, will struggle to find it. That could have terrible consequences for the Government’s No.1 mission of economic growth.
I consider the Minister to be a good man; I believe he is sincere in his ambition to increase visits to the UK, but I have asked him before about an impact assessment as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget and he has not been forthcoming with that, so perhaps today will be the day that he will share some of those figures on the impact of that Budget on the tourism sector. Across this House, we all agree that tourism is vital for our constituents, and we support his ambition to attract 50 million visitors to the UK by 2030, but the actions that his Government are taking may well do the complete opposite. I hope he can reassure the House and the sector that he will fight for the tourism industry, because we Conservatives will continue to do so.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Nobody has yet mentioned Gainsborough Old Hall, one of the most beautiful sights in the country.
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson): this is “Blake 2”, the second debate we have had on this subject since he has arrived in the House, so I commend him for his dedication to tourism issues. He congratulated the Government on our commitment to the East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, which will be an important driver of growth in his constituency. Many people have said that they simply do not understand why previous Governments did not get round to doing this.
I note the poker face the shadow Minister is adopting at the moment, but he knows, I am afraid, that I cannot go very far in what I can say about Universal Studios. I have said before that the theme park will be absolutely transformational. One of the key aspects that I pointed out to the executives—I met them when they were over a few weeks ago, and hope to meet them again soon—one of the key aspects of the site is that 80% of the population are within two hours’ travel. For both international and UK visitors, it will be a significant addition to our portfolio in the UK and I very much hope that we can get it over the line.
I could take offence at the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire’s demands for a dedicated tourism Minister, but I have decided that he already has one, so that is fine: I am a dedicated tourism Minister, and I am absolutely determined to make sure that we make a difference in this territory. When I was a Back Bencher, I was always calling for new Ministers for this, that, and the other, but one of the things about the UK is that we have more Ministers than France and Germany put together—or, for that matter, Australia, India, and New Zealand put together. The constant demand for separate Ministries can be a mistake, not least because of the connections between issues. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) pointed out, the connection between tourism and the creative industries is so significant that I think it would be a mistake to separate them. We need to make sure we are making the big argument on behalf of a very large sector, rather than hiving tourism off to a separate Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) has written to me, and I will try to respond as fast as I can. Her idea sounds perfectly good; some of the responsibility for what she talked about lies with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and some lies with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but there is no reason why we cannot have joined-up Government. If we did, we might have a joined-up geopark, as well, so that is something I will look at for her.
The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made a good point about the importance of working with Scotland. Scotland has managed to develop its own brand identity for international tourism—something that other parts of the UK have not done. We need to build on that, so I am happy to work with the Scottish Government. I have already been to a spa in Scotland this year—the right hon. Gentleman was not there—at the Cameron House Resort on Loch Lomond. We went out on a boat in the middle of Loch Lomond on the coldest day imaginable, and yet the glass of champagne was very welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) pointed out that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale was in the original series of—[Laughter.] No, he and other hon. Members highlighted that visiting places where films and TV programmes have been made is one of the key drivers for both domestic and international tourism, a joy for many people in the UK, and—in a sense—part of why people come here. I have often wondered whether, at Heathrow or any of our ports, we should have an actor greeting people, though I do not know who it should be—Daniel Craig as James Bond, Olivia Coleman, or Adjoa Andoh.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) referred to Silverstone. It is obviously key to what we in the UK do really well, building on science, innovation and technology—in which we need to do better—as well as sport and tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd)—and what a delight to say “my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall”—made an important point: tourism is great but must be balanced with the other needs of local communities. A community can feel completely denuded because all its accommodation is used for short-term lets that are then empty for large parts of the year. That can be a significant problem, not least because the tourism industry itself needs houses for its workers to live in, so we need to get this right. That is one reason why we want to pursue the legislation introduced by the previous Government on short-term lets; I hope we will be able to do so soon.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he is my hon. Friend—made an important point about the character of our people. In the end, tourism is hospitality, and the word “hospitality” comes from a word for a host, or guest. If the host is welcoming—if the character of the people is welcoming—that makes a dramatic difference to the whole tourism offer.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park made several points about the EU, and persuaded me that Brexit was really not a good idea. We are working on many of the issues she referred to, including the question of Creative Europe. In the last few weeks, I have discussed that with a European Commissioner. As the hon. Member may know, there will be a summit on 15 May, and we hope to get to a place of much greater cultural interchange and dismantle some of the friction. That matters to the creative industries and the art market—we are the third largest art market in the world and it has been terribly difficult; if someone owns a Matisse and lives in Italy, the London art market is probably the best place in the world for them to sell it, but following Brexit it has been almost impossible to bring an artwork into the country, sell it and send it on with any kind of ease. I am delighted that only last week the Treasury and DCMS, working together, sorted that out for the British art market.
The UK offers a phenomenal plethora of styles of tourism and visitor experiences. As a former vicar, I think of it as the “Hymns Ancient and Modern”—we do it all. We have the very ancient: Stonehenge is perhaps the most famous in the United Kingdom, but there are many others dotted across the whole country, including way up in the isles of Scotland. We have Roman ruins all over the place, including the Tower of London—although for many people that is associated more with Tudor times. The Natural History Museum has just had some of its best-ever visitor figures, making it the second most visited tourist attraction in the UK after the British Museum. Many people also want to see the Angel of the North, a piece by one of our modern great artists, or to visit the Eden Project or many other places across the UK that are brand-spanking new.
On Tuesday, I was in Bath for English Tourism Week. Bath shows it all. It has the Roman baths, though I did not go in this time—as a Minister, I did not think it would be entirely appropriate to get into my bathers. It is the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. You can visit Lady Danbury’s house from “Bridgerton”, which is the Holburne Museum, one of many jewels in the crown of our small museums and galleries, which are often not well known and which we need to make more of.
Bath is also going to have a brilliant new £45 million fashion museum in the next few years, building on one of the biggest collections of fashion in the world. If anybody did not manage to go to the DIVA exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum—I am sure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale went—it was absolutely spectacular and one of the best exhibitions I have ever been to. We have the best castles, in Wales, and probably the best stately homes in the whole of Europe.
We are phenomenally good at putting on live events, including theatre. I do not just mean the London theatre, where we can see some of the best productions in the world and some of the most famous actors live on the stage—I recently saw Rami Malek in a great production of “Oedipus” at the Old Vic; those performances are also probably much cheaper than they would be on Broadway in the United States of America—but in Leeds, Nottingham, Bath and Chichester. All over the country, there are theatres putting on magnificent productions. Of course, we also have comedy, which is often forgotten as part of our creative industries. Leicester is perhaps one of the most famous places that has a festival, but there are many venues all around the country.
We have great music gigs, with Coldplay being one of the most successful live giggers last year, bringing in thousands of pounds. When I met my Italian opposite number in Naples, I asked him, “What can I do for Italy?” He said, “Get me tickets for Oasis.” It is not only about the large venues, with P!nk and Sam Fender, for instance, performing in Newcastle and at the Stadium of Light. It is also about the small venues; FKA twigs is performing in a tiny venue tomorrow night, to just 200 people. For many, that is just as important as the big venues.
Then there is football. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also referred to the Tour de France. Sport in general is a very important part of the way we do our tourism.
Of course, there is our nature. We have already heard reference to the Lake district; there are also the Munros in Scotland, the Jurassic coast, the Llŷn peninsula, the Gower peninsula, and one of my favourites, Lindisfarne, which is perhaps one of the most beautiful, sacred and holy places in the whole of our country and in Europe.
What do we need to do? Many Members have referred to the fact that we need to get to 50 million international visitors by 2030. That is money coming into the UK— earning foreign cash is really important. We have to have a national strategy. We have never had one before. If I manage to get this national strategy to pass, I hope that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire will withdraw his demand for the sacking of this Minister and for having a dedicated one. We have set up a visitor economy council, which has had its first meeting; we have sub-committees working away on specific elements. We are going to have a bigger council meeting with a wider working conference in a couple of weeks’ time in Birmingham.
We need to improve the end-to-end visit. I wonder if any hon. Members have got off a plane at Gatwick recently and tried to get on a train. I defy anybody, unless they have three PhDs—actually, it is probably even worse for those who have three PhDs—to understand the right train to get on at Gatwick, and the right ticket. We need to make these experiences far easier. Leeds station is also completely incomprehensible. I have no idea how to get out of the station. It is a completely impossible conundrum. We need to improve that.
We need to get better at languages so that all the languages that international visitors might need are available not only in Bicester Village, but in many other places across the whole of the United Kingdom, because that is a part of our welcome.
I would love us to be able to sort out a decent transport system to Stratford-upon-Avon. It is one of the great places for many millions to visit—for many reasons as well as the theatre and the connection to Shakespeare. There is great hospitality there, but it is very difficult to get to by public transport.
We need to address the skills shortage and probably the labour shortage, which may go to one of the points that was made earlier by the Liberal Democrats. I am passionate about this. There are many countries in the world where people think that working in hospitality is not just a job that they might do because there is nothing else to do, but that it is a career that they take real pride in. Someone might be a waiter all their life because they are in a service industry that they care passionately about, and they love engaging with people and making sure that they have a good evening. Yes, we need to do more about that. That is why I want to create—in this Parliament, if possible—five centres of excellence for hospitality in the United Kingdom to match those anywhere else in the world, so that people know that we really do this well. They would cover not only skills that might be taught at a local college, but those relating to running a hotel business, management, marketing and all the elements that make for really good tourism.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to all 650 constituencies—well, he is right. We already have 38 local visitor economy partnerships in England. They cover nearly all of England but, oddly enough, not his patch. We really want to develop them across the whole of England and build a full national strategy with the home nations. I am fascinated by the destination development partnerships that have been growing up in, for example, the north-east; they bind together a whole region to address issues that cannot be addressed town by town.
I want a real welcome and a quality experience for every single person, whether they are a domestic visitor or otherwise. We have to look specifically at the issues that affect coastal areas—historic areas where people used to go on holiday in this country, but now do so less. We also have to do something about mobile coverage, which is just embarrassing. I was in Godalming the other day, and there was absolutely no mobile coverage in the centre of town. I could not even park my car because I could not download an app to do so, let alone find my way to Busbridge village hall, which I was trying to find.
We need to be proud of our food and drink. I am passionate about that. We have better cheese and sparkling wine than France—it is categorically proven now. I love Italy in many ways, but it has only one pudding: tiramisu. We have Sussex pond pudding, jam roly-poly, apple pie, apple dumpling, apple crumble, apple cobbler, Bakewell tart, bread and butter pudding, summer pudding, queen of puddings, banoffee pie, Eton mess, Eve’s pudding, tipsy laird, cranachan, treacle tart, figgy pudding, junket—I have had lots of that—lardy cake, knickerbocker glory, rice pudding, Shrewsbury cake and spotted dick, and that is to say nothing about trifle. We can beat the world when it comes to puddings and food, and we should be proud of that.
David Mundell
I am very disappointed that the Minister missed out Ecclefechan tart, which is a delicacy from the community of Ecclefechan in my constituency—it is a treacle-based tart.
Chris Bryant
That is only because I had written it down but could not read my handwriting.
I want to say two final things. First, of course I recognise the problems that the industry faces, and I am seeking to address many of them. There are two ways of looking at what we have done for the hospitality industry. Obviously, it had 70% relief on business rates, but that was not guaranteed for the future. It was going to go down to zero, but we are committed to keeping it at 40%; that is important.
I accept that there are difficulties for many in relation to the minimum wage. I still think it is important that we pay people properly in this industry, because that is part of changing the industry into one with not just jobs but careers in which people can take pride. Of course, I recognise that the national insurance contributions will be a significant cost for many, but we need to bear in mind the additional expenditure that we are able to bring to bear on so many aspects of the British economy and our public services through the money that that will bring in.
Finally, we need to embrace our history better. There are lots of things that we do magnificently when we talk about our history. Television programmes like “Wolf Hall” enhance that, and that is brilliant and wonderful. We have a responsibility for our museums and galleries. Sometimes places like the British Museum are able to show, unlike any other museum in the world, the whole of the world to the world, and that is a great opportunity.
Lord Ashcroft has a phenomenal collection of Victoria Crosses—the largest in the world. They have been sitting in the Imperial War Museum for a while and have been very well attended. Everybody absolutely adores not just the medals themselves but the stories behind them. I am passionate about trying to find a new home for that collection. I have been talking to Lord Ashcroft and I am determined to find one. If anyone in the room has any ideas about how we could find a new home for that Victoria Cross collection, please do get in touch. I know that there will be people from across the Commonwealth and the whole world who want to see the collection in a permanent home. With that, I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire on this debate and beg that he withdraw his demand that I be sacked.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister, hon. Members and hon. Friends, who have joined me to debate the Government’s strategy to support the tourism industry. I was delighted to secure this important debate in English Tourism Week. I was even more delighted that Members from across the United Kingdom came and we learned all sorts of things about the United Kingdom —we did not just confine ourselves to England.
This week we rightly celebrate the brilliant tourist attractions across our country. It is an opportune time for us as parliamentarians to reflect on the valuable contribution that tourism makes to our local economies. I very much enjoyed the tour we took through the UK this afternoon. I am not sure whether I would prefer to go dolphin spotting and whiskey drinking in Northern Ireland, and neither am I sure which order we are supposed to do those in, or go to the spa in Scotland—alone, perhaps, not with other Members.
All of us in this place will have in our constituencies businesses, venues and attractions that benefit from a vibrant tourism economy. That is why I support the Government’s ambitions to achieve 50 million tourism visitors by 2030. I will be eagerly scrutinising the tourism strategy the Government will bring forward later this year and, from what I have heard today, the Minister will reflect on the points made as he brings together the strategy. I hope that that will include a reflection on the role of English devolution, on how the Government can help to increase the UK’s price competitiveness and on how his Department will work across Government to support the industry and ensure that we have the right business support. That particularly applies in the context of the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions and the other overheads that hospitality and leisure businesses are facing.
I cannot conclude this debate without repeating my desire to work with Government to grow our tourism economy in Mid Bedfordshire and Bedfordshire as a whole. Universal’s proposed theme park in my constituency would absolutely turbocharge the local economy, and we must make sure the UK as a whole has the right strategy to take full advantage of it.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
It is only a pity that nobody mentioned beautiful, bracing Skegness in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the tourism industry.
Annual European Union Finances Statement
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I am today laying before Parliament “The European Union Finances Statement 2024 on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement” (CP 1296). This is an annual publication; this year’s edition covers the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024. This publication is available on gov.uk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/eu-annual-statement
The publication sets out the Government’s updated estimate of the financial settlement on withdrawal from the EU. HM Treasury estimates that the current total net value of the financial settlement is £30.7 billion since the UK ceased to be an EU member state in February 2020. Of this, £25 billion has been paid up to the end of December 2024, and the forecast of future outstanding net liabilities is £5.7 billion.
[HCWS536]
Varying the Leveson Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This is a joint statement made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
As Ministers with joint responsibility for the Leveson inquiry into the culture, practices, and ethics of the press, today under section 20(7) of the Inquiries Act 2005, we have decided to vary the restriction orders issued by Sir Brian Leveson on 2 December 2011 and 29 November 2012. This variation, at the request of Associated Newspapers Ltd, will enable Associated Newspapers Ltd to fulfil its preservation and disclosure obligations in relation to documents provided to the Leveson inquiry in its possession, obligations that come from claims brought against Associated Newspapers Ltd by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex and Sadie Frost Law.
The documents were prepared by the Information Commissioner’s Office and consist of spreadsheets of the materials seized from the private detective Steven Whittamore/JJ Services during the course of Operation Motorman, a 2003 investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office into allegations of offences under the Data Protection Act 1998 by the British press.
We have decided to vary the restriction orders so as to allow Associated Newspapers Ltd to retain the documents (previously retained in breach of the restriction orders) and disclose them solely for the purposes of the claims. In this case, in our judgement, the paramount public interest lies in enabling Associated Newspapers Ltd to meet its disclosure obligations, so that justice can be done.
A variation notice has been shared with the parties to the legal proceedings, and published on gov.uk. This decision makes no comment on the merits of the claims, which is wholly a matter for the courts to determine.
[HCWS535]
Families First Partnership Programme
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Today, I am launching the programme guide for the families first partnership programme, which will begin delivery from April 2025. This represents a major milestone in the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the children’s social care system through earlier intervention—and ensuring that we break down barriers to opportunity and provide all children with the best start in life.
The publication of the programme guide confirms our expectations of statutory safeguarding partners—children’s social care, police and health—and relevant agencies, including education and childcare settings, when it comes to implementing reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making. We are building on a body of evidence about what we know works to support families to stay together and thrive.
The programme guide is just one aspect of the wider implementation support offer we are providing through the programme. It includes sharing learning from the families first for children pathfinder, which has been testing reforms in 10 local areas, along with the best practice and best evidence from across children’s social care.
The families first partnership programme is backed by over £500 million of funding in financial year 2025-26, via the local government finance settlement—nearly doubling investment in preventative services. Over time, we expect this investment to safely reduce the number of looked after children.
Our ambition is for high-quality local services that place children and families at the centre of their design and provide meaningful and appropriate support and protection for families as their needs change over time. We will only achieve this if our journey of change is taken as a team, using a multi-agency approach to enact whole-system reform. We envision a transformed system where practitioners from social work, police, health, education and beyond collaborate to promote the wellbeing of children and keep them safe from harm.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all staff across children’s social care, police, health, and education for their tireless efforts in ensuring all children receive the support and protection they need.
Together, we can create a system which provides children and families with the right support at the right time, ensuring more children can grow up with the right love and support around them.
[HCWS539]
Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Part 1 Report
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Home Office has today published Jonathan Fisher KC’s independent review of disclosure report, “Disclosure in the Digital Age”.
The review’s findings highlight the significant challenges caused by the exponential growth of digital material in criminal investigations, particularly in serious and complex cases. This has placed significant burdens on law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and criminal courts. The growing scale of the problem now impedes the ability of the Crown to swiftly bring criminals to justice.
In response, Jonathan Fisher KC has made 45 recommendations which mirror the disclosure regime’s impact on the full breadth of the criminal justice system. As published today, his key overarching recommendations for reform are:
to modernise existing legislation and reduce administrative burdens by utilising advanced technology.
to improve criminal court processes with consideration for an entirely new intensive disclosure regime court pathway, designed for the most complex criminal cases.
to enhance disclosure quality by designing a new national learning standard across all law enforcement agencies.
I thank Jonathan Fisher KC for his work in providing us with such a comprehensive review. The Government will now carefully consider all recommendations made in the report and will work at pace to provide a Government response later this year.
I am confident that we can work together to design a modern disclosure regime that can keep pace with the rising level of digital material, facilitate swifter justice for both victims and defendants and continue to build public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The report has been laid before parliament today (CP 1285) and it will also be available on https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/independent-review-of-disclosure-and-fraud-offences
[HCWS538]
EWS1 Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme: Contingent Liability Update
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
In September 2022, the EWS1 professional indemnity insurance scheme launched for competent fire safety professionals undertaking EWS1 assessments—fire safety assessments for the external wall systems in residential buildings. The scheme aimed to enable competent professionals to access the indemnity cover they need to undertake external wall assessments.
On 27 June 2022, the Minister of State for Housing published a written ministerial statement notifying Parliament of an unlimited contingent liability, with the Government Actuary’s Department making a best estimate of expected losses of circa £100 million.
The scheme closed on 30 October 2023. Departmental research showed that assessors can access suitable insurance from the open market at a competitive premium and with a wider scope of coverage. The market has responded to the protection gap the Government were looking to address, which removes the requirement for the Government-backed scheme. Continuing with the scheme would no longer be a good use of public funds.
Government action has helped to get the market moving again and address this issue. The relevance of EWS1 forms is declining as wider Government interventions have taken effect that support lenders to reduce their reliance on EWS1 forms and instead use other forms of documentation to support mortgage lending decisions. The changes we have made have helped improve access to cover across the professional indemnity insurance market.
Policies sold under the scheme to date will continue to be insured under the original terms. Due to improving market conditions, fewer policies were sold than anticipated. The maximum possible loss from claims arising is £70 million. That may decline further, should policies be cancelled. The policies have a 15-year term, meaning that claims are possible until 2038. The risk is limited by the number of buildings, and number of EWS1 assessments. To further mitigate this risk, we only offered professional indemnity insurance cover for accredited professionals who have the requisite training, expertise and knowledge to undertake the EWS1 assessment. In addition, completed EWS1 assessments are subject to an audit process to ensure they are being completed in line with the British Standards Institution PAS 9980 methodology.
The Treasury approved the proposal to launch the scheme and have been informed of its closure. My Department will keep Parliament informed of any changes to this contingent liability on a regular basis.
A departmental minute will today be laid in Parliament, providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS537]
Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that I am laying the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025 by way of affirmative procedure.
Subject to approval by both Houses, the regulations will increase the fixed tariff for compensation for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years which occur on or after 31 May 2025. The regulations will implement the recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor in her report of the statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, published on 21 November 2024.
The whiplash tariff compensation figures will be around 15% higher than the original tariff, which was brought into force in 2021 by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. This is both to account for the effects of inflation since 2021 (by measure of the consumer prices index) and to include a buffer for expected inflation until 2027. The uplift will ensure that claimants can continue to receive appropriate compensation for whiplash injuries that occur before the next statutory review of the tariff. The original whiplash tariff from 2021 will continue to apply to relevant whiplash injuries from road traffic accidents that occur before 31 May 2025.
[HCWS534]
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. Welcome to the third day of the Grand Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which we are not expecting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 2: Removal of restrictions in relation to certain land
Amendment 8
Lord Strathcarron
(a) entrance pavilion,(b) courtyard,(c) ramp,(d) associated hard standing,(e) service access,(f) ticketing and security facilities,(g) access paths,(h) areas enclosed to ensure the security of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, and(i) areas not accessible to the public.”
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 8 simply seeks to ensure that the area taken up by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens will not occupy an area any greater than is required, should it go ahead as currently proposed. One thousand four hundred and twenty-nine square metres has been accepted as the area required. I note that the Government have further provided assurances that this will be the case.
In January 2024, the Government gave the Select Committee in the House of Commons the following assurance:
“the Promoter will only site the permanent buildings and other … structures comprising a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its ancillary facilities … on, under and over … land”
according to a plan submitted to that committee on 5 February 2024, citing once again the 1,429 square metre figure.
The proportion of the park to be taken up by the Holocaust memorial has long been disputed. The planning inspector’s report stated that “the area directly affected by the proposals would in my view be likely to be greater than the 7.5% calculation”. The proposed design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is so dominant and disproportionate that, as the inspector’s report also stated, “its role as the setting for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre inevitably becomes the more substantial element of its identity as a public space.” Thankfully, he did not go on to repeat the architect’s desire that it should also disrupt the peace of the park, although one could draw that conclusion from the planning inspector’s remarks.
Confusion concerning the precise square metreage in question has arisen because of a Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to this House in March and April 2023, in response to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the total area needed. The noble Baroness’s answer said that the area was intended to cover
“both the size of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area taken by the Holocaust Memorial above ground within the park.”
However, inadvertently, the noble Baroness then stated in the subsequent text of her answer that the area of 1,429 square metres also included the enclosed Holocaust memorial courtyard with its ramp and entrance pavilion, its fence, and the associated hard-standing items A to D, as per my amendment; but also, five other areas specified in the amendment as E, F, G, H and I—all of these within the 1,429 square-metre area. At the same time, it provided a plan of the area which excludes the five areas, E, F, G, H and I. This plan was repeated in the letter addressed by the promoter’s lawyers to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February, and has been repeated since then.
Given these official inconsistencies concerning the actual area affected by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, I propose that Clause 2 of the Bill should be amended to include a clear limit in terms of square metreage—1,429 square metres, as previously claimed—or to include an appropriate amendment to the plan submitted by the Government to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February 2024.
This is all fundamental, and we really must sort this out. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 14 says that the proposed monument must not be extended or altered in any “replacement scheme”. On this occasion, I shall be relatively brief.
It was my experience as a constituency MP that developers would get planning permission for, say, 20 houses, and then a few months later bung in a revised application for 30 or 40 houses, or one to convert bungalows into two-storey houses. It is a well-known planning racket, and it works because local councils conclude that they would have to spend a fortune on planning appeals which they might not win, on the grounds that they had already given permission for some sort of development, so how could they resist additional development? This is what we must prevent happening here.
We know that the department is considering tweaks to the plans, and many of us have been hypercritical of the inadequacy of the so-called learning centre in the bunker. We have amendments down later on the need for new planning permission, but what is to stop the department saying that the planning rejection was called in already and that the inspector ruled in favour, so no new planning permission is needed—and then use its own powers to alter the plans on the ground that they are just minor tweaks?
The original planning application is six years old and a new application to Westminster City Council is essential, in the view of most of us on this side of the argument. We know that the department wants to avoid that public scrutiny and refused to submit the new application, saying that nothing has changed, but it cannot be trusted. After the Commons Select Committee reported, I met its chairman, who has since lost his seat in the election last year. He said that he and most of the committee were appalled at the lies and disinformation about the project. Nothing that the department or its lawyers produced could be trusted, but their hands were tied by the resolution passed by the Government in the Commons: that they were forbidden to look at any of the flaws, inadequacies, misinformation or downright lies that they had been told.
The Government gave assurances following the Lords Select Committee report, and these two assurances are relevant here. Assurance 7 is about the exact location of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre within Victoria Tower Gardens. It basically relies on the as yet unspecified planning process to deliver an acceptable proposal. Assurance 8 focuses on a redesign of the area around the Buxton memorial. They promised to give detailed consideration and claim that they had already gone back to their design team. What does that prove? They are going to have to go back to get detailed designs anyway, and there is no indication that they will increase the gap between the two memorials.
There is no one, other than at planning, to opine on whether the calibre of the new design delivers insignificant adjustments which count, since the only way to do that is to redesign the whole memorial and learning centre, or to move the Buxton memorial so that they are further apart. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Robathan.
We can all guess what will happen: the department will use the figure of 1,429 square metres for the building but will then have some fairly wide paths for people to queue, or for admission and searches. Then a police or security box will be added—and how could one possibly complain about that? Then there will be hard-standing areas at the back for vehicles to load and unload, and probably maintenance trucks. If there will be vehicles, will there be vehicle access from Millbank? We will be told that it will be essential to let in fire engines—and if there is a fire, how could we possibly oppose letting those in? They will inevitably build some facility above ground for what they will call essential maintenance support, or electrical power sheds. Has anyone ever heard of or seen an underground visitor centre without some fairly large above-ground support facility? Of course not.
I simply want an assurance from the Government that if this Bill passes, there will not be the slightest change in the design or location, and that they will not seek to make it larger by claiming that the 1,429 square metres relates only to the space below ground. All the items in my noble friend’s Amendment 8 are essential accoutrements, for which planning permission is not required or they say are taken as read.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the amendments on size. I will then move on to my Clause 2 stand part notice.
On size, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said pretty much all that can be said. The precise measurements do not allow for what I call “milling around”—that is, all the ancillaries, with people moving around and queuing for this and that. Clause 1(1)(b) is also a slippery slope because it allows for “work ancillary to” the construction of the memorial. There will be no holding back because Clause 1(3) allows for “extension, alteration and re-erection”. In other words, unless we limit this, there will be no holding back; the whole of the park will be taken over.
I want to say a word about the kiosk, which will take up some space. I am amazed that anyone would support a little wooden hut selling Coke and crisps. It will not even have tables, I believe—just benches and maybe chairs, which will simply generate litter. One can hardly imagine being in the middle of Whitehall during a remembrance ceremony, or at Westminster Abbey when there is a memorial service, and there being allowed a wooden kiosk with people queuing up, distributing litter and so on. It just shows the insensitivity that pervades this whole project.
I now turn to Clause 2 stand part. If the clause were removed, we would have a good Bill. The removal of restrictions in relation to certain land, as set out in Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act, does not prevent
“the carrying out of any of the activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1(1) on, over, under or otherwise in relation to the land”.
We would be left with Clause 1, which permits expenditure
“on, over or under any land”
for a memorial and learning centre. This would enable the Government to go out and talk to experts in the field and to ask whether there is a need for another memorial and learning centre; what they would add to the existing six memorials and 21 learning centres that people seem so unaware of; what impact another might have; how to promote learning in a digital age; and what one is supposed to learn, and from what events.
Dropping Clause 2 would enable the Government to take into account the views of the late Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, who wanted the Holocaust to be set in context. It would enable the Government to take account of scholars who understand that the teaching of the Jewish genocide, known as the Shoah, must not be presented alongside other genocides because that obfuscates whatever lessons are to be learned and diverts attention away from centuries of antisemitism in this country and across the world. It also opens the door to the dilution of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide”, which we see today when they are used casually to describe anything that people find abhorrent; they can even be turned against the Jewish people themselves. The aims of Lord Sacks would be met by building a new Jewish museum, which would incorporate the Holocaust as experienced here but in the context of a thousand years of Jewish life in this country—its triumphs, tragedies, contribution and dispossession.
I do not understand the thinking behind the initial decision, described by Mr Ed Balls at the public inquiry as a “moment of genius”, to site the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. No studies, research or consultation went into the choice of the site before it was decided to place it there. Objectors noted the prohibition in the 1900 Act, the breaking of the promises to the park’s benefactor, WH Smith, and what the consequences would be. Only this week, Victoria Tower Gardens was listed as one of Europe’s most endangered heritage sites by European organisations.
The results of the decision, probably made for reasons of economy, are dire and will have two profoundly undermining consequences. First, the promoters have had to justify the choice by specious and vague references to democracy; this has turned the project from a memorial to the victims of Nazism into a reassuring and political project about British values. Secondly, the physical constraint of VTG has resulted in the promised world-class learning centre being converted into a visitors’ centre.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I just remind the Committee of the normal time limits for speaking.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s Amendments 8 and 17. Projects such as this are always liable to mission creep. This has already had quite a lot of mission creep attached to it, and I can see many reasons why there might be further mission creep in future. My noble friend has undertaken a valuable role in drawing attention to the areas where this might happen and, therefore, bringing in the agreements and undertakings so far given by the Government and the promoters of the Bill. That relates to Amendment 8, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra has also underlined many of the words and excuses that will be used for wishing to go wider than originally anticipated.
Amendment 17 would help guarantee that this does not become a way for creep in the future. We can stop mission creep as far as this project is concerned, but there may be subsequent creep thereafter. The amendment is therefore very valuable, because this is controversial and all sides are entitled to know exactly what is proposed. I honestly cannot see how the Government and promoters—if they are being honest—can refuse to accept an invitation that lays everything out clearly and precisely so that we know where we are from the beginning.
These two amendments therefore have my support.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I am pleased that the Government have allocated additional days to discuss the Bill, but I am slightly concerned that we are becoming repetitious and are in danger of spending more time on it than we are spending in Committee on reform of the House of Lords.
I have a couple of points. If I am honest, I do not entirely understand Amendment 17. My reading of the Bill is that we are not repealing the 1900 Act, we are just disapplying it. Anyone wishing to build outside the area that has planning permission would have to go through this process again and would require a special Act of Parliament to disapply the 1900 Act.
We should also be clear about Mr WH Smith—a name that looks like it is about to disappear from our high streets. His principal concern was to prevent wharfs being built next to the House because of the risks that would have in terms of industrial activity, and the risk of fire it posed to the House. I am sure that his wishes are not in any way being diminished by the various statues that have gone up in the intervening period.
I am sorry to repeat this, but Parliament has long decided how to deal with matters such as this, and it is through the planning Acts. They have a process whereby objectors can object and ideas are tested. That seems the most appropriate way of doing it, not setting up a separate system where the House of Lords is judge and jury in its own case.
I recognise that people have strong views, but I am disappointed that we are hearing repeats of things that are plainly untrue. There is no suggestion that this will be anything other than something that commemorates the Holocaust—the Shoah. Any references to other genocides are peripheral and probably will occur under two circumstances. One of the outcomes of that terrible event was the creation of crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. They give the lie to “never again”. It is important that this memorial is not celebratory of British involvement but is “warts and all”, to use Mr Cromwell’s phrase.
The question is: who supports this? It is unseemly to play Top Trumps with Holocaust survivors. I could reel off a whole bunch of Holocaust survivors who have been supportive of this from the very beginning.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go with the Minister to Ron Arad’s headquarters up in Chalk Farm, where there is a beautiful model laid out, which I hope the Committee will get an opportunity to look at—certainly, the House should do so—as many of the worries would disappear. Far from this memorial dominating the Buxton memorial, it would lie considerably below the very top of it. Far from it dominating the park, it would enhance it, and it seems very sensible. The Minister and I were fortunate to be joined by the Chief Rabbi, who has taken a great interest in this matter, as did the late Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. I can remember lots of discussions with Rabbi Sacks on this.
The Chief Rabbi is entirely happy with the design, the purpose and the like. I am not Jewish; I cannot make a judgment, but I think I am entitled to take the views of the Chief Rabbi in preference to those of others in this Committee. I hope, now that we are close to the possibility of coming to a decision on this, we will not drag our feet and repeat points that we made earlier, interesting though they are. Can we just get on with the job?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not planning to speak on this group, but I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said about antisemitism and the marches in London—I think she knows that. She, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I were all at a briefing by the historians working on the contents for this, who assured us that it would be specifically and only about the Holocaust, not about genocides generally, and that it would not relativise or compare the Holocaust to other genocides. We have been assured about that repeatedly by the Minister and the people working on the content, and we should accept that assurance.
On the question of the location, the Holocaust Commission recommended a new national memorial in central London
“to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust”.
Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen as the right setting because it would be a permanent reminder, as we have said before, to people next door in Parliament, to UK citizens and to visitors from all over the world of what can happen when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism.
If you go to Berlin, you will see its Holocaust memorial and learning centre right at the centre of its national life. If you go to Paris, you will struggle to find it, and in Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete block tucked away in a square, miles from anywhere. It would be much better to have this right at the centre of our national life, too.
There are serious voices in the Jewish community who do not support this, not least the noble Baroness, and I respect them, but there is no doubt that the vast majority of Holocaust survivors and refugees, their families and the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community support this project. As we heard a moment ago, the Chief Rabbi is not only happy about this project but described the venue as inspirational—his word—and said,
“it is in a prime place of … prominence and it is at the heart of our democracy”.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I understand it—and I am prepared to be corrected—neither of these amendments amend the plan. They just say that the plan must be stuck to, so all they are concerned about is what I describe as mission creep. Secondly, vanishingly few of us—certainly not me, and, I think, nobody else here—object to the idea of a memorial. Thirdly, he will understand that no Minister, of any party, can bind their successors. Assurances are fine, but circumstances change and so can the arrangements and the background to which assurances were given. All these amendments are seeking to do, I think, is to make sure that the assurances given by my party’s Front Bench—and, no doubt, by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in due course—can be put into legislation, into statutory form, so we have assurances that it will not go any further than that.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
People have argued against this proposal from day one. They have argued against not just the location but the idea of having a memorial and it being in Victoria Tower Gardens. I accept and understand that the tactics now are to say, “Well, look, we are not against the memorial being in Victoria Tower Gardens, but we do not like the design or the size”, or some other spurious reason, and to drag this whole process out for as long as possible and make it as controversial as possible in the hope that, in the end, the Government will change their plans or drop the whole thing in its entirety.
I say this to noble Lords: people can table all the amendments they like, and we can have all the lengthy debates they want. I think there is cross-party support for this project. There is majority support in both Houses and, as I have said, widespread support in the Jewish community, too. It is about time we stopped tabling amendments and having lengthy, repetitive debates on the same points week after week. I can see that the noble Lord is about to get up and make all the same points once again, but we will respond to them, and we can drag this out for as long as he wants.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I cannot speak for my noble friends, but I deeply resent the suggestion that our suggestions for a proper memorial are somehow a tactic to delay and destroy the Bill. All of us on this side of the argument are deeply committed to a proper memorial, the memorial the Holocaust Commission recommended: one which is appropriately British and which recognises the killing of 6 million Jews, not the thing that was accepted by the last Government. I exempt the Minister from most of the blame for this; he is carrying on the vanity proposals of the Cameron Government.
I want to get to the bottom of a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and my noble friend Lord Pickles: that it is purely for the Shoah, and no other genocides will be there. But paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes refers to
“the persecution … of other groups … subsequently”.
On Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. GC 1224.]
Is the noble Lord saying that the Minister was lying when he told the House on Second Reading that it would commemorate other genocides? Was he telling the truth, was he misguided, or was it a lie? [Interruption.]
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Let me respond to that point; it is a valid question, and I want to answer it. Every single Member of this House and the other place had the opportunity to sit down with the historian responsible for the content. As far as I am aware, the only three people who have bothered to take part in any of these debates are myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. I think it fair to say that all three of us were impressed by what we were told by the historian, who assured us—we have also had this assurance from the Minister and the relevant officials—that this will be a memorial to the Holocaust, not to genocides in general. It may be the case that, as people leave, there is a board saying, “Since then, there have been atrocities in Cambodia and Darfur, so clearly, we have not yet learned the lessons”. But this is specifically and solely about the Holocaust.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
In his argumentum ad historian, is the noble Lord suggesting that the rest of us do not know our history of the Holocaust? If so, that is extremely insulting.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Of course I am not suggesting that; I would never do so.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Hold on. Let me be really clear about this. Of course I am not suggesting that—not for one moment. What I said, very specifically—the noble Lord should concede this—was about the historian responsible for the content of the memorial. I was speaking about that specifically and not about anybody else’s knowledge of the history of the Holocaust. I would never do that. I would not presume to do that—certainly not to the noble Lord; I really would not.
I offer this right now: let us ask that historian to come back to Parliament before our next session. I hope that everybody here who is concerned about this matter will attend. They can sit down with him, listen to his assurances, and look at the plans and the content in detail.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Austin, says that he wants to move things on in this Committee; I completely agree with him. So why does not he let the Minister answer the direct question about the assurances—or non-assurances—he gave about the content, rather than wasting our time with talk about historians, very interesting though it is? I attended an online seminar, and it is nonsense to say that no other noble Lords listened to what the historian had to propose. Instead of the noble Lord speaking for the Government, it would be interesting if, in due course, we moved on and let the Minister answer the charge that has been made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord seems to have no objection to people making lengthy speeches on all sorts of points and tabling a million amendments that support his argument, but he objects now. This is a debate: people make points and others are allowed to respond to them. That is how it works. I offer the noble Lord this: if he can get everybody else not to make lengthy, repetitive speeches on spurious points, I will be very happy not to respond to them.
Baroness Deech (CB)
What about the consultation’s representation of the Jewish community? That has never happened. There is a saying in the Jewish community: when you have two Jews, there are three opinions, and if you have one synagogue you have to have another one because someone has to have a synagogue they will not go to. A Rabbi of the Orthodox persuasion, which is about one-third of the community—he is a leader there—is opposed to this project, as is Rabbi Dr Romain, the recent leader of the Reform Judaism element. There is no one view. There has been no proper consultation, and most people have no idea what the design is or what will be in the learning centre.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, we are having a civilised discussion about this matter, but it is quite clear how controversial it is. It is also quite clear that, once the building begins, and as it proceeds, the traffic is disrupted and the Victoria Tower Gardens become a building site, there will be a less civilised discussion outside this House.
My fear is—I expressed this at Second Reading and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has expressed the same fear—that this project will become a focus for antisemitism. People will blame it on the Jews, it will become a focus and the underlying message of the Holocaust memorial will be lost. It will be lost in controversy about the present day, not the past. It will become, I fear, a focus for demonstrations in the way that the American embassy was back in the 1960s over the Vietnam War.
All kinds of authorities are being quoted and all kinds of theories have been put forward, but as Members of this House we owe it to the House and to the public to express our views and fears. My warning is that proceeding along the lines that we are doing is going to do very great harm. It is going to promote antisemitism and it is going to be the reverse of everything that a Holocaust memorial should be.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I wish to, in the nicest possible way, challenge the noble Lord, Lord Austin, again. I am not sure whether he was here when we had our discussion on how the project would be managed. He quotes the advice of historians. The historians are advisory only. They are utterly irrelevant in deciding the end output of the learning centre. We discussed it last week and I produced the chart from the National Audit Office showing the hierarchy and structure. We have a foundation advisory board and an academic advisory board, but they sit under the ultimate direction of the Secretary of State and the Minister, who make the decision, so the historians can have any view they like. I prefer to believe the view of the Minister. It was a Minister who said at Second Reading that subsequent generations of genocides will be commemorated as well. I think that is terribly important, and we take the Minister at his word. If the Minister cares to say afterwards that he was wrong or that that is not the case and no other genocides will be considered in this memorial centre, then, again, I will take the word of the Minister for that, but the Committee needs to know. Is it still the Government’s view, which they expressed at Second Reading, that these subsequent genocides will be commemorated?
I neglected to comment on Clause 2 stand part. I shall do so briefly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill only for the underground learning centre. We are all happy to have a proper memorial that is relevant to the 6 million murdered Jews, but the underground learning centre fails to fulfil any of the Holocaust Commission’s requirements that it should be a large campus with a conference centre and facilities for debates and meetings, a place where Jewish organisations could have rooms and offices to continue Jewish education. The Holocaust Commission recommended three sites: Potter’s Field, a site further down Millbank that the Reuben brothers were willing to donate and, of course, the Imperial War Museum, which was gagging to build a huge new learning centre attached to its museum. We have not heard a single reason why those sites were rejected. I think my noble friend Lord Finkelstein or my noble friend Lord Pickles or the Minister said earlier in our debates that 50 other sites were considered. Okay, 50 other sites were considered, but we have not had a single reason why the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission were rejected. So I think that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, particularly the part about the underground learning centre. We need to have a proper one that will do all the things that the Holocaust Commission recommended. Note that no one in the Government or the previous Government or my noble friends talk about the Holocaust Commission now, because we know that this project has completely ditched everything that it called for. Just as they never mention the name of the discredited architect Adjaye, they never mention the Holocaust Commission, which is now regarded as out of date and whose proposals are no longer relevant. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. I very much admire the commission’s report and I think that the way that it is being treated now shows a degree of disrespect that is little short of appalling. The debate that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Pickles and the noble Lord, Lord Austin, is completely irrelevant to the actuality of what is being proposed and the difference between it and what the commission recommended.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend sees this in such personal terms. I do not see people objecting to this at all in a personal way; they are expressing a perfectly reasonable right. I apologise if my intervention earlier rather excited one or two colleagues to some rather verbose interjections.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name, which I do not think has been particularly addressed. I reply, in part, to my noble friend Lord Pickles: this tries to stop any ambiguity that might be there, and which I think still is there. The amendment is intended to clarify that there is a defined limit to the area for which the 1900 Act is being disapplied and that it relates only to the areas on which the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be built.
The Government have been at pains not to repeal Section 8 of the 1900 Act, only to disapply it in a limited manner. It will obviously be the source of even greater later confusion than it is now if it is not made totally clear at this stage exactly what the area is, on what criteria that is based and what precisely the defined area will be used for.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for introducing this group, which is primarily focused on design. I would like to make it clear to my noble friend that, in relation to the accusation that he made about my inconsistencies in figures relating to the amount of the park that would be required for the memorial, I will look into it and respond to him personally.
Clearly, the planning process will, as we have heard numerous times from my noble friend Lord Pickles, take into account concerns about the design of the memorial and learning centre. I hope that the Minister—I will ask him once again—can give the Committee more detail on how these concerns can be raised in an appropriate way, at an appropriate time. It is crucial that the Government bring people with them when pressing ahead with these plans, as we know how strongly people feel. We feel it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to set out the next stages of progress after the passage of this Bill, particularly the processes for the planning stage. If he is unable to do so this afternoon, it would be helpful for the Committee to have these details in writing well before Report.
I will speak to Amendments 8 and 14. The principle behind Amendment 8 is very sensible: it seeks to protect the interests of existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens while construction is under way. Perhaps this need not be set down in legislation, but I am pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment forward. This should certainly be addressed during the planning process.
Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, seeks to extend any limit to the size of the memorial and learning centre to any replacement memorial and centre in the future. We are not sure that this Bill is the right place to put a limit on the size of the centre, but we accept that my noble friend has legitimate and deeply felt concerns about the impact that the memorial and centre will have on Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
If this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to put a limit on the size, what would be?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The appropriate vehicle for all these issues, apart from what is in the simple Bill before us, is the planning process. I sometimes feel quite uncomfortable discussing the issues that we discuss, because they can pre-empt planning decisions. We have to be very cautious about what we say in this Committee.
I regret that I cannot support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her Clause 2 stand part notice, which seeks to leave in place the existing legal prohibitions on the development of Victoria Tower Gardens. I have spoken previously about, and will repeat, the importance of the symbolism of establishing the Holocaust memorial here in Westminster, in the shadow of the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is an important statement of how important we consider Holocaust education to be. After all, it is our duty, as a Parliament, to protect the rights of minorities and learn the lessons of the Holocaust ourselves so that this never happens again.
Amendment 17 is very good, and I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on this. When the Conservatives were in government, we put plans in place to limit the impact of construction on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens, and we agree that the gardens should be protected for their existing use as far as possible. I urge the Government to listen to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s argument and ensure that protection for the rest of the gardens is put on a statutory footing, as the gardens as a whole are currently protected in law.
That said, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has long taken such a keen and passionate interest in this Bill. I know how deeply she feels about this legislation. The Government should take her concerns seriously and provide her and the rest of the Committee with reassurances, where possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another passionate debate showing the strength of feeling on different sides. Yesterday, I was at the Ron Arad Studio alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I saw the 3D model for the first time, in person. I will bring the model into Parliament, into this House, and book a space for all noble Lords to have the opportunity to look at it and question a representative of the architects’ firm, who can talk through the model. On the back of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I will also invite the historian Martin Winstone back into the House and give noble Lords another opportunity to engage with him, ask him questions and listen to his perspective. I start today by giving those two assurances.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, for tabling their amendments. It would be appropriate, alongside these amendments, to argue that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
This group of amendments takes us to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. The Act led to the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in broadly its current form. The 1900 Act was then at the heart of the High Court case in 2022 that led to the removal of planning consent for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The previous Government, with cross-party support, introduced this Bill to remove the obstacle identified by the High Court. That was the right way to proceed. Parliament passed the Act in 1900, extending Victoria Tower Gardens and making them available for the public. It is right that Parliament should be asked to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the modern world, the 1900 Act should continue to prevent construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in these gardens.
The Bill is short. It does not seek powers to bypass the proper procedures for seeking planning consent. With this one simple clause—Clause 2—the obstacle of the 1900 Act is lifted. No part of the 1900 Act is repealed. No general permission is sought for development. The only relaxation of restrictions concerns the creation of a memorial recalling an event that challenged the foundations of civilisation. That is the question posed to Parliament by Clause 2. It does not require hair-splitting over the number of square metres that should be allowed for a path or a hard standing; those are proper and important matters for the planning system, which is far better equipped to handle them than a Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House.
I would like to say a brief word about why Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen as the location for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, an issue of concern raised by a number of noble Lords. After an extensive search for suitable sites, Victoria Tower Gardens were identified as the site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s vision for the memorial; its historical, emotional and political significance substantially outweighed all other locations. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre was also seen to be in keeping with other memorials sited in the gardens representing struggles for equality and justice.
The 1900 Act requires that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain a garden that is open to the public. We absolutely agree with that. Clause 2 simply provides that the relevant sections of the 1900 Act, requiring that the gardens shall be maintained as a garden open to the public, do not prevent the construction, subsequent use and maintenance of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again. He said that, after looking at 50 sites, Victoria Tower Gardens was decided to be the best of them. He has not explained what was wrong with the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission. Why did the Government reject the Imperial War Museum, Reuben Brothers’ offer of a site off Millbank, and Potters Fields?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
That is an issue for the competition and planning process subsequently. I cannot comment on planning matters.
Victoria Tower Gardens will remain open to the public and be home to an inspiring Holocaust memorial that will also be open to the public. Indeed, the design of the memorial was chosen because it met an essential challenge of the brief by being visually arresting yet showing sensitivity to its location and context. The winning design was further developed to meet the requirements of the chosen site and to ensure that the new features and landscaping improvements will benefit all users of the gardens. The gardens themselves will benefit from landscaping improvements that will enhance them for all visitors.
This clause will enable the Government to make progress on delivering the commitment that successive Administrations have made since 2015. Every Prime Minister since 2015 has supported this project. The current Prime Minister has restated that commitment clearly, including in his speech to the Holocaust Educational Trust last September—I was there—when he said:
“We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically … Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative—a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead”.
I turn now to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, which is intended to set a physical limitation on the size of any Holocaust memorial and learning centre that could be constructed at Victoria Tower Gardens. I acknowledge the desire among noble Lords to be reassured about the size of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre but, by setting a square metreage, this amendment does not provide certainty. Instead, it would open further avenues for litigation and make the proposed scheme undeliverable. The amendment would conflict with Clause 1(3) specifically, which allows alterations and extensions. More fundamentally, it would act as an obstacle to the creation of the specific scheme that this Government and previous Administrations have proposed to construct.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the Minister in particular—I would like to take up his offer of letting us see a model. That would be a very good idea, because the basic problem behind a lot of our amendments on this side of the argument is a complete lack of trust. This saga has been going for so long, with so many twists and turns. We have managed to spend £21 million so far on professional fees, and it seems to just be drifting on and on. To stop uncertainty, particularly about dimensions and sizes, and to see everything at scale would be really helpful.
Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Scott on the answers given: I do not for a moment suspect that she was doing anything other than reading them out, so please do not spend any time checking. They are all there. In summarising the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Pickles, and all of us who joined in, I am reminded that at Second Reading, a noble Baroness on the Cross Benches—I apologise; I have rather ungallantly forgotten who—said that the expert opinions, whether of Jewish dignitaries or of historians, are really divided along geographical lines as much as anything else. Those of us who live and work near here are completely against the learning centre in particular, and those who live a long way away are, naturally, far more relaxed about it, because they are not going to be affected and it all sounds like a really good idea. That rang true at the time as being a very good dividing line.
We now await the planning stage. We are very suspicious. I remember Robert Jenrick MP called it in last time, and as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, many further twists and turns are possible, with government manoeuvres to get round it. It has been six years since it last went to planning—it has happened before, and it can happen again. Those are the reasons behind the suspicion, and I respectfully ask the Minister to bear them in mind.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord has just made a point about the basis on which people support or object to this proposal. First, it is not true. I used to live a few hundred yards away from the proposed location—my kids played in the playground—and I supported it all the way through. It is an extraordinary admission to say that the reason we are against it is that we live nearby. If members of this Committee were on a local council planning committee, or even a parish council, they would not be allowed to take part in a discussion about a proposal with an interest like that—on the basis that this is where they live.
I gently make the point that we are here in the House of Lords to make decisions solely on the basis of the public interest; we are not supposed to take decisions on the basis of our personal or private interests, or where we might or might not live. That is not why we are here. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that when we are appointed to the House and the Letters Patent are read out before we take the oath, we are required to set aside all private interests. This is something I have long suspected. It has never been admitted before, but I think it is an extraordinary admission.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Before my noble friend replies, I point out to the noble Lord that the Lords Select Committee deliberately excluded anyone who did not have a personal local interest or live close enough to be affected by this. That is quite a different matter from noble Lords’ consideration in this Committee. The Select Committee was restricted to hearing only noble Lords who could show a personal interest that might be affected—their property, their use of the park or whatever. The noble Lord should probably get up to speed on the powers of a special Select Committee.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord has made a point directed to me and I want to respond to it. The public watching this will be pretty shocked, frankly, to discover that Members of your Lordships’ House think they have the right to intervene in committees such as this, on matters that affect them personally, on the basis of where they live, in a way they would never be able to do on a local authority planning committee or even a parish council. We cannot allow the public to get the impression that there is one rule for privileged Members of the House of Lords living in properties in Westminster, and another rule that affects every other member of the public sitting on any other committee in a parish or local council. We should not allow that.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I was not for a moment suggesting that anybody here, on either side of the argument, is motivated by that. I was reporting on a summary at Second Reading, which was a generalisation. But time is marching on, and I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
(a) would not cause the existing Spicer Memorial to be moved or the area of the playground on that site to be reduced, and(b) are carried out in such a way that access to any children’s playground on that site is maintained at level from the nearest entrance without requiring the use of steps.”
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments, in particular the four that have my name attached to them: Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20. I hope that this group may prove slightly less contentious than the one we have just debated; indeed, given that it is about a playground, I hope we might be able to debate it in a slightly more adult manner.
It strikes me that the whole process we are going through is a rather uncomely poster child for the joys of the British planning system, which is, as we all know, not in a particularly good state. The discussions that we are having, and the decade-long process that we have gone through, seem to prove that it is not exactly fit for purpose.
I declare my interests as, first, a parent; secondly, a grandparent; and, thirdly, a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom. Where the Foundling Hospital used to stand—unfortunately, it was demolished in the 1930s—there is a wonderful playground called Coram’s Fields. At the entrance gate, there is a sign that says, “No adult may enter unless accompanied by a child”. It occurs to me that, as I, along with other noble Lords, struggle to get in through the new Peers’ Entrance, having a similar sort of sign—whether you are going in or going out—might be quite helpful to many of us because, usually, at least one of them ain’t working.
What I will try to demonstrate in talking about the playground is, first, why it is there; and, secondly, why it has real value and use. In 2019, the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust produced a report about the significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. I will not go through it in detail, but it highlighted a particular point when it was talking about some of the risks that the gardens may face. It said that
“the park is affected by a range of external pressures and stresses. For example, the likely impacts of future piecemeal interventions such as buildings or structures imposed from outside sources”.
It occurs to some of us in this debate, I think, that that was a perfect description of what we are discussing.
Amendment 9 is a probing amendment, since it appears that the Spicer Memorial will need to be moved to the north from where it currently is to create approximately 193 square metres of new paved space around the proposed entrance pavilion. The amendment simply asks whether it will be possible to redesign the proposed route of entry to the entrance pavilion to avoid this, because the current design will reduce the size of the playground by about 370 square metres, or 31%—nearly one-third.
Alternatively—we dealt with this question previously in our debate on Amendment 26 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—do we really need a kiosk? If we did not have the kiosk, that would enable the playground to regain quite a lot of the space that would otherwise be lost. I would be most grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Amendment 9 also asks for continued ease of access to the playground. This is important to the many parents using prams and buggies. As noble Lords will see from some of the Underground stations that have staircases instead of escalators or whose escalators are not working, a lot of parents—particularly mothers—if they are by themselves, rely on the generosity of others around to help them up or down. I hope that will not need to be the case when it comes to using the playground.
Why does the playground matter and why is it there? It may not be obvious but it is quite a significant playground in that it is one of the earliest playgrounds developed in London. There was a growing need in the first half of the 20th century for children in particular to have open space, fresh air and exercise—particularly in areas of the city where those things were not easy to access.
In 2018, Westminster City Council did a detailed profile of the inhabitants of its various wards. The two most relevant to what we are talking about are the two closest to Victoria Tower Gardens. One is St James’s Ward and the other is Vincent Square Ward. These wards have a very high percentage of social housing estates. In the 2010 census data, 28% of Vincent Square Ward children and 30% of St James’s Ward children were classified as obese. Also from that data, 28% and 30% of year 6 children were children of lone parents with dependent children, which is quite a high number. In addition, almost one-quarter of the children in each of those wards were receiving free school meals in 2017. That demonstrates that however affluent we may assume this part of London is, for many people who live here, it is not. In addition to parents who visit from those estates, there are parents who come from across the river, where there is also a paucity of playgrounds other than the one in the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s garden.
Baroness Fookes
“(c) would not cause damage to the roots of existing trees.”
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, the amendment in my name adds a third condition to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I should perhaps explain why I think this is so important. I start from the view that this little park, which has been protected hitherto by an Act of Parliament, remains very valuable and should not be tampered with to its great detriment.
I will not rehearse here the arguments so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I simply want to put on record that I heartily endorse what they have both said—they make a great deal of sense. I will not inflict on the Committee a repetition of those arguments, save in one regard. I find it very distasteful that the Government who want to go ahead with this—which I believe will damage the park—at the same time issued that Statement back in July 2024, explaining that they wanted every person to be within 15 minutes of a green or blue space. There seems to be something of a contradiction here, or, as the old adage has it, “Fine words butter no parsnips”.
I want to demonstrate the significant damage that I think will be done to the trees in the park. Currently, there is a magnificent avenue of no fewer than 51 London planes, which are mature, very fine and well looked after by Royal Parks, together with several smaller ornamental trees. They provide a wonderful setting for a world heritage site, which also has special protection in planning law. I am not going to act on my own authority in this; I will draw heavily on a report in the public domain, commissioned by Westminster City Council to advise it after the decision had been taken out of its hands and in preparation for the other details that were to follow. It used as an expert witness a gentleman called Mark Mackworth-Praed, a chartered agriculturalist and a member of the Expert Witness Institute working for Archer Associates, a major tree and ecology consultancy. I should now like to draw attention—
Lord Robathan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. She is talking about the value of this green space, which I think everybody now agrees on. Is she aware that it is the only green space that marches next to the river without a road in between for something like seven miles on the north bank of the river?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
I was seeking to curtail my remarks in the interests of brevity. I notice that a little bit has been taken out of my time now, unless I go over the allotted amount.
I draw the attention of the Committee to British Standard 5837. I do not expect noble Lords to be immediately thrilled by this announcement, but it is a widely used and accepted measure of the viability of a tree by assessing the minimum area around it deemed sufficient to contain sufficient roots to enable it to live and survive well. It is a calculation of a circle with a radius 12 times the diameter of the tree’s trunk. When you look at the smallness of this park and the number of trees, it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, somewhere, roots will be damaged.
Let me give specific examples from this independently produced report. First, it is reckoned that digging out the enormous amount of soil to provide the underground learning centre will cause 11 trees to have their roots severed on the western boundary within the amount of the British Standard, so they would be damaged. The Spicer Memorial, already referred to in another amendment, and possibly replacing a refreshment kiosk would risk real damage to three trees. Then there is the creation of two service routes carrying various underground utilities and drainage runs: it is reckoned that 10 trees there would be affected adversely, either directly or in conjunction with other hazards. That seems to me a pretty worrying description of what might happen, particularly bearing in mind that when you have avenues of trees, the loss of even one tree can shatter the visual image. If there are several, we might have an even worse result, but that is not the only damage to trees that can be caused by the direct severing of roots.
Another real worry is that soil compaction can have a major impact on the health of trees. I am sure those of us who are amateur gardeners will have been told about not walking on wet beds, because of the possible danger to plants, which will be damaged by compaction. As I understand it, the proposal is for the formation of a slope up to the fins of the memorial, which would involve a lot of soil being sited on top of the existing level. That would have the effect of asphyxiating the soil; in other words, it cannot breathe. Worse than that, soil compaction during works with heavy machinery would also have a very damaging effect, to say nothing of digging out all the soil to form the underground learning centre. One can see that moving great piles of soil will, in itself, cause considerable damage.
On top of that, we have all the building works that will be associated with carrying out the work of producing the memorial and the underground space for the learning centre. Storing heavy materials also compacts the soil and heavy machinery running over it has the same effect, so over time this would have a major, damaging effect on the park as a whole. I know that the Minister has referred to enhancing the value of the park, but I fear that in practice it will be greatly damaged.
Finally, when all this is done—at some unspecified period in the future—there will be much heavier footfall if it is all successful and thousands of people are coming in, rather than the people who use the park now. Through footfall, they too can have a tremendous impact on the soil and its compaction. I do not see a happy future for these trees in the circumstances I have described.
I conclude by referring to the views of Westminster City Council’s sub-committee. As we all know, it was not allowed to make the decision but it resolved that, had it come to that committee, it would on various grounds have refused the application. I want to deal with only one that relates to trees. It said:
“Inadequate and conflicting information has been submitted which is not sufficient to permit a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees within Victoria Tower Gardens, together with the effectiveness of suggested mitigation. As such it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that unacceptable harm to, and/or loss of, trees would not arise as a result of the proposed development”.
Finally, the sub-committee said that
“damage and/or loss to trees would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, and would have a further adverse effect on the significance of heritage assets”.
I think we all know about the importance of this little park as a backdrop for the Houses of Parliament and the abbey. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 20, to which I have added my name. Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any green space; it is the home of a playground that has served generations of children. It is one of the few places in this area where children can play safely. As mentioned several times before, the proposed centre will mangle the playground beyond recognition. It will shrink by over 31%, wiping out the open grass that connects it to the rest of the park.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I did not sign these amendments because I was leaving it to others with kiddies and grandchildren to speak with much more authority, but I am prompted to speak by the Minister saying last week that the main path used by mums, nannies and children will be closed. Also, I have a question for my noble friend Lady Fookes, which we may want to reflect on, on the effect on the water table if a big hole is dug. I am not sure whether a hydrological engineer has commented on this, but my experience with Natural England was that if you want to destroy peatland, you just dig a trench and all the water drains from the rest of the soil and the peat into the trench. There is probably a level water plain in this park. If one digs a ruddy great big hole, does it not act as a sump, so that water from the surrounding area moves into it?
Of course, the bunker will have to be completely waterproof so that there is no water ingress, but it will still act as a sump and there may have to be pumps to pump out the water surrounding the bunker in order to maintain its water integrity. It is a question that I am not sure my noble friend will have the answer to, but there could be a more serious effect on the trees she is concerned about, in that they will suffer a huge moisture lack, more than London often does in summer, if the bunker acts as a sump.
As for the children’s playground, I believe that there are only two ways into it. The level access one is the southern gate, which we all use and which gives access to the Buxton memorial, the playground and the kiosk. The other access, I think, is down the steep set of steps off Lambeth Bridge, which is no good whatever for mums with baby buggies and so on. The playground now assumes a much greater importance because the Government confirmed last week that the main path used by everyone, adjacent to Millbank, will be closed or partially closed. That is where, every morning when I go through the park, I see the nannies with the little kiddies.
Yesterday was a reasonably warm day in London. The park was not full, and I took some wonderful photographs—of the bins overflowing and garbage everywhere. That was just on a nice day in London. Obviously, I would not take photographs of little kiddies with their nannies and so on—one does not want to be arrested on the spot—but I can assure the Committee that I see lot of them going through there every day. They are tiny little things: I do not know what ages they are, but none of them are higher than 18 inches. Sometimes they are on a pole or in a croc, and they are all walking along with their nannies, using that main path. If they have no access to the park, the playground becomes even more important. How will they access it?
From the plans, I assume that the main entrance for the builders and contractors will be the southern gate, and that will block access to the children’s playground and to the main footpath that lots of little kiddies, nannies and mums, as well as other users of the park, use every day. I say to the Government that if they are determined to go ahead with this, they should leave the southern gate alone for mums and dads and everyone else to use, and create some other construction access between the southern gate and Lambeth Bridge where they can get their trucks in. If they are going to remove the kiosk and the children’s playground, and move it elsewhere, that would allow the construction of a new gate. I leave that point for the Minister and his planning process to consider.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a very ingenious argument. I am always distressed to be on the opposite side from him on these matters, because he is such a persuasive speaker. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made an enormous amount of sense and said nothing that I disagree with. It occurs to me that if I had followed his advice and attended more playgrounds and eaten fewer buns, I would be in a better state today than I am.
The noble Lord said that the planning system is not fit for purpose. That is generally said by people who think that we are not passing enough: it is not fit for purpose because we need to build more houses. One thing that I think is fit for purpose is that, as is pretty well established, we are able to look at the regulations, apply those to playgrounds and do some negotiating to get the right alternative through the planning system. That also applies to trees. If there is anything well established, tree preservation orders are at the very centre of the planning system. We know that, should there be a grant of planning permission, each tree will be considered and negotiated between the council and the department, and an enormous amount of work will go into this. If we are to pass this, are we saying that Parliament should decide on the conditions of every playground next to a new development, or every tree preservation order?
With a cursory look at the planning inquiry and the independent inspector’s finding, noble Lords will see that an enormous amount of thought has gone into the preservation of the trees. The current situation is not helpful. As I said a couple of Committee days ago, those paths are, in essence, strangling the roots of the trees because they are not permeable to water. We will put in new paths that ensure that water goes to the roots of the trees.
I recognise and sympathise with the noble Baroness’s dilemma and great passion with regard to abduction, but one of the reasons why that is not likely to happen—in, as she described, a situation where there will be lots of queuing—is that there will not be any queuing. It will be ticket only. People will have to obtain the tickets in advance; they will not be able to obtain a ticket at the memorial site. Only people with tickets will be able to come in, and only within a particular time frame. That was designed specifically—
Baroness Meyer (Con)
But will there not be people queuing for the kiosk? That is very close to the playground.
Lord Pickles (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point. I very much support the Minister’s point. I think that, once the noble Baroness sees the model, many of her worries and concerns will disappear.
If there is one thing that has become clear to me in these interesting debates, it is that the fiction about the memorial does not last very long under public scrutiny and questioning. Noble Lords will be surprised but, again, we cannot create two planning systems, with one for the rest of the country and another for noble Lords, particularly—I say this in a very gentle way—when those noble Lords have a financial interest close to the site.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, since we have absolutely no guarantee that there will be a proper planning application, we have to set those remarks to one side.
I just want to add that this is not about nimbyism or selfishness. For those of us who have a real, deep family interest in this project, it is of a low quality. It will not do for my grandmothers and all the other members of my family whom I lost. Many others agree with me. Those who are not so affected may not completely understand our deep feelings about the quality and message of this project.
On the playground, I will just say that this is a social justice issue because of the mixed demographic area here, with children from ethnic-minority backgrounds who have low levels of activity apart from in this garden. The poverty, lack of access to safe spaces and poor local natural resources that are inevitable in this area contribute to this inequality. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:
“States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child … States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in”
those activities
“and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for … recreational … activity”.
We ratified that in 1991.
This Government are committed to upholding international law, as they say repeatedly. Every day we hear from Minister David Lammy and others about its importance. In damaging the playground, not just reducing its size but exposing its users to risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, so eloquently pointed out, we are in danger of breaching that United Nations convention. If I were a parent or carer of a child, I would not want to take them to a park where there were armed guards, strangers, coaches, protests and so on, and no longer a happy atmosphere.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for introducing this group. The object of his Amendment 9 is an important one, as we have discussed in an earlier group, and I understand why my noble friend Lady Fookes has tabled her Amendment 10 to strengthen protections for existing trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. While this issue should be addressed through the planning process, I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord that this is an opportunity for the Government to update the Committee on the steps they intend to take to protect the existing monuments and trees in the gardens.
Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seek to deliver protections for the playground at the south end of the gardens. Given the relatively limited access to green spaces in this part of Westminster, the playground is an important facility in the area and I believe it should be possible for the works to go ahead without preventing access to the playground. We know that the design of the project seeks to preserve 100% of the play area when the works are complete, but the noble Lord makes an important point about continued access to the play area during the progress of the works. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to protect the playground during as well as after the construction of the memorial and learning centre? This is an important issue for local residents and regular users of the gardens, so I hope it can be addressed fully in the planning process, if the Minister is unable to satisfy the Committee today.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lord, before the Minister replies, I ask my noble friend Lord Pickles one little point. He said that we cannot have Parliament decide on planning applications and that they are better left to the planning process. As I understand it, the planning process is a Minister in the department deciding either to have a round-table discussion, to submit a plan to Westminster Council or to call for written representations. That is the planning process. Does he think that a better process than Parliament deciding?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for tabling Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for tabling Amendment 10. This group of amendments covers matters relating to the Spicer memorial, the magnificent trees in Victoria Tower Gardens and the children’s playground.
Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, draws attention to the Spicer memorial and to the children’s playground, both of which are very important features of Victoria Tower Gardens. If noble Lords will permit, I will come to the playground in just a moment and address that part of Amendment 9 alongside Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which also concern the playground.
The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that the Spicer memorial is protected and should continue to hold a prominent place in the gardens. Our proposals for Victoria Tower Gardens have been carefully developed to achieve these objectives. The Spicer memorial commemorates the philanthropist Mr Henry Gage Spicer, who contributed to the creation of the playground in the 1920s. Though not listed, the memorial is important, commemorating a generous donation and lending a degree of dignity to the gardens. Under our proposals, the Spicer memorial will be moved a short distance to the south—rather less than the changes experienced when it was relocated in 2014. It currently marks the northern end of the playground. Under our proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it will continue to fulfil that role.
The Select Committee, having considered petitions against the Bill, accepted an assurance from the Government that a review would be carried out of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens. That review is now under way and further information on this matter will be published when it is complete.
The impact of our proposals on the Spicer memorial, and on all the memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, was of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the process of redetermining the planning application is restarted, the Spicer memorial, and other memorials, will no doubt be considered again, as they should be. There is therefore no need to include the proposed provision in the Bill. It would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges, which would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her Amendment 10. I recognise her great contribution to horticulture, landscaping and gardening. I fully support her commitment to protect the magnificent London plane trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. From the very beginning of the design process, protection of the two lines of trees on the eastern and western sides of the gardens has been a major consideration. The proposed design was selected from a very strong shortlist of contenders partly because of the way in which it respects Victoria Tower Gardens, including the London plane trees, which are today such an important and integral part of that place.
We have drawn heavily on expert advice to ensure that construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre can take place with as little impact on the trees as possible. As noble Lords may recall, a great deal of time was taken at the planning inquiry debating the likely impacts on tree roots, with several expert witnesses cross-examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to, the inspector considered very carefully what pruning of tree roots would be required, how this would be mitigated and what the impacts on the trees would be. He was then able to consider the risks of harm against the undoubted benefits that will arise from the creation of a national memorial to the Holocaust with an integrated learning centre. Introducing a new statutory provision to prevent any root pruning would take away any possibility of such a balanced judgment. The amendment as drafted would place a significant constraint on any possible scheme and would certainly prevent the proposed scheme from going ahead in its current form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 10.
I turn now to the children’s playground, which is the subject of Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and is partially covered by Amendment 9, which I addressed a moment ago. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that children are provided with a high-quality playground at Victoria Tower Gardens. Our proposals for the gardens have been carefully developed to achieve this objective. The playground will be remodelled with a high standard of equipment and carefully designed for accessibility, with suitable separation from other users of the gardens.
The Lords Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the playground, including matters relating to level access, which are covered by Amendment 18. The Select Committee accepted assurances from the Government that the playground would remain open, with level access at all times, during the construction process, when this is practicable and safe. A separate assurance accepted by the committee committed the Government to review arrangements for the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to put in the Bill assurances that the Government gave to the Lords Select Committee.
It was, of course, open to the Select Committee to amend the Bill. It did not do so, which I believe was a wise decision. Using primary legislation to impose detailed conditions on a development carries significant risks. It is a blunt instrument—an approach that takes away the scope for balanced judgment after hearing all the evidence, and that risks creating unintended consequences when statutory provisions are translated into practical steps on the ground. I repeat without embarrassment that the better approach is to rely on the planning system. The impacts of our proposals on the playground in Victoria Tower Gardens were of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the planning process is restarted, the playground will no doubt be considered again.
As for the assurances that we have given to the Lords Select Committee, the Government will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that they are carried out. There is therefore no need to include these new clauses in the Bill. They would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges that would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked specifically about the planning process, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the previous group. This application is subject to the passing of this Bill. The planning process would mean that the designated Planning Minister, Minister McMahon, would consider the options. It is up to him to decide which options he would want to take forward. One would be written representations, a second would be a public inquiry and a third would be a round table based on a consensus approach. These are options for the designated Minister to consider.
I hope I have clarified noble Lords’ concerns and issues, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect—I spent a lot of time in Bahrain as a student of his diplomacy—not to press his Amendments 18, 19 and 20 requiring new clauses.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, as my amendment was an amendment to an amendment, I am having the final bite of the cherry, so to speak. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked me a very technical question. As I have relied very heavily on a report that was done by an extremely well-qualified person and I do not have the immediate answer, I think I might take refuge in something that is sometimes done by Ministers answering questions: I will write to my noble friend having found out the precise answer.
In general terms, I am sorry to say that, despite the kindness of the Minister in seeking to answer my queries, I am not in the least satisfied with the points that he has made—not only because he rather underplayed the importance of severing tree roots but because he did not deal at all with the severe matter of compaction, which is another major issue. I will not worry the Committee with anything much longer, save to say that I seek leave to withdraw only because I really have no other choice—but I am not in the least satisfied with the result.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I was about to say that I was slightly alarmed that this group of amendments is in danger of setting a precedent, in the sense that there seems to be a high degree of agreement and consensus—something this Committee does not seem to experience very often, until, of course, the trees spoke, as indeed they do in many children’s stories. That is another matter.
I thank the Minister for his response and everybody who took part. I should have given apologies on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who is unable to be here today and who has very kindly put her name to some of my amendments. I take on board what the Minister said. I again thank the Select Committee of this House for managing to get the undertakings from the promoter to safeguard the playground and the people who use it, for which I am most grateful. I accept that it should not be in the Bill. Committee is about probing amendments. Some probing amendments are forensic and some are slightly more blunt, but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the chosen site.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I apologised to the Minister before we started, as I am down to introduce the debate in the Chamber on the Crown Court. I came up in the ballot, so I am obliged to be there. If I am not here at the end of this part of the discussion this afternoon, I hope that I will be forgiven for a breach of normal order.
I hope that the Minister, and even the noble Lord, Lord Austin, will give me as much attention in what I am about to say as they have given to one outside historian. I believe that we should be prepared to stand up to terrorism, that we should not readily surrender to threats that come from elsewhere. However, in this instance, I believe on strong evidential grounds that the doubly iconic nature of the site in Victoria Tower Gardens, near Parliament and a memorial to the Shoah, could render the terrorism risk disproportionate. I do not wish to be the person saying “I told you so” in the foreseeable event of a terrorism outrage or attempt at this memorial and learning centre, if built.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I declare interests: I have a house nearby, I have interests in a playground manufacturing company, and I am vice-president and a former chairman of Fields in Trust, formerly known as the National Playing Fields Association, which devotes itself to the preservation of playing fields and parks.
I do not think this project should go ahead without a risk assessment. This has been highlighted by our debate so far which has raised some of the risks that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just mentioned. So as not to waste your Lordships’ time, I will mention very briefly some of the points. Can anyone not think that there is a risk in introducing 1 million visitors a year into a relatively small space? A risk assessment is essential, even more so when one considers that it is proposed that the memorial be in an area in central London that, because of its proximity to Parliament, is more sensitive than most, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. There will be a risk from the sheer numbers.
What risks will there be from demonstrations connected with the memorial? These have already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others. There are bound to be demonstrations if the memorial is built, as it will be a prime target. Already demonstrations cause havoc in the area, with many streets being closed. How will the potentially more dangerous and aggressive demonstrations be dealt with? What about the risk to local inhabitants? What assessment of risk has there been of the memorial being a target for fanatics as well as for peaceful demonstrations? What about the risk of bombs, or the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted at a previous meeting? What risk is there to those using Victoria Tower Gardens for the purpose it was set up for as a recreational park for peace and tranquil enjoyment? What about the risk during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster? Think of all the plant, machinery and building materials that will almost certainly need to be parked in Victoria Tower Gardens pending use. This is bad enough without the memorial, but with the memorial taking up the proposed space and with all the necessary security surrounding it, there will be a risk to the poor public squeezed between these two.
What about being squeezed between the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial? What traffic risks will there be with the greater congestion caused by busloads arriving at the memorial, to say nothing of the increased vehicle traffic? What about the risk to covenants on other parks and green spaces? Will disapplying the 1900 Act covenant create a precedent? Will it be an example of what can be done? The National Playing Fields Association has covenants over 3,000 green spaces. Breaking the 1900 covenant may well create a precedent and encourage some of those other covenants to be challenged. What about the risk of flooding as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley? The idea of children being trapped there is unthinkable. What about the risk of no proper management structure or the convoluted management arrangement with 10 separate bodies but no one in overall charge, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others have highlighted?
There is also the risk of non-completion. Let me repeat the quote from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority that my noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned earlier in this debate:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.
There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need to be rescoped and/or its overall viability to be reassessed. There are many other areas of risk that I have not mentioned. The whole project is fraught with risk. A proper risk assessment will doubtless raise other problems. I imagine that, after our debate so far, the Minister is probably falling over himself to have a risk assessment that will pull together all the various strands of all the risks that have been debated and others that have not been mentioned.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 36. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not just a House of Lords expert on security and terrorist threats; he is a national expert with many years’ experience. I submit that any person or Government who ignore his wise words are putting at risk fellow parliamentarians and all visitors who will be in the park either to go to the learning centre, to visit the gardens generally or to go through Black Rod’s security entrance to access House of Lords facilities.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support this group of amendments, in particular Amendments 15 and 28. I can be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has already said everything that I would like to say. I agree with every word he said, as, indeed, did my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Blencathra.
It is astonishing that this Bill seeks to ignore the security considerations of the project it proposes. It is astonishing that, in 2025, when we know what is going on in the world around us, this Bill seeks to pretend that Westminster is a quiet little place where we can do whatever we like without regard to the real world outside. What has been said today and at other times is not scaremongering. We cannot pretend that the security considerations are minor. They are not minor; they are very serious. When noble Lords have an opportunity to look at and consider some of the reports that have been prepared, but not published, they will agree with me that these security considerations are serious. As others have said, we do not want to be the people who say, “I told you so”, do we?
I say again, as I have said before, that we can do better than this. Everybody wants a memorial. Everybody wants to commemorate the Holocaust. Nobody wants to forget what happened. We all want to say, “Remember, remember, remember, and never let it happen again”. However, in saying it, we are not telling the truth if we ignore the security considerations. It is our duty to tell the truth in order to protect not just parliamentarians but everybody who might have anything to do with this memorial. We must not ignore what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said today.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the measured way in which he introduced his amendment. Clearly, getting a security assessment is enormously important and should be done, but the question that faces this Committee is: should it be on the face of the Bill? I would suggest that it should not.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I have a very distinguished lawyer. I hate to correct him by saying this, but there is only one planning system and this Bill does not seek to circumvent it. All it seeks to do is disapply the 1900 Act. A planning permission is something entirely separate. Matters of security and the like should be considered carefully by the Government in coming to their decision.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave the impression that this is just a simple binary choice. Should the Minister come to a decision, at that point, the various conditions that are part of a normal planning process will start to be brought into being and we will negotiate, whether that is on trees, the playground or security. Only when officials are happy with that will a decision be made.
I have worked, and happily so, as I suspect we all have, in the No. 1 terrorist target in the United Kingdom for 35 years. This is one of the top 10 terrorist targets in the world, but we come here because of democracy, because we want to be heard and because of the things we believe. I say gently and reasonably to colleagues in this Room, whom I like very much, that the arguments they are pursuing basically say: “This is a dangerous thing. Take it away from here so I can be safe”. I say this as gently as I can—I actually feel much more strongly about this. It is an argument for saying that Hamas and Hezbollah have said that we cannot put up any monument to the Holocaust or be supportive of dealing with antisemitism, because it makes us a target. That, my friends, is a recipe for surrender and defeat.
I apologise that I cannot stay for the end of this session because I too have a commitment. I am speaking to a conference of rabbis.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has misunderstood the meaning of risk assessment. We accept that it is a security risk. Of course you do not refrain from building because there is a risk, but you have to assess it and plan in detail what you will do to mitigate it. That is what this group of amendments is about. In particular, I support Amendment 35, on which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, spoke so persuasively. It is about planning to meet the risks that will undoubtedly occur. As I have said before, we have no assurance that there will be a proper planning application in which this can be aired. You would expect in general a thorough risk assessment to be available in relation to this controversial and security-imbued Bill and project.
We do not give in to threats, but there must be a thorough evaluation of the consequences. What evaluation has there been of the risks outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile? What traffic measures will be taken and what barriers erected? How will this affect everyone who lives in the area, Parliament Square and the Supreme Court? We need to know about security guards, whether armed or not, and the security measures that will be needed at night if the centre is open for commercial meetings. What are the risks to those who will build it, to visitors who will make use of the park during the construction period, to passersby, to boats passing by on the river and to schoolchildren going to the Parliament Education Centre? Are there risks to Victoria Tower and its refurbishment? What control is there over the escalating costs, which are going up exponentially year after year as building costs rise? What will be done about governance? What if sufficient funds are not forthcoming and the building takes longer than expected? Is there a risk to the parliamentary buildings on Millbank and the surrounding streets? I suspect that the Government do not have the answers to these questions. Amendment 35 will require them to come up with them, accepting of course that some security issues can be dealt with only confidentially.
These issues also apply to Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which would restrict security checks to those entering the learning centre, leaving the rest of the gardens as a freely accessible open space, as it is now, where one can enter just for a few moments on a whim. This is welcome, but what effect would it have on the necessary security arrangements? The gate leading to the Pankhurst sculpture and “The Burghers of Calais” is but a few steps from the edge of the learning centre. How can the learning centre be protected from someone entering by another route, unchecked and carrying a weapon, red paint or worse? This will inevitably lead to the entire gardens being treated as protected property, with security checks at every gate no matter the reason for the visit. Even a harmless gathering of people for a Holocaust memorial event at the end of April is leading to the whole gardens being closed for at least one day.
Moreover, it is easy enough to propel something into the gardens from Lambeth Bridge or from the river in a passing boat. How will those dangers be met? I need hardly explain that the current atmosphere of unpleasant and sometimes violent protest marches in the area is likely to continue, sadly, for a long time. The TV studios of Millbank House overlook the gardens and thus provide a perfect platform for people who want more publicity for a cause. Has the Minister an answer to these questions? Amendment 35 is essential and should be accepted.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his experience and decades of work in keeping us and our country safe. There are few people who know more about these issues than him, so of course his views should be taken very seriously and there should be proper security risk assessments. I do not think that anybody will argue about that, but I think we need to bear in mind a couple of other points. As I understand it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that the learning centre in the gardens is too big a risk. I know that other noble Lords here today feel that the learning centre should be elsewhere, but Westminster is the most secure and protected place in the country, and if the learning centre and memorial are not safe here, where would they be safe?
Secondly, if one or the other were moved on security grounds, residents near any other proposed location would be completely justified in saying, “Look, if it is too dangerous for Westminster, how could it possibly be built near me?” Of course they would say that. That is what people near the Imperial War Museum, the Barbican or elsewhere would say.
Thirdly, if we think about this and take it to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against having the memorial or learning centre anywhere at all. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, it is an argument against having anything that people think is controversial or dangerous and which they might oppose being built anywhere. This point has been glossed over, but it is an important point that we should take seriously because we should not be making a decision on the basis that we are scared about what racists or extremists might do. We have to deal with what racists or extremists might do.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, made a couple of other points that I want to pick up on. I do not think that anyone has suggested, anywhere, that there will be 1 million visitors to the memorial or the learning centre, which I think was the figure that he suggested.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I was present at a meeting with Mr Ed Balls and Michael Gove, and Mr Ed Balls said there would be 3 million a year. He said it would be the most visited memorial in the whole world.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Well, I am not sure I would take Ed Balls’s figures on this. It is not going to be 3 million. I have talked to the government officials about this, and I think that the estimate is in fact 500,000, but the important point to bear in mind is that already 25 million people visit Westminster every year, and many of the people who will visit the memorial will be people who are already visiting Westminster or who work here. That is the important point I want to make, and if we break it down, it actually works out at a few hundred people an hour.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, also made a point about transport. My understanding is that this is estimated to attract 11 coaches a day. It is on a main bus route, and many more buses than that already go past each day. I do not know, but I would have thought that Parliament Square attracts hundreds of thousands of vehicles a day, so again, I think that the traffic and the number of visitors that this memorial will attract will be a fraction of the amount of traffic and number of visitors already visiting Westminster .
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 15, particularly the use of the words “surrounding area”. The Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott placed great emphasis on the reassurance given by the Lords Select Committee about security and other matters, which they have seen as reason for us not to be worried about the various points raised in debates during the past couple of days. There is a gap here. I have an office in Millbank, and I gave evidence to the Select Committee because I have seen what my noble friend Lord Blencathra described, which is very large queues and very great difficulty accessing the Palace at present. I said that I thought that that was an issue that needed to be considered by the Select Committee.
The Select Committee ruled that out of order because it could consider only matters that were within the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens. Anything that happened in the street outside was irrelevant. I respect the committee’s judgment; I am sure that it has followed the Standing Orders to the letter, but the reality is that, when we are talking about “and the surrounding area”, we are taking the security issues to something that has not so far been considered at all. All the undertakings given to the Select Committee concerned only the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens because that is all that it was allowed to consider by the House of Lords Standing Orders. That is why I particularly emphasise and support that part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, particularly those from the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Carlile of Berriew. I remind the Committee, if I may, that last time, when I spoke about the risk of fire to the building, it was somehow deemed as if I am against having a memorial. That is not the case. We want a memorial that is respectful and allows people to learn but that does not become a focus for mass terrorist attacks. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, highlighted that these are very real risks in today’s world. The world has changed.
I also remind noble Lords that if we look at anything underground—coal mines, for example—it must now have two exits. This building will have a single point of entry and exit. The reason for two exits is so that people can get out if one exit is blocked. I therefore ask the Minister whether he can tell us about that. He is smiling and shaking his head, but I do not think that this is fanciful. This does not go against having a memorial; it is about whether we have done a real risk assessment and whether the design of the building and the memorial mitigate the risks that have been assessed. It would therefore be very helpful to know when a comprehensive risk assessment of the building and the memorial was undertaken as well as whether we can have sight of that. We are being offered sight of a building, but to have sight of the in-depth risk assessment would be helpful.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for introducing this group and giving the Committee the benefit of his extensive expertise as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I hope that the Minister will take his amendments very seriously and consider allowing a further report on security as part of the process as we work towards the delivery of the memorial. However, I do not think it is correct to put it in the Bill.
Amendments 28 and 35 in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising are important amendments seeking to ensure that security and other risks are taken into account before the memorial is built. Security in Westminster is vital. We welcome millions of visitors every year, and endless high-profile people come to Westminster on a daily basis. We on these Benches support all efforts to ensure that the Government properly review and monitor the security measures in place in Westminster. Perhaps the Minister could look favourably on Amendment 28 in this group, which would ensure that security is properly considered through the planning process, as my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising suggest.
The argument has been made that Westminster is a highly protected and very secure part of our capital city, and I have some sympathy with that view. Can the Minister give us more detail on the additional security measures, if any, that the Government intend to put in place to protect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre?
Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 36. He is seeking to ensure that people can continue to visit Victoria Tower Gardens without restrictions. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how he intends to ensure that people will continue to have free access to Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising, for tabling these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I have a very strong commonality: Burnley has shaped both our lives. He has tabled Amendments 15 and 39, which require a review of security to be carried out and approved by Parliament before other sections of the Act can commence. I recognise that he has a great deal of expertise and experience in these matters, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for proper security arrangements.
Security has been a central consideration throughout the development of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We have to recognise and plan for the risk that people with evil intent will see the memorial and learning centre as a target. At the same time, we reject completely the idea that the threat of terrorism should cause us to place the memorial and learning centre in a less prominent location, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, made very eloquently.
In developing the design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, we have sought advice on security measures from the National Protective Security Authority, including MI5, the Metropolitan Police and the Community Security Trust. Based on their advice, physical security measures will be incorporated into the memorial and learning centre and landscaping which will meet the assessed threat. Their advice has also informed our proposed operational procedures, which, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be reviewed and updated routinely in response to the current threat assessment.
These matters are an essential part of the planning process and were given careful attention by the planning inspector. He noted that security information had been shared with Westminster City Council’s counterterrorism and crime reduction teams, who raised no objections to the security aspect of the application. The inspector sensibly noted that much of the detail of the security arrangements could not be released without compromising security. That, of course, remains true.
This amendment is unnecessary, because security matters are and will continue to be fully addressed as part of the planning process within the statutory planning framework, which is the proper forum for considering them. Security matters were considered in some detail by the Lords Select Committee, which accepted a detailed assurance from the Government on publicising the reopening of the planning process so that parliamentarians and interested parties are aware of the timing and nature of the process. The committee also accepted a detailed undertaking in relation to the evidence on security, including that we would review our security plans, consult widely and make updated information on security matters available to Members of both Houses. Through representations to the Minister taking the planning decision, we aim to ensure that security considerations continue to be regarded as a main issue in the determination of the application.
The Select Committee, after careful consideration, accepted the assurance and undertaking which, taken together, will enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not be placed in the public domain for security reasons. It recommended that we give careful consideration to amending the Bill as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We have given this recommendation very careful thought and have concluded that the proposed amendment would not lead to any greater expert scrutiny of security evidence. It would, however, lead to considerable delay and uncertainty for the programme. We have therefore concluded that no amendment is necessary or desirable. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press these two amendments.
Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to place in the Bill the terms of an undertaking given by the Government to the House of Lords Select Committee. It is therefore perfectly clear that the Government have no difficulty with the substance of the proposed amendment. The effect of the assurance and undertaking given to the Select Committee will be to enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not, as I have said before, be placed in the public domain for security reasons. Ministers will also be accountable to Parliament for actions that they take in meeting the assurance and undertaking. Nothing is to be gained by including these measures in the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that it was a little unworthy of him to say that I moved this amendment so that I would be safe. Most of us who come to this House as Members have a choice as to whether we come in or not, but an awful lot of people who work here do not. Also, I am concerned that families and children buying a sausage roll at the kiosk might be unsafe, as well as all the other people who might visit the centre if it is built.
The Minister is always extremely courteous and I enjoy our discussions; we have a common interest in a certain very interesting yo-yo football club. I have also spent quite a lot of time in planning appeals over the years, and I say to him that a planning appeal is not a place where secret matters of national security are discussed. There is no provision in a planning appeal for closed hearings; it would be grossly exceptional to have them. That is something provided in a Bill—potentially an Act—of Parliament.
What happens in reality in your Lordships’ House is that if the sort of provision that is in my amendment were passed and debated, there would be discussions on Privy Council terms or the equivalent. That is quite different from anything that happens in a planning appeal. I re-emphasise that there is another planning process here: it is called a parliamentary Bill which has rescinded another Act of Parliament which would have meant that planning permission would have had to be refused. Indeed, the application would have been rejected with what is sometimes called pre-refusal.
I am disappointed in the response we have been given and I shall return to this on the Floor of the House in due course. I will hope for the support of a considerable number of Members, many of whom are not in this Room, and we will see what happens. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Design of the Holocaust Memorial(1) After the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a competition to design a figurative Holocaust Memorial appropriate to a location within Victoria Tower Gardens and reflective of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.(2) The final decision on design must include a public consultation, and consultation with Holocaust survivors and relatives of victims of the Holocaust.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 16 calls for the design of a new and appropriate memorial. As an aside, before I begin, in my 42 years in Parliament I must have heard hundreds, if not thousands of times the expression “The Government have no intention”. Then, as Harold Macmillan said, there are “Events, dear boy, events” and suddenly the Government have an intention. I move on to my amendment.
Let it be repeated again: everyone in this Grand Committee wants a proper and appropriate memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens to the 6 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. Let no one suggest that those of us who have vigorously opposed the Adjaye monstrosity and his pokey little bunker are opposed to a memorial which fulfils the demands of the Holocaust Commission, which the Government stopped talking about ever since they accepted this flawed design from a discredited architect. There is no surprise there, since the design fails all the tests set by the Holocaust Commission. The commission wanted a large campus; we get a bunker under the ground. The commission recommended the Imperial War Museum, Potters Field or near Millbank Tower, all locations with lots of space which were offered; we get a small garden which does not want it. The commission wanted something uniquely British; we get a second-hand cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission wanted something to commemorate 6 million murdered Jews; we get 23 things which are meaningless to everyone, and for other genocides as well.
I have heard it said by esteemed colleagues in this Room, for whom I have the highest regard, that the Adjaye monstrosity is a modest little measure and appropriate. One of the important needs in politics in these dreadful times is imagination and wishful thinking, such as thinking that Putin wants peace; that Kim Il Sung is not barking mad; that Vice-President Vance might be a decent guy; and that this project is modest and appropriate.
It has been said that the design must be brilliant because it was selected by internationally renowned architects. Of course they would support it. There is nothing so brutalist, Stalinist or big, shiny and ugly that they will not support. We could have had that big glass
“carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend”
on the National Gallery if His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, had not criticised it then, but his comment that the National Theatre was like “a nuclear power station” was plainly wrong. I can tell noble Lords, as a Cumbrian, that Sellafield looks 10 times nicer than the National Theatre.
Look how the architectural luvvies despise the beautiful village of Poundbury, which the Duchy of Cornwall describes as
“Architecture of place. Creating beauty and reflecting local character and identity”.
This is the characteristic that seems to drive many architects and critics into apoplexy. It prompts them to hurl the architectural equivalent of curse words, such as mock, twee, faux and, perhaps worst of all, Disneyland. However, a growing body of research also shows a disconnect between what most architects design and what most users actually prefer. For the harshest architects and critics, the problem is much more basic. The village of Poundbury simply commits an unforgiveable offence against the most sacred rule of today’s architectural orthodoxy, which is, “We must not copy the past”. That is what has happened here, although one could say that the Adjaye design is copying the past, as it was rejected in Toronto.
I will shortly turn to other monuments around the world which have six points representing the Star of David or six features which could stand for 6 million murdered Jews. So, like all trendy, overrated architects Adjaye selected something of no relevance whatever to 6 million murdered Jews, but he made it big and shiny—at least it will be, until the bronze tarnishes—and the architectural world oohs and aahs and says “Oh, fantastic, darling”.
I challenge anyone here to tell me that they had heard the numbers 23 or 22 in relation to the Holocaust before Adjaye came up with that completely obscure figure. Not a single person who is Jewish or who has Jewish heritage has ever heard the figures 22 and 23 before in relation to the Holocaust. The internet is awash with Holocaust denial. There is not a single vile denier saying that the 22 countries the Jews were taken from to be exterminated is wrong. Not even the vile deniers had heard it earlier either. What they deny all the time is the 6 million massacred: that is the number we need to have front and centre of any memorial, and this monstrosity is not it. That is why we need a new design for Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can get one quickly.
I do not know how visually to represent 6 million murdered Jews. We all saw the brilliant display of 888,246 ceramic poppies at the Tower of London commemorating our First World War dead. It was magnificent but it took a lot of space, and something like that for 6 million dead Jews would require seven times the space, so that would not work. The most moving memorial I have ever seen is in Budapest, and that is not relevant for here either. It is a row of bronze shoes from Jewish men, women and children on the banks of the Danube where Jews had to stand to be shot in the back of the head to topple into the river, which ran red with their blood.
However, other countries have done brilliantly. After Canada rejected the Adjaye abomination—for noble Lords who have not seen it, it is a series of 23 large concrete fins, the same size as he has pawned off on us here, but that time they were grey, concrete and wavy. There is no explanation given for why Ottawa had to get concrete wiggly ones and we get straight bronze ones. However, after Canada rejected it, it then built a proper memorial with sort of Star of David shapes in it. It is too large for our gardens, but it is authentic, relevant and appropriate. The Czech Republic has a suitable sized monument of two triangles intersecting, resulting in a six-pointed star shape. Both these monuments, I suppose, satisfy the architectural requirement that they are not just old-fashioned copies of the Star of David, but a modernised version of it.
Estonia has a large granite or marble slab with a seven-branched menorah on the bottom half and a stylised Star of David on the top. Athens also has something interesting. It has an irregular, six-sided, white, marble stone in the centre, surrounded by six irregular triangle stones. The one that would fit in perfectly here is the six-point Star of David monument in Gorlice, Poland. It has 12 faces with plaques with writing on them and is about the same height as the Buxton memorial, although a bit wider all round. Tirana in Albania has three beautiful, large, dark marble slabs arranged in a semicircle in a prominent place in the centre, right beside Mother Teresa Square. The three slabs say in Hebrew, Albanian and English:
“Albanians, Christians and Muslims endangered their own lives to protect and save the Jews”.
Albania was the only country in Europe with more Jews at the end of the war than at the start, since it did not kill a single one. It gave refuge to all Jews who reached there. It is a superb memorial. How can the poorest country in Europe, with a GDP of $26 billion, get it so right when we, the sixth-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $3 trillion, cannot get anything remotely Jewish?
What all these memorials have in common is something Jewish or relevant to Jews, such as the Star of David or the menorah. Therefore, we do not need architects and their weird ideas, we need designers, and that is where this project went wrong at the beginning. An architect cannot design an appropriate monument any more than a designer can make architectural drawings for the technical workings of a bunker. They are different skills, and we all know that a new design competition could come up with monument designs within weeks for something that could be built in six months, a design that reminds us of 6 million murdered Jews. The memorial is not for the benefit of Jews, which was once wrongly stated in this Committee, but for all the rest of us who need reminding of that figure of 6 million. Jews do not need reminding of that. That is why the Adjaye abomination is so wrong. When challenged about the brutal ugliness of it, he said on the BBC on 12 February 2019 that
“disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”
behind the memorial. No, no, no, Adjaye. Key to the thinking of the memorial is getting across the message that 6 million Jews were slaughtered.
My real criticism of the Adjaye design is not my subjective opinion, which I give the Committee all the time—that it is an abomination, grotesque and ugly—but that his design is irrelevant. All the others I have indicated have something Jewish about them: the Star of David, the menorah, or writing on plaques stating that 6 million Jews were massacred on the face of the memorial, not buried in video screens in a bunker. That is why we need a new design for this garden—a proper, moving memorial to 6 million slaughtered Jews that bears some symbolism of Jewry and the Holocaust. Anything else fails to deliver what the Holocaust Commission asked for. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have visited memorials all over the world. The designers of this one said:
“When viewed from the northwest corner by the Palace of Westminster, the Memorial is first perceived as a gradual rising hill towards the south end of the VTG. Along the journey south, the path inscribes the rising landscape, and leads along the embankment”
past the Buxton memorial
“after which the full scale of the Memorial is revealed. The elevated land mass is both hill, and cliff-like landscape, and is held aloft by 23 tall, bronze-clad walls. The overall volume inscribed by the walls offers an interplay between robustness and frailty; cohesiveness and fragmentation; community and individualism”.
I have rarely read so much piffle and gibberish attempting to justify a meaningless third-hand design.
There are to be 23 bronze fins and the designer, Sir David Adjaye, tried to justify them, with 22 pathways, as a representative signifier of the number of countries from which Jewish victims of the genocide were taken. Again, this symbolic confusion, coupled with the unnecessary and misleading association with the Palace of Westminster, means that there can be no public benefit offered by the design to weigh in the balance that the inspector undertook at the inquiry.
Sir Richard Evans, our great historian of Germany, has debunked the figure of 22. He said that it was entirely arbitrary and depended on how you count states, and that many of the victims were refugees from other states. He called the design spectacularly ugly. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it has no overt references to religious symbolism or text, relying instead, to quote the architects again,
“on the twin primary motifs of the swelling landform and the cresting bronze portals with the descent into the chambers below. The graduated mound, rising out of the tabular lawn to the north, would convey a sense of the growing tide of orchestrated racial aggression and violence, finally breaking with the cataclysmic events of the Holocaust, symbolised by the bronze armature above the descending portals. These defining elements of the Memorial, fashioned from the brown alloy of sculpture, would have a power and grace distinctly of their own. Collectively these elements would make a bold and poetic visual statement of great power and beauty, and one that can be readily understood as such”.
How odd, then, that Sir David Adjaye should repeat almost the same design in Niger, in relation to terrorism, and in Barbados, in relation to slavery.
In fact, far from the design being done after any research into the park or London, or the UK’s association with the Holocaust, it is a hallmark Adjaye design. In another attempt to justify it, he said that it was deliberately aimed at disrupting the park. His work is instantly recognisable because it always involves stripes. I invite noble Lords to look up his designs on the web. He entered an almost identical design in the competition in Ottawa for a Holocaust memorial there, but that location was entirely different—a concrete island. The involvement of Canada with the Holocaust must have been entirely different, yet he found fit to enter that design into the competition in London. It was unwanted in Ottawa, which chose something else, so it was sitting on the shelf.
It is entirely meaningless, with no reference to Jews, the Holocaust or the UK. There are no names and numbers—nothing to evoke the awful events it was planned to stand for. If you saw it, you would say to yourself: “What on earth is that?”. You would not be moved to think of the Holocaust, commemoration, discrimination or persecution, or indeed people.
Abstract Holocaust memorials around the world tend to be vandalised much more than figurative designs, because they have no emotional value. The Boston memorial has been vandalised several times. It bears a passing resemblance to the Adjaye one, and was said to have been influential on the jury that chose the latter. Kindertransport memorials and human depictions such as the exceptional sculptures by Kormis in the Gladstone Park Holocaust memorial—I wonder whether any noble Lords have visited it—are less likely to be destroyed. There are many Holocaust memorials in the UK already, to be seen on the Association of Jewish Refugees map of those sites, and not one is as meaningless as this. Abroad there are some beautiful ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned. The silver tree in Budapest would be marvellous in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The jury that chose it seems not to have done its homework. Did it know about the Ottawa rejection, or that shortly thereafter almost the same design was presented by Adjaye Associates for Niger and Barbados? There can be no escaping the fact that this design is not bespoke and has nothing to do with what it is supposed to commemorate. At least there is a plaque to my grandmother in a Manchester memorial, because there will be nothing here to remind me or anyone else of her.
The design has attracted mockery from the outset: a dinosaur; a toast-rack; a whale’s ribcage; a set of false teeth. It will inevitably attract red paint and worse. To use the same design over and over smacks of contempt for what is being remembered. That it has no visible Jewish symbolism is very telling—no figures, no candelabra, no Star of David. That is because the promoters want to downplay the thousands of years of antisemitism that drove the Holocaust by combining its presentation in the learning centre with other genocides—as has been said in Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions—albeit they cannot decide which ones to include. This means in the end only a vague message about not killing people you do not like, and so the Adjaye design says nothing of interest. Like the Berlin concrete blocks memorial, it will not garner respect. The Berlin memorial has people picnicking, dancing and playing on it and riding bicycles between the blocks. The Adjaye design will be perfect for scooter races between the sticks.
Do not let the promoters tell you that Adjaye was not the designer. He heads a big team, but it is his name all over the publicity, the evidence, the competition and the maps used to this day. He gave evidence to the public inquiry and the Government trumpeted his choice at the outset. The fact remains that it is Sir David who has withdrawn or been withdrawn from most of his projects, for reasons that I am coming to.
Following a year-long investigation by the Financial Times, Sir David Adjaye was accused two years ago of sexual assault and misconduct. He has apologised for entering relationships that blurred the boundaries between his professional and personal life, while not admitting criminal wrongdoing. He said they were consensual. There are graphic descriptions online of assault, his giving money to the women involved and a toxic atmosphere in his office. He has stepped back from projects in Liverpool, Sharjah, the Serpentine, Harlem, Oregon and elsewhere.
Sexual violence against Jewish women was widespread and well documented in the Holocaust. Rape was a feature of the pogroms of eastern Europe a century ago and it featured in the massacres of 7 October. I have no words to express the horror and disgust that I and others will experience if this Government are so uncaring as to allow to go forward a project whose lead designer is associated with sexual assault. This cannot be allowed to stand. There could quite quickly be a commission for a new figurative memorial that means something, as quickly as the project to honour the late Queen is going ahead. That would satisfy the need to reflect on the events of the war and would fit in with VTG and its other sculptures.
I cannot urge noble Lords too strongly to accept this amendment and not continue with a design that is an affront to the victims and their relatives. If that design remains, we will get the message that the Government do not care about the feelings of those who will see it and are stubbornly determined to go ahead with a design by someone whom, I fear, will be associated in future only with his sexually inappropriate misbehaviour.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I have always supported having a national memorial, and I am very keen to see it. I was 14 when we went into Belsen, and I have lived with the memory of the reports and photographs that came back ever since. As it happens, I live in a flat in Smith Square, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that I will not see the memorial that is being proposed at the present time, because I have been told that it will take three and half years to build. Before it even starts being built, and whatever problems may occur while it is being built, it is extremely unlikely that I would ever see it. I therefore do not have a personal interest.
I strongly support my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 16. It seems to me deeply irresponsible not to regroup, to have, as he said, a design of a stand-alone memorial compatible with the other memorials in the park, and to have it finished—as indeed the Holocaust Commission suggested—within a period of two years. That is somewhat less than three and a half, five or six years, or whatever the present proposal implies. It would also be completed at less cost than is expected now, probably within the £138 million, plus a contingency.
I finish by saying that there is nothing in the Holocaust Commission’s report that says or implies that the memorial and the learning centre should be in the same building. It has always been a complete mistake that that was somehow agreed, subsequent to the report. Memorials are a matter for private remembrance and for, as it says in the Holocaust Commission’s report, paying respect, contemplating and praying. They are not buildings through which many people should tramp. If, indeed, we want another gallery to talk about what the British did or did not do between the Treaty of Versailles and 1942, let us have it in the Imperial War Museum, which would be the right place for it.
Will the Government therefore please reconsider their position and take the obvious way forward, which is to have a memorial in the park, self-standing, with no visitors going into it, just visitors coming to see it to pay their respects, contemplate and pray?
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to speak to this amendment, not so much to comment on the design, although I find it meaningless, unimaginative and repetitive, but to comment on the designer, his tainted reputation and the effect that this will have on not just the public and media perception of the whole project but, more importantly, on Holocaust survivors and their relatives, who this memorial is designed to honour.
When this project was announced by the promoter, it claimed with great pride and numerous times the involvement of Sir David Adjaye, even calling him a “starchitect”. Since then, Adjaye has faced some seriously unpleasant sexual allegations. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, outlined many of them, so I will miss the next section of my notes, which goes into considerable detail, as the noble Baroness did, on all of this. As a result of these scandals, Adjaye felt that it was best for him to resign from his role as architectural adviser to the Mayor of London. He has also removed himself from involvement in the Holocaust memorial that we are now discussing.
However, without a doubt, the memorial is now and will for ever be tainted by Adjaye Associates continuing as the designated lead architect. In spite of the promoter’s recent efforts to downplay his involvement, all of the plans and documentation, including the promoter’s documentation, to this day feature the name of Adjaye Associates. To prove the point, this morning, I Googled: “Who designed London’s new Holocaust memorial?” Straightaway, the answer “Adjaye Associates” came up, with no mention of the substitutes which the promoter is now promoting in his stead.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, not wishing to bring shame by association on to their projects, the Africa Institute in Sharjah cancelled his major new campus project. His practice was also dropped from the £57 million project for Liverpool’s International Slavery Museum. Quite why we are persisting with his design when other prestigious projects have seen the light and when his association with the project can only bring it into disrepute remains a complete mystery.
In view of that and of the widespread dislike of the design, as per my amendment, would now not be a good time to invite fresh and more imaginative designs in keeping with the Holocaust and Victoria Tower Gardens from firms not associated with sexually inappropriate shame and scandal and from firms that will bring honour, not dishonour, to the memorial centre?
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I, too, am greatly in favour of a new Holocaust memorial in London—we all are—but the proposed memorial, designed by the discredited architect David Adjaye, is totally inappropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, delivered, in her inimitable way, a brilliant analysis of the once-fashionable David Adjaye. As the former chairman of Arts Council England, London, I would like to make a few observations.
Since 2015, I have taken an interest in the process to select a design and location for the Holocaust memorial. It was clear early on that this proposal would run into trouble, as indeed it has. A long process involving an international competition with 92 entries from all over the world by no means guarantees a good outcome. The then new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced in October 2017 that the memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament was,
“designed to ask questions about the role of society and its institutions in preventing hatred”.
A noble aim, I am sure, but it was also clear that we were heading for trouble because of the highly contentious issue of including other genocides, which has been hotly debated today. Surely the purposes of the project are to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to provide an educational learning centre about the Nazi’s genocide of the Jews. Can the Minister clarify once again why and when other genocides were added to the memorial’s purpose?
Then we come to the design of the memorial. Call it what you will—a giant toast-rack or a ribcage—but it is the wrong design. It is a recycled, previously rejected design in the wrong place. Members of the design jury, a number of whom I know quite well, might normally be considered sensible and sensitive. However, there is nothing sensible and sensitive about the Adjaye design with its disproportionate scale. UNESCO has declared that it will compromise a world heritage site.
In the design, I am influenced by the dignity of memorials that I have seen across Europe and America while travelling with my husband, whose grandfather died in Auschwitz. The design of the memorial in Berlin, for example, is inspired and inspiring. It is very sombre; the slabs of grey concrete tell a powerful story. It is a place of understanding and contemplation. I remember that, on the day that I visited, drops of rain fell, like tears, on the grey slabs. It was a memorable and deeply moving experience.
The memorial proposed for London, however, is overbearing, with its showy 23 looming bronze fins. Why 23? The explanation will be puzzling to almost everyone who sees it, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. Did the design jury actually visit the site? They would surely have seen how the chosen design would dwarf the other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, in particular the important memorial to Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton in recognition of his work to abolish slavery. The design by the Victorian architect Samuel Sanders Teulon and Buxton’s own son, Charles, is quite delicate and modest, as Buxton himself was.
My ancestor Sir John Bowring, MP for Bolton, was a colleague and contemporary of Sir Thomas. Bowring was a strong opponent of slavery, being an early member of the Anti-Slavery Society founded in 1823. An economist, Unitarian and polyglot, I can only imagine what Sir John’s view would have been of the giant toast-rack. My half-brother is a Buxton, and I share his family’s disappointment that those remembered for campaigning against slavery will be minimised by this thoroughly inappropriate Holocaust memorial.
It is not just residents, disparagingly described in the past as self-interested, who are opposed to this memorial. Jewish people are not universally at one with the Chief Rabbi who supports it. I am not Jewish, but I know that a great many members of the Jewish community, including the remarkable Holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—are opposed to it. This memorial really is the wrong design in the wrong place.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 16, or something like it. This is a very important amendment: it takes us right back to the core of the Bill, which is really about the nature of an appropriate memorial in this specially protected location for this unique purpose. I took a break during the afternoon to go out into the gardens, and it was interesting to observe that some things will remain unchanged, whatever is built there: the extraordinary smell and the scent of the hyacinths at the north end of the gardens will remain unchanged—and might be enhanced, as we have heard.
There are some things that will not remain unchanged, but where compromise is appropriate and will certainly be necessary. I saw young children from a local nursery in the playground this afternoon. The Minister is looking weary, but I am afraid I am going to detain him, as this is important—he looks at his officials as if to say: “What do I say? What do I think?” In my view, this goes to the heart of the matter—where do we need to be concerned and what should the Bill address? We have to recognise that, whatever happens, the playground will be a noisier place, with people all around it. For the nursery assistants who were wheeling these children in this afternoon, it will be different, but that is the sort of thing which I believe is an appropriate and necessary compromise.
There are other things that, with good will—which seems to be a bit lacking today and over the past couple of weeks—and good sense, are clearly capable of being sorted out, including security, safety and other issues. I have had the privilege of standing where the Minister is today. For a lot of these debates or issues, people say, “This needs to be on the face of the Bill”, and the Government often, perfectly reasonably, say, “Oh, we’re going to do it, so we don’t need it on the face of the Bill”. There has been a certain amount of that, but these are important areas.
We are discussing something that will be irrevocably changed: the nature of the world heritage site if this proposal goes ahead. I know that the Minister, in response, will say that we will talk about UNESCO next week, as he said to me last week. However, my point is that UNESCO, a convention to which the UK is a signatory, places obligations—albeit not legal ones—on the UK. It is difficult to talk about this amendment without referencing the concerns of UNESCO. If the Minister wants to respond on UNESCO today—he does not look as though he is likely to—it would be welcome. I note that there are other UN conventions to which the UK is a signatory, which do not themselves impose legal obligations, for which this Government seem to be bending over backwards to follow UN rulings, decisions and advice.
It is also worth putting on the record—because people do read these proceedings—that what I have heard today is not about nimbyism; some extremely unfair accusations have been made. Yes, the proceedings may be going on a bit long, but a lot of what we have heard today, and in previous sessions in Committee, are examples of your Lordships at their best: bringing relevant expertise to a thorny, difficult problem. Like many, I live under the flight path to Heathrow. I am a proponent—I always have been in, both in government as an official and since I left government—of more runway capacity at Heathrow. The accusation that a lot of us are coming at this as nimbys is very unfair.
It is also worth restating—because earlier, one Member of the Committee completely mischaracterised the nature of hybrid Bills—that, for hybrid Bills, the House of Lords is obliged to allow for private interests to be stated. That was dealt with admirably by the Committee looking at the Bill. I note that the House of Lords, between 1909 and 1969, considered and passed four Dudley Corporation Bills; they were hybrid Bills. I suspect those Members of the House of Lords, if they were here when the Dudley Corporation Bills were going through, would have been outraged if the interests of Members with an interest in Dudley had not been given a hearing. That is important to recognise. Now that we are speaking in the normal way, as Members of the House of Lords, it seems to me hardly surprising, given the proximity of the subject matter of this Bill and the nature of what is being proposed, that a significant number of Members of the House have important things to say about it, just as we would on any other topic where we thought we had something to bring to the party.
Having said that, it is important to go straight back to the planning question. I will not make artistic judgments, as some of my noble friends have, and I will not talk about architects. I happen to think that the Vienna memorial by a British sculptor, which was referenced earlier, is very moving; it is right in the centre of the city in Judenplatz. However, that just demonstrates that there are all sorts of views on artistic matters, and I do not believe that the Committee should spend time thinking about artistic matters. What we should be thinking about is what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said. He reminded us that this is a planning Bill. Clause 2 is all about sweeping away particular planning restrictions, so it is no good the Minister keeping on saying, “Well, it is all to be dealt with in the planning process”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for his Amendment 16, which seeks to establish a competition for the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. As I have said in our debates on previous groups, concerns about the design of the centre and memorial should be addressed in the full planning process; the Minister has given us this afternoon an assurance that that will be the case for both this and other matters.
That said, we are now a very long way along this process, and a design has already been chosen and discussed fully in the past. I have listened carefully to the concerns of my noble friend. There would have to be serious practical problems with the chosen design for it to be sensible to reopen the design question. We need to make progress on the delivery of this memorial and learning centre. I remind the Committee that it has now been over a decade since my noble friend Lord Cameron announced his plans for a Holocaust memorial. If we were to reopen the question of design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, that could risk a further delay; we must ask ourselves whether that is appropriate given the amount of work that successive Governments have put into delivering the memorial.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he is able to address noble Lords’ concerns fully.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for bringing this amendment, which was eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It seeks to require a rerun of the process that took place in 2016 to identify the proposed design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, with the additional restriction that the outcome would be a figurative memorial and, perhaps, the implication that there would be no learning centre.
It may be helpful if I remind the Grand Committee that the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition that attracted 92 entrants. The shortlist of 10 design teams was described by Sir Peter Bazalgette, the then chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as
“some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”.
Anish Kapoor, who was rightfully praised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in our debate last week, was part of a design team alongside Zaha Hadid Architects, which submitted a powerful and striking design. Other well-known architects and designers who were shortlisted included Foster and Partners, Studio Libeskind and Rachel Whiteread. This was a competition that attracted designers of the very highest quality from across the world.
After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, a judging panel had the difficult task of choosing a winning team. The judging panel, chaired by Sir Peter Bazalgette, included the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid; the Mayor of London; the Chief Rabbi; the chief executive of the Design Council; the director of the Serpentine Gallery; broadcaster Natasha Kaplinsky; and Holocaust survivor Ben Helfgott. Clearly, this was a serious panel of well-informed people with deep experience on matters of design, as well as on the significance of a Holocaust memorial. The panel unanimously chose the team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winners.
In announcing its decision, the panel referred to the sensitivity of the design both to the subject matter and to the surrounding landscape. Public exhibitions were then held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place on the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke. All the details of the planning application, over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online, were closely scrutinised. Members of the design team, including the very talented young architect Asa Bruno, director at memorial designer Ron Arad Architects, who tragically died the following year, were cross-examined by learned counsel.
There was, of course, a great deal of discussion at the planning inquiry about the proposed design of the Holocaust memorial, the learning centre and the associated changes to Victoria Tower Gardens. Many opponents of the scheme, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, took the opportunity to inform the inspector of their opinions on the proposed design. In his detailed report, the inspector sets out the spectrum of views on the design presented to him. Having heard the evidence of a very wide range of supporters and opponents, the inspector was then able to reach a balanced judgment. He recorded in his report his view that
“the proposals comprise a design of exceptional quality and assurance”.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can I ask the Minister whether all these people knew that the design had already been put forward in Ottawa? I do not think that even I knew that then.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness’s point towards the end of my wind-up.
Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister, with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation.
Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, would simply take us back around nine years and require the design competition to be run again. There is no good reason for such a step. The Government remain fully committed to the current design, which has been the subject of detailed attention and wide consultation. Suggestions that the memorial was not designed by Ron Arad or not envisaged specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens are wide of the mark. Ron Arad’s drawings showing the evolution of the design have been displayed at the Royal Academy for all to see the originality and brilliance of his design.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that a camel is a horse designed by a committee? What he has just said proves that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, swiftly moving on, it is not realistic to suppose that a new design competition would produce a design that pleases everyone. Let me be absolutely clear: I have featured in a BBC housebuilding documentary programme and I was most suspicious of design but, by the end of the 14 months when I was running for the European Parliament, I realised the impact and the power of design. Everyone has different tastes and different suspicions of design; everyone has different views. Differences of view about the artistic merits of designs are nothing new. It is quite proper that there should be an open debate about the design of new memorials, indeed of all new public buildings.
The design that is proposed for the UK national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the product of extensive consultation, a design competition that attracted many of the best architects in the world and a judging process that relied on the deep expertise of a talented and experienced panel. Are we simply to set all that aside and require the process to be repeated? It is right, of course, that a decision to proceed with construction of the memorial and learning centre should be taken only after all relevant voices have been heard.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the press reports in 2023 concerning Sir David Adjaye. Following allegations made in those reports, Adjaye Associates has said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, was in her place when I made the following point. The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust. The content of the learning centre is being developed by the leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The focus is to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. The exhibition will confront the immense human calamity caused by the destruction of Jewish communities and other groups, and the exhibition will also examine the Holocaust through British perspectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said that he knows nothing wiser. I was very clear in an earlier group about the next steps of the process around planning options, subject to the passage of the Bill. I made it very clear last week—and I will say it again after the confirmation of the previous group—that the designated planning Minister, Minister McMahon, will take an approach of his choosing, whether that will be a consensus round- table meeting, written responses or a public inquiry. It is for the designated Minister to decide which approach to the planning process he will take. On his very important focus on world heritage sites, I would not do justice to the noble Lord’s passion in this area if I swiftly gave the answer now, but I will come back to him, and go through this in detail, in the next group.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister does not want to repeat multiple times his definitive words on the world heritage site, and I fully accept that. On the planning, what he has just said—which I have heard him say before—seems to give absolutely no comfort about the future planning, because he says that it is entirely for the Minister. Does he accept that it would be technically possible for the Government to put amendments to the Bill that would guide the future planning process? At the moment, the Government are washing their hands of it. Would it be possible for the Government, or anybody else, to come forward with amendments to the Bill to direct in some way the shape of the future planning process, to give the Committee more comfort about what will happen, rather than just being told that it might be something or nothing?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me make it clear: it is for the designated Minister to decide the process and make the decision. If it means that, as normal planning decisions are made, there might be some conditions as part of the planning process, as is normal—for example, you cannot start building without consultation and cannot open the building without letting Westminster City Council know about security—then that is up to the Minister. I know other examples; I have just given one there. The process is totally detached from here and from me bringing the Bill forward as a supporter of it.
Moving towards concluding remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested that the memorial proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens is in some way a copy of a proposal that the architect submitted for a Holocaust memorial in Ottawa in 2014. I find this a rather strange criticism. When we consider the Buxton memorial, for example, are we to think less of its design because the architect used a similar Gothic revival style somewhere else? Should we be disappointed with “The Burghers of Calais” simply because it is one of 12 casts of the same sculpture? The topic was, of course, addressed at the planning inquiry, where the late Asa Bruno was able to point out that, while sharing a basic common architectural motif, the two proposals differ greatly in scale, material, form and proposed visitor experience, so that was clear from the public inquiry.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can I ask the Minister why Sir David Adjaye would say that the memorial was something disruptive of the park, and specifically about this situation, if he used the same thing abroad? Is his conscience not troubled at all that, for purely administrative reasons, the Jewish community is going to be lumbered with a design by someone who has admitted sexually inappropriate behaviour? Unfortunately, one cannot include photographs in Hansard, but I have in my hand the report,
“David Adjaye steps back from Holocaust memorial after misconduct claims”.
He steps back, but we are left with the design, which is featured on Adjaye Associates’ website. Do the Government still have a contract with Sir David Adjaye, and what is the future of the association with him? Because, going ahead with this, I cannot stress too strongly how appalling it is.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, if I heard her correctly, I think the noble Baroness was asking about my conscience. This is in the national consciousness, and that is why we want to build this Holocaust memorial learning centre to reflect and learn the lessons of the past but also to be an education for future generations to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, that this can never happen again.
Regarding Sir David, I do not want to say anything further about the allegation; I have said what I have said. I repeat that Adjaye Associates said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed. There is nothing that more I can add.
Let me make an important point to noble Lords across the Committee. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Ron Arad Studio. As I have said previously, when it comes to design, I am not the easiest to please person. Everyone has different views, as we see in the debates here, and I respect that. In addition to these proceedings, it would be very helpful to all noble Lords if I gave them the opportunity to see the proposed project in 3D form and to look at it from a design point of view. However, I repeat that it is not for this Committee to consider that; it is for planning. We are here to do two things: first, as per Clause 1, to allow the Secretary of State to spend on the project; and secondly, as per Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 Act so that we can build the project.
The planning system provides exactly the forum for a debate on this topic. That forum allows views to be heard and balanced judgments to be formed. There is no good reason for Parliament to seek to put aside the planning system in the single case of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Noble Lords will have plenty of opportunities, subject to the passage of the Bill, to be part of the planning process. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
There is a point that has not been dealt with. In January 2015, there was cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the argument that the Adjaye design does not conform to those recommendations. I feel that he has avoided any discussion of the differences between the design and what was recommended at that time and won cross-party acceptance, which I think is still in existence. That point needs dealing with in these deliberations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I appreciate his strong concerns and the very interesting points he has raised throughout the passage of this Bill. Let me clear: there were 92 entrants in what was an international competition, and the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. The chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation said that the 10 teams shortlisted were,
“some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”.
The competition attracted the highest quality designers from across the world. The decision was made through a process in which the panel chose a team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winner.
I just say to the noble Lord that numerous Prime Ministers, with elected mandates, have supported the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—the whole project. We too will continue to support it wholeheartedly. I invite the noble Lord and others to look at the model when we bring it to the House. I found it very impressive, but that is my view.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
I will have one more try. It seems to me that, whatever the Minister has said, it does not deal with the problem the Government have: that there was and still is cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of Britain’s Promise to Remember. The Adjaye design does not meet them. If the noble Lord thinks that it does, then we need a proper explanation of the way in which it does. There never was a single reference to what is now being proposed, with both the memorial and the learning centre in a single building—you cannot rely on the word “co-locate”.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, we think that it does. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has an amendment in group 7, when we will discuss this in depth.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I begin with a profound apology to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, whose amendment I inadvertently stole. For some reason, when I was writing up my notes, in my enthusiasm for some of the amendments here, I assumed it was mine. I therefore jumped up today to propose it as mine—it certainly was not mine and I apologise for that. My noble friend kindly agreed to let me do the wind-up in his place.
My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said that the only reason why the Opposition might object to it is if there were practical problems. By that, I think that she meant if there were construction, engineering or big design problems, but we say that there are practical problems because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, there is nothing Jewish about it. There is no Jewishness in the whole thing.
The Minister attempted to justify regurgitating the Ottawa failure on the basis that architects often reuse designs. Yes, that is fair game, except that this was supposed to be a uniquely British design. The design for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, or wherever it was to be, had to be a uniquely British one. There is nothing uniquely British about something that Canada rejected.
In my remarks, I did not refer to the personal problems that Mr Adjaye experienced and the allegations against him. I simply note that he has said:
“I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”.
The Government keep saying that it does not matter now, because Adjaye will have nothing more to do with it in future. It is too late to withdraw from it now —it is Sir David Adjaye’s design. He was praised to the heavens and his name was mentioned 12 times in the press release announcing the design. The Government were very proud to have David Adjaye then, and it is no good now trying to distance themselves from him.
I am not Jewish, so I cannot understand the depth of feeling there would be about someone who, because of sexual problems, has withdrawn from a project to design a memorial for 6 million slaughtered Jews. All I can say from my own background, with two uncles who were in the 51st Highland Volunteers, captured at St Valery and taken to Stalag Luft 14, is that I would not like a monument to them and to the regiment to be designed by someone who had these sexual allegations against them. I would hate that.
One of my noble friends said that a new monument would be completed quickly and at much smaller cost. Of course, a separate learning centre above ground would also be cheaper. My noble friend Lord Sassoon made a very good point. We can get a suitable amendment that would lead to an appropriate memorial that relates to Jewishness, is the right size and tries to get across the message that the memorial is there because 6 million Jews were slaughtered. That is the most important thing.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I clarify that these are allegations.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Yes, he denies any criminal involvement at all and denies those allegations of sexual assault. I merely quoted his words:
“I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”.
He has withdrawn himself from Adjaye Associates. I have not given any credence to the women who have made the sexual allegations, and I am happy to repeat that he denies them. He has nevertheless withdrawn from his involvement with this project, and it is too late to say that it is nothing to do with David Adjaye.
Public Sector: Working From Home
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess the impact of working from home on the productivity of the public sector.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Noble Lords will, like me, want to thank the public sector for its continued dedication and for what it does day in, day out. As my noble friend Lord Livermore informed your Lordships’ House in a similar OQ last year, the Government inherited a situation in which public sector productivity remains at 6.4% below pre-pandemic levels. This is clearly unacceptable. Our focus is on fundamental reform of our public services to drive greater efficiency and productivity. Further details will be set out in next week’s Spring Statement and the forthcoming spending review.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response but I am rather perplexed. If economic growth is the Government’s top priority, why are they failing to conduct a full and proper assessment of the impact of working from home across the public sector—not least because the 7% fall in public sector productivity since the pandemic has coincided with a surge in remote working? There are key questions to answer, whether it is by sector or job function, for both management and employees, especially the young. It is not a one-size-fits-all issue, as the private sector is rapidly discovering. Why do the Government remain so resistant to learning?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am sorry but I do not agree with the sentiment behind it. In the Budget last year, the Chancellor announced a £100 million public sector reform and innovation fund, which has established a “trust and learn” approach to how we can deliver public service reform. We should be very clear that, according to the CIPD, the overwhelming majority of private sector organisations also now operate hybrid working at 60%, which is the same level as in the public sector and the Civil Service.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Clearly, if we are going to raise public service productivity, we must tackle training and skills. I deeply regret that the coalition Government sold off the National School of Government. Over the last 15 years, much of the training for our public services has been outsourced, often to management consultancies. What are the Government doing to bring training back in-house and to ensure that there is upskilling for the whole of the public sector, done on a fully professional basis?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are absolutely committed to the re-prioritisation of our workforce in delivering front-line services, which will require ongoing upskilling and training. On bringing it in-house, I look forward to ongoing conversations with the Minister sitting to my right, my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, about how we will collectively work across government to achieve it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is not the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, of why the Government are not tackling this problem the same as for why their policy on schools has been changed and their whole approach to employment policy is being changed? It is because this Government are run by the trade unions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think that many general secretaries of trade unions would wish that to be the case. As a former trade union officer, I am very proud that this Government are embedded in and wedded to Labour and trade union values. We are working with our trade unions to deliver a plan for change regarding flexible working and our new normal. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are now five years on from the pandemic, when we had 80% of the workforce working from home. We now have a new normal. We look to what people’s expectations are and how we can deliver on those and on the delivery of our core mission of economic growth, working with all partners, trade unions and employers, to deliver it.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, flexible working can give great benefits to both employees and employers, in the public sector in particular, but will my noble friend consider the importance of making sure that there are times when people do attend work in person where they can, not least to build teamwork and camaraderie, particularly for younger workers who at the beginning of their careers need to benefit from personal, up-close experience with their more senior colleagues?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I think most of us in your Lordships’ House benefited from being in workplaces so that we could be mentored and learn from people who are more experienced—I definitely do every day in your Lordships’ House. In terms of making sure that people are working in the office, the easiest example for me to give is the Civil Service. Civil servants are now required, as the previous Government established, to work 60% of their time in office environments to ensure that institutional knowledge is passed on from new starters to those more experienced but also for those more experienced to learn from new approaches to the world in which we live.
Baroness Finn (Con)
We heard what the Minister said about working with the unions. Last month the FDA Civil Service union published its findings that almost two-thirds of the staff it surveyed felt that having to work in the office three days a week decreased their productivity. Will the Minister confirm whether the FDA’s findings tally with the Government’s own official analysis of the impact of the three-day in-office rule?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My right honourable friend in the other place Pat McFadden has been clear that we want to ensure that people are working in the office. We genuinely believe that there is social capital developed from having office-based approaches, and we are committed to retaining 60% of staff in the office during their contracts. We should also reflect on the fact that one of the opportunities that this has given the state is that we have been able to consolidate the estate, one example of which is 1 Victoria Street, which was recently sold, leading to annual savings of £30 million. This gives us an opportunity in terms of hybrid working but also to ensure that we are getting value for money for the public purse.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that her impact in the Division Lobby would be much decreased if she was online? Does she also agree that in important meetings the impact of everyone being in the same room is much better than when part of the meeting is online? Does she further agree that we should apply that standard to Select Committee meetings in this House?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am not brave enough to answer the final point. As for my performance in the Division Lobby, I think most noble Lords have now experienced that. I can either apologise or be grateful for it. In terms of online working and how we use technology, personally, I benefit from sitting in the same room during meetings; I definitely absorb more. But noble Lords will be aware that I also do a great deal of work with the Northern Ireland Office and all our meetings have to be hybrid because of where people are. That is the case for most of us who are operating in government. Our officials are spread, so to make sure that we hear voices from our nations and regions, it is important that we operate a variety of different technologies.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, returning to the earlier question about skills and training, will my noble friend talk to her noble friend on the Front Bench and to Pat McFadden and Georgia Gould in the Commons about re-establishing a new form of civil service college, which could be done with a confederation of universities at a fraction of the price that was going to be charged by EY until this Government stopped it back in July?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend knows how inordinately fond of him I am, and I am aware that it is always a bad idea to disagree with him. On that basis, I will have all those conversations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a big difference between those civil servants who are working as researchers or analysts and those who are public facing; for example, in HMRC, the Passport Office and the DVLA? She will be aware that HMRC has underperformed in terms of answering telephones and dealing with the public. Can she tell the House how it is getting on at the moment?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right to raise it. In 2023-24 HMRC answered only 66.4% of phone calls when customers wanted to speak to an adviser. I can update the House that, according to the most recent figures we have, in quarter 3 of last year handling was 85%, so we are making significant advances. One of the things that has been most effective is that we are now giving the majority of people an answer on their first call and 80% of customer correspondence is now being issued within 15 days.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the Select Committee on Home-Based Working, of which I am a member, is receiving evidence from private sector employers that they are looking at innovative ways to measure productivity, but more importantly, to see what happens in the kind of telephone call the Minister has just referred to, because accurate information is not always given. What plans do the Government have to measure productivity in a more sophisticated way for public sector workers working from home?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. The Government are currently reflecting on how we should do it. The House of Lords Select Committee on Home-Based Working has a call for evidence which closes on 25 April, and we look forward to seeing its report in November to reflect on its recommendations.
Schools: Special Educational Needs
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to give schools the capacity to make assessments of commonly occurring special educational needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my declared interest with the British Dyslexia Association and Microlink PC.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, we are improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream settings to ensure that all children and young people receive the support they need to thrive. To do this, we are funding the universal SEND services programme, which has supported professionals to access over 20,000 SEND-specific training modules, the PINS programme to support around 1,600 primary schools to better meet the needs of neurodiverse children, and the NELI programme which has helped staff screen an estimated 640,000 children to identify those with language development difficulties.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she expand on what has been done to disseminate knowledge throughout the teaching staff once this assessment has been made? Where anyone has problems, it is usually a case of working smarter, not harder, so more help from the mainstream types of support can often be counterproductive.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: we believe that every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs and disability. Where we find good practice, we need to make sure that it is disseminated to all teachers because the best teaching produces the best results for all children, including those with special educational needs and disability. From this September, the initial teacher training scope will include improved measures and information about what works well for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, dyscalculia is the learning disability that most people have never heard of, yet its prevalence is the same as dyslexia, and indeed its impact on educational, employment and health outcomes are very similar. The prevalence rate means that one child in every classroom has dyscalculia, yet the Minister will know that the DfE has no official definition of dyscalculia, nor is there any guidance at all for parents, carers and educators on the website. When will the Government address the incredibly low awareness of this high-impact condition by including reference to it in initial teacher training so that young people get the diagnosis, early identification and support that they need and deserve?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that the noble Baroness has not only raised the issue of dyscalculia with me but, in doing so, drawn attention to it more broadly. The approach that is taken in initial teacher training is not to specifically identify particular conditions because, as I suggested to the noble Lord, the best-quality training for mainstream teachers is in the type and quality of teaching that will enable them to identify needs and to enable children to make the best progress. Where really specific support is needed, that should be commissioned by the special educational needs co-ordinator, within the school or externally. I feel reasonably confident that SENCOs understand the sort of issues that the noble Baroness is raising, but ensuring that information and best practice are available is clearly an important part of the work that we are doing.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, when there is not early identification, increasingly parents have been feeling that they have to withdraw their children from mainstream education and home-school them. Could the Minister confirm that we are collecting data on those who are home-educated? Those parents do not think it was an elective home education, and it is important that we know how assessment is failing and why those parents have withdrawn their children and are home-educating them.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that it is an enormous failure of the system if parents feel they have to withdraw their children from school, not voluntarily but because they do not believe that schools are providing for them. That is why it is so important that this Government’s plans to develop a more inclusive and expert mainstream education, alongside specialist schools where there are particularly complex needs and they are needed, is so important. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be coming to this House reasonably soon, we will be taking additional measures around both the consent needed and the understanding of those students who are being home-schooled. On that particular issue, however, I will write to the noble Baroness about the extent of the information that we currently collect.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an intermediate position between removing children from mainstream schooling and leaving them there, which is that some children with special educational needs should be able to access support alongside their mainstream schooling? Once a condition has been identified, parents who can do so will often look to access that in the private sector because it is difficult to get it due to the availability of the right resources. To what extent is the Minister confident that, where there is an identified need for additional special support outside the classroom, there are sufficient specialists available to deliver that support?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Some of the best practice that we are seeing in mainstream schools occurs where they are able to develop in-school resource centres with particular specialisms. That is why the Government have provided an additional £740 million-worth of capital to improve the capability for specialist centres like that and specialist places within mainstream schools, and in special schools where necessary. So my noble friend makes an important point. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched a call for evidence on best practice in inclusive practice which is nevertheless maintaining the specialist support that children need. I hope we will find more examples through looking at the good work that is already happening, which, through the increased investment and the reform that we are making in the special educational needs and disability system, we can ensure is spread more widely across our schools.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the adoption and special guardianship support fund may run out of funds entirely by the end of this month? What action are the Government thinking of taking to avoid that extremely damaging situation?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Due to the enormously difficult fiscal position that we inherited from the last Government—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, it was bad. We are having to make some enormously difficult decisions. Having said that, we are in the process of business planning, as well as planning for the next spending review, and we hope to be in a position to announce the future of schemes like that as soon as possible.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that recent reports have highlighted the very variable quality of education, health and care plans, and have identified a number where interventions were recommended that are proven not to work. In parallel with that, there have been suggestions that there should be the equivalent of NICE for special educational needs. Given how complex this area is and how long it will take to make the big structural reforms that I know the Government want to do, is this not something that the Government could press on with quickly to improve the lives of children within the system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point about us being as clear as possible about which interventions are most effective for children, as well as the broader reform that is going to be necessary. That is why, to be fair to the noble Baroness, some of the work that was started under the change programme is identifying where there is good practice in relation to EHCPs. That is why, in the engagement that this Government have started, led by Christine Lenehan as the strategic adviser for special educational needs and disability, we are looking at what is working effectively and what we need to change. I take the noble Baroness’s point about how we more quickly identify what high-quality interventions are and how to spread that as quickly as possible across the system.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are in a situation where we need to get early assessment for those who need it, but, as the Minister will know from recent discussions on welfare and on the number of very young people particularly on sickness, how does she think we should deal with the problems of overdiagnosis and of pathologising and medicalising young people who are having difficult times but are actually keen, or their parents are keen, to get a label when it is not appropriate? It seems to me that that is skewing the figures and damaging the system.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness identifies the crucial role of identifying early where there are difficulties or particular needs that children have. That needs to start really early, which is why the Government have improved both the training and the advice available to early years practitioners to be able to identify that. In the range of measures that I outlined in my initial Answer, there is more scope to identify and to start to take action early to prevent the early signs of some of those conditions, which can then become more serious, from escalating in the way in which the noble Baroness said. In relation to welfare reform, ensuring that we are preparing all children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, for their future working lives—as I was able to see in a recent visit to New College Worcester for visually impaired young people, for example—is also incredibly important so that people can start their life able to work and achieve the best outcomes that they can throughout their lives.
HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United States of America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization on the global treatment of HIV/AIDS.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the work that he has done on this agenda over very many decades. The UK will continue to work with the World Health Organization, member states and other partners to support the WHO’s ongoing transformation and to strengthen its efficiency, transparency and responsiveness. We are proud of our long-standing support for global health organisations at the core of the response to HIV/AIDS and we continue to support efforts to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. There have been, to date, 40 million deaths from AIDS across the world. Because of the success of efforts over the last years, official predictions were that AIDS could be eliminated as a public health disease by 2030, as the Minister has just said, but that was before the abrupt and recent changes of policy by the American Administration, which have caused havoc across the world. Is it really the Government’s view that the 2030 target is achievable in the new conditions? Do they share the view of most medical experts that the American policies are leading the world backwards, to defeat, in a vital area of public health?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think it has made it any easier, but we stand by our commitment to do this by 2030. There are some things in our favour around medical advances and new treatments, and a willingness of some Governments now to play a part that perhaps they have not been able to in the past. There is no doubt that the situation is now more challenging, but we will work as firmly and with as much energy as we ever have towards this goal, because it is important that we do.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, tuberculosis is the single biggest cause of death for people with HIV/AIDS, killing 1.25 million people a year. It is the most deadly infectious disease of all. Given the reduction of funding and the dismantling of USAID, and the withdrawal of funding from the WHO, does the Minister share my concern that our ability to conduct ongoing surveillance of this airborne transmissible disease is at risk? Will the Government maintain their programmes to ensure that this disease too can be beaten by 2030?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are concerned about HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. The theme of these exchanges today is going to be one of heightened concern about our ability to make the progress that we have an ambition and a responsibility to make. There is no doubt that it has now been made more difficult. The noble Lord asked about the decisions we are making here in the UK. We are not responsible for the decisions that other countries make, but we are responsible for the choices that we take. Although those decisions are currently being made, I find it difficult to envisage a situation where the United Kingdom does not play a leading role in the fight against these diseases.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, with regard to our approach, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the 0.7% legislation passing this House. I mourn that, because I was naive; I felt that subsequent Governments would honour it. However, we now have the position where the Government will be paying more to private sector landlords in the UK than the entirety of all our support for children with malaria or those born with AIDS. In two years’ time, we will be spending the same level on official development assistance as Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. With all great seriousness, given how far away we will be from that legislation—and the more incredulous government statements saying that when fiscal circumstances arise we will get to it—as the people now in charge of that legislation, will the Government now do the decent thing and repeal it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Absolutely not. Why would we do that? It is our ambition to regain the 0.7% spend on official development assistance. We have been very clear about that. Why would we repeal that legislation? I find it very difficult that we are spending so much money on housing asylum seekers and migrants in the UK out of our ODA budget. I do not think that is what we should be doing. The previous Government completely lost control of the borders of this country and we have inherited this situation. The Home Office is working hard to get the numbers down and to reduce the spend so that money can be spent where it is needed most. We did make the decision—and it was a difficult one for this Government—to prioritise spending on defence. I do not think I need to explain to noble Lords why we did that. It is a decision I support, and I will be working incredibly hard, with allies and partners, to make sure that the money that we do have is spent wisely, and that we get the best value for money for British taxpayers and the most impact that we can for our partners overseas.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, last week, I co-hosted on behalf of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee a meeting of STOPAIDS in this House. We heard from people from Africa whose ability to access drugs had, in one case, enabled a woman to live to become a grandmother. We heard about the devastating effect, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of the cuts in USAID, for which we are not responsible. I hope my noble friend the Minister will understand that, to the extent that Britain can continue to play its part in trying to reach the 2030 target, it must use the resources, scarce though they are, to enable this work to continue. We cannot allow the world to go backwards. This needs to be tackled now.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I completely agree. There are encouraging things happening around some of the medical devices and the drugs that can be used now to provide protection against HIV, including devices for which women are in control of their use, because we are seeing an increase in prevalence among women and young girls. There are encouraging things happening, but it would be incredible to stand here and say that the situation that we now find ourselves in is not far more challenging than it has been more recently.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, taking into account the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO, can the Minister inform the House how we are working with other international partners to fill that void?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is vital that we do that, and we are doing that. I met the executive director of the WHO earlier this week, and that is something we spoke about in some depth. The noble Earl is absolutely right to encourage the Government to take that approach, and we will be doing so.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, alongside the withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the Trump Administration are cutting billions of dollars from US universities and research institutes. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the UK’s research partnerships, and, crucially, in relation to this question, the impact on our shared global health challenges?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no doubt that research and development is critical to making progress on this and many other agendas in development. We are working through the impact, as the noble Baroness suggests we should. Clearly, we cannot fill the void, but we can work smarter and more collaboratively, and certainly with our university and research partners it is important that we do so.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister seems to suggest that devices and medication are expanding. The problem is that people need to get tested. The impact of the US pulling out is that there are 228,000 fewer tests a day and the supply of things such as condoms and PrEP has ceased in certain programmes. If the Minister wishes the UK to take a lead, as she said at the Dispatch Box, what extra support and resources will be made available if this temporary suspension becomes permanent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working through the impact of the United States’ decision and looking at how we reprioritise our own spending. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Encouragingly, in 2023, approximately 86% of people living with HIV worldwide knew their HIV status. What we do not want to see is that incredible achievement going in the wrong direction. He is right to remind the House of that.
Pharmacy Opening Hours
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the potential reduction in pharmacy opening hours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise that pharmacies are an integral part of our communities. There are processes in place to monitor opening hours and their impact, and core hours of either 40 or 72 hours would not be affected by the proposed action by one trade body. Options are available to patients to access alternative pharmacies or distance-selling pharmacies. We will make an announcement shortly on a funding settlement for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her response. Will His Majesty’s Government publish the independent economic analysis of the pharmacy funding crisis? Also, last summer we nursed my brother-in-law as he died. We had to access medicines, often at short notice. That was very difficult, even in a built-up urban area with many pharmacies around. In rural areas, it is far more difficult. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of any limitation of opening hours on health outcomes in rural areas?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will of course discuss the right reverend Prelate’s request for publication of information with Minister Stephen Kinnock, who has been working very hard with the sector in resolving matters on funding.
On opening hours, as I have said, there are core hours, but there are also additional supplementary voluntary hours that community pharmacies can choose to do. There is also a whole range of ways in which people can access pharmacy services—notwithstanding the point the right reverend Prelate made about his personal experience—including being able to contact distance pharmacies, which can provide things through online contact, by telephone call or by other means.
Pharmacies are key to making healthcare fit for the future, but we want to make sure that they are completely accessible. We will work with them to make sure that they, as largely private businesses, do so.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Just to build on the point made by the right reverend Prelate, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact on population health outcomes of the intersection between limited access to primary care services and diminishing availability of pharmacy services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know the noble Lord talked about primary care more generally, but the assessment on pharmacies is that there is quite a good coverage. Some 80% of the population live within a mile of a pharmacy and, as I say, there are other online and not-in-person ways of contacting pharmacies. The Pharmacy Access Scheme provides financial support to pharmacies in areas where there are fewer pharmacies. Local authorities, along with ICBs, continue to monitor changes, look at provision and have the ability to intervene where necessary. On all these counts, in respect of primary care provided through pharmacy, which is so important, we continue to monitor the impact across ICBs. With regard to a particular assessment, I will gladly write with more details to the noble Lord.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly talked about some of the alternatives, particularly when hours are limited. Can I ask her about some of the long-term thinking in the department on the future of pharmacy services? We know that some chains, for example, have in-store pharmacies. What thought has been given to more of these partnerships—and also, perhaps, pharmacies as part of future primary healthcare centres? While many people may want a bricks and mortar pharmacy, those who use the NHS app, for example, may be happy to order repeat prescriptions and have them delivered or pick them up from a local location.
Patients are also more open to ideas of online consultation. We have seen Royal Mail trialling delivery by drones in remote areas. There is a whole host of things happening in other sectors that the pharmacy sector and other parts of our health and care sector can learn from. What is the department learning from this innovation in other parts of the economy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some very constructive points and illustrates further the point that there are many ways to deliver pharmaceutical services. I can assure him that we are exploring how pharmacy can best be positioned—and indeed levered—to fit our ambition for a neighbourhood health service within the NHS 10-year plan. More will be heard about that soon.
The noble Lord will also be aware that one of the challenges that community pharmacies raised with us is about funding, which was cut or held flat between 2015-16 and 2023-24, representing a cut of some 28%. That is why we have concluded the consultation about funding; we will shortly announce the outcome, looking at how these private businesses can operate in the market. We are keen to ensure that they play their part and continue to work very constructively with them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the financial year ends in two weeks, and the ongoing delay in this year’s financial settlement for pharmacists has created a cash-flow problem and exacerbated the financial issues, which means that on average eight community pharmacies a week are closing. In December the chief executive of Community Pharmacy England wrote to Ministers asking for a remedial injection of cash to help cash flow and keep pharmacies open. I gently ask the Minister why Ministers have so far ignored that request.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I feel that the most constructive response I can give to the noble Lord is the response of the Secretary of State, who has made it quite clear in Parliament that discussions will conclude shortly and an announcement will be made in the normal way. That will be via an open letter to contractors, which will be published on GOV.UK. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot say more until our engagement with Community Pharmacy England, the representative body, comes to a conclusion. I can add for the benefit of noble Lords that NHS England commissioned an independent economic analysis of the cost of providing pharmaceutical services. It has informed the consultation with the sector and will be published in due course.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned that GPs’ tendency very easily and readily to sign repeat prescriptions increases the demand on pharmaceutical services? Does she agree that there should be a much more rigorous review of repeat prescriptions on a regular basis?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s views. Indeed, community pharmacies in England are dispensing around 1.1 billion NHS medicines with a value of over £10 billion each year. Prescribing is of course a clinical decision. We are nevertheless keeping an eye on the situation, of course. What matters is that people seek help, and I am very glad to say that pharmacies are playing an increasing role in the availability of assistance, so people do not always have to go to GPs, particularly for some of the more common conditions.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that community pharmacies play a vital role in addressing NHS waiting lists through the administration of the vaccination programme—whether it is influenza or the Covid-19 vaccine—and thereby contribute to the reduction in the waiting lists that are faced by many hospitals throughout the UK? Will all efforts be made by government to ensure that the challenges faced by community pharmacies at present will be resolved in the near future?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with my noble friend’s point. I hope that she has noticed my enthusiasm for the role that pharmacies play. The introduction of Pharmacy First was a tremendous contribution to some common-sense approaches so that people who have common conditions can more immediately access services. Many of us will have experienced that. As I have said, we will conclude matters shortly and look forward to making the decision about future funding known ASAP.
Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome this Statement. It is clear that the Second World War continues to cast a long shadow. Names of the fallen are etched in stone in every parish of this country. The conflict transformed our society, not just in the families scarred by the conflict but by accelerating the role of women in the workforce or in military service, through the migration of our fellow subjects from across the Empire to help rebuild these war-torn islands, just as they had helped to defend them, and in the technological advances made in the face of adversity. In the secrecy of Bletchley Park, this country quietly invented the computer, helping to break codes and ciphers, foreshortening the war by some two years. In the desert of New Mexico, scientists from around the world invented a weapon so terrible it brought an end to the conflict in the east and still forms the linchpin of our defence today.
That past is not so distant. Here in your Lordships’ House sit the grandsons of our wartime premier and his deputy, the descendants of many others who rendered distinguished wartime service, and a young boy who came here, like thousands of others, as a refugee on the Kindertransport. Later today, in Grand Committee, we will continue to discuss plans for a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, one of the greatest crimes against humanity. This afternoon in this Chamber, we will discuss the European Convention on Human Rights, part of the international determination that the atrocities and violations of the 1930s and 1940s must never happen again.
But that recent past begins to slip from living memory. The Holocaust Educational Trust is doing brilliant work capturing the testimony of the last survivors, using modern technology to digitise them, so that future generations can interact with them as though they were still among us. Just this week, we lost 105 year-old Group Captain John Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much for defending these islands in the Battle of Britain. The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister led the tributes from the nation, which remains humbled by their service. At the commemorations this summer, there will be fewer and frailer veterans. Can the Minister say what plans there are to put them at the heart of the proceedings, so that we can renew our thanks to them and hear their stories while we are still able to?
The Minister and I were both born closer to the end of the Second World War than to today; that gap grows ever wider for us all. But, for children born today, even the events of this summer will not form part of their consciousness. I am pleased to see mentioned in the Statement the work being done by the National Theatre, the Imperial War Museum, the National Lottery, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and many more. What else are the Government and their arm’s-length bodies doing to ensure that the lessons of the Second World War are passed on to future generations?
It is sadly clear that those lessons are as relevant today as they ever have been. The scourge of antisemitism continues to poison minds in this country and others. Extremism and intolerance are once more on the march. Only yesterday, Hungary, a member state of the European Union, banned Pride marches taking place in its country. The Statement which follows this one is about the return of conflict to the European continent, and of the siren song of isolationism. It is clear that we need to remind ourselves and our friends of the lessons of the last century.
Just a few steps from the Minister’s office in her department is the room from which Winston Churchill addressed the crowds on VE day, 8 May 1945. He told a war-weary but jubilant nation
“this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole”.
He asked them:
“When shall the reputation and faith of this generation of English men and women fail?”
This summer, let us make sure that we uphold that reputation, renew that faith, and give thanks to all those who fought for the freedom that we cherish today.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I encourage the Government to make as much as possible of this, as an opportunity to explain to our younger generation and educate them on the implications of what we were fighting for in the last war.
Like others, I have taken my grandchildren to the Imperial War Museum, and I was happily surprised to see pictures of my parents-in-law in uniform in the display on Bletchley. I will be taking them to the Western Front at Easter, where we will walk over the areas where in 1918 my father, as an 18 year-old in the Highland Division, fought. It is ancient history for our grandchildren, but it is highly relevant to them.
I hope the Government will make this very much a commemoration of an allied effort. In our commemoration of World War I, I felt that the then-Government tried too much to make this Britain versus Germany. We had Polish squadrons in the RAF. We had Belgian squadrons in the Bomber Command. We recruited Caribbean people who served as ground crew. We had Polish divisions. I have had many conversations in Saltaire with elderly Poles who fought in the Eighth Army, who then came to Britain after the war. We had French divisions on British soil. We had a Czech brigade. We had people who went back to work in the resistance in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. We had Poles and Ukrainians who came here in large numbers as displaced persons and refugees after the war, whose grandchildren have almost forgotten about that. We also had 2.5 million people in the Indian army. We underplayed that in our commemoration of World War I. Many of their descendants now live in this country and are British citizens, as indeed are many of those who volunteered with the RAF from the Caribbean during the war. All that needs to be explained to the younger generation, in all its diversity.
I hope the Minister has already got her tickets for the Parliament Choir concert. I hope that all other Members of the House—those who will not be singing—will be there on 7 May for an excellent concert, for which we are already rehearsing.
We also need to educate our younger generation on the parallels between where we are now and where we were then. The Russian attack on Ukraine is motivated partly by a claim to be able to defend Russian minorities in other countries. That is what the Germans were doing in Czechoslovakia in 1938. We might even wish to remind the public that steps towards European integration after the war, in which Ernest Bevin and Winston Churchill played a large part, were absolutely part of preventing war again in western Europe. We need a sober recollection of the dangerous world we live in, the changing threats we face, and the values which we and our democratic neighbours must defend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, it is really positive that we can have a united voice on what will be hugely significant anniversaries, not least because, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, outlined, very sadly, this will be one of the last significant anniversaries where we have veterans who fought for our freedom still alive. [Interruption.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, the House will adjourn until this chaos calms down.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I had started going through some points around unity within your Lordships’ House, which I think has continued despite the interruption. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have announced exciting plans to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day with a series of events and celebrations, which I am delighted to discuss with your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson, outlined a number of points around our shared commitment to ensuring that we mark these anniversaries with the right amount of respect, while mindful of the fact that our veterans are, very sadly, coming towards the end of their lives in many cases.
As noble Lords will be well aware, Victory in Europe Day—VE Day—takes place on Thursday 8 May later this year and marks the Allied victory in Europe. The news resulted in millions celebrating the end of the war with street parties, dancing and singing across the country. The war in the Far East did not end until 15 August 1945 with victory over Japan, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, outlined, we are all very mindful of the events that led to that victory over Japan.
In preparation for today, and very much in line with the theme of letters to loved ones, remembering and people having conversations with family members, I spoke to my mum this morning. She is 85, so she was five at the end of the war. At the time she was in Kirkwall in Orkney and remembered both that the cinema burned down—a slightly random five year-old’s fact to remember—and that there was a parade of armed forces not just from the UK but mainly from the United States, and she and her fellow five year-olds went up to the American soldiers and asked them for chewing gum. That was her main memory. She said it was the first time she had had chewing gum—she is still not a fan.
Eighty years on, very few veterans remain alive. That is very poignant, because very many of those first-hand accounts, like that from my mother, are becoming less common. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in taking this opportunity to pay tribute to Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, who sadly died earlier this week. He was the last surviving pilot of the Battle of Britain. For his bravery, selflessness and resilience during one of the darkest times in our history, I think we are all truly grateful. He was a true hero whose service leaves a lasting legacy that will continue to inspire generations to come, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned parallels to the current day, including the need for alliances, and that the Second World War was not just a binary conflict but one that brought together people from across the world in our attempt to win it. My personal recollection is of the very many Polish friends my parents had when I was growing up, including someone who went on to become a journalist in this country, having come over as a young man and been a pilot in the RAF. It will be recognised that it was a collective effort, and that is particularly appropriate today. Those who fought from across the Commonwealth will also have their place; we will remember them, as we do others, during the celebrations and commemorations.
Five years ago, the 75th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day were profoundly poignant occasions, overshadowed by the Covid-19 pandemic. As the world faced an unprecedented global crisis with social distancing and lockdowns in place, the commemorations became a moment of reflection about the crisis we faced as well as one of gratitude to the Second World War generation. I think the late Queen spoke for the nation, and that we had a moment of unity across our country. This year, while the focus remains on remembrance, we have the opportunity to come together, gather in our communities and honour the legacy of those who fought so hard and gave up so much to protect the freedom we cherish today.
A truly inclusive national engagement programme will complement the series of events for VE and VJ Day 80. There are many ways that everyone from across your Lordships’ House, and members of the public, can get involved. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I have not yet got my tickets for the choir event that he mentioned, but I will do so.
The Government are introducing a general call to action for people from across the country, called Tip Top Towns, where the public are encouraged to get their towns, villages or cities ready for VE Day. Whether this be through putting up bunting, litter picking or crocheting bonnets for postboxes, everyone is invited to get in the spirit of the commemorations. We are encouraging street parties up and down the country on 5 May, mirroring the celebrations that took place in 1945. The Big Lunch has developed street party packs to support these, and the National Lottery is making its Awards for All fund available to support celebrations across the UK.
We are working with brilliant creative organisations to deliver a wide-reaching programme of activity. This includes Arts Council England, which will provide funding to arts centres, libraries and museums across the UK to celebrate and reflect on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. The National Theatre is creating a brand new short film, “The Next Morning”, which will focus on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people. The Imperial War Museum has launched a national call-out, Letters to Loved Ones, for schoolchildren and their families to look for letters from the Second World War. The public will be invited to explore the important history of the Second World War, and to share their personal stories, as part of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s For Evermore tour, which will have the torch of peace at its heart—the torch is currently in Portcullis House.
The value of these commemorations lies in their ability to connect generations. It is vital that our young people understand the impact of the Second World War, and that they have the opportunity to hear first hand the stories of our living Second World War veterans and others who lived through the war years, before it is too late. The Government, in partnership with the Royal British Legion, the Imperial War Museum, the National Theatre, Atlantic Productions and the Together Coalition, are developing a school resource to enable young people to engage with veteran testimony. Our shared story will provide schools with learning resources for each key stage, focused on the end of the Second World War and what this means for us today.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about engagement with veterans. As was noted, this year will be one of our last opportunities to thank our veterans and to hear their stories first hand, so it is important that we not only thank them for their service but ensure that their legacy lives on to inform future generations. We are working with the Royal British Legion, which has done a recent call-out to veterans, to ensure that veterans who are able to take part in the commemorations can do so as much or as little as they would like. The welfare of veterans will be central to all VE Day and VJ Day commemorations. Every young person will have the opportunity to engage with the stories and testimonies of the Second World War generation.
The Government hope that the programme will bring the whole country together in remembrance and celebration. We must ensure that the stories of those who lived through this war, or who made the ultimate sacrifice, live on, not just in books or on paper but in the hearts and minds of future generations. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is right that, when we see intolerance and antisemitism on the rise, this feels particularly important this year.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but one of my regrets about the commemoration of the centenary of the First World War was the lack of focus on the immediate post-war period and the political and diplomatic failures that set the conditions for the later, even more damaging, conflict. This is in direct contrast to what happened in 1945, when it was recognised that enduring peace is not a natural or spontaneous phenomenon but requires sustained international commitment, co-operation and effort. That message is surely as relevant today as it has ever been, so can the Minister reflect on how that particular theme might be woven into this year’s commemorations, particularly with regard to education?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes a really important point. The first part of that discussion will be on the point that only by learning about our past and seeing how it relates to our present will we genuinely pay tribute to those who died and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. The schoolwork will play a particular role in that. All of us are mindful of the very fragile place the world is in—it is even more fragile than a year ago—so that very present understanding of how we need to work together across national borders to secure peace, and the recognition that we cannot take it for granted, have to run through our commemoration of these events.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on not just her excellent Statement but her calmness during the interruption. Like me, she has lots of connections all around the United Kingdom, and she knows that men and women in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force from all parts of the United Kingdom protected this country during the war. Therefore, it is very important that all the celebrations take place in every part of the United Kingdom. She elaborated on some of them so far, but can she extend that and tell us what more is being done, particularly in co-operation with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Discussions are taking place with the military around the country, with devolved Governments and with local government; close official engagement has taken place, and they are fully aware of our plans for VE Day and VJ Day. In Wales, a VE Day event will take place at the Senedd on 8 May, and the Scotland’s Salute concert at Usher Hall will take place on 6 May. There is one project that I am most enthusiastic about—it is important that it will be not just in London but in communities, and the Imperial War Museum North will play a central part. On 7 May, in the Imperial War Museum North, some letters submitted by the public will become part of a public performance coproduced by the National Theatre. So if noble Lords take one thing away from this it should be that, if they know people who have letters or remarkable stories that their families would want to share, they have a chance for their stories to be included if they share letters through the Government’s website before 14 April.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I know that we may be a little uneasy about the current American leadership, but the American nation is quite a different thing. It played a vast part in the victory at the time, as, indeed, did the Russians. Would it not have been wise to have put that in this Statement? There is no mention of America at all. Is it not important to get the message over to the younger generation that when the great powers serve the rest of the nations, rather than pursuing their own internal interests, we make far greater progress, and will in the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are clearly talking to all our allied partners in this respect. Although this perhaps was not mentioned explicitly in Stephanie Peacock’s Statement, I note that I specifically mention American forces. It would be remarkable if they were not also part of the commemorations—I make it clear that they are commemorations—and government departments are working to make sure that that happens.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about VJ Day? Outside St Albans Cathedral is the peace obelisk given by the people of Japan because of the courageous witness of the then dean, Dean Thicknesse. Each year, on 6 August, we have an ecumenical act of witness and prayers there. What is being done specifically to educate people about the dreadful carnage caused by atomic bombs and how we can build today a world that does not need to use them in the future?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Our country contributes to nuclear non-proliferation. The type of ecumenical reflection the right reverend Prelate mentioned is clearly appropriate to commemorate the devastating way in which we reached VJ Day. We will make sure that both the VE and VJ Day anniversaries are appropriately commemorated. The specific commemorative event for VJ Day will be a service at the National Memorial Arboretum. Further details of our VJ Day plans will be shared more widely as the year progresses.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, popular thinking about VE Day is of parties and celebration. As the noble Baroness said, this will be the last opportunity we have to thank the veterans. But there were many who did not grow old as those who were left grew old. Particularly given the parallels at the moment, during these VE celebrations it is important that we ensure that we do not forget the cost and the sacrifices that were made. How are we going to ensure this? When I asked my father for his memories of VE Day, he said that the family did not really celebrate it because his 19 year-old brother had been killed on 26 April 1945. The family had just received the telegram—which was the second, because his elder brother was killed in the Arctic convoys in 1944. Can we ensure that our younger generation—who may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice one day—understand the ultimate sacrifices that were made by those people?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. I am clear that when we talk about people making the ultimate sacrifice, we need to make sure that children and young people understand what that means. I sincerely hope that we never get to the stage where our young people today have to make the same sacrifice. I am also clear, from talking to a number of people about their own families’ memories of that time, that there was not unadulterated joy. As well as relief that the war was over, there was significant sorrow as well.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
We will have a Cross-Bencher first.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it was ideology in the form of fascism that posed the danger then, and it is ideology in the form of neo-imperialism in both Russia and China that poses the danger to us now? I welcome the Statement but, while we rightly cover all the angles that noble Lords have mentioned, I hope that consideration will also be given to educating the overall public—not just younger people—about the threat we will face due to events in Indochina, and to celebrating the role of our allies there, as well as warning of what is to come through China’s ambitions in its neighbourhood.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As a Government, we are clear that we want to tackle ideologies that undermine our democracy and freedom wherever they are. I believe that the public are fully aware of the fragility of our world order at the moment. I would find it very odd if that did not come through in a lot of the commemoration of those events.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, many of the people who fought on after VE Day used the phrase “the forgotten army”, so can we make sure that we emphasise the sacrifice and real hardship that many of the prisoners of war experienced from Japan? If I might just gently say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the brutal truth is that, had the Americans not been involved and not used their nuclear weapons, hundreds of thousands of people would have died needlessly. It was a horrible thing to do, but that nuclear deterrent played an important part in giving us the freedom which those people who interrupted our proceedings today enjoy.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We value our relationships with the Americans now, as then. The noble Lord makes a powerful point. It is vital that we do not simply focus on VE Day but look at VJ Day as well. The commemorations around VE Day will have a different tone, and there will be more community-engaged street events, and so on. We are clear that the sacrifices made by those who served across Asia and the Pacific will be at the heart of the commemorations.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome everything that the Minister has said. However, a few noble Lords have mentioned that the events of World War II and the Holocaust are slipping from memory into history. It strikes me that that gives impetus to revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers to peddle their poison and chip away at its integrity. Does not this mean that these celebrations have to be more striking than in previous years in order that the memory is collectively imprinted on younger generations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that we are determined that that will happen. He noted the rise of antisemitism; it is a deplorable form of hate crime which the Government are committed to tackling, as well as to ensuring that everyone is able to worship and protest freely, to wear religious clothing and go about their lives in safety and security, irrespective of their background, faith or other characteristics.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
If we conduct our business appropriately, we will still have time for other Members to come in. We have not heard from the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that the role of the British colonies and the British Empire needs to be recognised. Our younger generation needs to be reminded of the role played by people from the British colonies, particularly the Indian subcontinent. I speak as somebody whose family member—my father’s elder brother—went to serve in the British Army. He left my father, aged 15, to look after the family and never came back. That is the kind of example from among those of us from those colonies who have settled in Britain. The new generation needs to be reminded of that.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely; the noble Lord’s point is well made. All our activities and events will focus on both the UK and Commonwealth experiences at the end of the war, ensuring that these commemorations resonate across the whole of the Commonwealth. We are engaging with the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that Commonwealth experiences are represented. We are actively engaging with embassies throughout the Commonwealth and collaborating closely with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on a global tour to honour and share the stories of those who fought in the Second World War. Colleagues in the FCDO and MoD are working closely with us on these plans. This will also be an important aspect of how this is addressed in schools and with young people so that all our pupils and young people recognise their own shared history, wherever their families were during the war.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
We will hear from the Cross Benches, please.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the need to involve allies. I would like to say a word about the need to involve former enemies as well. My uncle was shell-shocked and injured at Kohima. My father was one of the first Army doctors to go into Bergen-Belsen; I think he was the first. They would have said that it is very important that commemoration should also be mingled with reconciliation. It is important that, on VE Day, the Germans are fully involved, as the Japanese should be on VJ Day.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are trying to involve all nations appropriately. One of the clearest indications of how we work with those countries that were previously our enemies is shown in the steadfast allyship particularly of Germany in relation to conflict in Europe.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that many people from other countries came to help in Britain. My father came from Ireland to serve and help to defeat Hitler, and there were many people from Poland, of course, and from all over the place, including the huge contribution from the Indian army and the African armies, not to mention Canada, which joined us from the start. Not wishing to be sour about it, I think it is worth remembering that the United States did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the United States. Roosevelt declared war only on Japan.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is really important when we have these commemorations not to drag over some of the old issues and enmities but to move forward. In previous answers, I have completely recognised the role of Commonwealth soldiers across the military, as well as those from other nations, and we will make sure that all nations are involved appropriately.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, one of the forgotten parts of the last two world wars was the role played by the railways in supplying logistics to the front. We spent a long time bombing them when we were attacking, but of course the Germans tried to bomb us as well. My father was in the Royal Engineers and spent a lot of time repairing the railways in France and Belgium. There is only one book produced about that—it was written by Christian Wolmar—but my main point in speaking today is that this is still the case in Ukraine. I commend Network Rail and my noble friend Lord Hendy, who was in his place, for giving so many spare parts and other help to Ukraine to keep the railways there working. It is just as important now as it was in the previous war.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that point, and wholeheartedly agree. I have mentioned my family, and my great-uncle was also in the Royal Engineers and would have carried out similar roles during the war—so I shall look out for that book with interest.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, as one of probably quite few Members of today’s House who was a teenager during the Second World War, I add my commendation to Group Captain Hemingway. He was born in Dublin, as was I, and very many Irishmen served in the Second World War with great distinction, who should not be forgotten.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that point. I hope that, from the short debate that we have had today, noble Lords have understood how much we want to involve and recognise the role of all nations, including not least our Irish neighbours. We shall have an opportunity in your Lordships’ House to debate this—I am not sure whether the date of the debate has been put forward in the diary, but I know that there are plans for us to have a debate in the context of VE Day, and I look forward to having a discussion with noble Lords again then.
G7
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the turbulence of the global situation that we face was reflected in the breadth of the subjects covered in the joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting: Ukraine, Gaza, China, Sudan, the DRC, Latin America and Iran were all covered. We are faced with a world of growing uncertainty and instability, and we welcome the commitment shown at the G7 to face those global challenges together.
The importance of co-operation and alliance with those countries that share our values in facing these threats is, in my view, crucial. Over the weekend, and in the other place this week, we have heard that the proposed peacekeeping initiative for Ukraine is now moving into an operational phase, which we welcome. However, the Foreign Secretary did not expand on what that means in practical terms, or what our European and Atlantic allies have committed to in supporting it. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on these issues?
Across both Houses of Parliament, there is overwhelming support, I am delighted to say, for our Ukrainian allies, and we on these Benches continue to support Ukraine in its fight to defend its freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The Government have taken admirable steps to co-ordinate our allies, which we welcome, although the House would welcome an update on what this means for us and our country in practice. What are the effects of this initiative on our Armed Forces? What planning is currently under way as part of this operational shift? Which allies in the so-called coalition of the willing have expressed interest in this initiative, and what are they willing to offer? What discussions have the Government held with the United States to advance clarity on this plan? Facing Putin and ensuring the security and sovereignty of Ukraine can be achieved only alongside our allies, and I think that the House would welcome further clarity from the Government to explain what they are doing to shift this coalition of the willing to a coalition of the committed.
The G7’s joint statement also made clear the growing and very serious concerns among allies about China’s activities aimed at
“undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.
This comes alongside many other concerns raised at the G7, including China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions; China’s military build-up, and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal; and increasing efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarisation and coercion in countries bordering the South China Sea, in clear violation of international law.
Given these clear and blatant risks to our domestic security, and the threat that China poses to the rule of international law, will the Government now take steps to place China on the enhanced tiers list of the foreign influence registration scheme? In my view, this would further strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence and provide greater assurance around the activities of China that are deemed a national security risk.
Proceeding from the concerns expressed at the G7, the country now needs to see further concrete responses from the Government to address the threat posed by China. I therefore close by asking the Minister: what other measures are being considered by the Government to compel China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions, and what steps are the Government taking to deter China’s non-market policies and practices?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the seriousness of the issues addressed by the G7 are such that, from the welcome Statement that the House of Commons received on Monday, events have changed between then and when it has come to this Chamber with regards to the likely slow movement of President Putin in his talks with President Trump over a ceasefire for Ukraine, the increased concern with regard to the Red Sea, and the strikes from the United States and the repercussions of that—I remind the House that, on Sunday, President Trump’s national security adviser called the previous attacks, which very brave RAF personnel took part in, as “feckless”. The war has restarted in Gaza with more humanitarian concern and more violence on the West Bank, just within three days of that Statement coming to this Chamber.
We are now close to the second round of tariffs from the principal economy within the G7, as part of what the Wall Street Journal—not a liberal newspaper—in America has described as the
“dumbest trade war in history”.
Regardless of its dumbness, there will be effects across the whole of the G7, including the UK. From these Benches, we reiterate our desire to have ever-closer relations with the European Union and Canada in particular, so that there is a co-ordinated response. It is regrettable that there should need be that within the G7, but this is the world which we have to address.
On the Statement itself, I welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that they discussed using frozen Russian assets. The Minister will know that these Benches have asked for accelerated work on the seizure of the assets. Can the Minister update us on that, and tell us what the prospect of an announcement is from the G7 Heads of Government meetings? At the very least, we think there is a justified case for draft UK legislation to be released, so that we can understand what we would be required to do to move fast on that. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline where we are on the seizing of assets.
The Minister knows that we have supported the increase in defence expenditure across the UK, as the Foreign Secretary referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister give a bit more clarity as to what proportion of the increased defence expenditure is likely to be spent within the UK and what proportion is likely to be spent within the US? What is the Government’s position on the reports that we have seen about the UK’s difficulty in taking a full role within the common defence procurement approach in the European Union? Are we seeking to move quickly on a defence and security treaty which should facilitate this? There are a number of Members in this House who called for that under the last Government and continue to do so. It is now urgent, and I hope the Minister can update us on it.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we disagree with the method of the increased funds. We believe that the companies that avoid paying tax in the UK—tech companies—and are operating on underpaid taxes for their profits should contribute more. That is under the Basel 3.1 mechanism. There is agreement within the EU and, as I understand it, the G7. Only one country has argued against it and pulled out of it: the United States. A second G7 country has delayed our implementation because of that first country. We do not believe that that is appropriate; we should move quickly on using the resource from an increase from 2% to 10% on undertaxed profits. That is a better way of funding increased defence expenditure, rather than cutting the ODA budget.
Earlier, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position, which is an ambition to honour the 0.7% legislation. I remind the House that the legislation does not require the Government to have an ambition to meet 0.7%; it requires them to meet it. It is not a “We would like to do it” Act; it is a “We must do it” Act. If the Government are not committed to this then they should state it clearly, with regards to the means by which they would meet the legislative target.
On the fiscal circumstances of meeting the legislative requirement, it seems that the Government’s policy choice is to cut ODA to fund defence expenditure—that is a policy choice, not a fiscal one. What are the fiscal rules now when it comes to the policy choice of funding in an alternative way? There is no mechanism under the 0.7% legislation for alternative policy choices to be used, other than fiscal circumstances, so what is the status?
Finally, I reflected on the Government’s Statement 10 years ago, when we passed this legislation, on the 2015 G7. Granted, that was not a meeting of Foreign Ministers but of Prime Ministers, and the Prime Minister said this to the House of Commons:
“For the first time in a number of G7s and G8s, we actually got the 0.7% commitment back into the text, so it is clear and there for all to see. I would argue that it is not just right for Britain from a moral standpoint, but that it actually increases our standing in the world that we can point out that we have kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries, but our own security as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/15; col.1203.]
I agree with the then Prime Minister.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made an important point in his opening remarks, about co-operation and unity being vital when we face so many challenging situations around the world. I thank him for saying that and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s comments on us being prepared to support security guarantees for Ukraine, which includes boots on the ground, should that be needed. It is too early to be able to say anything detailed in response to his question. I understand why he would like more information, and, if I had it, I would share it with him, but we are at an early stage and I do not have anything to share today.
As the noble Lord rightly said we should be, we are working closely with the US and other allies. As noble Lords will know, on Saturday, the Prime Minister hosted a leaders call to discuss next steps in developing the coalition of the willing, to which the noble Lord referred. Leaders agreed that we will accelerate our military support, tighten our sanctions on Russia’s revenues and continue to explore all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done to Ukraine. Military planners will meet in London this week to progress practical plans. The Foreign Secretary met G7 counterparts last week, and G7 Foreign Ministers endorsed the US-Ukraine ceasefire agreement and discussed imposing further costs on Russia if a ceasefire is not agreed. The Defence Secretary met E5 Defence Ministers last Wednesday, and they committed to stepping up support for peace, working towards the establishment of security guarantees.
On China, noble Lords know that our approach is to co-operate and compete, and challenge where we need to. That is done through dialogue with our Chinese counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we work closely with Canada and our EU partners when we face challenges on certain trade and other issues, and he is right to do so. He asked me to update him on the issue of frozen Russian assets. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can on this; we have redoubled our efforts and will keep going. It is vital that Russia pays for what it has done in Ukraine.
The noble Lord and I will have to agree to differ on the issue of official development assistance. It was the right decision; we needed to get the money into the defence budget quickly. There is a development pay-off in doing that, because it enhances our ability to provide security, and that supports many developing nations—they have said as much.
On the issue of the 0.7%, I strongly urge noble Lords not to fetishise legislation that has not had the effect that those who proposed it wanted. Our desire to reach 0.7% is not to do with legislation; it is a desire to have an impact on developing nations because that is the right thing to do. That is what will drive us to meet that figure when the economic situation allows. It is a policy choice—I am not pretending it is not; of course it is. We have decided to put more money into defence. However, we do not sit here, in a crouched position, wondering how on earth we are going to fulfil our obligations to the global South over the next few years. We are going to be active, prioritising certain countries and streams of work. We will be engaging closely with our partner countries and the aid sector, and will be working multilaterally. We will be more active because we have to be.
It is not just about the money; it is about investment, our approach, working together and the technical assistance we can provide. I encourage noble Lords to think about our responsibility to the global South not just in terms of ODA. It is far bigger than that. There is not a limit on our ambition just because we have had to make these difficult financial decisions. They were the right decisions, but over the next few years we will have a more active and energised approach than we have ever had, because that is what is needed and what this Government want to do.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. In common with many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. Most of the Statement delivered by my right honourable friend in the other place was, quite appropriately, about our unwavering support for Ukraine’s people and territorial integrity.
Ukraine—where, along with allies, we are now considering boots on the ground—is the most heavily mined country in the world, with over 23% of its land contaminated or at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance. At the fifth review conference of the Ottawa treaty in December, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing the UK’s mine action commitments. We are home to two of the largest mine action organisations in the world: Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are responsible for almost 70% of global mine clearance. I urge my noble friend to ensure that the FCDO’s mine action programme is protected as our budget is reduced. It costs only £12 million per year and raises twice that from other sources, including philanthropy. GMAP is cheap, it is genuinely world leading, and it is indispensable and irreplaceable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says about demining, and he is right. He urges me to commit to protecting that programme, and I will take his very wise counsel seriously. I get a lot of people coming to tell me what must be protected. No one has ever come to tell me that there is this programme that is not very good, but the case he makes is incredibly strong and I will keep that in mind.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, the Statement mentions Sudan very briefly. I happen to have visited that country on a couple of occasions, albeit a few years ago. I have two very brief questions. First, the Minister said that funding for Sudan will be prioritised, but can we have an assurance that all development support for the broad civilian front will be protected? Secondly, will the Minister agree with me that for the peace, prosperity and security of the African region and, more importantly, for the people of Sudan, the best option will be to keep Sudan as one sovereign country? If so, what are the British Government’s efforts to achieve that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we have committed to protecting our support for Sudan, because so many thousands of people find themselves in such a horrific situation in that region. We are about to hold a conference here in London for international partners to come and talk. I think the prospect of an imminent resolution is limited. However, the right way to approach this is to use our convening power and to encourage dialogue in the hope that it can in time unlock this situation, because it is desperate. We are undertaking a great deal of humanitarian assistance in the region, which is right, but ultimately we need to see peace in Sudan.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister struck a global approach when she was answering the questions earlier, which is quite right. Will she remind all those involved around her that it is not just Commonwealth countries? It is Japan this time as well. It is on our side and anxious to make a contribution, and keeps on asking at what point it should be brought in and so on. It is not just a European issue.
Secondly, have we picked up on the rather interesting emergence of a discussion about energy vulnerability? The Russians have been exploiting this, of course, but say that for the moment they will not hit energy and power stations. It reminds us that this is a world and a situation in which civilian, non-front-line utilities can be reached by rockets in a way they never could in earlier combat. They must be defended, and the cost of that defence is part of our defence expenditure. It is not just MoD tanks and rockets; we will have to spend defence money on defending vital utilities and civilian populations, because this is a war against civilians.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to mention Japan, an incredibly close friend and ally of the United Kingdom. We do work with it, so I take his point; he is completely right to remind noble Lords about that.
Attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure are abhorrent, and we work closely with our allies and partners to try to make sure that we do what we need to protect them and, where necessary, that we are fully engaged in reconstruction that, sadly, will need to happen.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement and particularly the strong words, on which I think we are united in this House, about standing by Ukraine. On that matter, I particularly noted her comments about the discussion around Russia paying for the damage it has wreaked across Ukraine. Of course, the damage is not just a cost in pounds alone. Does she agree that there can be no peace worthy of that name while there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian children taken from their parents, scattered across the country and, according to some reports, even being brainwashed against their mother country? There can be no peace worthy of that name while those children remain in Russia. Does she share my concern of recent reports that Yale University’s humanitarian lab has been defunded by Elon Musk’s DOGE while it was in the midst of trying to track many of those abducted children? Has the G7 discussed the fate of those poor, abducted children? Their safe return really must be an absolute non-negotiable in any peace deal.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Many things keep me awake at night, but the fate of those children is one that frequently comes to mind. We do discuss those children and the necessity of their safe and immediate return to their families. What has happened is unimaginable. He is completely right, and I can assure him that we take every opportunity to discuss that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I co-chair the taskforce for the return of the children who have been taken into Russia. The evidence is really shocking and quite scandalous. It is interesting that no one from the Government has ever asked me to come and speak to them about the evidence. I draw that to the attention of the Front Bench; perhaps it will find its way down to the other end of this House. I suspect that no one in this House knows more about it than I do, and yet I have never been asked.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I would like the noble Baroness to consider herself invited. I would be very keen to hear what she has to say, to consider the evidence she has and to discuss ways in which she may be able to assist in efforts to have those children returned.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests on organisations working for conflict resolution, particularly chairing the ICO advisory panel in this regard. I associate myself closely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz. We are all as one on this, and we must look at alternative sources.
My question is on the one glimmer of hope in the Statement. I commend the Government on continuing to draw attention to the resolution of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the previous Government did. That is a positive within the Statement. In the same way, were there any discussions about the territorial gains that Russia has made in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, the Donbass? What would be the resolution there? At the moment, the way discussions are going, it seems that Russia gets to keep lands that it has occupied.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not have anything specific to say on the content of those negotiations. It would be strange to disclose things such as that—were I aware of them, which I am not—while those negotiations are ongoing. What matters is that the agreement that is finally reached is one that the people of Ukraine are satisfied with. What matters is that we get peace, but it needs to be a just peace and it needs to be agreed with Ukraine at the very centre of it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers, rightly, to Israel’s complete blocking of aid to Gaza as being “appalling and unacceptable”. Since the Statement was made, Israel has resumed attacks on Gaza; 400 people have died, including many children, and there is great concern for the remaining Israeli hostages in this situation. Sir Keir Starmer said that he was “deeply concerned” about the Israelis resuming military action, and, in the other place, he refused to rule out the suspension of further arms sales. Surely we are now at the point where we have to suspend all arms sales to Israel.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been very clear that we think that Israel ought to allow aid into Gaza, and that it is wrong to disrupt that flow and to cut off the electricity supply. What matters is that we can protect that population, feed those children and get the medical supplies where they need to be. On arms and restrictions, as noble Lords know, we take an approach that is based on the law, and we apply the law. We made decisions last year to impose restrictions; we will do so again should we need to in future. The situation today is the same as it was yesterday, and we have made no new decisions on that.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
Following the ongoing work and conclusions of the G7, will the Minister have a further word with the Ministry of Defence about the extreme inadvisability of dispatching a carrier group to the Far East at this time, taking with it a very large amount of the depleted serviceable aircraft and ships of the Royal Navy currently available for operations? The carrier’s place now is in the north Atlantic with its escorts, and it should not go to the Far East.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have a very good relationship with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and I am happy to discuss any issue with them, but operational decisions such as that one probably would not fall within my remit. I am sure they will note what the noble Lord has said. They are free to make the choices that they have made, and they have more information on which to base those choices than we do here today.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United States Secretary of State raised either the G7 becoming the G8, by the addition of Russia, or the G6, by the subtraction of Canada? If her answer to that question is “No” or “I don’t know”, can we stop being distracted from the mass of important matters that the G7 must address in the months ahead?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not aware of any such discussions. I believe that the G7 has been focused on, as the noble Lord said, the vital issues that it faces.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Statement said that the G7 was
“united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria”.
I am not quite sure how we can help to bring that about until we again have an embassy in Syria. I apologise for coming around like a cracked record on this. The last time we spoke about it, Ministers seemed to be showing a bit of leg; there was a hint of movement. Is there any chance of that leg moving into action?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not need to explain to the noble Lord that it is not straightforward to reopen the embassy in Damascus after such a period of time, but I take on board his desire to see that happen. I understand why he said that; there are very good reasons to take that view. I will consider that alongside Minister Hamish Falconer, who I am sure will respect, as he should, the views of the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers to the G7 condemning
“the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity”.
Shortly after the Statement was made, the EU sanctioned nine additional individuals and one entity in association with Rwanda’s backing of the M23. I know that if I ask about Magnitsky-style sanctions, the Minister will answer saying, “We don’t talk about what we are going to do in the future”. Instead, I seek from her a reassurance that the Government are maintaining a focus on this crucial issue of the highest humanitarian damage and disaster, particularly because of violence against women and girls but also more generally. Can she reassure me that the Government are keeping a focus here?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point, and particularly for mentioning women and girls—she is right to do so. On sanctions, obviously we do not talk about designations ahead of time, but it is important. It is too easy, sometimes, to forget about the DRC—and, indeed, Sudan—when we have Ukraine and Gaza so prominent in our minds, so I am grateful to her for raising that.
European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To move that this House takes note of the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as we mark the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank my noble friends on the Cross Benches for selecting the Motion and express my gratitude to the many distinguished Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House who are participating in this debate. I also thank the Library and the many organisations which have sent briefing material, from the Law Society to the International Bar Association to Policy Exchange.
The Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard said:
“Life must be understood backwards; but … it must be lived forwards”.
Following Kierkegaard’s advice, I will begin by looking back and recalling the convention’s genesis and achievements, and then I will say something about its future.
In 2013, I opened another Cross-Bench debate marking the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recalling that it grew out of the egregious disregard and contempt for human rights that had resulted in barbarous acts and outraged the conscience of mankind. Eleanor Roosevelt, a key figure in crafting the 1948 universal declaration, described it as a “Magna Carta for all” people. It helped to inspire the European convention; both are foundation stones intended to be for all people and not available for selective enforcement according to culture, tradition or convenience. They should be seen as much as a declaration of human dignity as a declaration of human rights.
In the aftermath of the two world wars, which both began in Europe and which claimed the lives of some 77 million people—and in the same continent where another war rages today—a formidable array of political leaders showed extraordinary zeal and exemplary commitment in creating architecture to uphold the rule of law. Intrinsic to that were international covenants, many of which focused on human rights. In 1946, those barbarous acts which had outraged the conscience of the world prompted Winston Churchill to set out the case for a new international order based on the rule of law and human rights. Outraged consciences led to practical actions.
Lawyers such as Raphael Lemkin, 49 of whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, bequeathed the 1948 genocide convention, while Sir Hersch Lauterpacht developed the legal concept of crimes against humanity. At Nuremberg, Lauterpacht helped draft the speech of the British prosecutor Hartley Shawcross—the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens and later Lord Shawcross—who in turn collaborated with Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Liverpool West Derby and later the first Earl of Kilmuir—in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes after World War II. He played a significant role too in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights.
The agenda had been set in Missouri, by Winston Churchill in March 1946, where, flanked by President Truman, he famously remarked that an iron curtain had descended across Europe. He insisted:
“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man”.
Two years later, speaking in The Hague, he presided at a grand congress of 800 delegates and said:
“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law”.
The congress issued a message to Europeans calling for a charter of human rights and
“a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter”,
leading, in 1950, to 15 European nations signing the convention, with Britain the first to ratify it in 1951.
The text was crafted largely by a team of Oxford and Cambridge professors headed by Maxwell Fyfe. Other British politicians involved in the drafting of the ECHR included Harold Macmillan, Samuel Hoare and Ernest Bevin. The signatories described their convention as a mechanism for
“enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration”.
Churchill wanted
“moral concepts … able to win the respect and recognition of mankind”,
urging lawmakers:
“Let there be justice, mercy, and freedom”.
Churchill envisaged a Strasbourg court before which violations
“in our own body of … nations might be brought to the judgment of the civilised world”.
In a ringing endorsement, the Daily Telegraph said the convention was
“the turning point when the free peoples of Europe rejected enslavement in the communist system and defeated all attempts to poison and destroy their democratic traditions from within”.
The Times described it as
“a crucial step towards safeguarding fundamental freedoms and promoting a common European heritage of justice and the rule of law”.
The convention has created a common legal space for over 700 million citizens, prohibiting, among other things, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labour, and arbitrary or unlawful detention. Its 14 articles protect basic rights, from the right to life to the rights to privacy, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, a fair trial, family life, and more.
The UK subsequently ratified protocols to the convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, and three additional rights: the right to free enjoyment of property, the right to education and the right to free and fair elections. Parties to the convention undertake to secure convention rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, underpinned by the creation of the European Court of Human Rights, which deals with individual and interstate relations.
During the years following its creation, the convention commanded widespread cross-party support. Lord Chancellors such as Viscount Hailsham described it as part of the
“armoury of weapons against elective dictatorship”.
Another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said that pulling out of the convention was “xenophobic and legal nonsense”. On the Liberal SDP benches, notably Lords Wade, Grimond and Jenkins of Hillhead, and Baroness Williams of Crosby were lifelong supporters of the ECHR.
Margaret Thatcher declared that the UK was
“committed to, and supported, the principles of human rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/1989; col. 252.]
in the ECHR. Sir John Major reiterated this commitment, and in 1998, Tony Blair incorporated the rights and liberties enshrined in the convention in the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told this House that the Act
“does not create new human rights or take any existing human rights away. It provides better and easier access to rights which already exist”.—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; col. 755.]
The 1998 Act was described simply as “bringing rights home”. Beyond our home, the ECHR provides reassurance to everyone living and travelling in the Council of Europe area, that we share similar, enforceable human rights standards.
Notwithstanding recent calls to leave the ECHR, last November, this Government said they remained “fully committed” to the ECHR and to
“the important role that multilateral organisations like the Council of Europe play in upholding it”.
Of course, the Council of Europe pre-dates the European Union and has no connection to it. Some 19 member states of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, are not members of the European Union; Russia was expelled because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The ECHR and the Council of Europe are inextricably bound together. Leaving the convention clearly means leaving the Council of Europe. Sir Jonathan Jones KC, a former Treasury solicitor and Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department, says that ECHR withdrawal would
“involve leaving the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the convention”.
A resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe states that
“accession to the Council of Europe must go together with becoming a party to the European Convention on Human Rights”,
while the European Court of Human Rights insists:
“Today more than ever the Convention is the cornerstone of the Council of Europe, and any State wishing to become a member of the organisation must sign and ratify it”.
Last month, Theodoros Rousopoulos, the current president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, gave a Lord Speaker’s Lecture. We heard him pay tribute to the commitment and high-level contribution of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation led by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. To those who today will demand that we leave the ECHR, and therefore the Council of Europe, I would simply ask them to tell us which rights in the convention they object to. Do we really want to join Belarus and Russia as the only countries not part of any pan-European body?
In 2001, Parliament created the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair—although today, I speak for myself and not the committee. The committee has a remit to examine matters relating to human rights in the UK and it has functioned historically as a champion for convention rights.
The JCHR pays close attention to the cases before the European court, the judges of which are elected by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. We have noted the role of the convention and the court; for example, in ending the ban on gay people in the military, and homosexual criminalisation in Northern Ireland; in prohibiting the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people; on indiscriminate phone tapping; on the plight of the Sunday Times, which was prohibited from publishing information about thalidomide; on the protection of vulnerable victims of domestic violence; on the combating of racism; and on the degrading punishment of a teenager in the Isle of Man.
Among our current JCHR inquiries, we are examining the failure to prosecute UK nationals who took part in the genocide in Iraq, and transnational repression and forced labour in supply chains. Previous inquiries have included reform of the Human Rights Act and the right to family life. Last week, we held a round table on the Mental Health Bill, where we heard stories of detention and incarceration. Earlier this week, I met Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to discuss what we actually mean by human rights and how deeply they are connected to the laws we proclaim, the conventions we have signed, and the traditions of liberty and freedom represented by this place. The European Convention on Human Rights is an essential part of that tradition. Malcolm Bishop KC, writing in the New Law Journal, says that
“the Convention is now firmly embedded in the common law and an impressive corpus of jurisprudence has emerged, which, in my opinion, has made this country a better place”.
I agree.
To its detractors, and for the record, in 2024 the court gave just two judgments on the merits of cases involving the United Kingdom. A violation was found in one case and no violation was found in the other. In a commentary earlier this week, Joshua Rozenberg forensically addressed the caricatures and misattributions which are often wrongly laid at the door of the ECHR. By population, the UK has the lowest number of applications of all member states: three per million people, while for all states combined it was 47.4 per million. Of course, the reason there are so few UK cases is that we broadly obey the ECHR.
Those who want to reduce UK legal standards—some even want to tear up the Human Rights Act—would vandalise our constitutional settlement. This and leaving the convention in a fit of pique, rather than engaging with and reforming it, is not worthy of this country or those who entrusted this extraordinary legacy to us.
At the outset, I recalled Kierkegaard’s thought that life can only be understood backwards but it must be lived forwards. Institutions and conventions are not set in stone. There is always scope for political debate and greater definition of the respective roles of parliaments and judges around controversial issues such as border control, which the JCHR will examine. However, to throw away all the gains would make no sense and merely play into the hands of dictators and enemies of democracy. We are experiencing war in Europe, along with contempt and disregard for international law and institutions, including despicable attacks on the International Criminal Court. We see the rise of autocracies with global reach, even with reach into the UK through transnational repression by hostile states. Rights and freedoms are under assault from within and without.
In this context, we are therefore right to recall the spirit which, 75 years ago, animated remarkable leaders. We are entitled to have pride in the significant British contribution to creating both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and genuine pride in the development of human rights, international law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. To defend this legacy, we must become far more robust in the public domain—in our schools and universities—in setting out the patriotic case for these shared fundamental values.
In this 75th anniversary year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are entitled to look back on what was achieved in the ruins of Europe and out of the ashes of Auschwitz. We must insist that those concerns remain vitally relevant to this day and that they are crucial to our future. I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare interests as the author of the Penguin Allen Lane book Human Rights: The Case for the Defence, as a new member of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and as a lifelong human rights lawyer and campaigner. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his well-deserved appointment as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on that outstanding opening of his debate marking the 75th Anniversary of the convention which protects the civil rights of around 700 million people in 46 states.
I have been working with the convention on an almost daily basis for around 30 of those years, both for and against UK Governments domestically and in the Strasbourg court that has rendered it perhaps the most effective international human rights mechanism in the world. Most formatively, I was a government lawyer in the late 1990s during the passage and implementation of our Human Rights Act and at Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, from 2001 until 2016.
We have been eloquently reminded of the history of why Conservative politician, jurist and Nuremberg prosecutor David Maxwell Fyfe was deputed to lead the convention drafting process after the Council of Europe was founded by the Treaty of London in 1949. If there was ever any doubt about the direct relationship between justice and peace, the 1930s had ended it. This was especially so in Europe, where two, too proximate world wars had begun. It could be no surprise that those seeking to rebuild the lands of Milton, Molière, Mozart and Michelangelo should have made co-operating around human rights enforcement a priority. If we have sometimes been a little complacent in the intervening years, surely that is over now, as war and far-rightism once more stalk Europe, and respect for the rule of law is far from secure, even in that great old constitutional democracy across the Atlantic.
In any event, I can report, first hand, the many ways in which the convention has come to the aid of people in the United Kingdom where both their common law and legislators had previously failed them. Before Strasbourg’s intervention, victims of rape were subjected to days of degrading cross-examination in person by their alleged assailants, contrary to Article 3. Similarly, abusive parents who beat their children to a pulp could be acquitted of the grave offence of causing grievous bodily harm by deploying the defence of reasonable chastisement of a child. Indeed, I would go as far as suggesting that victims of crime may be among those who have most benefited from the convention’s effect upon our domestic law, before and since the Human Rights Act 1998 brought rights home to be directly enforceable here.
There are numerous examples too of the UK’s privacy, free speech, non-discrimination and other vital rights and freedoms being ensured and enhanced by the convention. It would be far from liberal or progressive, and certainly deeply unconservative, not to treasure it.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have an enormously high regard, on securing this debate and his introduction to it. It is a paradox that defenders of the supranational European Court of Human Rights invariably begin with an appeal to British chauvinism laced with deference to Conservative icons by invoking the creation myth. That goes as follows: “The ECHR was a British invention, inspired by Churchill, drafted by Maxwell Fyfe, which codified historic British rights. Since we were the first country to ratify it, it must have been eagerly endorsed by us”.
That is almost entirely false. Attlee’s Government ratified the convention with great reluctance and only on condition that the future European court would have no jurisdiction in the UK since British people would not be allowed to take cases to the court. They also treated the convention as non-binding, deliberately not altering laws known to be incompatible with it. Moreover, when Churchill returned to No. 10 a few months later with Maxwell Fyfe, then Lord Kilmuir, as his Lord Chancellor, despite some ambiguous enthusiasm for it when in opposition, he adopted exactly the same position as Attlee, as did subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers—not allowing the court jurisdiction in the UK.
The second myth about the ECHR was that it simply codified British rights which had evolved over centuries. If that was all it did, British membership would confer little benefit and leaving would be no loss. This myth implies that few British laws would be incompatible with the convention. If only. Judgments have been made in 567 cases and the UK found to be in violation in one or more respects in no fewer than 329 of them by the Strasbourg court. In addition, the court has decided over 25,000 British cases by rejecting them or declaring the vast majority inadmissible, but after enriching the lawyers. That would be no surprise to those advising Attlee’s Government, who warned that allowing recourse to Strasbourg would provide
“a small paradise for some lawyers”—
now among its most enthusiastic supporters. In the immigration and asylum tribunals alone, human rights cases were 40% of the 350,000 cases received over the last eight years. To say it has no impact within the UK is an absurdity.
The original purpose of the European court was not to fine-tune each country’s statute book but to protect fundamental freedoms, from torture, slavery, arbitrary arrest et cetera. The third myth is that the court has succeeded in this objective. It was always unrealistic to imagine that any regime which was prepared to use torture, slavery or arbitrary arrest would be put off by the prospect of an adverse ruling by a foreign court. In practice, whenever an authoritarian regime has come to power, adherence to the ECHR has not dissuaded it from trampling on human rights. When the Greek colonels faced an ECHR ruling about the use of torture, Greece simply withdrew from the convention. Russia was expelled for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, not for its rampant domestic human rights violations. Belarus abandoned its observer status rather than implement convention rights. Both Azerbaijan and Turkey have gone pretty far down the road to authoritarian regimes while still remaining in the convention. It is little known, but one reason that France did not even ratify the convention until 1974 was that it was aware of the use of torture and other abuses of human rights during the war in Algeria and had other reasons afterwards for remaining outside. Indeed, it did not allow its citizens to take cases to Strasbourg until 1981 but suffered little opprobrium for that.
The claim that if Britain left it would be joining Belarus and Russia is puerile. We would be joining other common-law countries, including democracies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which uphold human rights without relying on a supranational court. Like them, we would make our laws democratically, not hand over the right to make laws to an international court, giving it the power to legislate rather than enforce the law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his excellent opening to this very important debate.
When Ernest Davies, the Member of Parliament, signed the convention on behalf of the Labour Government in 1950, in Rome, he was not carving a monument in stone; he was putting his name to a dynamic and living convention. There were 15 signatories and now there are 46, excluding only Belarus and Russia in the European context.
The guide to the European court puts it this way:
“By its case-law the Court has extended the rights set out in the Convention so that its provisions apply today to situations that were totally unforeseeable and unimaginable at the time it was first adopted … new technologies, bioethics … the environment. The Convention also applies to societal or sensitive questions relating … to terrorism or migration … abortion, assisted suicide, body searches, domestic slavery, adoption by homosexuals, the wearing of religious symbols … the protection of journalists’ sources, or the retention of DNA data”.
What happens where there is no European convention?
Last week, in the United States, hundreds of Venezuelans were shipped to El Salvador. They were treated in an inhuman and degrading manner that would contravene Article 3 of the European convention. They were shackled, contravening Article 5, without any form of trial, contravening Article 6, and with no ability to complain to a court of the violation of their rights, contravening Article 13. The USA is a country which bows the knee to Magna Carta and the rule of law, but the US federal judge who sought to block this move has been ignored. “Oopsie, too late!”, said the President of El Salvador, pocketing the millions of dollars paid to his country.
Where have we seen this behaviour before? In Nazi Germany, the crimes of which motivated European countries to come together to sign the convention. There is a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and others that the UK should withdraw and write its own, presumably on the Trumpian model.
There is good news. The Human Rights Act came into force in the year 2000. Since then, there have been 245 judgments against the UK, finding at least one violation of the convention. But the number of cases has steadily declined, from 18 per year at the beginning to just two in 2022. The number of applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, against the UK is now the lowest per capita of all European states. We have succeeded in bringing the convention home, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, so that our own courts can and do apply its provisions in appropriate cases.
There are three reasons. First, the Human Rights Act creates a legal obligation for all public bodies, including the police, hospitals, care homes and local councils, to protect rights in all their decisions and actions, meaning that people’s rights are less likely to be breached in the first place. Secondly, United Kingdom courts are now the first port of call for any human rights claimant, and United Kingdom judges consider human rights more explicitly and intensively than they could before. Thirdly, the European court is much more likely today, in considering applications from this country, to follow the reasoning and conclusions of our courts and the decisions of our public authorities. It respects our judges and the way in which the Human Rights Act is applied. Ernest Davies, Ernie Bevin and Clement Attlee were right to feel proud of what they had done.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate and for his speech. I am not going to explore the legal implications, but want to make a few theological points, if I may. I want to comment on the origins of the spring from which these ideas first came, how it developed into a stream and then a river, and how still today our understanding of rights and responsibilities is developing.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is right. It goes back to those early chapters of Genesis. In fact, you could go back to the Code of Hammurabi, 1,700 years before Christ, but let us go back to the Ten Commandments, where we find the creation narratives where humankind is created in God’s image. It is about the inherent dignity that belongs to each and every person, not dependent on sex, wealth, education or any other differentiation. This is implied in the Ten Commandments and is developed further in passages such as Deuteronomy 10, where God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow and loves the stranger in the land. It is why the prophet Isaiah urges the people of God to seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.
However, as Jonathan Sacks, a former Member of your Lordships’ House, was keen to point out, rights are things we claim and duties are things we perform. In other words, duties, he said, are rights translated from the passive to the active mode. The biblical teaching in the New Testament reaches its fullest expression in this reciprocity in human relating, expressed by Jesus in this way: love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.
Nowhere in the scriptures do we find the phrase human rights—and certainly no reference to the ECHR. Indeed, some theologians, such as the eminent Alasdair MacIntyre, have argued that human rights are actually a fiction; he simply did not agree with them as a concept. Others, including a former Member of this House, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, disagreed, saying that the fundamental theological point
“is not so much that every person has a specific set of positive claims to be enforced, but that persons and minority groups of persons need to be recognized as belonging to the same moral and civic world as the majority, whatever differences or disagreements there may be”.
He went on to argue that
“a proper consideration of human rights has a better chance of sustaining its case if it begins from the recognition of a common dignity or worthiness of respect among members of a community than if it assumes some comprehensive catalogue of claims that might be enforceable”.
All laws and all conventions are ultimately human constructs. There are some who dislike the ECHR and have problems with the wider issue of human rights. There are people who are not happy with the way that the court has interpreted the underlying legal principles which are enshrined in the convention. But the huge benefits that it has brought to so many people, particularly people who have traditionally been marginalised and not given the ability to participate and to engage, surely outweighs the frustrations that people sometimes feel. I, for one, am thankful that we have the ECHR.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, as your Lordships will know—I am sure the right reverend Prelate, whom it is a pleasure to follow, will know—in George Orwell’s 1984, the three great regional powers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia confront each other with constantly shifting alliances. Why those alliances shift is never clear, but it is the people and their human rights who suffer. Today, there is a fourth great power in the world; not only the United States, Europe—in a rather different form from the others—and Russia, but China too, watching and no doubt considering its options for Taiwan. One cannot push analogies too far, but we now live in a world of great power machismo, where international co-operation and international agreements are too often flouted. But it is precisely at times like these that they are so needed, and why it is right to focus now on the European Convention on Human Rights.
Too often, Europe, which we like to think of as civilised, has experienced the abuse of human rights: in Ukraine today, in the aftermath of Russia’s wholly unjustified and unjustifiable invasion; in Bosnia; in Serbia; in Kosovo more than 20 years ago; and in the chaos and anarchy of eastern Europe after the Second World War, brilliantly evoked in the books of Primo Levi. It is a tribute to the ECHR that more than 40 countries, with Russia of course expelled, are now its members and have accepted the international legal obligation to protect human rights, in our case through the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
Of course the ECHR is not perfect. Of course some member states fail to observe all their obligations under it. But Europe and, through Europe’s example, other parts of the world are the better for it. As an original signatory, Britain gained respect and influence. That must remain the case so that Britain, as a constructive and active member, can help to realise the ECHR’s principles. I do not favour withdrawal from the ECHR. I believe in exercising our influence for good within it. I am glad that the Prime Minister has said that the Government are unequivocally committed to the ECHR. I hope that the Minister will repeat that commitment today.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I am a practitioner at the English Bar and the president of the council of Justice, a leading British law organisation. I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, an honorary Writer to the Signet in Scotland and, as your Lordships heard earlier, I am currently working for President Zelensky, heading up with his chef de cabinet a task force to get the children back from Russia. I have been working on that for a number of years with the Yale observatory and other bodies.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We owe him a debt of gratitude in this House for his constant reminders of our common humanity. He is tireless in his work on the abuses that happen around the world, so it is no surprise that he is speaking here in protection of the values of the European Convention on Human Rights. It amazes me that the very same people who fought tooth and nail to take us out of the European Union—a step which has been ruinous for the economy of this country—are still seeking to sever ties with our European neighbours, especially when it is clear that we have to retain our bonds of connection with Europe and European nations in the face of grievous threats from Russia.
Withdrawal from the ECHR would be disastrous. The Human Rights Act has enriched our law enormously, and it has been especially productive for women. I say that as someone who has been very much on the front line in cases concerning the rights of women. You have only to think about the case of Worboys, where it was possible to use the ECHR before the courts to make sure that rape was properly recognised in prosecutions. Vulnerable victims of domestic violence have received better protection because of the Human Rights Act. There is also the ending of the ban of gay people in the Army, the inquiry into the sex abuse of women in the Army, the better protection of children against corporal punishment and sexual abuse, the greater protection of the media, the ending of detention without trial at the beginning of the 21st century, the prevention of torture from other countries being used and evidenced in our courts, and the protection of religious freedom. The list is enormous. It has also been vital in the Northern Ireland peace process.
You cannot pull out of the ECHR without leaving the Council of Europe. This alliance promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law across 46 states. Since its inception, the Council of Europe has accepted over 200 treaties, conventions and protocols, including the Istanbul convention, to end violence against women and girls and to end domestic violence; the Lanzarote convention, to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse; and the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking. I hear the muttering on the Benches opposite, but we should remember the work that is done through the Council of Europe to defend local and regional democracy and governance. It observes elections and promotes good governance through the exchange of experience among member states—which I have done. The Council of Europe also helps member states to fight corruption and terrorism, and undertakes necessary judicial reforms. It has a group of constitutional experts, the Venice Commission, which offers legal advice to member states. Are we going to pull out of that?
The Council of Europe is supporting the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression. It has a dedicated Ukraine action plan and a development bank which is aiding Ukraine in its recovery efforts and accommodating Ukrainian refugees. Are we really going to put all this at risk? Are we really going to reduce ourselves to little Englanders? That is what it would mean, because the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do not want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate, I begin by paying tribute, as he and others have done, to one of the ECHR founders and drafters in the 1950s, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—later Viscount Kilmuir from 1954 to 1962 and Lord Chancellor here under Churchill, Eden and Macmillan—who earlier on at the Nuremberg trials, through his fair-minded skill and clarity as a prosecuting counsel, played an enormous part in enabling the German public to understand and accept the guilt of their leaders for crimes against humanity, his cross-examination of Hermann Göring becoming one of the most noted in history.
I join with your Lordships in giving huge thanks for the ECHR, whose 75th anniversary we now commemorate; for the extent to which it has not only healed wounds but with balanced purpose, as implied by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, reinvigorated the heart, mind and soul of Europe; yet furthermore, for its success in providing soft power, direction and stability well beyond Europe and throughout the world; thus with efficacy accomplishing what was intended of it in the first place, as expressed by Maxwell Fyfe in Strasbourg in August 1949, and I quote:
“We cannot let the matter rest at a declaration of moral principles and pious aspirations, excellent though the latter may be. There must be a binding convention”.
In my remarks today, I will briefly touch on three aspects: the scope for the United Kingdom to achieve results through the Council of Europe; education as a human right; and the practicalities of its delivery.
During the progress of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, your Lordships will recall that this House voted to protect private copyright under Council of Europe standards, yet in which regard we can still proudly reflect that the present copyright protection ECHR conventions are precedented and inspired by the United Kingdom in 1710, three years after the 1707 Act of Union, through the Statute of Anne, which granted publishers of books legal protection.
Particularly so to our advantage here as a revising Chamber, and as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, countless examples come to mind of the Council of Europe as a natural ally within which affiliation of 46 states the United Kingdom remains a prominent member, and where I am a recent chairman of its committee on education.
As we are all well aware, the numerous groups of people suffering disadvantage in education range from girls and women, students with disability and special needs, learners living in remote areas, and refugees and asylum seekers to those experiencing discrimination against them from a number of pretexts and prejudices, and not least those living in countries where education systems are insufficiently developed.
During its G7 presidency in 2021, the United Kingdom gave a commitment to promote education in the third world and elsewhere as necessary. What actions have the Government taken since then? Which initiatives are in progress? Can the Minister affirm that such G7 plans are being clearly designed and carried out so that they contribute towards building up the strength of international communities themselves?
What plans do the Government have, along with international partners, including at the Council of Europe, to co-ordinate the delivery of a variety of international education initiatives which are at risk of financial cuts?
As well as students, such interventions clearly stand to benefit communities, cities and regions as well. One example is the current academic partnership of joint research into green energy between the Scottish University of the Highlands and Islands in the United Kingdom and the University of Zadar in Croatia. Having helped to put this together, I declare an interest as current chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Croatia. What steps are the Government now taking to actively encourage similar partnerships, possibly facilitated by Horizon and other schemes?
Following ECHR and education as a human right, enhanced prospects for world peace will also derive from much better education and competitive skills opportunities at grass roots and within all international communities. Given that G7 countries have already embraced that objective, the United Kingdom, in its own interest and that of others, must now help to ensure that this objective is properly carried out.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, about 10 years ago, as a Minister, I visited the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I was there to apologise to the Committee of Ministers for the fact that we had not yet given prisoners the vote. While I was there, the president of the court kindly gave me a book about the convention and the court entitled The Conscience of Europe. It was a fascinating account of the establishment of the court and its development for the subsequent 65 years.
But it is important to remember the context in which the convention was born. The noble Earl has given a very vivid account of that. This was a continent devastated by war in which the population had been deprived of all the most basic human rights. But did the architects of the ECHR really envisage that an asylum seeker here would be able to rely on the convention when arguing that his children’s liking for chicken nuggets meant that he should not be returned to his country of origin because to do so would violate his human rights? This and so many other cases have trivialised human rights and are not reflective of the legacy of those responsible for the convention.
I declare an interest as a member of the Commission on a Bill of Rights set up by the coalition Government. Perhaps more important is the fact that, since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, I have regularly acted for public authorities. Time does not permit me to give a full list of all my failures, but I was recently reminded of one. A group of prisoners sought damages on the basis that their human rights had been violated because they were not given heroin while in prison—a breach of Article 3, apparently. I acted for the police because a number of Nigerian young women living in this country had been kept in domestic servitude by some rather richer Nigerians. The court was asked to find, and did find, that the police were guilty of a violation of human rights for not being sufficiently curious—not the girls’ captors, the police.
I am extremely reluctant to suggest leaving an international institution of any sort. We know they are rarely perfect, but it is surely better that they exist. I am conscious of the importance of remaining on good terms with our European allies, particularly at this moment, and I voted to remain in the European Union, but I have come to the conclusion that at the very least we should repeal the Human Rights Act. The obligation in that legislation to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence has produced some very unsatisfactory results. The process of taking into account can itself be difficult, given the variable quality of some of the judgments. It has meant that we pay far greater heed to the court’s decisions than any other countries in the Council of Europe—a particular irony, since there are so few decisions against the United Kingdom.
This Government have an almost theological approach to the ECHR and the HRA, but critics of the way in which it has operated in practice are not confined to those on the right, as noble Lords may have observed. My view is that Parliament and the courts are not only capable of but better suited to protecting human rights here. Our current arrangements amount to a significant subcontracting of the task to an international court.
Like others, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House. With his passion for the protection of human rights, he would have made a great contribution to the ECHR had he been around at the time. Indeed, he would have been a worthy guardian of the conscience of Europe. It is thus a matter of profound regret that I must express the view that the whole concept of human rights has been brought significantly into disrepute.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, I spent 21 years as a barrister and then five years as a judge, arguing and applying English law while the rights contained in the human rights convention were not part of our law. Then from 2001, shortly after the Human Rights Act came into force, I spent 16 years as a judge applying and developing our law so that it incorporated convention rights.
Across the UK legal system, whether in civil law, public law, criminal law or family law, the Human Rights Act introduced important new rights such as the right to privacy and family life. It reinvigorated many previously stultified rights, such as freedom from detention. It re-emphasised the importance of vital rights, such as freedom of expression, and it increased the rights of all citizens against excesses of the state—a particularly important feature at a time of ever-increasing regulation.
I am no starry-eyed human rights groupie. As a senior judge, I tried to ensure that the new human rights jurisprudence did not cause the common law, of which this country should be so proud, to wither away. Rather, I tried to ensure—and I hope that, together with my colleagues, I succeeded in ensuring—that judges developed the common law so that it incorporated and benefited from the principles of the convention.
Of course, human rights law can occasionally lead to results with which many people will disagree, but the application of established law in any field can result in unpopular decisions, and that is a particular risk with a law that paints on such a broad canvas. Many decisions that are unpopular in this connection are concerned with asylum, but this country’s international duties with regard to asylum seekers are controlled as much by United Nations treaties as they are by the convention. There is a real danger that the public get a warped view of human rights, with the media focusing on cases that can be portrayed as leading to surprising results. Many of those cases are inaccurately or very one-sidedly reported. Although a number are not unfairly or inaccurately reported, they should be contrasted with the many unreported decisions where human rights have enabled or assisted a judge to get a fair answer that otherwise he or she may not or could not have done.
In the number of cases where the result seems rather odd, I am sometimes rather surprised that the Government or the relevant public body have not chosen to appeal. Judges do not always get things right, and appeal courts are there to deal with that, but too often there are no appeals when there should be.
Forty-six countries have signed up to the convention. It is a civilised force in an increasingly unstable world. Because its decisions apply over so many countries, the Strasbourg court judges generally appreciate that they have to tread carefully when laying down the law. They have developed the concept of a margin of appreciation to enable individual countries to make their own rules in some sensitive areas, such as assisted suicide. In my experience and knowledge, the Strasbourg judges have been prepared to reconsider and go back on decisions when a UK court has given judgment explaining why it thinks a particular Strasbourg court decision may be inappropriate for the UK.
This country is almost unique in the world in having no coherent overarching constitutional document. Because of that, the Human Rights Act has a particularly important role in protecting individual freedoms and liberties. It has been cleverly drafted so as to give human rights a special status in our constitution without overriding the supremacy of Parliament. We should be valuing it, not trashing it.
Lord Rook (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests: I am a partner at the Good Faith Partnership, which provides the secretariat for the UK FoRB Forum. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for this debate and, as other noble Lords have noted, for his tireless commitment to human rights. He has long been an inspiration to me and, as a new Member of the House, I hope to become more like him when I grow up.
I wish to draw noble Lords’ attention to the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights for the pursuance of freedom of religion or belief. Born amid the growing realisation of the full and horrific extent of the Holocaust, the issue of freedom of religion is core to the convention. “Everyone,” Article 9 declares,
“has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
Sadly, the fight for religious freedom is far from won. More than 80% of the world’s population live in states where there are severe or significant restrictions on their freedoms, and that number is rising. Although this continent is home to the convention, there remains work to be done and threats to guard against. A few years ago, I sat in the gallery of the Bundestag, witnessing the understandable anger and outrage of the majority of its members as one party repeatedly refused to condemn the internment of Uyghur Muslims in so-called education camps in China. Watching this scene play out in that place was chilling, to say the least.
I am grateful for the leadership of our Government in this area, for the work of my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury and Lady Chapman of Darlington, and for the appointment of my honourable friend David Smith MP as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. I am certain that they will build on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and previous envoys to ensure that we as a country remain a leading force for freedom of religion or belief around the world.
Finally, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to assure the House of this Government’s continued support for the court that upholds the convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the European Court of Human Rights has only once found the UK to be in breach of Article 9. We can certainly be proud of our record. We must continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards and make ourselves accountable for our decisions and actions.
The challenge to reduce persecution around the world is beyond the powers of any one country. At a time when intergovernmental institutions are all too often and all too easily undermined, the court and its convention offer a unique opportunity for nations and institutions to work together to fashion a world where people are truly free.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose timely debate this is and whose contribution we heard earlier. As a barrister practising in part in the field of public law and human rights, and as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and like all noble Lords who have spoken, I place the highest value on human rights. However, human rights are not one and the same thing as the European Convention on Human Rights as it is today.
In March 2021, the former professor of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, John Finnis, and I wrote a paper for Policy Exchange entitled Immigration, Strasbourg, and Judicial Overreach. In his foreword to that paper, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, noted that:
“There is only one way to determine the limits of the commitment undertaken by the states which subscribed to European Convention on Human Rights and that is by reading the instrument and construing it against the background which would have been known or assumed by the parties at the time. Indeed, this is the only way to understand the meaning of any utterance whatever. But the European Court of Human Rights have felt free to give the Convention a meaning which could not possibly have been intended by its subscribers on the ground that it is a ‘living instrument’ which it is entitled—indeed, required—to update in accordance with what it considers to be the spirit of the times”.
In the paper, we examine the transformation of the convention in respect of immigration policy, the position in 1951 being that the signatory states
“have no obligation to let in refugees … have no legal or treaty obligation to accept refugees at all … and have no absolute obligation to continue to provide asylum for refugees who are a danger to the community”.
They were matters for the states themselves.
Forty years later, the European Court of Human Rights set out a line of judgments that has circumvented those principles. It has done so along two routes. The first gives the ECHR’s absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, found at Article 3, a radically expansive interpretation, which is neither morally nor legally warranted. The second circumvention has been via Article 8—the right to a private and family life—which has been expanded to override immigration controls. This is something which those who drafted, signed and ratified the convention would certainly have rejected. These misinterpretations facilitate and incentivise unlawful migration, and hamper European states in justly handling the issue. Elastic, expansive and inauthentic treaty interpretations such as these are contributing substantially to the real risk that the rule of law in European states will be overstrained.
Behind this judicial transformation of refugee and migration law lies the doctrine, judicially invented in 1975, that the ECHR is a living instrument. This doctrine enabled the Strasburg judges to reform social arrangements, even very fundamental ones, either without debate and approval from democratic legislatures or with a retrospective approval, strongly encouraged by the court’s assertions that these reports are already required by law and by international agreements and obligations which this country has long accepted as binding. In either form, this is an unconstitutional purpose. It is unfitting for the ECHR. The convention was intended not to provide an engine to social reform, still less for top-down reforms, but to block regression from the level of respect for rights that was standard in 1950 in the founder states—distinguishing them from the defeated fascist states and communist tyrannies imposed on Europe in the late 1940s.
The calls for withdrawal that we have heard in relation to the convention come about as a result of these issues. I submit that this House will expect to see the European Convention on Human Rights reformed, or face a clamour which may be unavoidable.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this important debate on the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. I echo the remarks of noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the important contribution the noble Lord has made to human rights over many years. I declare my interest as a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and a member of its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I am also the chair of the human rights committee at Liberal International, which is a designated NGO to the UN Human Rights Council.
In following the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, I have to say that I did not agree with his views but I am grateful that he and I are both free to say what we wish to. Millions elsewhere in the world are not, because they do not have the human rights and freedom to do so.
Others have already explained the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the role of the Council of Europe in the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. PACE appoints the judges and takes evidence on key matters relating to human rights, and it is able to bring states together to address failures, even—or especially—by PACE’s own member states.
PACE meets in two weeks’ time to address the new Georgian Government’s breaches of human rights following elections last year. Every day, many thousands of peaceful protestors come together across Georgia to remind the new Government that their elections were not democratic, and that new laws enabling imprisonment for the most minor offences, and the extrajudicial murder of journalists and imprisonment of civic leaders, including artists, actors, journalists and politicians, continue. As a result, PACE must decide whether to recognise the credentials of Georgian Dream, given these human rights infringements. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, PACE has done this before. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, PACE did not recognise the Russian delegation and Russia was expelled.
UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO whose mission is to monitor the performance of the UN by the yardstick of its own charter, made the case in April 2022 to the UN General Assembly that, following the murder of civilians in Bucha in Ukraine, Russia should be suspended from the Human Rights Council. It is completely wrong to be overseeing the protection of human rights while clearly abusing them, and Russia was suspended by a two-thirds majority. Similarly, following the murder by Iranian police of women’s rights activist Mahsa Amini in 2022, the UN Economic and Social Council suspended Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women until 2026.
These two cases are important. The UN is a body of states that rarely agrees on everything but occasionally, with outrageous breaches of human rights, it is important that action is taken. Those two states, as well as China, are now using extraterritorial action, sadly a growing area of human rights abuses—for example, Putin’s murder of Litvinenko in London, the attempted murders in Salisbury of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, and the murder of Dawn Sturgess, a completely innocent bystander. This is making the UK and its people at risk of human rights infringements by other states on our own territory.
China, like Iran and Russia, follows and monitors exiles abroad and the families of those who have fled. The threat to their safety is real. In July 2023, the police in Southampton charged a Chinese national student with racially motivated assault after he and others assaulted a Hong Kong man on the street. In that same month in Southampton, footage emerged showing pro-Hong Kong demonstrators being violently attacked by a group of Chinese nationals.
Are our front-line police being trained to recognise this extraterritorial action by other countries? Are the individuals at risk being given support and protection? Are we working with other countries and the Council of Europe on how we tackle this particularly egregious threat to human rights?
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for so powerfully moving this debate with such a comprehensive and passionate opening statement. It gives us the opportunity to note the tremendous positive impact of the convention, not only here in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. I also record my thanks to Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds for his advice and support.
The convention is a vital aspect of life in the United Kingdom. It does not merely enunciate a set of important principles that most of us agree with, such as the ability to speak freely, to hold our own beliefs and to be free from interference in our private lives, as others have said. Rather, it creates a tangible and effective mechanism to allow us all to seek redress if we feel that our human rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated.
The sad fact is that it is this very enforceability of the convention, particularly by the European Court of Human Rights, that has long caused hostility towards it—hostility from those who wrongly claim that the convention and the Strasbourg court are interfering with or even damaging life in the United Kingdom. Such arguments are not new, but I do not agree with them. The very strength of the convention, which is a living instrument, is that it allows individuals who are subject to unjustified interference in their rights and freedoms to hold those in power to account. I support the Strasbourg court and its work to interpret the convention in ways that maximise the rights and freedoms of individuals and that require Governments to address any violation of those rights and freedoms.
I support the rights and freedoms of all individuals, but particularly close to my heart is the issue of protecting the rights and freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. My life has been changed for the better because of this convention and the judgments from the court. The importance of the convention to LGBT people—indeed, to any minority—cannot be overstated. It has positively transformed lives, particularly those often shunned by the mainstream.
I turn to the judgments of the court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who sadly cannot be in his place today, has asked me to specifically state that it was precisely because of the judgment ending the ban on gays serving in the military in the United Kingdom that we were able to end centuries of prejudice within the armed services that blighted so many lives. The Etherton review and its recommendations, accepted by the previous Government and this Government, have begun to repair some of the damage. I contend that it is because of brave individuals—in this case supported by Stonewall—who had the courage to go through arduous legal procedures that we have been able to right these wrongs, but we can do more.
Currently, because the UK has not signed up to Protocol 12, people in the United Kingdom have less protection from discrimination under the convention than in many other European nations. This is an unacceptable situation. It would be highly appropriate if, on this important anniversary, the Government would commit to extending the protection of Protocol 12 to all individuals in the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, in these dark times, as we witness unimaginable human rights atrocities on a grand scale in parts of our world, we need more assurances and protections on human rights, not fewer. Complacency is the enemy of much and many, never more so in the field of human rights and civil liberties. Long may the European Convention on Human Rights speak to us, and especially to those, both here in the United Kingdom and across the world, who would diminish the human rights of others.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. Like him, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his very powerful opening.
In a long career at the Bar, I have had the privilege of taking 11 cases to the European Court of Human Rights and assisting on two others. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that the word “paradise” is not one that immediately comes to mind when addressing the 17 judges in that court. All the cases I have been involved in have been trade union cases, most of them concerning the right to strike. Your Lordships may wonder how the right to strike could be protected by the European convention. It is simple: the European court found that the right to strike was an inherent aspect of freedom of association and the right to form and to join a trade union for the protection of one’s interests, which is spelt out in Article 11. The court derived it not by a process of a living instrument but simply in accordance with the usual law on the interpretation of treaties—Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The issue now on the right to strike is no longer whether it exists or is protected by the convention but the legitimacy of national restrictions on it. In the years that have followed its establishment in the European court nearly a quarter of a century ago, many cases have been won and many cases have been lost, but recently there have been some very disturbing decisions by the European court upholding severe restrictions on the right to strike. I mention without discussion Barış v Turkey, Humpert v Germany, Kaya v Turkey and Almaz v Turkey.
Whatever the reasons for this line of authorities over the last couple of years, my instinct today is that, save in the most egregious cases, trade unions should avoid applications to the European court in strike cases. But unlike the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the fact that I do not like a judgment, or a line of judgments, does not detract by one iota from my wholehearted support for the European convention and the whole vital edifice of international law covering working life and beyond.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, this architecture was built on the corpses of tens of millions of people in the Second World War. It begins before the United Nations declaration, with the International Labour Organization Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944 —then the UN declaration in 1948, ILO convention 87 in 1949, convention 98 in 1950, and the European convention, also in 1950. That post-war momentum carried on into the 60s, with the European charter on social rights in 1961 and the two international covenants in 1966.
These instruments are of course autonomous, but the jurisdiction each generates informs that of the others, so that there is a consistency in international human rights standards. Neoliberalism may have ended the post-war consensus, and Hayek is now more influential than Keynes, but litigators, legislators and judges have a duty to uphold, deploy and be guided by these crucial instruments of civilisation and, in particular, the European convention.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to take part in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who gave a masterful introduction. I served for six years on the Council of Europe, and for two years I was the chair of a small sub-committee for the enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. One of my Trivial Pursuit questions was: which country had failed the most applications to bring it into line? The answer I always got was Russia. I said no, so people said, “Well, it must be Turkey”. Actually, it was Italy. So the court does a valuable job.
I will add to the number of dates that have been mentioned. In 1966, Prime Minister Wilson accepted the jurisdiction of the court. That is also worth putting into the record because for 48 years, we have accepted its jurisdiction, and, in good times and bad, we have managed to survive.
I also had four years on the Venice Commission, which is another bit of international co-operation attached to the Council of Europe. For two years, I was its vice-chairman. I learned a lot about human rights because a lot of the Venice Commission references were concerned with one aspect or another of human rights. So I would also like the Government to reaffirm their commitment. I am sure they will, because that is the way I read the statements that have been made so far.
I will make two other observations. Where on earth is our Attorney-General? We never see him. He is the top law officer. I very much respect the noble Baroness who is here to reply to the debate, but, if ever there were a debate that needed the Government’s top lawyer, it is this one. I just make that point in passing.
I fully agree with a number of noble Lords who have said that the judges in the court, and the Council of Europe itself, have been busy with mission creep ever since it was set up. I recall that, when I went to Strasbourg as an elected MEP in 1979, the late John Silkin said to me, “Why do you want to join an outfit with no power?” I said to him, “John, put 435 politicians in a room and they’ll soon find it”. If you look at the reforms of the European Union—free movement, for instance, and all the rest—they date from that elected assembly.
I have one final point to make. The Government recently said that one of the problems was the
“exploitation of the
European Court of Human Rights
“by the human rights legal industry”.
The Government need to look at the legal industry. We need to find a way to do this because the judgment about chicken nuggets, which is often referred to, is a gross distortion of the work of the court. Maybe the Government could address this to see whether it is possible to issue some tighter guidance.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights would have merited a celebration, even if the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that tireless champion of human rights worldwide, had not given us an occasion to do so in this Chamber today. For that, he deserves the utmost thanks.
Three things about the convention must surely not be forgotten. First, while it was the work of the collective responsibility of many European parliamentarians and lawyers, there was a major input by the British contingent, many of them Conservative members, following the lead of Sir Winston Churchill, who played such an important role in the establishment and early years of the Council of Europe. I am saddened to see that this involvement seems now to be more a cause of shame than of pleasure.
Secondly, as many noble Lords have said, the convention was drawn up in the dark shadow of some of the worst crimes against humanity, including the Holocaust—crimes perpetrated in our own continent by our own citizens. Its aim was to ensure protection for all our citizens against crimes committed, often by their own Governments.
Thirdly, when, at the end of the 1980s, the Cold War drew to a close, the convention and its court were available to provide the countries of central and eastern Europe— including at the time the Russian Federation and Belarus—the freedoms and legal protection they had never previously enjoyed under Communist Party rule. These are three achievements to be proud of and to treasure, however irritated some may feel at some of its court’s rulings.
I am afraid that I am no lawyer but my father was one, and he taught me that hard cases make bad law. It is lamentable that now, after these 75 years of achievement, some politicians and parties in this country and elsewhere in Europe are sharply critical of the convention and its court. The main bone of contention is the impact on immigration cases, as all our Governments struggle with the challenges of illegal migration and asylum seekers. It is odd, and I find it hard to justify, that these challenges are often quantifiably far greater and more acute in other European countries than in our own, but we seem to be making quite a meal of it.
Many critics here seem to be blissfully unaware of the extent to which the European Convention on Human Rights underpins fundamentally important parts of our constitutional structures and international agreements—most prominently, the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland and some of the most valuable parts of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU, in particular those dealing with justice and home affairs. These are clearly additional reasons for all, right across the political spectrum, to share the Government’s view that withdrawal cannot be contemplated. It would be good if more voices were raised to that effect.
I have one final point. Our previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak, got into the habit of calling the Europe Court of Human Rights a “foreign court”. That lamentable, dog-whistle nomenclature is not even accurate, since the court has had many admirable British judges down the years. But in any case, the terminology of speaking of a foreign court is all too typical of populist politicians of many of the main parties. It would be good if it could be taken out and buried on this 75th anniversary.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for arranging to have this debate and for all his encouragement to me and many others in this House on human rights. I declare my interest as an ambassador working with the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security on a number of these issues. I thank also those who were kind enough to send me briefings for today.
I am pleased to speak on the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty that has safeguarded the dignity and freedom of more than 700 million people since 1950. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify in 1951, in the aftermath of World War II, when nations were united to ensure that tyranny and injustice never prevailed again. The convention is more than a legal instrument; it is a moral compass. It enshrines fundamental freedoms and the rights to life, liberty, security and justice, and it protects individuals from discrimination, torture and unlawful imprisonment, ensuring equal protection under the law. This is not an abstract document; it has evolved to meet modern challenges while upholding its core mission—defending human dignity.
Its impact is evident particularly in Northern Ireland, where the Good Friday agreement enshrines the convention, ensuring human rights in devolved legislation. This safeguard has reinforced peace and provided independent remedies when state actions have failed. Article 6, guaranteeing a fair trial, has prevented miscarriages of justice. Landmark cases such as the exoneration of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four illustrate how the convention has rectified grave wrongs and strengthened public trust in the judicial system.
Among other cases, in JD and A v the United Kingdom in 2019, a survivor of domestic abuse faced eviction after government housing benefit reforms failed to consider the need for a protected “panic room” under a government-sponsored safety scheme. The European court ruled that this violated Article 14, which protects against discrimination, highlighting the convention’s role in ensuring that policies do not disproportionately harm vulnerable women. In VCL and AN v the United Kingdom in 2021, two Vietnamese children trafficked into forced labour were arrested and imprisoned, despite the authorities knowing they were victims. The European court found that the UK had breached Article 4 on prohibition of slavery and Article 6 on right to a fair trial, emphasising that victims of trafficking should be protected and not prosecuted.
For those reasons, we must remain committed to the convention. Some have questioned whether to withdraw from this treaty. I caution against such thoughts, as doing so would undermine decades of progress and expose vulnerable populations to renewed injustices.
The convention’s influence extends beyond national borders, guiding legislative reforms, human rights education and justice in both post-conflict regions and modern societies. In Northern Ireland, adherence to the convention has reduced sectarian violence and safeguarded minority rights. In our courts, schools and communities, the convention has ensured that human rights are not abstract ideals but real, enforceable protections. When Governments are held to these high standards, society as a whole benefits, through fairer trials, inclusive education and transparent government.
Let us renew our commitment to this vital treaty. The European Convention on Human Rights remains as relevant today as it was 75 years ago. It is a cornerstone of democracy, peace and justice. I urge this House, and all who value fairness and human dignity, to stand united in its defence, ensuring that its protections guide us to a future where every person’s rights are upheld.
Baroness Hale of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for his terrific speech in introducing it.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. I was privileged to be among Her Majesty’s judges sitting on the Woolsack to hear the Queen’s Speech in 1997, and I well remember the quiver of excitement with which we greeted the announcement that her Government intended to legislate to incorporate the convention into UK law. This was not, or not just, because of the intellectual excitement that a new set of legal toys would be given to us to play with; it was because we were going to be given the tools to protect the fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
By then, it had become apparent that UK law did not always live up to the convention standards. Others have mentioned the vital part that the UK played in setting up the Council of Europe and the convention, but some have described this as the “export theory of human rights”: foreigners needed them because they did not have them; we did not need them because we already did, so the European convention was seen as embodying all the rights which UK people already enjoyed.
Unfortunately, this was not always the case. The UK was losing an average of 18 cases a year in the European court before the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Turning the convention rights into UK law meant that we judges could speak the same language and use the same concepts. Our law was enormously enriched thereby, and far fewer cases went to Strasbourg as a result and very few succeeded. I should remind your Lordships that it was the UK that invented the principle of constitutional interpretation that constitutional documents are a living tree, capable of development within its natural limits.
As others have reminded us, the convention has done a great deal of good for vulnerable and disadvantaged people such as children, families, people with mental disorders and disabilities, victims of crime, and people who suffer discrimination for no good reason but because of, for example, their sexuality, their ethnicity or the colour of their skin. It was the convention which insisted that children whose parents were not married to each other were entitled to the same family relationships as children whose parents were married. It was the convention which insisted that if the state wished to remove children from their homes to protect them from abuse or neglect, the process had to be fair to everybody involved, both children and their families. It was the convention which insisted that people with mental disorders and disabilities should not be deprived of their liberty without proper safeguards and the opportunity to challenge it. It was the convention which insisted there should be no discrimination in the enjoyment of the convention rights because of a person’s sex, race, colour or other characteristic such as sexuality or disability. The survivor of a same-sex relationship should have the same right to remain in the family home as did the survivor of an opposite-sex relationship.
That is the essential purpose of all human rights instruments, whether contained in international treaties such as the convention or in the written constitutions of almost every developed country in the world: to guard against the infringement of a person’s fundamental rights simply because they belong to a group which the majority does not like. As I ventured to say in a judgment given in this House when it was still the highest court in the land:
“Democracy values everyone equally even if the majority does not”.
To conclude, that is why it was especially shocking when this Parliament legislated to exclude a particular group of unpopular people from the protection of their human rights. Human rights are universal and should belong to everyone.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for not only securing this debate but opening it with such an inspirational speech. What a huge pleasure it is to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I agree with every word she said.
The new Council of Europe framework convention on artificial intelligence is another living demonstration that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years. The AI framework convention does not seek to replace the ECHR but rather to extend its protections into the digital age. AI now permeates our daily lives, making decisions that affect our privacy, liberty and dignity. These systems can perpetuate discrimination, erode privacy and challenge fundamental freedoms in a way that demands new protections. Open for signature in September 2024, the AI framework convention is the first legally binding international instrument on AI, setting clear standards for risk assessment and impact management throughout the life cycle of AI systems.
The framework convention’s principles require transparency and oversight, ensuring that AI systems cannot operate as black boxes, making decisions that affect people’s lives without accountability. They require parties to adopt specific measures for identifying, assessing, preventing and mitigating risks posed by AI systems, and a specific human rights impact assessment has been developed. The convention recognises that, in the age of AI, protecting human rights requires more than individual remedies; it demands accessible and effective remedies for human rights violations resulting from AI systems. Rather than merely reacting to harms after they occur, the framework mandates consideration of society-scale effects before AI systems are deployed. I only wish, having heard what its director had to say on Tuesday, that our AI Security Institute had the same approach.
The framework convention was achieved through unprecedented consultation, involving not just the 46 member states of the Council of Europe but observer states, civil society, academia and industry representatives. Beyond European nations, it has attracted signatories including Israel, the United States—albeit under the previous Administration—and, most recently, Japan and Canada, in February this year.
However, a framework is only as good as its implementation, and this brings me to my central question to the Government. What is their plan? The Ministry of Justice’s Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s Response to Human Rights Judgments 2023-24 said:
“Once the treaty is ratified and brought into effect in the UK, existing laws and measures to safeguard human rights from the risks of AI will be enhanced”.
How will existing UK law be amended to align with the framework convention? What additional resources and powers will be given to our regulatory bodies? What mechanisms will be put in place to monitor and assess the impact of AI systems on vulnerable groups? The convention offers us tools to prevent such problems, but only if we implement it effectively.
As we mark 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights, we should remember that its enduring strength lies not just in its principles but in how nations have given those principles practical effect through domestic law and institutions. The UK has long been a leader in both human rights and technological innovation. I urge the Government to present a comprehensive implementation plan for the AI framework convention. Our response to this challenge will determine whether the digital age enhances or erodes our fundamental rights. I do not need to emphasise the immense power of big tech currently. We need to see this as a time when we are rising to meet new challenges with the same vision and commitment that created the European Convention on Human Rights, 75 years ago.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this is a timely debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it. I declare an interest as a member of Justice, and indeed a past member of its council for some years.
The European Convention on Human Rights is a significant document. It embodies important values, but, equally, important and legitimate criticisms can be made of the jurisprudence that the court has generated. What the United Kingdom should do now and in the future has become a legitimate question. The concerns that I will express in this speech go not to the convention itself but to its misapplication by the courts and the implications for our constitution.
The Strasbourg court has the task of defining convention rights in practice. In performing that task, the court has treated the convention as a living instrument. That is, of itself, not a term in the treaty. It has used that to alter the scope of rights to give effect to changes in social attitudes—matters which in the United Kingdom are generally best left to Parliament.
I will give some examples. In Scoppola v Italy (No. 3), the Strasbourg court declared the statute which barred serving prisoners from voting at elections to be incompatible with the convention. It seems startling that the electoral franchise is not a matter on which the representatives of the general body of citizens have any say. Another example is the recent extraordinary climate change decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, which the Swiss Parliament, unsurprisingly, voted to ignore.
Articles 8 and 10 have been used to gag the press. In the case of Al-Skeini, the House of Lords excluded claims against the Army because the victims had not been within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Strasbourg overturned that decision, but I suggest that the parties to the convention never intended that it should apply to warlike operations carried out by member states in foreign jurisdictions. Strasbourg has expanded the range of the convention and interpreted it in ways well beyond anything envisaged when it was made.
Issues of public policy involve choices between competing considerations—that is the essence of government and legislation; it is what our Parliament is there to decide. But where do we go? We are on the horns of a dilemma. The constitutional effects of leaving the convention would be serious. The United Kingdom would likely be expelled from the Council of Europe, which I do not endorse. Withdrawal would put the United Kingdom in breach of the Good Friday agreement, written into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and none of us would want that. The convention is also baked into the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement—the TCA. The United Kingdom denouncing the ECHR would be grounds for the EU to terminate the part of the TCA on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, which would be a serious problem for us all.
However, something must be done. At a minimum, we must look again at the Human Rights Act. It should be amended to mitigate the constitutional problems to which it gives rise—but that is for another speech.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I too extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his truly magnificent opening.
I declare an interest: I was a government lawyer for 34 years, and the ECHR often presented legal obstacles for the Government of the day, who I was advising. I understand, therefore, why some would like to withdraw from the ECHR.
One of the reasons often given for withdrawal is around Article 3, which, as interpreted by Strasbourg, prevents the UK sending failed asylum seekers, and others, back to their countries of origin where there are grounds for believing there is a risk that they will be ill-treated, however compelling the public interest reasons for removing them. This is the non-refoulement principle. I do not see how withdrawing from the ECHR would be the answer.
Politically, it would cause difficulties for the Belfast agreement, which assumes continued ECHR membership, and, as we have heard, it would risk ending criminal justice co-operation with the EU. Legally, in addition to many other international treaties that replicate the effect of Article 3, we are bound by customary international law arising from the “constant and uniform practice” of states, including the United Kingdom, complying with the non-refoulement principle, at least where the risk of severe ill-treatment is concerned. Leaving the ECHR to try to get around Article 3 would raise questions about our future compliance with customary international law.
There is no doubt that the Strasbourg court has used the living instrument doctrine in ways with which some contracting states may now disagree. A good example of that is the line of case law beginning with Al-Skeini, which has been referred to, on the extraterritorial effect of the convention. However, the answer to any perceived undesirable effects of the living instrument doctrine is not to leave the convention but to reform it, by bringing together contracting states to instigate reform, as was done recently with Protocol 15 on subsidiarity.
For example, where a specific piece of international law governs an issue, then perhaps the more general ECHR either should not apply or the Strasbourg court should be required to take account of it—which is a recognised principle of international law. This could be the case in respect of the Geneva conventions on armed conflict, the Paris Agreement on climate change and possibly even the refugee convention, where, unlike under Article 3 as interpreted by Strasbourg, narrow exceptions on grounds of security can apply in certain circumstances.
In addition, we must ensure our rich human rights heritage is preserved for future generations by a programme of civic and constitutional education on human rights and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities, as recommended by Sir Peter Gross’s independent review of the Human Rights Act in 2021.
In conclusion, as we look at the increasing number of human rights abuses taking place around the world, which are totally blind to the rule of law, the scales are now weighted strongly in favour of continued membership of the ECHR, while seeking any reforms which will bring the convention more in line with what the contracting states may seek now in 2025.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I am glad to begin my remarks by stating that bald fact. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, that, if there were tick boxes for their speeches, I would put a tick in and sit down because I do not want to say any more than that.
There was a debate recently in Strasbourg, entitled, rather quaintly, “Multiperspectivity in the field of journalism”, which was all about how journalists can see the same facts and report two entirely different stories. I want to apply it now to the House of Lords: people see the same facts and draw entirely different narratives from them. I have always felt a bit fragile in your Lordships’ House, since I have no political experience and certainly no legal experience. Consequently, I listen to the debate in order to hear where things stand.
And multiperspectivity has marked this debate. In the political sphere, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that it is such a relief to me that two rows behind him sits the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, whose remarks on the Council of Europe and the convention were so positive. He has served with such distinction in Europe, and he is widely honoured for the contribution he has made to its affairs. So, there is multiperspectivity straight in my eye as I look across the Chamber.
Similarly on the legal arguments, we had all those debates about immigration during the tenure of the last Government. From the government side, the noble Lord, Lord Murray—who is here—was obliged by convention not to disclose what legal advice the Government were receiving, but he did a doughty job at the Dispatch Box. It was always difficult for me as a non-lawyer to hear distinguished lawyers on each side of the argument and then for those of us who stand listening to know how to make the distinctions we needed to make.
I have just joined the Constitution Committee, so the future of Britain is under threat.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
But the rule of law is what we have set ourselves as our first project. Last week, I had breakfast at the Supreme Court. Never have I been surrounded by so many stars in the galaxy as I was then. I made the point that the United Nations charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European convention all have as Article 6 access to a fair trial.
I started my remarks on that occasion by stipulating that the architecture of my entire life has been built on the fact that, when I was five and a half years of age, a letter from my father’s solicitor to my mother indicated that, because she was the guilty party in their relationship, she should leave his client’s—my father’s—house within one week and take her children with her. My mother could not defend herself against that because she did not have two pennies to put together to get the legal counsel or support. In any case, the law was different then.
Out of that little exchange in the Supreme Court has come a magnificent response from one of the justices, who specialises in access to justice and brought out a report in 2016 about how to deal with people not having access to justice and wanting to have its recommendations implemented all these years later.
I look forward to the future—all those voices to listen to and all those cases to weigh up. I have to say that politicians should try a little harder, and the lawyers should try a little harder, to realise that not everybody is one of them.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I wish to say a few words about the relationship between judicial protection of human rights and the rule of law and, in particular, about the way in which Parliament should respond to declarations of incompatibility in cases of constitutional importance.
In his classic work on The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham identified important distinctions between what one might call the primary articles, which confer an unqualified right to a defined outcome—not to be tortured and a right to a fair trial—and articles such as Article 8. Article 8 guarantees not a defined outcome but a respect for private and family life. It is subject to an important qualification, which Lord Bingham calls
“a community exception, a recognition that the rights of the individual may properly be restricted, in the interests of the community at large, if certain … conditions are satisfied”.
When judges are asked to give effect to and protect qualified rights, such as those conferred by Article 8, they are being asked to make an evaluation of the relevant, competing considerations, which necessarily involves moral and political analysis.
The danger is obvious. It is highlighted by a different chapter in Lord Bingham’s book, entitled “Law not Discretion”. There, he wrote:
“Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion”.
The balance is held, or should be held, by the fundamental constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign. The Human Rights Act was carefully drafted in a way that reflects this. Judges are not able to strike down Acts of Parliament. Senior judges can make declarations of incompatibility. In most such cases, Parliament properly reacts by amending the legislation in question, in accordance with the court’s judgment. It is not obliged to do so and has not always done so.
As a matter of procedure, following the making of a declaration of incompatibility, Section 10 of the Act permits the Government to amend legislation by a remedial order, which will normally go through on the nod. The Act states, importantly, that this form of fast-track amendment is permissible only where the Minister considers that there are
“compelling reasons for proceeding under this section”.
I turn to a current matter, in which the Government propose to make a remedial order of this nature. In short summary, a few years ago the Supreme Court held in the Adams case that Mr Adams’s internment in the 1970s had been unlawful because the relevant certificate had been signed by the wrong Minister. This rather technical point, taken over 40 years late, opened an unappealing vista of many thousands of claims for compensation. A provision was introduced into the legacy Act with the support of all major parties, which—put colloquially—neutralised the Adams decision.
In 2024, a single judge of the Northern Ireland High Court made a declaration that this provision was incompatible with the claimant’s rights. That decision may have been right; it may well have been wrong. It has been the subject of penetrating—some might think lethal—criticism in a Policy Exchange paper written by Professor Ekins and Stephen Laws. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, provided an illuminating preface, in which he supported the views expressed and explained precisely why it was inappropriate to respond to the declaration of incompatibility by making a remedial order pursuant to Section 10.
The Government appealed the Northern Ireland decision. It is beyond question that that appeal raised issues of fundamental constitutional importance. In summer 2024, the new Government withdrew the appeal. The reasons for that decision are obscure. Now it is proposed that a remedial order be made whose effect will be to remove the neutralising provision. As I have explained, this can lawfully be done only if there is a compelling reason to use the Section 10 fast-track procedure. There is plainly no such compelling reason. On the contrary, there are compelling reasons why the primary legislation should be amended in the usual way, which will give Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter carefully, as clearly needs to happen. If the Minister were able to update the House as to the Government’s plans in this respect, that would be of great interest.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I join others in warmly commending the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for his excellent speech, which has set off a very valuable debate. The noble Lord is a true liberal, whatever his current location. It is unusual for a Member of the House of Lords to have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is a tribute to him and an honour for this House that he does so. I should record my interest, which is in the register, as a vice-president to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of the organisation Justice.
We have heard voices today calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, or at least to seek to change it or the Human Rights Act. Do we really want our country to be bracketed with outlaws such as Russia, Belarus and Hungary in ignoring and rubbishing human rights? That would be a regressive and deplorable step.
I agree with the comment by Amnesty—and I do not always—that the conduct of the current Russian Government should be a reminder to us all of our good fortune to live in a country with respect for the rule of law and which, in the main, complies with the rulings of independent courts. The UK leaving the convention would be exactly what Putin wants.
The convention, and the court system that it is attached to, forms a core part of the framework of the long-standing international alliance of states gathered together in the Council of Europe, dedicated to the pursuit of the common goals of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I commend noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Brinton, who take part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I have never had the honour to do.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I am grateful he is still in his place, as I know he has other commitments—that Commonwealth countries are not in the ECHR system because they are not, except for Malta, Cyprus and the UK, located in Europe.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying to that point. The point is that they do not rely on an international agreement to provide very good human rights to their citizens. Why should we be different?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I think answering that might set up another mini-debate, and I am not going to be tempted to go down that road.
For a major power such as us, a founding member of this European system, to leave the convention—and thus the Council of Europe, a point made by several noble Lords—would sow division and confusion among liberal states just when we need solidarity. It would demonstrate that the protection of individual rights against the excesses of state power is an unimportant and futile endeavour.
Indeed, our membership, along with that of all the other liberal democracies in Europe, of the council and its convention is part of the system of regional security that is so vital now. It creates the preconditions for peace through the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and helps inoculate people and Governments against the pernicious propaganda coming out of Moscow and elsewhere.
The ECHR is not some remote, foreign product to be resisted as an imposition. That point was made by one noble Lord—I apologise, but I have forgotten who. We should celebrate the fact that the UK has played a pivotal role in not only creating but shaping the ECHR. I noted that several of the lawyers involved, such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, seem to come from Merseyside. That must be a fertile source of human rights inspiration. Our judges continue to contribute to the future of the convention system and the wider protection of human rights. I hope that the Government will highlight the UK’s role and work to combat negative rhetoric, misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
The UK’s commitment to the ECHR, and more widely to the rule of law, boosts not only our international reputation but our attractiveness as a place to do business, by emphasising that individual and business rights are protected. Our commitment to the international rule of law underpins our global economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a destination for investment, which the Government are rightly emphasising. It is also part of the Government’s growth mission.
I was intrigued to read an article in the Times this week by the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. He is not in his place but, as this article was published, I feel able to comment on it without being discourteous. The article’s headline began, “I'm no fan but”, and such a “but” always puts one on notice. His declaration that
“Trump’s effect may be positive … prompting a startling realignment of ideas”
was a jolt, because I must confess that I can see nothing positive coming from President Trump. One of the positive nudges that the noble Lord felt was a result of President Trump was that the ECHR should be rewritten. He did not say how. If he meant that it would be rewritten only in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to, that might be sensible. We are all open to any useful reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Hague, then confused me by stressing that these actions of Trump are
“a reminder that an effective democratic state is part of a moral order in which its policies should be anchored; that its reach and respect in the world rely on being able to distinguish right from wrong; that the abuse of great power brings resistance and rejection”.
I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord in those remarks. My contention would be that, far from rewriting the ECHR as a reaction to President Trump, we should treasure it all the more as guarding against the kind of developments that, sadly, we are seeing in the United States.
The Human Rights Act brought rights home, as has been said. It was one of the products of the talks on political and constitutional reform 30 years ago between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, known as the Cook-Maclennan talks—after Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan. I am very proud of that and other products. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, stress the value of the Human Rights Act.
We have heard that applications to Strasbourg have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 years. The Human Rights Act has contributed to that, as a lot of those cases have not gone to Strasbourg but have been settled domestically. In 2024, there were only three cases against the UK heard by the court, and only one found a violation. The victor was the Daily Mail, in a freedom of expression case. There were no interim measures or injunctions issued against the UK last year. This is a testament to the strength of our national system of human rights protections. One of the reasons for this harmonious state of affairs is that a productive dialogue has taken place between the Strasbourg and UK courts to deal with any tensions or disagreements. This was confirmed in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale.
For some people, no bill of rights, whether the European Convention or any other, will be acceptable in the UK system of a political constitution and parliamentary sovereignty. These arguments are always presented as concerns about democracy and democratic accountability. However, they almost always end in arguments for centralising power in the Executive. A lot of human rights challenges are to call the Executive to account. References to the court going too far as a reason to leave the convention system more generally are almost always based in choosing to emphasise the occasional controversial case where the speaker disagrees of the outcome.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I emphasise that any upset to our relationship with the ECHR would affect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is a crucial instrument. Under that agreement, the UK Government committed to the incorporation of the convention into Northern Irish law. Proposals to legislate for the continued application of the convention into Northern Irish law while withdrawing the UK as a whole from the convention are fundamentally flawed, and there is no practical way of legislating for partial implementation.
In addition, the UK is obliged under the Windsor Framework, following our withdrawal from the EU, to observe a non-diminution of rights as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There are also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, commitments in the trade and co-operation agreement to our continued adhesion to the ECHR. Any damage to our human rights observance could imperil the renewal of our data adequacy agreement, crucial to both business and law enforcement co-operation with the EU. For all these reasons, we should not imperil our positive engagement with the European convention and court but instead celebrate our great achievement and good fortune in creating it and sustaining it for 75 years.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for these Benches in this debate procured by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose work in the field of human rights needs no introduction. In fact, I remember that when I grew up in Liverpool—I do not know whether, in the eyes of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that now makes me a human rights lawyer—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was campaigning for the rights of Jews and Christians in the USSR to practise their religion. Therefore, I am especially grateful to him for today’s debate, in which we have had the privilege of hearing a number of very fine speeches, some of which have relied on the undoubted human right to push the boundaries of the advisory time limits.
Today’s debate is about not human rights per se but the European Convention on Human Rights, and the two are not the same. To make the obvious point, we had human rights in this country before we signed the European Convention on Human Rights, and many countries in this world that are not signatories to that convention still have and champion human rights. But the European Convention on Human Rights has a long history, and we played a central role in its inception. We were one of the original signatories and, as your Lordships have heard, we helped to draft it.
In 1951 two important things happened in the field of human rights in this country. First, we as a state signed the European Convention on Human Rights and, secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was born. We were one of the first states to ratify the convention, and since 1965 we have also accepted the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court—the European Court of Human Rights. I am proud of our role in building the more just future for Europe from which we all benefit today.
I have mentioned the dates because they are important for context and background. When the ECHR was being drafted, Europe was still recovering from the horrors and destruction of the Second World War. It was only two years after the Nuremberg trials that in 1948 the United Nations promulgated its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the ECHR’s founding principles flowed. I therefore suggest that it is appropriate that on the annunciator right now we have both the anniversary of the ECHR and the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
I want to move from the history to the ECHR today. I agree with a lot of what my noble friend Lord Lilley—who explained to me why he had to leave—said about the history. There is sometimes a pretence about the history—it is not all as people say it was—but let me move to today’s position.
There can be no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, explained, that the ECHR has led to legal advances. It has enabled judges to make innovative and expansive rulings in the fields of sexual equality, privacy and personal autonomy, to pick just a few topics. But we also have to accept that the approach of the ECHR is to entrust such lawmaking to a court—the Strasbourg court—that is accountable to no one. And while that might be good if you prefer its decisions to those that Governments might otherwise have made, it creates an obvious conflict between parliamentary democracy and an unelected court, especially when that court has gone on to adopt what I suggest to be a very expansive interpretation of the convention, as my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth explained.
Those conflicts range far and wide, and well beyond the scope of this speech, but you can get a sense of the issue from an analysis of 25 leading cases from that court, analysed by Professor Richard Ekins and others in an illuminating paper published by Policy Exchange. It is important to appreciate that it is not a bug; it is a feature. The lack of accountability of the European Court of Human Rights was precisely what made it appealing to those who set it up in the aftermath of fascism and Nazism. They saw the court as providing a check on elected Governments who might otherwise abuse their power. I understand that desire and I share it to an extent, but there are limits, and I wonder whether last year’s decision of the court in the Swiss climate change case has shown that we have reached those limits and perhaps gone beyond them.
Let me explain why. In 2021 the Swiss electorate rejected in a referendum an Act of the Swiss Parliament that called for a 30% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. That Act, rejected by the electorate, was then replaced by an Act that provided for a staged reduction by 2050. That more moderate Act was approved by the Swiss people in a referendum. There is nothing in the convention about public health and certainly no mention of climate change, but that did not stand in the way of the Strasbourg court, which held that the Article 8 right to private and family life required Governments to take what it called effective measures to combat climate change, and those measures had to be consistent with the views of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That of course is the answer to the oft-made challenge, first made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws: “Which rights don’t you like?”. I like them all as drafted, but not as interpreted expansively.
The court held in that case that Swiss law was inconsistent with the convention. What about the fact that the Swiss people and their parliament had twice had a say in referenda? The court said that
“democracy cannot be reduced to the will of the majority of the electorate and elected representatives, in disregard of the requirements of the rule of law”.
I give way to no one when it comes to the rule of law, but the rule of law does not require judges to have a roving commission over whole areas of contested and contestable national public policy in complete disregard of the expressed wishes of both parliaments and the people. As our judges on the court have been mentioned, I should add that the UK judge on the court wrote a powerful and principled dissent to this decision that repays careful reading.
The question is not whether the decision is right or wrong on the facts. It is not about whether climate change is real—it is—or whether we should take it seriously; we should. It is about whether and how we make laws on such issues in a democracy. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst pointed out, in cases where you have contested issues of public policy and you have to balance a lot of factors, the effect of the court’s decision is that these arrangements are arrogated only to the court. Not only must the Swiss change their statute but it seems that they must also take steps to ensure that the changed statute is not itself rejected in a referendum by voters. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this does not centralise power in the Executive; it centralises power in a court—contrary to the expressed wishes, in that case, of both the parliament and the people. Nor, I suggest, is it consistent with the rule of law. Some of the principles of the rule of law are that it must be stable, clear, publicly accessible and not retrospective. The decision of the Strasbourg court in that case is none of those things. As the UK judge said in his dissent, his
“disagreement is of a more fundamental nature and … goes to the very heart of the role of the Court within the Convention system”.
He ended,
“I fear that in this judgment the majority has gone beyond what it is legitimate and permissible for this Court to do and, unfortunately, in doing so, may well have achieved exactly the opposite effect to what was intended”.
Those of us who have concerns about the approach of the Strasbourg court have those concerns because we believe in human rights, not because we have concerns about human rights.
Our party has made a powerful and lasting contribution to law and justice in Europe and beyond. We remain committed to those values of law and justice, but we need to recognise that the Europe that gave birth to the convention is a Europe of the past. We need new international or improved agreements—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, identified—that are fit for the present challenges we face and appropriate for those of the future.
I know that over the past couple of years we had long and heated debates in this House on immigration policy. The fact is that over the past years our ability to manage immigration has been hindered by interpretations of international laws, including the ECHR, which are a long way from the intentions of the states when they signed up to those treaties and conventions. I may not be the only one who has had a little wry smile over the past months at hearing echoes of what I used to say from that Dispatch Box repeated in press summaries from No. 10. Things look different when you are in government, as I think the party opposite is now finding. I accept that press reporting of judgments is often exaggerated and sometimes plain wrong, but those who deny that there is a problem at all are also wrong.
That is why we tabled an amendment in the other place to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration matters. It is ultimately important that Parliament and Ministers have effective control over our borders.
I will end on a note where we all agree. In a world where the threat of totalitarianism remains, we must not disavow our moral duty to promote justice. That principled stand is entirely compatible with work, perhaps across the House, to ensure that our international agreements remain appropriate for the challenges of today and the future. I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on initiating this debate and wish him many more years of fighting, in good health, for the causes close to his heart, both in this House and outside it.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for that speech. It is good to see him, and I am very sorry to have learned of the death of his father recently—may his memory be a blessing. I enjoyed the noble Lord’s speech very much. I did not agree with some of it, but he is always entertaining and speaks with passion.
I would gently say on the issue of immigration, about which I argued with very many Ministers over the 14 years we enjoyed in opposition, that the previous Government completely lost control of the system. They had an expensive distraction with Rwanda. There was no co-ordination across Whitehall and minimal engagement with foreign Governments on the topic. I wonder what some of the Ministers were doing: they made speeches about immigration but then did precious little to deal with the problem. What the noble Lord says about the ECHR may or may not be right but there were so many other things that could and should have been done that were not, so we have plenty to do when it comes to tackling immigration before we get to ECHR reform.
Having said all that, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has inspired many people, inside and outside this Chamber, over very many years. I thought he set out his argument most convincingly and I thank him for securing this debate.
I begin by completely reinforcing the assertion from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that we always start with history; yes, we often do. I will begin not as far back as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with the 10 commandments, but with March 1951 when the UK became the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights—the ECHR. Signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, it came into force in the United Kingdom in 1953. Although some commentators would have us believe that the ECHR was imposed on us unwillingly by our neighbours, this is not the case.
In response to the horrors of the Second World War, which engulfed the world in a generation, Winston Churchill was a leading proponent of the Council of Europe, which made this convention the first order of business. Indeed, I know that the Lord Speaker and many of my noble colleagues recently commemorated the historic moment when the treaty that led to the creation of the Council of Europe was signed at St James’s Palace in 1949. I recognise the contributions made by Members of both Houses who serve on the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig.
Furthermore, a British Conservative MP and lawyer, David Maxwell Fyfe, played a leading role in drafting the convention. The pioneering Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was active in shaping the convention, and the first president of the European Court of Human Rights was British too, Arnold McNair—Lord McNair.
The Government are proud of Britain’s role in the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of all that it has made possible for our individual rights and freedoms in the decades since. That spans everything from forming an important pillar of the devolution settlements to underpinning guarantees in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and supporting the safety and security of British citizens by facilitating cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation in the trade and co-operation agreement.
Yet so much of what the ECHR does for us goes unsung, precisely because so much of it sounds so abstract. So, noble Lords have today shone a light on some of the ways it has made a difference to the lives of people across our country for decades by reminding us of some of those stories. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti explained movingly the impact of the convention on victims of sexual violence. My noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, reminded us how central the ECHR is to stability in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Rook spoke about freedom of religion and belief. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, spoke about how the ECHR has literally changed his life. My noble friend Lord Hendy reminded us of the impact of the convention on trade union activity.
We also considered the abolition of corporal punishment in the UK. In 1982, it was an ECHR ruling that put an end to schoolchildren being beaten against their parents’ wishes and paved the way for the eventual abolition of corporal punishment in all state and private schools in the UK. There is also the status of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. Male homosexual acts were a crime in Northern Ireland until 1982, yet a human rights case brought to the ECHR by a gay rights activist from Belfast argued that the criminal law in Northern Ireland amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. It was rightly decriminalised.
Then there is the duty of states to protect the right to life. The families of the 97 football fans who lost their lives in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster relied on that right while they campaigned for the truth to obtain a new inquest, which concluded that the fans were unlawfully killed. There is also the lifting of the ban on LGBT people joining the military, following a landmark case in 2000 brought by two British servicemen who had been dismissed from the army simply for being gay. The law changed, allowing members of the Armed Forces to be open about their sexuality.
Then there is the protection of religious belief in the workplace. When an employee of British Airways wore a small cross around her neck as a sign of her religious faith, she was suspended from work without pay because the cross violated its uniform policy. Yet, in 2013, the ECHR ruled that this was an unreasonable interference with this woman’s right to freedom of religion, leading to a change in relevant standards in the UK.
Indeed, the ECHR continues to provide protections to the rights of British citizens at home and abroad. Only last month the court ruled that the Cypriot authorities had failed a British woman who alleged that she had suffered horrific sexual violence in Cyprus in 2019, finding that there had been a lack of effective investigation and a violation of her right to respect for a private and family life.
These stories remind us of just a few of the ways our country and our people have benefited from the protections of the European Court of Human Rights over the years. It is important that, as well as applying the law consistently and working in partnership with others well beyond our continent, we tell these stories.
Sadly, there are some who seek to paint a picture of the UK constantly under attack by the European Court of Human Rights. I am not saying that that is what the noble Lord opposite did today—his comments were considered—but it is worth noting too that the UK has one of the lowest rates of applications to the court per million inhabitants, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said. Last year, only one adverse judgment was given, finding one violation against the UK.
The Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government put in place, gives effect to the ECHR in UK law. It was wonderful to hear the recollection from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, of the Queen’s Speech that made this announcement. It is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to human rights protections in the UK.
Of course, no organisation is perfect; neither the ECHR nor the European Court of Human Rights is static or frozen in time. The ECHR is a living instrument that evolves in response to emerging challenges and challenging times. The European Court of Human Rights has shown itself to be open to change. Indeed, during the UK’s presidency in 2012, Council of Europe member states adopted a substantial package of reform measures, and only last year, the European Court of Human Rights introduced more fairness and accountability into its approach to interim measures following consultation with member states. There is one accepted principle of dialogue between national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, through which the UK continues to influence the direction and impact of the ECHR. Our respect for the rule of law domestically and internationally is profound, as we are demonstrating through our actions. That is more important than ever at a time where we have been dealt a stark reminder of what is at stake for all of us.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked about development and education. I can confirm our commitment and support along the lines of his comments, and partnerships in higher education. He put a helpful question. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invited me to talk about AI regulation. He will forgive me if I do not, but I am sure that a DSIT Minister will be along very shortly and will be happy to take his questions on that.
There are things that we all need for a good life: security, prosperity, equality, human rights and the rule of law. I am afraid I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I agree with many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Carter, Lord Balfe, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said we should, this Government are firmly committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and we will never leave it. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, quoting former Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, it is self-evident that a world where every individual’s rights are respected is a world that will be more peaceful, and where Britain will be more prosperous and more secure.
As we reset and deepen our relationships with friends across Europe and beyond to help us face the challenges and opportunities of our times, in this 75th year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we welcome this chance to reflect on all we have achieved and to look forward to what needs to come next. We are a Government with a progressive, realistic outlook, meeting the world as it is and working towards how we want it to be in the months and years ahead. We look forward to the celebrations in Strasbourg in November.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to his childhood, when I was his family’s constituency Member of Parliament in Liverpool. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in her reply to the debate referred to something which deeply affected me during my time as a Member of Parliament; I never expected to have to visit families whose children had died at a football match, as they had done at Hillsborough.
So I have been enormously grateful for the effect of the European convention in helping to shift the law, and to the Government for the commitment they gave at the general election to enact the so-called Hillsborough law. It is an issue the Joint Committee on Human Rights has engaged with. Indeed, we recently published correspondence between the committee and the Government on the duty of candour. It is a good example of how events that take place here in our own jurisdiction can have implications elsewhere, and of how they can be affected from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from person to person.
Some very kind words have been said by noble Lords today, not least about my longevity. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rook, who said that he hoped one day to grow up to be like me. I do not wish that on him or anybody else. I feel a bit like Methuselah at the end of today’s debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, for whom I have great fondness and admiration, made a very good speech about why we should keep our feet firmly on the ground and never lose sight of the human impact of the decisions that we make. He told us that he had been to the Supreme Court and felt as though he had been surrounded by stars in the galaxy. You do not need to go all the way to the Supreme Court to feel as though you are surrounded by stars in the galaxy. I pay particular tribute to some of the distinguished and celebrated Peers who have spoken in today’s debate. These have been wise voices, and we would be foolish not to study carefully what has been said to us from all sides of the argument. This debate has been worthy of the anniversary, but also worthy of your Lordships’ House.
Obviously, I will not try to respond to every speech, so I will be brief. Reference was made to Article 3. My noble friend Lord Carter was right that even if we did not have the ECHR, the 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees would still be in place. We were also cautioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others about the dangers of building a whole argument on one or two cases—such as the so-called chicken nuggets case, which was referred to. Noble Lords should go away and read Joshua Rozenberg’s article this week, where he reminds us that in that case, a lower-tier tribunal got it wrong and an upper-tier tribunal got it right. He writes that the argument presented in that case will not prevent the deportation of someone who may be here illegally and therefore should not be resident in the United Kingdom. So let us not build a case for total deconstruction on cases such as that one. Again, a noble Lord reminded us—I think it was my noble friend Lord Hannay—that hard cases make bad law.
When you start to unravel and disrupt, it carries consequences, but that is not an argument against reform. I take the arguments that have been made today, particularly from the Conservative Benches, that this is not a static instrument which is incapable of reform. Things such as the Swiss case are for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to go back and look at and take evidence over. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and I will agree on that, and will find ways for us to look at that kind of judgment and decide whether we are going too far in some circumstances—but that should not become an argument for the destruction of the European Convention on Human Rights. Confronted in our own generation by a new breed of dictators who again threaten the foundations of democracy, it would be sheer defeatism and an act of vandalism to abandon the legacy that has been entrusted to us.
I renew my thanks to everyone who has participated in today’s debate and, in closing this Cross-Bench debate marking the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank all those who have made such excellent contributions in your Lordships’ House.
Covid-19: Day of Reflection
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the COVID-19 Day of Reflection, what steps they are taking to improve support offered to people bereaved as a result of COVID-19.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I declare my interest as the former chair of the UK Commission on Bereavement and other interests as set out in the register. Though we are small in number, I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. I am aware that reflection on the impact of Covid-19 is no longer a particularly attractive subject, but I feel strongly that the impact of this world-changing event will continue to be felt in the years to come.
In our nation’s living memory, there has not been a moment in which so many of us have experienced bereavement at the same time. Over the course of 2020 and 2021 alone, there were an additional 750,000 deaths over what would ordinarily be expected based on the previous five-year period. By the end of 2022, an estimated 16,700 children and young people in the UK had been bereaved of their parent or a primary caregiver through the deaths associated with the pandemic.
On Sunday 9 March, we marked five years since the start of the pandemic with a day of reflection, on which communities up and down the country remembered our national and personal loss. Many of these wounds are still raw, and the BBC reported that sobbing could be heard at the National Covid Memorial Wall. This afternoon, I will discuss the particular disruption to bereavement during the pandemic and the long-term impacts of restricted bereavement.
The UK Commission on Bereavement was launched in June 2021 and, in October 2022, we produced our report, Bereavement Is Everyone’s Business. The report identified a number of key ways that the pandemic disrupted the grieving process of those bereaved. The first, and perhaps the most obvious, is funerals. Restrictions meant that there were delays, restrictions in numbers, social distancing of attendees and changes to collective end-of-life rituals: wakes, shivahs, collective recitation at home, nine nights, and the viewing and embalming of bodies at home were not possible.
As with many aspects of the pandemic, not everyone’s experience was the same. Many religious and ethnic-minority groups faced more significant barriers to organising funerals. Many people reported that finding funeral directors or bereavement organisations with culturally appropriate funeral services was difficult, and that not being able to participate in usual rituals prevented them grieving properly.
Being able to access a meaningful and affordable funeral was already a challenge before the pandemic, and it remained so afterwards. According to SunLife’s Cost of Dying report 2025, the average cost of a simple funeral was £4,285, which is a rise of 134% since data collection began in 2004. It also found that a third of people said that the cost of living crisis had impacted on how they organised a funeral. Almost half said that paying for a funeral had impacted on their mental health. The funeral support service Down to Earth, which is run by Quaker Social Action, notes that a complex relationship exists between somebody’s grief and their paying for a funeral. If somebody gets into debt doing so, that debt can last for years and has a profound impact on their feelings around their bereavement. I have serious concern that people’s ability to access the funeral that they may like is financially determined.
A second way in which the grieving process was disrupted was in the most common experience of social isolation and loneliness. A significant part of the bereavement process for many is being with family and friends to support one another in grief, but 74% of adults who were bereaved during the pandemic said that they experienced social isolation and loneliness after the death of a loved one.
Thirdly, having contact with the dying person at the end of life was heavily restricted, as so many people died in hospital. Some said to the commission that knowing that their loved one was alone in hospital before they died was the hardest part of the bereavement process at the time. Those were the impacts that we saw in our work in 2022, but further work has been undertaken since then and there is more to learn.
New research published in 2023 examined the longer-term impact of grief among those who had lost loved ones during the pandemic. It found that, two years after their bereavement, 29% of people studied met the criteria for prolonged grief disorder. In particular, the social isolation and loneliness in early bereavement contributed to higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms.
According to another study on prolonged grief disorder during Covid 19, there may be a detrimental, long-term psychological outcome for those bereaved individuals regardless of the cause of death of their loved one. We do not yet fully understand all this, but there is a growing body of evidence detailing the ongoing impacts of the pandemic on bereaved people and the difference that accessible, timely and effective bereavement support can have on their bereavement symptoms. In addition, we should not forget those with long Covid who grieve the loss of who they were before they contracted the virus. It is important that we support the ongoing impacts in this area as well.
Following the recommendations of the bereavement commission, there has been much progress which we can commend. This has been and is being worked on by different Governments, including the previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Markham. We are glad to see the introduction in the Employment Rights Bill of a new right to bereavement leave for people who have lost a close relative. The Government are also introducing the facility for people to register a death online. The Department for Education in England has consulted on proposals to include grief education in the curriculum. On the housing front, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill to prevent the use of ground 7 as a ground for eviction—that is, death of a tenant. This increases housing security for bereaved tenants in the private rented sector. It is very welcome.
However, there is more that can be done to support bereaved people. One of the initial recommendations from the UKCB report was for the Government to establish and deliver a cross-departmental strategy for bereavement. It is clear that bereavement and its surrounding issues are multifaceted and in need of cross-government working. A strategy could be a useful way to give this issue the attention it deserves.
The cross-governmental working group was established in 2021 and is a useful space to discuss bereavement-related issues, but there must be much more of a focus if we really are to support bereaved people. There is also the need for wider investment in bereavement services, especially for black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities and others who have been demonstrated as being poorly served. This is particularly significant given that some communities experienced much heavier loss than others during the pandemic, especially in London. If the findings I mentioned earlier prove true, this may mean that some communities are more adversely affected by symptoms of prolonged grief than others, which, of course, leads to poor mental health.
Finally, it seems that everyone, when asked, agrees that it is healthy and good for us as a society to talk about death. However, we are still poor at doing it. I am not going to talk about the substance of the assisted dying debate here, but it has prompted us as a nation to talk about death and dying, though this is still far from a normalised topic for many of us. That is reflected in our planning for and focus on bereavement, both nationally and perhaps personally.
My own experiences as a cancer nurse and as a priest mean that I have sat with people in the final hours of their lives and with people coming to terms with the loss of a loved one. To grieve is a universal experience and part of what it is to be human. My faith prompts me to believe that our feelings and relationships and the grief that comes when we lose somebody important to us are important. These experiences and emotions must be tended to. It is the role of us all, including the state, to do so.
I am grateful to your Lordships’ House for providing the time for this very important debate. Will the Minister agree to meet me and perhaps some of my key colleagues in the bereavement policy space to discuss this further? I hope that the national day of reflection will not confine our thinking on supporting bereaved people to a future crisis or as a thing of the past but that we will take this opportunity to cast a renewed focus on bereavement, because it remains everyone’s business.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on securing this important topical debate and on her excellent introduction to the very wide range of issues contained in it. I shall divide my time into two areas: first, bereavement support to people since Covid but not only because of Covid; and, secondly, the effect of Covid deaths on their loved ones and on wider society.
On deaths at the beginning of Covid during lockdown, through our social conventions for grieving and marking the life of a special person who has died, saying goodbye to a loved one on a phone or a tablet via a nurse holding it up in hospital was extremely hard. Then there were the limited numbers of people being permitted to be at a funeral. However, I have to say that the one benefit has been Zoom funerals. If you cannot be there in person, it is now normal to be able to join online or even see it afterwards, which is an important part of the grieving process.
On new styles of funerals and their cost, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, I am concerned about the advertisements for extremely cheap funerals that are constantly on TV at the moment. I notice that they are just beginning slightly to qualify what is on offer. People do not understand what is on offer. I wonder whether we need to address the issue about advertising regulation for these funerals, because people often buy in advance and then discover that there is literally no service or gathering whatever and there is no way they can mark the cremation of the person either—there is nothing. For some people, it may be the right thing, but I know that many funeral directors are frustrated, because they can offer cheaper funerals than most people imagine. The average price was cited earlier, but they are certainly trying to make sure that they can provide it.
The other big issue is the British style of mourning, if I may put it that way; to call it restrained would be an understatement. There are cultural differences in our own communities, but also in Europe. The first open-coffin funeral that I went to was for a Latvian relative, and everybody at the funeral went up to kiss the person in the coffin. I was 20, and I think it would be fair to say that I was horrified, because it is just not within our culture. One problem with Covid was that all those different cultural ways of saying farewell were probably even more inappropriate. Covid removed our ability to mourn, and I therefore welcome the growth of “grief cafés”, where people can come together to talk about preparing for grief, recognising that somebody is going to die, but also, after they have died, having a safe space where people can come together in an entirely safe and relaxed environment to chat about death and how it is affecting them.
I also want to mark the role of leaders of religions and belief in supporting families and friends and the individual on that journey to death and afterwards. That was one of the hardest things that we lost during Covid. Being on the end of a phone was extremely difficult—unless the weather was fine and you could have a meeting outside—and it transformed the experience, and not in a good way.
I also want to talk about how grief affects children. That journey of grief and saying farewell is very different for anybody under about 16. We fostered two children of a friend of ours, and the vicar and the chaplain of the hospice guided them, aged 10 and 12, and ourselves in what was going to happen. They encouraged us to take the children to see their mother after she had died, when our natural reaction would have been not to do that. But it was the right thing to do, because they were happy to do it, and it helped them to recognise that she was gone for ever. The support that we got from our faith leaders and our wider church community made an enormous difference.
I turn now to the consequences of Covid. I was health spokesperson for what we might describe as the whole of the first big period of Covid, up until December 2022. The most shocking thing that happened was that certain doctors abused the DNACPR decision-making. Never again must these be taken without something on a patient’s file showing that they have explicitly been part of the decision-making, even if it was not their decision, or, if they do not have capacity, that their attorney or next of kin has also been part of it. It was particularly unfortunate that many very elderly people with dementia and those with learning disabilities were given DNACPRs without their and their families’ knowledge.
For those families who lost people who were on the front line during Covid without proper PPE, can the Minister say whether the Government will follow the recommendations for pandemic preparedness in the first report of the Covid-19 inquiry, to ensure that we can protect front-line staff when—not if—the next pandemic arrives? I add to that the front-line staff who survived severe Covid but have been medically retired and are now fighting the NHS, which says that, because these well-loved staff—who served for many years and are important to our NHS—cannot confirm when they caught Covid, they are therefore not entitled to compensation. This is unjust. I know two people whom that has affected very badly. They were in PPE made of black plastic bags right at the start, and both caught Covid within the first three weeks.
Those who died very early on, pre-vaccination, were overrepresented by, as I am sure you will remember, those described as “clinically vulnerable”—I am one of that number and I survived Covid. They are still overrepresented in deaths today, even though the number of Covid deaths is much lower. This winter, we have seen a large number of deaths from flu and pneumonia. Part of the problem is that Ministers, past and present, tell us that Covid is over, but it is not. The consequence of that is sometimes long Covid, but it also affects decisions about whether Covid is airborne or not.
UKHSA and NHS England tell us that Covid is not airborne transmitted and that the main transmission is usually through contact with droplets. The WHO disagrees with this and changed its definition two years ago. Why? Because the WHO realised that the size of the virus was small enough to mean that it is airborne. That is important because that requires masks and ventilation for those who may be at risk. The WHO says that we should consider using masks if at risk. I would love us to get to the stage of Japan and China, where if you have a bad cold and you are going on the underground, you put a mask on. That has not been in our culture, but it would help those who remain at home because they are so clinically vulnerable that they do not feel safe going out.
That would also reduce transmission of various viruses in schools. My regular hospital is Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, which during lockdown devised a very cheap but effective ventilator that is now available on every ward. The staff also mask up very early on. However, in schools there is a large amount of transmission, not of Covid but of other viruses, because there is no ventilation in classrooms except that ordained by the head teacher.
That frustration is born out of the death of a very dear friend of mine who survived a major lung transplant at Papworth. When he went home, his care worker did not wear a mask and she gave him Covid. He died, after the long period he had spent in hospital and after all the NHS work to try to take care of him. The equation does not seem right there.
Can the Minister say, therefore, whether the Government will make sure that all the recommendations that come out of the Covid inquiry—not only those in the first report, which we have seen—mean that we keep our people safer, not only from Covid, and encourage our front-line staff, including those in the NHS, that where they work they will be able to work safely? Above all, given the tone and nature of this debate, will we be able to support people as they face death and the loss of loved ones in the future?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for securing this debate on this important matter. I thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their moving remarks about the lessons they feel we ought to learn.
Listening to the moving opening remarks from the right reverend Prelate, I was reminded that we all have experience of losing people during Covid and of grief, or perhaps delayed grief. I will share my own experience, if I may, not for therapy but for reflection. On 20 September 2020, I lost my father-in-law and then, four hours later, I lost my father; my children lost both their grandfathers on the same night. Both of them lived abroad, and so we were not able to grieve in the usual way. We had to watch the funerals, one day after the other, on a WhatsApp video. It was not until July 2022 that I was able to visit my father’s grave in America and break down and cry, and to scatter the ashes of my father-in-law in another country. You realise when you break down and cry the feelings that you had been holding back all these years, and how that has been debilitating in some ways. I had not realised that until that time.
Given that, I want to take the opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy to all those who suffered personally or lost loved ones during the pandemic. I pay tribute to all the wonderful health and care workers who looked after us and those suffering from Covid-19. We should acknowledge the work of public and private sector workers who carried on working to deliver essential services—some of which are not always considered essential services, whether it be driving buses or home delivery. While others were able to isolate quite safely in their own homes, they put themselves at risk.
Noble Lords will be aware that, when in Government, we announced the NHS and social care coronavirus life assurance scheme to protect the families of front-line NHS and social care workers who sadly died while providing essential work. Initially, it was a payment of £60,000 to the families in England, with funding for similar schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we felt it was important to increase that level of support to families facing bereavement. Sadly, uptake was not as high as it could have been, and we had to extend the scheme to September 2023 to ensure that more families could benefit.
While money can help in many cases, other types of support are, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness discussed, important for bereaved people. In 2021, research indicated that, for every Covid-19 death, there were up to nine people affected by bereavement, highlighting the importance of bereavement care. There are those who are still experiencing ongoing bereavement. As I say, it took me two years, and there are others who still have not found closure in their own lives on these issues. It is really important that they continue to receive the necessary support and care.
The world-renowned Mayo Clinic has defined “ongoing bereavement” as when
“feelings of loss are debilitating and don’t improve even after time passes”.
We are often told that time heals all wounds; in many cases, those wounds still have not healed for people. Many of us have lost loved ones or friends, but those with ongoing bereavement find it incredibly difficult and challenging to get on with their daily lives and to do even the simplest things.
Noble Lords may be aware that the very first recommendation of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration was the introduction of a UK-wide day of reflection, to be held on the first Sunday of March, to commemorate the anniversary of the first lockdown. The report says—I think it is worth repeating—that this is to
“remember and commemorate those who lost their lives since the pandemic began … reflect on the sacrifices made by many, and on the impact of the pandemic on us all … pay tribute to the work of health and social care staff, frontline workers and researchers … appreciate those who volunteered and showed acts of kindness during this unprecedented time”.
I know that in all our faiths there are always references to small acts of kindness, and we saw some amazing acts of kindness throughout, even though it was a horrible time and a time of great grief and uncertainty for many people. We welcome the Government’s decision to continue the commitment of the last Government to commemorate this anniversary. It is important to remember all those who were lost, and the Government should be credited with continuing to recognise this.
One topic I would like to ask the Minister about is bereavement education, which was raised by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. As others have said, in many cultures, death may be celebrated or simply accepted as part of the circle of life, with young children attending funerals or ceremonies to understand the inevitability of death. In our culture, we are not so open about these issues. We often do not deal with death until a friend or loved one passes away, especially when it is unexpected.
I sometimes think about the New Orleans funerals: they start off in a very sombre mood, with marching, but then suddenly the mood changes to one of a celebration of a life. I have often said to my wife—I do not envy her, if she survives me—that I want a combination of a Muslim funeral and a New Orleans funeral. I am not sure how that would go down, or whether the imam would appreciate the switch-over. We should celebrate life, and make sure that we remember to discuss death earlier in our lives.
I was a bit worried about making people laugh, because, until now, it felt as though we were at a funeral, but I am very pleased that we can have a laugh. Sometimes people laugh when they celebrate a life; they tell stories and have fond memories of the person who has passed away. That is a wonderful way of making sure that we celebrate people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, faith leaders—indeed, the right reverend Prelate is one herself—are very good at helping families to face grief and bereavement.
What more can be done? On the review of the relationship, sex and health education—RSHE—statutory guidance, can the Minister update the House on whether some thought is being given to include specific content on grief and bereavement education? If not, can she share any current thinking on the options being considered? Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness discussed the importance of this. Sometimes, it is not very easy to do that in a top-down, government-led way, so how do we create a space to ensure that we talk about these issues? I know it is not an easy subject to tackle, and it needs to be treated with the utmost sensitivity. Anything that the Minister can share with us today, or in writing later, would be gratefully received.
Finally, given the importance of the issues that we have discussed in this debate, can the Minister give the House a firm date for when a response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration’s final report will be published?
The subjects we are discussing are part of an understandably complex and sensitive area. We were all touched by Covid, either directly or indirectly. We all lost loved ones or friends, or we heard stories from those who did, and some of us suffered from delayed or extended bereavements. The best thing we can take from the debate is this: let us not forget those who passed away; let us not forget those who are still suffering from the effects of long Covid; and let us not forget those who are still experiencing bereavement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this important and touching debate, which was somewhat inevitable, considering the subject. I acknowledge her ongoing dedication. Since chairing the UK Commission on Bereavement and the publication of the report, the right reverend Prelate and the commission have continued to champion this important issue. I am very happy to agree to the meeting that she requested.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Front Benches, not only for sharing their personal experiences and reflections, which is what this subject is about, but for raising the points that they did. I know that they, like me and the right reverend Prelate, want to improve support for those who are bereaved.
The right reverend Prelate made the very good point that there is bereavement through the loss of a loved one, but there is also bereavement through the loss of what might have been. One such example of that, writ large, is those who have long Covid—and I am sure that we can all think of others. It is always right to think about loss in those terms. As has been said, we all have and will experience grief through the course of our lives. It is absolutely vital that bereaved families and friends have access to the support that they need, and when they need it. That can come from a variety of sources, as noble Lords have described, and I will return to that later.
I assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are looking for the best ways to support those in grief, including those bereaved as a result of Covid-19. On behalf of the Government, I also associate myself with the thanks to those who provided services with full public spirit, no matter what sector they were from. Whether private, public, charitable or voluntary, they were public spirited to the core and they kept us going. I am deeply grateful. I also reiterate the condolences to all those who were bereaved and all those who suffered loss of some kind and have been affected by the pandemic.
Noble Lords have referred to the day of reflection. This year marked the fifth such event since the outbreak of the pandemic. As we have heard, it is a significant milestone and an opportunity to form one’s thoughts, memories and actions as we remember all those who were affected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, chaired the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration to consider appropriate ways to remember those who have died and how we should mark such a sombre time in our history. Of course, it is not history for those who are bereaved; it continues to be with them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the commission for their extensive work in speaking with those who are most impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, including representatives from bereaved family organisations. I am grateful to those organisations for their work.
The commission’s first recommendation of 10 is that:
“A UK-wide day of reflection should be established and held annually on the first Sunday of March”.
On 9 March this year there were more than 200 events in communities across the country, and we saw how important this day was to so many. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about a day of reflection in the future. We see how much this day matters to people and how many communities took part, and I thank all those local organisations and communities for contributing to that. We very much hope that will create a foundation for future years.
The day of reflection allowed people to remember the many losses in a way that was appropriate and meaningful for them. It struck me to be very much in contrast to our experiences during the pandemic, which for that period of time were ones of isolation, separation and the loss of the lives we used to lead. There was close working with charities, faith groups and other voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. That was very much the mark of the day of reflection, and I appreciate the role of those organisations, not just in the day of reflection but in supporting those who experience grief. I am sure we all pay tribute to them and their work.
In Sheffield the city council continues to work in partnership with Compassionate Sheffield, which aims to improve people’s experiences of life, loss and death. Access to support is certainly important; it has been referred to throughout this debate. To give just one example, of which noble Lords will be aware, the Government are prioritising funding to expand NHS talking therapies. That is something to which people can self-refer, or they can consult their GP in order to get to that point, and it is a tremendous service for people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rightly referred to the issue of children and young people’s mental health. Again, I mention the expansion of mental health support teams in schools, putting in place Young Futures hubs, which will provide access to mental health support, and the recruitment of 8,500 new mental health workers to treat children and adults. In all these ways, we hope to support children and young people who are bereaved.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised about PPE, we are responding to each of the reports from the inquiries, and that will be dealt with. I totally agree about keeping people safer and the matter of Zoom. That has provided comfort in a way we could not possibly have anticipated. I noted her comments about ads for very cheap funerals, and I will raise them with the appropriate ministerial colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about culture. Indeed, different religions and communities have different cultures. As he will know, in the Jewish tradition, it is tradition to sit shiva for around a week, where support can be freely given by visiting the home of the bereaved. As my noble friend Lady Anderson reminded me, it is hard to get a group of people together and not feel some form of celebration while giving that support. All these models are ones that we can look to.
On the points made about long Covid—which is a very real issue and will not be going away—we have invested £314 million to expand treatment and rehabilitation services and established 100 long Covid services for adults and 13 specialist paediatric hubs for children and young people. They assess people with long Covid and direct them into ways of care, to provide the right support, treatment and rehabilitation. We have also invested £50 million in 22 research projects for long Covid. In all this, I hope people can be reassured that we continue to support people.
On the question about adding bereavement to the national curriculum, we are reviewing the RSHE curriculum and will look carefully at responses to the consultation on the draft revised RSHE statutory guidance, which ended in July. I will take a particular interest, with my ministerial colleagues, about where that sits.
My department brings together government colleagues to discuss bereavement as part of a government working group on bereavement. It is a forum to share best practice. Today’s debate will feed into that very well. We take the reports from the UK Commission on Bereavement very seriously and continue to engage with them.
On the right reverend Prelate’s point about end of life, dying well is a fundamental right in regard to human dignity and compassion. We have a responsibility to ensure the best possible care. That includes supporting families and carers, including young people, who are involved in that.
NHS England has developed guidance to support ICBs with their duty to commission palliative care services within integrated care systems. That guidance requires commissioners to ensure that significant access to bereavement services be available for families and carers, including children and young people.
I turn to ongoing research. The pandemic made clear the need for bereavement services to offer both practical and emotional support, as noble Lords have referred to. Noble Lords will not be surprised that not everybody knows about these services. Many services are particularly not reaching those from ethnically diverse communities. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government have commissioned a study investigating how to improve bereavement services for those from ethnically diverse groups. That includes those from black African, black Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Somali, Chinese and Roma backgrounds. I certainly look forward to the study’s findings, which will be published later this year.
Finally, we need to take an evidence-based approach to health, and NICE balances best care with value for money across the NHS. Decisions on whether NICE will create new or update existing guidance are overseen by a prioritisation board chaired by NICE’s chief medical officer, and the prioritisation board is considering bereavement as a potential topic for guidance development.
In reiterating my sympathies to all those who were bereaved and all those who continue to be affected directly or indirectly by the Covid-19 pandemic, I feel that it is incumbent on us to look to make further progress on bereavement support services. I look forward to continued cross-government working—and, I am sure, cross-party working—to achieve this.
Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew
That this House takes note of the Crown Court criminal case backlog, and the impact of delays on reliability of evidence, experience of victims and fairness of proceedings for defendants.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to introduce this debate on the troubling issue of the backlog in the Crown Courts. I am grateful to those who have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate, many with extensive knowledge of the subject. I am especially looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. Her experience, skill and reputation concerning issues affecting children, including those who have in some way come into contact with the criminal justice system, go before her. I know that she will have very important contributions to make in your Lordships’ House, today and in the future.
In recent days the Government have made a welcome announcement, which was repeated in your Lordships’ House. They indicated that their attention is focused on the subject of this debate and that they intend to take appropriate steps to reduce delays in the Crown Court—and without diluting justice.
They have appointed the distinguished retired judge Sir Brian Leveson to prepare recommendations on this difficult subject. Like Sir Brian, I was there when the Crown Court started in 1971, often appearing in cases alongside him. So was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We may have been in the very same courtroom on the first day of the Crown Court. He and I, with the late Lord Hooson, were in a set of provincial chambers that produced as many Peers as Blackpool. Sir Brian’s many years in the Court of Appeal, as well as his practical experience in the Crown Court in the past, will have given him a view, as it were, from the bridge of the criminal justice system. I know that he will be paying close attention to the advice and help offered to him by those ratings who have spent the recent post-Covid years on the deck in the Crown Court, watching the delays accumulate.
I have some statistics. In September 2024 there were 73,105 open criminal cases, nearly double the figure for 2019. Seriously delayed cases included 21% for violence and 18% for sexual offences. Public funding for justice declined by 22.4% in real per person terms between 2010 and 2023. This is an unacceptable situation.
As it happens, last Friday I attended the valediction of a judge at the Maidstone Crown Court. His honour, Judge Philip Statman, is not a famous judge, but he has been an exceptionally good one, admired over 20 years in two Crown Courts. Those who were there took the trouble of attending because we knew that he was an outstanding member of the judiciary who should be listened to.
In a courtroom with standing room only, we congregated to say a reluctant farewell to someone who has been the very model of a modern circuit judge. He has tried everything—for example, murders—but, like all circuit judges, he has tried cases small as well as great. He has dealt with many of the short hearings that unreasonably and unnecessarily interrupt almost every judge’s working day and increase the backlog, but more of that later. He told us of how in his last three weeks as a circuit judge in what he described jocularly as “the bits and pieces court”, he dealt with 10 cases each day, 150 in his last three weeks—one judge, 150 cases. He commented that too much judge time is spent filling the roles of case progression officers and that:
“Every hour spent on administration is an hour away from judge craft, from getting it right for all those coming before the court to seek justice”.
Judge Statman was not grumbling, but he was giving a gentle plea for change to enable judges to judge in accordance with their oaths to do right to all manner of people. He described the effect of delay on victims as he had seen it, on survivors, on defendants and on those who conduct cases. As he said, we need more judges, more and competent criminal advocates and more sitting days. Otherwise, how does one explain inordinate delay to grieving families in cases of murder, death by dangerous driving or sexual abuse?
I adopt for this debate his reference to the case of R v ZA of 2023 in the Court of Appeal. Two experienced appellate judges commented:
“All too often judges’ lists allow too little time to prepare for a sentencing hearing, for the hearing itself and then for the judge to take time to reflect and to weigh up all relevant, often conflicting, considerations in arriving at the appropriate sentence”.
Today I received through an email a message from a judge who will remain anonymous, who described how they had done 30 hours of unpaid preparation for a case they were about to see in the Crown Court. In ZA, the Court of Appeal said:
“Court listing should ensure that there is sufficient time for the judge, even if that judge heard the trial and knows the case well, to read and consider all reports and to prepare sentencing remarks”
in age and intelligence-appropriate language. Judges must have time to think—wise and correct words.
Again, I reflect the views expressed by Judge Statman when I say, without any risk of serious contradiction, something about juries. The jury trial is the jewel in the crown of the Crown Court. As Statman reminded us:
“Rights took centuries to earn but they can be brushed away at a stroke”.
That we should remove the right of jury trial from some triable either-way cases to save time and cost is easily said but, in my view, neither proved nor justified. There is no need to replace jury trial for smaller cases. In any event, what is a small case? A small case to some is a huge case to others. A small case for some means the end of their working life, their reputation, their marriage or their family. If a police officer in a case of assault that is triable either way is accused of behaviour that would end his career, should that attract a lesser tribunal than asking for a trial by his peers? If a teacher, a doctor or one of us is accused of a relatively minor offence of dishonesty, conviction will likely end our professional lives and destroy our reputations. Should we deny such people trial by their peers? Having been there in the courtroom conducting such cases for the defence and the prosecution on numerous occasions in over half a century of my legal career, I challenge in principle the removal of jury trial, especially because it is completely unnecessary.
What are the time savings that it is asserted would take place if jury trial was removed from some potentially significant cases? If a judge were sitting either alone or with magistrates, unlike a jury’s verdict the judgment would have to be reasoned. We could not simply have “guilty” or “not guilty” without any explanation. That reasoning would be very similar to the legal directions and summary of the evidence given by the judge in jury trials and would take just as much time. There might be a very small net saving in court time dealing with a jury after it is retired, but, generally, that represents only a tiny slice of time taken up in court.
Indeed, it is very likely that decisions from such intermediate courts—as I think they are called—would give rise to a significant increase in appeals and thus more use of court time. It would be difficult fairly to exclude appeals on questions of fact which are not appealable from jury verdicts, save in the event of important new evidence arising after the jury verdict. I know that subsequent speakers will address alternative ways to use judges more effectively.
In addition, time can be saved by the use of amended Crown Court rules. Prosecution and defence advocates should be required to provide short skeleton arguments well ahead of the hearing date for all cases, including guilty-plea cases not requiring a jury. The prosecution should be required to indicate in advance any sentencing guidelines that are relevant. The defence should be required to indicate the nub of their mitigation submissions, including an indication of what they submit should be an appropriate sentence in the case. Advocates should be paid for the work they do on such intermediate documents. Currently, almost the entire fee payment in a criminal case is loaded into the final trial or plea hearing. I welcome the presence in this debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who has done valuable work in relation to legal aid, and look forward to hearing what he says about payment of advocates.
Advocates should be required to adhere tightly to the time-saving rules and remunerated for that currently unpaid work they do on pre-hearing documentation. I have no doubt that there would be a favourable cost-benefit evaluation of such work. I am sure from my experience that that sort of exchange of information would mean that many cases would be over in minutes with such a system. There should be a target of no more than two hearings in every ordinary case—you would not believe how many hearings there are sometimes in small cases in the Crown Court.
In an excellent House of Lords Library briefing, produced on 13 March this year, one of the three causes of the current situation was described as “more ineffective trials”, saying that 27% of trials do not go ahead on the day scheduled—almost a doubling since 2017. Key reasons included witness and defendant unavailability and the late arrival or non-arrival of prisoner transport. This shocking figure calls for severe contractual financial penalties for such failures.
Another cause of the backlog is the decline in the number of criminal law barristers available for publicly paid criminal work. Declaring my interest as a member of a chambers conducting predominantly criminal work, I suggest that remunerating criminal advocates proportionately to comparable activities elsewhere in their profession would produce sharper, quicker, better prepared cases.
Sitting days need to be increased, which, in my view, would show a cost-benefit gain. Part of the cost-benefit analyses should factor in the paraphernalia of problems for everyone involved, including witnesses and victims facing worsening mental health until the case is determined, and 20% of defendants being retained in custody but acquitted later, with considerable financial loss.
We have to recognise that sometimes the work can be done better. Doing cases a little faster can improve the quality of a trial, and that should be subject to judicial directions, particularly where there is interminable documentary evidence that could be summarised more effectively and which juries struggle with.
A major area for further possible change is in relation to very complex fraud cases—those expected to last more than 20 days. I have done a number that have lasted months and months, far more than 20 days. In cases where it can be agreed between prosecution and defence that a non-jury trial would be satisfactory, subject to specific provisions that would be acceptable, we could speed up the courts. Such provisions might include a maximum sentence of, say, seven years’ imprisonment; a judge sitting with two experts, along the lines of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, when I became a chair of that tribunal; and a full written judgment on Competition Appeal Tribunal lines. These courts could be separated from the general Crown Court.
In addition, there should be more and earlier diversion orders in suitable cases, to ensure that young defendants especially can be diverted from crime; more efficient listing schemes, such as the trial blitz at Manchester Crown Court; and increasing the credit for guilty pleas where the case has not yet reached trial.
Unfortunately, we have a crisis in the Crown Court, but we should not waste that crisis. I suggest that careful, moderate modernisation of the Crown Court system, including more efficient management at every level, from the courtroom to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, can solve current problems without damaging the fundamentals of our trusted justice standards and principles.
Baroness Longfield (Lab) (Maiden)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. It is a privilege to be part of this debate today, and an honour of my life to be giving my maiden speech in this great House.
I start with thanks to all my new colleagues on these Benches and to noble Lords from across the House for their warm welcome. I thank my sponsors, my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Andrews, for their huge support and encouragement, not just lately but over the years. I thank the House staff for being so helpful and kind as I find my way around this place, with its corridors and procedures. They have been tolerant and courteous, and have always pointed me in the right direction.
I chose this debate today because it relates to so many of the issues that I have spent 40 years of my working life focusing on: families and children growing up in poverty, in poor housing, with poor mental health, living with domestic abuse and addiction—those children most likely to fall through the gaps.
I will come back to that, but I wanted first to give noble Lords an idea of my own journey to this place. I grew up in Otley, a small town in West Yorkshire. My father’s family worked as engineers, and he designed engines for aviation. My mother was a carer for her parents, who had lost their sight early on in life. We all lived in the same house, so I knew first hand the challenges that life could bring, and how vital support was. Their values of hard work, enterprise, caring for your community and a strong dose of that Yorkshire “get on with it” spirit, alongside a good deal of encouragement from some great teachers, were what I took with me when I left home to be the first in my family to go to university, and afterwards, as I threw myself into working with children and families in communities in east and west London.
New to the capital in the 1980s, I found the inequalities of childhood experiences stark. The families that I worked with in the East End had no expectations that the explosion of creativity, enterprise and wealth happening along the river in Canary Wharf would change their lives at all. However, they showed me how things might be different: how, with the right support at the right time, families can overcome challenges and share in the opportunities available in this great country.
I have spent the last four decades working to enhance those opportunities for all children. I led a national children’s charity and worked with the noble Baronesses, Lady Harman and Lady Hodge, on the delivery of the Sure Start programme in the No. 10 strategy unit. I campaigned for many years for better childcare at a time when many saw the issue as quite niche.
As Children’s Commissioner for England, I spent six years championing the rights and interests of children with those in power who make decisions about children’s lives. I am particularly proud of the pioneering work that my office did in highlighting the barriers that hold back children and their life chances.
My last year as Children’s Commissioner coincided with the Covid pandemic. I saw then how children can too often slip from view and be an afterthought. We should of course celebrate that most children and families in our country are doing well, but a sizeable group are not, and we need to be ambitious for them too. We have lost so many of the early intervention programmes—Sure Start, youth clubs, family support projects—and now pour billions into acute late intervention services. These are the £1 million kids who come into care too late and cost £250,000 a year and more to care for. We should also pay attention to the corrosive impact of issues of misogyny and violence online, so powerfully portrayed on our screens at the moment in the drama “Adolescence”. If your Lordships have not seen it, please tune in.
That brings me to this debate today and young people in the criminal justice system. When I have asked children in prison how they ended up there, almost every one can pinpoint when things got worse and what could have been done differently. It is almost like a blueprint: the first exclusion at school, mum losing her job, the professional interventions that came too late. Some four in 10 children in custody now are on remand and most will not receive an immediate custodial sentence once they get to court. That is why I have argued that we should do everything we can to keep most children out of custody during remand. We are seeing promising results from a Ministry of Justice pilot that keeps children on remand in the community in Manchester. It would be great to see more of those.
It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I will continue to work on causes such as this in the House. I believe in the potential of public services to stand alongside people to bring about that positive change. I also believe—as my mother used to say to me quite often—that where there is a will, there is a way. I know everyone in this House wants children in our country to flourish, but experience has taught me that it will not happen on its own for a lot of children. They need help to prevent problems becoming barriers. I will be doing all I can to ensure that we in this House do all we can to provide the kind of help and support that can change those lives.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow the maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Longfield. She is a legend. She has spent decades tirelessly campaigning to improve the experience of children. In her powerful and moving speech she demonstrated her continued determination to fight for the rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Her persuasive expertise will make her a valued Member of your Lordships’ House and I very much look forward to working with her in the future.
Other noble Lords have and will express concern at the effects of the backlog on victims and defendants. What is less well known is that there is a looming recruitment and retention crisis in the judiciary because, as your Lordships have heard, the caseload of Crown Court judges is unsustainable. The recent Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted by Professor Cheryl Thomas, found very high levels of stress and disillusionment in judges, with 35% of them planning to take early retirement. When you add this to those who will retire by virtue of age, 42% of Crown Court judges will be gone by 2029. Of the part-time judges, from whom new judges are appointed, only 22% are planning to apply for a full-time role.
There are things that can be done, and some of them do not need to cost much money. It just requires the system to think about things differently. It has been a tenet of faith over many years that what is needed is judicial case management. Untold hours have been spent by senior judges and others devising Criminal Procedure Rules which set out timetables. But I hate to have to break it to them that they have been wasting much of their time. Most of the parties to a criminal trial have barely heard of the rules, far less read them. The reason: in the Crown Court there are no sticks and precious few carrots. You cannot make the parties comply and there is no incentive for them to do so, because they are paid the same whether they do or do not.
The result is a large number of pointless hearings in court, achieving little other than both increased blood pressure and an increased backlog. I do not have to imagine these problems because, until just before Christmas, I was one of those judges. I used to think constantly, “I’ve got 35 years’ experience as a criminal barrister, 12 of which were as a KC. I never thought that I would sit in hearing after hearing, day after day, saying to counsel, ‘So, you’ve done none of the things you were ordered to do. Okay, let’s set a new timetable, which you and I both know you are not going to comply with either’”.
Crown Court judges are a precious resource. Many of them came to it because they regard it as public service. Yet they cannot get on with the things they ought to be doing, because they are—to be frank—spending a large proportion of their working lives messing around, setting timetables.
I too have reservations about an intermediate court with no jury. My concerns include the impact on diversity and thus on public confidence. Most juries are economically and socially diverse, the judiciary less so. So, my proposal is not an intermediate court but an intermediate judge: the criminal master, who could, for example, be a district judge interested in promotion to the Crown Court. The master could hear all the small routine applications, leaving the judges free to do what they ought to be doing: presiding over jury trials and passing sentence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an outstanding maiden speech and welcome her again to this House. Indeed, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for leading this debate. In response to his invitation, I briefly say that in my view we have two fundamental problems with the court system. First, there are not enough criminal lawyers to go around—whether it is CPS, prosecution or defence. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, also said, there are many inefficiencies in the court system. If we can tackle those, we may not need radical reform.
I will take four points very briefly. Despite the recent increase in sitting days, I understand that in 2025, Snaresbrook Crown Court will still be unable to use more than 15 out of 20 courts: in other words, 25% below capacity. Isleworth Crown Court reportedly closed five courts last month, and, according to today’s Times, last Friday, only eight out of 20 courts at the Old Bailey were working. At present, the court backlog is an emergency. There is no justification in such an emergency for allowing outdated accounting rules to restrict court sittings.
On the question of costs, the court system has high fixed costs—buildings, permanent judges, staff, and so forth. But the marginal costs are relatively low: a part-time recorder’s fee is £800 a day. So, 10 recorders, sitting remotely, could do at least 50 extra court cases or directions hearings a day for less than £10,000. It is basic economics that, with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, the correct economic response is to maximise throughput—to reduce unit costs. But the present restrictions lead absurdly to the opposite result: higher unit costs per court disposal. That is not an efficient system.
More fundamentally, under the Courts Act 2003 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to ensure an “efficient and effective system” of courts and tribunals. Under Section 17 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor takes a formal oath,
“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.
That is an absolute obligation, not subject to Treasury whim or political change in the wind. So, would the Minister accept that, by virtue of those statutes, resources must be ring-fenced from spending cuts and funded properly?
Lastly, given the astonishing figure from the NAO that 27% of court trials are ineffective, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does the Minister agree that although listing is traditionally regarded as “a judicial function”, the general efficiency of listing practices, as distinct from decisions on individual cases, is a legitimate subject of public debate and scrutiny by Parliament?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to her place and congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech; we look forward to hearing more from her.
The Lady Chief Justice, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Carr, told the Constitution Committee on 26 February that dealing with the backlog felt like
“running up a down escalator”.
She said:
“We cannot, even sitting to maximum capacity at the moment, diminish the backlogs”.
Cases are now being listed as far forward as 2028. Two inquiries are under way. The very principle of access to justice is threatened, with all the effects that this has on victims and witnesses and on lawyers and judges.
Giving evidence, as I have on a number of occasions, is not easy. The very fact that your account is to be challenged both for truth and accuracy is very daunting. The further you are from the events you are attempting to describe, the greater the pressure and the greater the possibility of self-doubt—a weakness any competent cross-examiner will exploit.
As for lawyers, according to the National Audit Office’s report on 4 March, 1,441 trials were cancelled on the hearing day in 2023, compared with 71 in 2019, because no legal professionals were available. The average time taken for a case in the Crown Court has increased in four years from 480 days to 695 days. I will say something about short listing. For the last trial I was involved in, I went five times to the Crown Court for nothing because my junior had something paid to do. I am sure you can feel the hurt as I speak.
The remuneration at the criminal Bar is so pitiful that it reminds me of the days of the dock trial. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is to be congratulated on securing this very important debate, is too young to remember the line of ageing barristers whose careers had been wrecked by the war and who sat in the Birkenhead quarter sessions in their yellowing wigs, hoping to be picked by a defendant for the princely sum of two guineas—with five shillings, of course, for the clerk. We are back to those days.
As for judges, the Judicial Attitude Survey, published in February, found that more than three-quarters of serving judges suffer from work-related stress symptoms, with higher figures for females and minority judges. Some 30% said they are suffering from burnout. In addition, the survey showed that court buildings and equipment are in a mess and that such buildings are not fit places to work in.
This is not the time for wringing hands. I do not apply my family motto, ar bwy mae’r bai—who can we blame? It is a time for action. What are the Government going to do?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is humbling to speak in this debate in the company of those better qualified than me to make comment, but I rise to speak particularly about the impact on victims. From London, I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to her place.
It continues to be a great shame that criminal justice is one of those Cinderella public services. We often talk or feel that spending money on things such as schools and healthcare is good, and of course it is. However, talking about spending money on prisons, probation and the courts is much less frequently affirmed, despite the fact that not spending in the courts has a terrible implication for victims. I wonder whether improving public understanding of the importance of a well-functioning court system for victims and defendants may be key to winning wider support and gaining resources that are so desperately needed. What consideration have the Government given to improving public understanding in this way?
As has already been mentioned, the new report by the Victims’ Commissioner lays bare the extent of the impact. It includes a significant toll on victims’ mental and physical health, with the risk that they may, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, give up on seeking justice altogether—a second injustice compounding the first. The Public Accounts Committee report published last week details particular distress experienced by victims of rape, serious sexual offences and violent crimes. Many found the court delays so traumatic that they withdrew from the process. In adult rape cases, 59% of victims were dropping out pre-charge in June 2024.
Perhaps the most distressing part, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is the increasing number of ineffective trials—scheduled trials that do not go ahead on the day. As we have heard, according to the report published by the National Audit Office last month, the proportion of ineffective trials has increased from 16% in 2019 to 27% in 2023, with some of the reasons mentioned including failed or delayed transport. I wonder whether money is being saved in one part of the system at the cost of another. What steps are the Government taking to look at spending holistically across the system so that increased investment can be shown to pay for itself in the longer term?
Finally, I welcome the Government’s wider focus on reforming criminal justice and the call for creative thinking. This is seen especially through the sentencing review, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester submitted a paper proposing a new approach to sentencing reform. I hope we will continue to think creatively, but always with victims and defendants in mind, to reduce the Crown Court blockage.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her instructive maiden speech.
The outstanding case load in the Crown Court has reached a level that is irretrievable without a radical change to the way in which many Crown Court trials are conducted. I will repeat just a few figures. In January 2019, the outstanding case load was 33,000; it rose to 40,000 as Covid lockdown engulfed us in 2020, and by the end of September 2024, it was over 73,000. The December figure will soon be published by the Ministry of Justice, and there is no doubt that it will be significantly higher. The backlog continues to grow because the volume of cases coming into the system has greatly increased, and there is no sign of that volume diminishing. The proportion of cases taking more than a year to conclude in the Crown Court has roughly doubled over the same period.
All those involved in the system are working hard to iron out problems that result in too many hearings, ineffective trials or late guilty pleas—and much else that has been referred to. I am afraid that those changes and improvements will not solve the problem, but they would help. Similarly, extra sitting days would not solve the problem but would help.
There is an obvious solution, and in this I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who must be congratulated on securing this debate. A substantial proportion of cases that can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court, but which currently go to the Crown Court, should be decided in that court by the same composition that deals with appeals from the magistrates’ court—a judge and two magistrates. Obvious cases for such trials would be all offences that carry a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. It is the accident of the maximum sentence that enables a defendant to elect for jury trial.
Many other cases—including drugs offences, criminal damage, regulatory offences and others where, on conviction, the sentence would inevitably be non-custodial or a short term of imprisonment—might also be considered for such trials. Such trials would take hours rather than a couple of days, because that is how long they take in the magistrates’ court. Perhaps more importantly, many of the tactical not guilty pleas that are entered in the Crown Court at the moment would evaporate.
The limit on these speeches today, which I notice I have reached, makes it impossible to develop the arguments or deal with the reasoned arguments in opposition. But, having pondered this question for some time, I note that this solution, first mooted 25 years ago by Sir Robin Auld, stands a good chance of reversing what is otherwise an inexorable decline.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Longfield on her excellent maiden speech. She has been such a force for good in public life, speaking up for young people, and I know she will make a fantastic contribution. She is also my roommate; I do not know whether that is a blessing or a curse for her, but it is certainly very lucky from my point of view.
We are all rightly concerned about the huge backlogs in the court system. As we heard, there are reports of cases being heard in 2028. It is profoundly shocking, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied. How can we look victims of crime in the eye and say that we do care when their trial could take years and they have to live in limbo waiting for their day in court—particularly female victims of sexual violence? These delays cause anger, hurt and frustration to all parties, and we have heard that they can also make people drop their cases.
The system that this new Government have inherited is broken. That is why it is good that some radical thinking is going on, and I welcome the fact that the Government have asked Brian Leveson to conduct this review. I know that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will disagree, but I think it is time to examine whether we can move away from trial by jury in some but not all cases. I ask this question: how can it be right that a class C drugs offence sits in the Crown Court while a vulnerable rape victim has to wait five years from report to court?
I also hope that we can use magistrates’ courts more. They do excellent work and, having spoken with many in the profession, I know that they would be keen to step up. Can the Minister tell us whether there are plans to recruit more magistrates, as we may need more of them if we are to change the system? Can he also update us on plans to improve court infrastructure, including crumbling buildings and the national computer system, which often goes down and causes delays?
We all have a shared interest in sorting this out. Our country is built on the rule of law, and we believe in having a strong legal system. But, if we do not find a way to clear these backlogs in a reasonable time-space, there is a real danger that people will not only lose trust in our system but feel that we now live in a society that is essentially lawless, and that crimes go unpunished for years and years, and then maybe just wither away. That is something that none of us wants.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her excellent speech. I declare an interest as a practising barrister and a former recorder of the Crown Court. There is no doubt about the disastrous consequences of delays. They are unfair to defendants and to witnesses, particularly complainants, and they bring the whole justice system into disrepute.
The Constitution Committee considered the effect of Covid on court backlogs when I was a member of it. It was right to do so; it is a constitutional issue. I was anxious to explore the possibility of reducing jury trials and replacing them with a mode of trial by judge only, or by a judge and two magistrates. My colleagues were a little uneasy about this suggestion, although I spoke about it in your Lordships’ House. I even asked a question addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I suggested that a defendant at least should have the right to choose to be tried by a judge rather than a jury—a pretty modest proposal, but I was met with a very firm response in the negative.
It is time to think quite seriously about jury trial. Of course we have a strong romantic attachment to it. We know very little about why juries come to their decisions. Anecdotes about the process are not always reassuring. We infantilise juries by only allowing the admission of evidence that we think they can handle, rather than allowing them to decide what is important. We do not require any reasons to be given for their decisions, which makes the appeal process difficult.
It is worth standing back and considering why it is desirable that more than 90% of all offences are tried by those with expertise—either district judges or magistrates who are trained and have a legal adviser—but, for the 5% or so of the most serious offences, we think it wise to allow them to be tried by a random selection of citizens who will, no doubt, do their best. It should, perhaps, be borne in mind that we used to have jury trials for personal injury and libel cases. Their absence is not missed. Nor are juries a universal feature of the criminal justice system. Of course, I pay regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about this. I congratulate him on bringing forward this debate.
Three minutes is not long enough to develop this important topic, but I would commend a chapter by the late and much missed Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in his book, Second Helpings. It was more than 50 years ago that Lord Roskill suggested that fraud cases should not be tried by juries.
These backlogs allow us to think about the future of this mode of trial. I hope this Government are rather more amenable than their predecessor to the possibility of at least restricting trial by jury, perhaps through intermediate trials. It is not a good idea to abolish something because of the backlogs, but the backlogs allow us to think carefully about what we need to do by way of trials.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the failure to use professional qualified interpreters in our courts often results in cases being adjourned. This adds to the backlog, not to mention the costs.
I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I warmly welcome this week’s publication by the MoJ of the review of qualifications and experience required by public service interpreters. I thank the Government for accepting all its recommendations.
During the Covid lockdown there was a major shift towards remote court hearings, but a series of reports found serious concerns about remote interpreting, with misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology, and missed verbal and non-verbal cues. The University of Surrey’s Centre for Translation Studies has produced cutting-edge research on the use of technology in court interpreting. This research and best practice guidance have been provided to the MoJ. Can the Minister say whether these have been distributed to the courts? There will always be certain situations where remote interpreting is appropriate or unavoidable. Remote interpreting generally takes more time and slows things down, so if the primary driver is cost saving then the impact on court time and, therefore, backlog clearing must be factored in when weighing up the imagined savings versus true costs.
The other strategy which might well backfire and cause greater delays is the uncontrolled use of AI-enabled machine translation, rather than a qualified human being. Accuracy must be non-negotiable but, according to the CIOL, for interpreting—as opposed to translation —it is very unlikely in the near term that AI or machine translation will be usable as anything other than a support tool for human interpreters without major risks and the likelihood of appeals and legal challenges. It works pretty well for the standard European Romance languages and for German, but significantly less so for languages with many dialects, such as Arabic. It can be nearly useless for languages which are rarely included in AI training data, including many Asian and African languages.
Given this disparity, it would be almost impossible for the courts to maintain equality of treatment before the law. AI and machine translation commonly fail to detect sarcasm, irony or humour, not to mention slang and euphemisms—often used in crime to disguise meaning —which human interpreters readily understand but which leave AI befuddled and hallucinating. Is the MoJ fully engaged with DSIT in its work to develop policy on AI, including for machine translation, so that the courts can derive the benefits without the pitfalls? Can the Minister also reassure the House that the amendments to the victims’ code to ensure the use of only professional qualified translators and interpreters, which he supported so strongly in opposition, will be brought into practice without any further delay?
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I also start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and thanking her for an important maiden speech. The issues of sentencing, prisons and the court system simply cannot be separated. The backlogs that have triggered this debate must be looked at in that wider context. The recent Public Accounts Committee report, looking specifically at the Crown Court backlog, made the point that, at the end of last year, 11% of the prison population was made up of remand inmates, the highest level in 50 years. Some 32% of the remand population have been held on remand beyond six months, with 5% on remand for more than two years. The report makes the point that even getting levels down to where they were in 2019, just six years ago, would free up as many as 8,000 prison places.
The state of our prisons and the very difficult and important work of helping to equip people for a life beyond their release is made even harder with such a high proportion of inmates there on remand. The situation is also not helping the remand prisoners themselves; the longer someone waits before coming to court for resolution of their guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, the more removed they often become from the day-to-day fabric of their life, job, family and friends. That helps no one.
There has been political consensus for a long time now that much sentencing is not optimal, with people being sent to prison when in many cases other sentences would be more appropriate. The courts sit at the heart of this conversation. The sentencing review that has been referenced and is being undertaken by David Gauke is hugely important, but these reforms should not be looked at piecemeal. As Leveson also undertakes his review into this issue around backlogs and the criminal courts more broadly, the two reviews absolutely must be dovetailed together into one coherent whole.
Reform is long overdue, and it requires us to look at the system as a whole: sentencing and courts. With court backlogs and prison capacity forcing these issues to be addressed, we should see this as an opportunity. I ask the Minister two specific questions. First, what is being done to consider the impact of the large number of remand prisoners on the wider pressures and capacity issues in the prison system? Secondly, can he commit that the Government will respond in an integrated way to the two reviews when they report, and consider changes to sentencing and the courts system as a whole?
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the essential causes of the backlog we are debating are clear enough. They are to be found in prevalent austerity measures, underfunding of legal aid, sales of the court estate and underinvestment in the remainder—and what has been described as the unmitigated disaster of the privatisation of the Probation Service. A bad situation was made worse for the courts and their users by the pandemic, some of which I spent in a subterranean Nightingale court. The response of all court staff to the pandemic was impressive and should be acknowledged.
The effects of the backlog are also clear, particularly for victims. The courts have to prioritise some types of case, inevitably to the disadvantage of others. Delays impair the court process: evidence gets mislaid, witnesses disappear or disengage, and juries require specific necessary directions on the effect of passing time on memories of events and on the availability and reliability of witnesses. Of particular concern to family judges are cases in which there are parallel proceedings in a criminal and family court. It used to be possible to defer hearing a family case likely to be determined by the outcome of a criminal case. Delays now mean that that simply cannot be done. The situation is now reversed, with charging decisions often awaiting the decision of a fact-finding hearing in the family court. That produces yet further delay in the criminal case and prolonged uncertainty for the family, and the children in particular.
In the short term, clearly courts and the court estate should be worked to full capacity without artificial and frustrating restrictions on permitted sitting days. That would allow for the use of trial and sentencing blitzes, and more use of part-time judges, including those authorised to sit in retirement. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, that it is really time to end the fiction that listing is a judicial function.
Longer term, consideration should be given to the Bar Council proposal requiring Crown Court trials to start within six months of the first hearing. In time, this will prove no more unrealistic than the 26 weeks for disposal of public law children’s cases in the family court, to which legal and other professionals have responded resolutely. That should be underpinned by rigorous case management by procedural judges, relieving the full-time judiciary—particularly in smaller court centres—from work which cuts into and holds up listed and ongoing trials.
Time does not permit the consideration of the longer-term suggested solutions eroding jury trials, but we should recall the Lammy review and research that concluded that the one stage in the criminal justice system at which minority groups do not face disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Longfield on her maiden speech. I greatly welcome the arrival in your Lordships’ House of such a powerful advocate for children. I declare my own interest: I have been lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service since 2018. I welcome the Government’s efforts to reduce the court backlog, and a timely court system is fundamental to public confidence in justice. However, this is only one of the steps needed for a sustainable criminal justice system.
Prisons are at bursting point; very soon, offenders will once more be held in police cells, under Operation Safeguard. The Ministry of Justice has introduced various early-release measures, otherwise offenders would have no prison to go to. The logistical challenges and public protection risks involved in deciding who to release, and when, are obviously tremendously complex. Prison building will not resolve this crisis, and certainly not soon, as I think the Lord Chancellor has recognised. Normally, prisons would operate at about 90% occupancy, not 99%-plus. Even these lower levels often mean serious crowding in Victorian prisons, such as HMP Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs. The normal regimes of education and work are often restricted, particularly when there are staff shortages. The consequences are starting to appear in boredom, disorder and violence.
The truth is that the whole system of courts, prisons and probation is operating way beyond capacity, and increasing activity in one part of the chain simply increases demand pressure elsewhere. We need much more than temporary fixes. Locking up more and more people for longer and longer has led to the current crisis, but it has done little to reassure the public that they are adequately protected. I eagerly anticipate the reviews by Sir Brian Leveson into court backlog and David Gauke into sentencing.
The way to square the vicious circle is through the greater use of non-custodial punishment. I use the word “punishment” deliberately, to convey the seriousness of the intent. Currently, fewer than 10% of offenders are tagged and fewer than 2% are on home-detention curfews. In my view, we will need a new branch of the probation service to supervise considerably increased numbers of offenders in the community. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the criminal justice system can be brought back into a long-term sustainable balance only by a fundamentally reconceived and radically improved probation service, which will need considerable investment?
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an excellent speech and look forward to hearing a little more from her later on.
We must accept that the criminal justice system currently does not have the capacity—in the CPS, defence lawyers or prison places—to get a grip and deal with the delays we have in the judicial system. As a former commissioner, I want to talk about what is happening now on the streets in relation to policing.
The Minister has heard from me previously on rape cases and others that took place 10 days ago. It takes four years for a rape case to arrive at the Crown Court. At the present time, 91 trials listed at Snaresbrook will not be heard until the latter part of 2028. These are the same delays they have at Southwark, Woolwich, Wood Green and the Central Criminal Court.
What is the answer to this? Obviously, we must have one. There is, in my view, some low-hanging fruit. The first would be the reopening and continuation of the Nightingale courts. The second would be turning magistrates’ courts into more of a Crown Court, which is what happened at Hendon when Harrow was closed.
We have to build additional courts and they have to be at the right standard. I recently went to some courts; they were filthy, the toilets were disgraceful, and the whole atmosphere was not one that you would want to spend much time in. I believe that the court hearings should go from 10 am to 4 pm.
In addition, greater credit should be given to a defendant pleading guilty on the first day of his or her appearance, rather than the third appearance or when he or she turns up for trial.
The question of determining trials either way should be decided by a judge and not the defendant. Greater consistency should be given to listing the process, allowing the police to prioritise case types at given times. They have made a plea for me to talk about that today.
The only way that this can be dealt with is by a cross-party and cross-departmental attack, chaired by someone who has the power to get different departments to deal with the problem. It must be solved; it is a scandal at the present time.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chair of the Bar Council and recorder of the Crown Court. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and welcome her to this House.
The context today was set for me by the survey just published showing that one in three criminal barristers is considering leaving criminal work because they say they work too hard for too little. That will only make things worse.
From 2009-10 to 2022-23, the last year we have, public funding for justice in England and Wales had declined by over 22% in real terms. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Justice budget is about 1% of the health budget. Obviously, some backlog in the Crown Court is inevitable. Cases waiting to be tried need time for proper preparation. The issue is not the backlog but the deficit—the failure—in the system to properly cope with it.
The backlog, we have heard, is caused by many different factors, but especially, I suggest, reduced court sitting days and too few criminal barristers and those with the right certification and approval to take serious criminal cases, such as rape cases and so on. I welcome the Government’s recent decision to raise the sitting-day cap to 110,000 in the next financial year, but there must be adequate funding to ensure that these new available sitting days are properly used.
The number of cases coming into the Crown Court routinely exceeds disposals. In the third quarter of 2024, over 31,000 cases were received into the Crown Court—a 12% increase on the previous year. This rising tide must be controlled and reversed. The number of cases in the backlog, as we have seen, has continued to rise over time.
What are we going to do to tackle that backlog? We have had a number of suggestions. One made by the Bar Council was that the CPS must give more consideration to the better use of cautions and conditional cautions for low-level offending by those of relatively good character who are not likely to receive prison sentences. The CPS should also consider whether a summary charge, with the consequences of summary trial, may be sufficient for many cases, particularly now that the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts has been increased.
I endorse the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, with his experience as Lord Chief Justice, that we should look very seriously at an intermediate court of a judge sitting with justices.
The court estate must be used to full capacity. The cap on sitting days for the Crown Court must be removed. Better fees must be paid to criminal and defence barristers to ensure that we have enough to meet the demand. Some 20 years ago, as chair of the Bar Council, I urged the then Department for Constitutional Affairs to pay properly for pretrial case management—nothing was done, and we have the current mess because of that.
There we are. Delay damages victims, witnesses and defendants, and it destroys this country’s reputation for justice. We must do better.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my new colleague, my noble friend Lady Longfield, on her maiden speech and give her a very big welcome to your Lordships’ House.
I rarely speak in Thursday Back-Bench debates, for I fear that I do not have the necessary expertise. I am not sure that I have the necessary expertise for this debate, but, long ago, I practised as a young barrister in the Courts of Assize and the Courts of Quarter Sessions—later the Crown Courts—in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, I was not aware of any backlog at all of criminal cases waiting for trial, but it is now a big problem. As is recorded in the briefing notes provided by our Library, 73,205 criminal cases were awaiting trial in September of last year.
A Bar student, who was my guest last night, told me that he worked recently in the Birmingham Crown Court, which has 12 courts altogether but only three ushers. The result was a great underuse of those courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made that point in relation to other courts, and I endorse all that he said. Clearly, something is wrong.
The great difference between those days of long ago, when I was in practice at the Bar, and these days, is the length of trials. Murder trials then seldom went over a week and were often much shorter; now they are double or treble the time, or even longer. It is exactly the same with other criminal trials. Indeed, a colleague who works on civil matters told me the other day that he could not make further commitments because he was about to start a trial that was scheduled for a year. That was quite unheard of in those days of long ago.
It is very difficult to cut down the length of criminal trials—it will be perceived that there is too much at stake for both the prosecution and defence—but we have to play our part in reducing this terrible backlog. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, identified in his excellent opening speech, greater efficiency in court processes could be of real help.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and impressive debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing it and for the comprehensive and persuasive way in which he opened it. I also join with everyone in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. Her long experience with the charity 4Children and as Children’s Commissioner will be invaluable, and she has shown today how she will give us a fuller insight into how the criminal justice system impacts on the lives of children and young people.
The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly concentrates on the impact of delays on evidence, victims and the fairness of proceedings for defendants. Last Tuesday, following the Lord Chancellor’s Statement to the House of Commons, I described the current backlog of 73,000 cases awaiting trial as “an utter disgrace”. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have given us some more of the figures.
I maintain that the Government could mitigate these delays with determined and urgent action to reduce them. Every lawyer who has worked in trials, civil and criminal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, well knows that evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time. The accounts of honest witnesses often differ markedly, even when events are recent and reasonably fresh. Discerning the truth becomes much more difficult as time passes. Recollections fade, witnesses become unavailable, and details are forgotten—often, details which could help distinguish accuracy from falsehood, whether deliberate or unintended. Then, documents get lost, or their meaning and import are not recalled.
Unreliable evidence means unreliable trials, often leading to surprising acquittals where juries cannot be sure of guilt. There is also a risk of unsafe convictions, particularly where defence evidence cannot be found or witnesses traced and called. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, pointed out, the problems are compounded by our having a demoralised, frustrated and often overstressed judiciary, and, as my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, an underpaid and unhappy cadre of barristers.
The Motion speaks of the effect on victims. In that context, we rightly stress the effect of years of delay on victims of sexual violence, with many dropping out of prosecutions because they simply cannot take the strain, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London described. That is desperately unjust for the victims, who feel they have no option but to let the perpetrators go free and to live with the guilt that goes with the fear that those same perpetrators will reoffend against other victims. So, perpetrators are not brought to justice, and that means a widespread lack of public confidence in the justice system as a whole.
The Minister mentioned last week that there were courts—he mentioned Bristol—where sexual violence cases were treated separately and brought on faster than other cases. Should not that be a general practice? But it is not just in sexual violence cases where victims suffer from these delays; court delays blight the entire system.
Then, the Motion speaks of unfairness to defendants. Innocent defendants are deprived, sometimes for years, of the chance to clear their names. They and their families suffer unjustly through the process, often ostracised by friends, losing employment and suffering intolerable strain for extended periods. Defendants who are guilty can lose the chance of early access to rehabilitative services, sometimes in ways that might be surprising.
Many defendants, as we all know, need help with mental health issues, but they can be cut off from treatment. My daughter, an NHS doctor, has referred me to the exclusion criteria of one NHS trust for access to talking therapies. Such therapies are not available to
“Individuals who are undergoing court or legal proceedings which involves harm to others”,
and I do not believe this is atypical. So, defendants to a charge of violence cannot access, sometimes for years of delay, a service that might really help them to address the mental issues that brought them before the court in the first place. Thus, the cruelty of justice delayed takes a serious toll on the lives of all those affected.
What is to be done? First, the MoJ must take up all the sitting days the Lady Chief Justice says are available. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to her views, and I have no doubt that she is right: whatever the exact figure, there are several thousand extra days that could be utilised.
The first reason given by the Minister last week for not taking up those extra days was competition for resources, but long delays in court hearings do not save money—they cost money. The delayed trials have to be paid for in the end, and meanwhile there are more defendants in prison on remand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, said. They may be acquitted or receive community sentences at the end. There are more defendants, victims and families with their lives on hold, making greater demands on public resources as they await delayed trials. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, on increasing efficiency to reduce costs in this area.
The second reason given by the Minister last week was the need to have some headroom in the system to accommodate surges in demand for court time, caused by events such as the riots last summer. That argument has some force, but it would be better for such headroom to be provided—if the need arises—by emergency measures in the short term, rather than by tolerating unjust and unacceptable delays in the long term.
As others have pointed out, the court maintenance programme needs to be put on an emergency footing so that our, frankly, decrepit courts—many unusable and unused, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, pointed out—can be restored to full service, with temporary buildings used while the necessary repairs are undertaken.
Last week I suggested that the Government should consider evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials. Might the Minister respond to that suggestion?
I also agree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that we should have criminal masters to deal with a raft of applications that do not need the attention of judges. More of the Nightingale courts may have to remain open for longer than planned—even if they are not ideal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, they can be used.
We need to improve procedures, so that fewer cases are adjourned because of the listing errors and prison transport mistakes that currently bedevil the Crown Courts. I also agree with the procedural suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for more advanced notice of skeleton arguments to be deployed. I have always agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the need for efficient interpretation.
The Government accept that more must be done and that, even with the measures they are taking, the backlogs will grow. They pin their hopes on proposals for structural reform, but we cannot rely only on the hope that the Leveson review will solve the problem. Certainly, in time, structural reform of the system may help. For my part, I am loath to restrict jury trials, not least for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that juries are multiracial and tend to be non-discriminatory.
I see the possibilities, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of a new solution for long fraud trials. When it comes, Sir Brian’s report will have to be carefully considered, the Government will need to respond and any reforms will take time to implement, and even more time to have an effect on the backlogs. Given the urgency, we do not have that time.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by extending my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, for her maiden speech and for the insight she gave on the issue of children in the justice system, an area where I know she will continue to make very important contributions to the proceedings of this House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for securing this debate on such an urgent and important issue.
I shall not seek to repeat all the damning statistics that we have heard already. In a sense, they speak for themselves. For far too many victims, justice now feels out of touch. For far too many accused, the resolution of a criminal complaint feels out of reach. Victims of serious crimes such as rape, murder and robbery are told that their cases will not be heard until 2027—or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, pointed out, in some instances, 2028. Half of victims have had their Crown Court trials adjourned or rescheduled. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency; it is a failure of society to deliver the justice that victims deserve and expect, and it is a failure of our society to give accused their right to resolution of a criminal complaint within a reasonable and rational time.
Listening to these contributions, I note that some would adopt the view that there is somehow an absolute right to trial by jury. I would not accept that proposition. Almost 90% of criminal complaints are disposed of without the requirement for a jury. It may be regarded as some sort of fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and we should not regard it as something that is inviolate.
We face a situation in which the proposal for modest change or careful and moderate improvements is simply not going to be enough. The present Lady Chief Justice has pointed out that the backlog continues to increase, despite the best efforts of the Ministry of Justice, the courts and the legal profession to see it go otherwise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, her predecessor as Lord Chief Justice, again pointed to the situation we are in as being, in essence, in need of “radical change”. Radical change is the only thing that is going to improve matters in the present situation.
We heard from a number of noble Lords about the difficulty of maintaining the appropriate number of lawyers at the criminal Bar. Indeed, it is clear that, over many years now, recruitment to the criminal Bar has been rendered far more difficult by reason of the very limited legal aid made available to those who practise in that critical and important area. The noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, also made the point that there is an impact not only on the practising Bar but on the judiciary themselves, who in many instances feel overburdened by the situation that has been allowed to develop in the last few years.
We have to look at how we can approach this. I would respectfully adopt the view already expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we should look at some sort of intermediary court structure. There is clearly room to deal with the either-way cases that, I understand, represent some 40% of the existing backlog in the Crown Court.
There are a number of ways in which it could be done. The adoption of something similar to the Diplock courts, with a Crown Court judge sitting with two magistrates, for example, would be one way forward. Whether that should deal with only specified offences or whether it should deal with, for example, a sentencing power of up to two years, or, I might venture, up to five years, is a matter for debate and cannot be resolved at this time, but there is clearly a need to address that issue and to potentially introduce such an intermediary court.
With respect, I do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that this would give rise to a greater number of appeals. As I understand it, that was not the experience with the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland but again, that issue bears examination. It will also be necessary to take into account the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the impact of non-jury trials on certain parts of our society. I appreciate the importance of that, but it can be examined going forward.
The reality is that we cannot continue as we do at the present time. We cannot continue with a backlog in the Crown Court that is simply increasing. It is out of control. There are some interim measures that can be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to the Nightingale courts. I understand that about 60 were established, of which only about 16 are in use at present. The question then arises of whether we have the judiciary to man those additional courts. Do we have the practitioners at the criminal Bar who will be available to prosecute and defend in those additional courts? There are so many factors coming together here that create not just one problem but a chemistry of problems, which cannot be resolved by one or two simple steps. It will take a leap of imagination by the Minister and his department to address this in a capable, credible and effective way.
My noble friend Lady Porter of Fulwood and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, made an important point. There is an inextricable link between the present, increasing backlog and the immediate problem that we face with our prison population. I understand from the Library statistics that something like 20% of our prison places are taken up by prisoners on remand. Of those, a very large proportion represent what would be regarded as either-way cases. If we can relieve the backlog, one immediate advantage may be that we take some of the pressure off our present prison estate.
We must look at this in the round. It is not just a case of saying that we need more judges. It is not just a case of saying that we need more to pay lawyers more—although I always think that is a very good idea. It is not a case of saying that we need more courtrooms, or of saying that we can just introduce an intermediate court. We have to bring all these features together. Having regard to that, we are immediately faced with the issue of resources.
Can I make this request of the Minister? Will he ensure that he passes the Hansard report of this debate to his colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fantastic debate. It has been wide-ranging and extremely well informed. My noble friend Lady Longfield made an excellent maiden speech. I very much look forward to working with her and learning from her in the future as we discuss youth justice and young people. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate. There is no doubt that the Government face a profound challenge in the Crown Courts. Our ability to provide justice to the public is of utmost importance and I am very glad that we have had this debate here today.
I will rehearse some of the statistics, even though other noble Lords have given them. When the Government came to power, we inherited a record and rising courts backlog which today stands at over 73,000 cases. It was around half of that figure five years ago.
The issue is more difficult to tackle than just rising numbers. Receipts are increasingly high and the outstanding case load is different from before the pandemic, as it is made up of a greater proportion of more serious and complex offences. Those offences take up more court time and tend to have a lower guilty-plea rate.
In July, the Lord Chancellor made an immediate decision upon entering office to increase Crown Court sitting days by 500 on top of the allocation provided by the previous Lord Chancellor in the previous Government. This was followed by a further increase of 2,000 sitting days in December of last year. We also increased magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers for a single triable either-way offence: previously, they could only impose a six-month prison sentence for these offences; that has now been increased to 12 months and, in doing so, we have freed up capacity in the Crown Court to hear more of the most serious cases. The capacity that will be freed is equivalent to an extra 2,000 sitting days in the Crown Court. We did not stop there. Earlier this month, we announced funding for a record high allocation of 110,000 sitting days in the next financial year to deliver swifter justice for victims. This is 4,000 more days than the previous Government funded.
However, we are aware that increased capacity alone is not enough and only fundamental reform will tackle the issue. That is why we appointed Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts and propose long-term reforms. Tackling the outstanding case load in the Crown Court is a top priority for this Government, and we will look to act on recommendations from the report as soon as possible.
I want to touch on other jurisdictions. The department has been focused on tackling demand within the Crown Court, but it is important to recognise that it is part of an interlinking court system and we must work to tackle demand across the whole system. More than 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with in magistrates’ courts, where cases continue to be completed swiftly. Although the case load rose from 72,151 cases to 333,349 cases between September 2023 and September 2024, the timeliness in getting through that increased case load within magistrates’ courts has remained stable. That is a real achievement, which we should acknowledge, of the MoJ in managing the issue and of the magistrates’ courts themselves.
To deal with increased demand, we continue to invest in the recruitment of more magistrates. On the point made by my noble friend Lady Hazarika, we are aiming to recruit 2,000 new and diverse magistrates this year and similar numbers in the next couple of years. But we need to increase that figure, and one of the things I spend my time doing is working out how we can increase the recruitment of magistrates. When I started as a magistrate about 20 years ago, there were 30,000 magistrates in England and Wales; there are now 14,000. We need to get the numbers back up to over 20,000, and then up again, depending on what Sir Brian recommends.
In family courts, the case load in both public and private is reducing a bit, so that is a good story. There are other problems within the family court arena, which I am very aware of, but there is not the emergency situation in family courts which we are seeing in the Crown Court.
To return to the issue of the Crown Court backlog, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about the impact of delays on the reliability of evidence. This affects victims and witnesses, and of course many witnesses are victims as well. There are measures in place to support them in giving their evidence.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked about support for victims. We regard that as important and we accept that victims tend to drop out the longer that a case is delayed. The criminal justice system already works together to give vulnerable and intimidated victims an earlier opportunity to provide their evidence after a not guilty plea is entered. Under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, eligible victims can have their cross-examination pre-recorded, enabling victims or witnesses to give evidence at an earlier stage, when their recollection of events is likely to be better. In addition, the police, the CPS and HMCTS employ a joint protocol to expedite cases involving witnesses under 10 years old, thereby maximising the opportunity for them to provide their best evidence and minimising the stress and emotional impact of the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors have guidance on allowing witnesses to refresh their memory. This usually involves the witness rereading their witness statement on the day of the trial. The department’s funding of the national Witness Service means that crucial emotional and practical support is provided to both prosecution and defence witnesses in all criminal courts in England and Wales, to enable them to give best evidence.
I wish to address the undeniable impact that court backlogs have on victims. The human cost of these delays is considerable, and witnesses—who are often victims as well—play a crucial role in ensuring that justice is served. Indeed, as the Victims’ Commissioner mentioned in her report, the delays in the court system can have a particularly adverse impact on victims of rape and serious sexual offences. To ensure ongoing communication with victims in the pretrial period, every CPS area now has at least one dedicated victim liaison officer in its rape and serious sexual offence unit, and pretrial meetings are offered to all adult victims of these crimes. This Government have committed to introducing free, independent legal advice for victims and survivors of adult rape across England and Wales to help them understand and uphold their legal rights. We aim to begin a phased rollout of that service later this year.
The Government have committed to implementing the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Act contains a package of measures that, once implemented, will improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and offer better access to information. The first tranche of victim-related measures from the Act commenced in January this year. They simplify the complaints process for victims and enhance the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to hold criminal justice agencies to account. We are implementing provisions to ensure that local commissioners collaborate on support services for certain victims. We will consult on a new victims’ code, so that every victim of crime knows the rights they should receive under the code.
Lastly, on support to victims, I agree with the Victims’ Commissioner that support services have an important role in keeping victims engaged with the criminal justice system, and that this can help mitigate the impacts of court delays. That is why, in the upcoming financial year, we have protected dedicated spending in the department by maintaining this year’s funding levels for ring-fenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support.
Moving on to the fairness of proceedings for defendants, we recognise that the prolonged uncertainty of waiting for a trial can be overwhelming for some defendants, and we do not underestimate the impact that this has on the defendants and their families. The judiciary and the Crown Court are responsible for ensuring that cases are heard as promptly and efficiently as possible. They continue to work to prioritise cases, including those involving custody time limits. Custody time limits safeguard defendants by preventing them being held on remand in prison for an excessive amount of time prior to their trial. If the trial cannot be heard before the limit expires, the court must release the person on bail, unless the prosecution successfully applies to extend it.
Fairness is integral to the criminal justice system. While miscarriages of justice are, thankfully, rare, it is important that our appeal system, including the possibility to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, functions well. Last month, the Law Commission launched a public consultation on the law relating to criminal appeals, aimed at ensuring that the system is fair and effective. We look forward to receiving the final recommendations from the Law Commission once the consultation exercise has concluded.
Reducing the Crown Court backlog and improving the experience of victims through the process of seeking justice continues to be the priority of this Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for raising this subject.
I turn to contributions from noble Lords in the debate. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, expressed scepticism about the judicial function of listing. The noble and learned Lord argued that general listing was a legitimate subject for debate in Parliament and generally. He said that specific listing of specific cases should remain a matter for judges. That was an interesting point—I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Meston, agrees with it—and I will make sure that it is fed back to colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke about the time for action. We agree with that, of course, and we are acting: we have these two extremely important reviews under way. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, that we think daily about dovetailing these two reviews and how they will work together, because this is an integrated system—a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made. You really need to look at the whole system to try to get the benefits we hope to achieve through the reforms.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out that there are a number of areas where jury trials have stopped and the world has not stopped turning. We wait to see what Sir Brian recommends, but there may be a recommendation for an intermediate court for cases up to, say, two years’ sentencing—or maybe five years, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, suggested. We wait to see on that matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about interpreters. There is of course an absolute requirement in the code for professional translators. The Government will consult on a new code in due course. I recognise her point about the importance of interpreters to enable fair trials and fair hearings in courts.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising the Lammy review, which quite rightly pointed out the trust that people have in jury trials, particularly people from ethnic minorities. I and the Government recognise that it is a gold standard. However, it does not necessarily mean that all trials, or the same proportion of trials as now, will continue to be jury trials. The point was well made and is one that we need to reflect on as we consider proposals as they come forward. I add that magistrates, of course, are more diverse than the rest of the judiciary, particularly here in London. We—I was a magistrate—were a pretty diverse bunch within London. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord for making that point.
My noble friend Lord Lemos spoke with great authority about the problems of overcrowding. Of course I aspire to great investment within the whole system, but his points about the knock-on problems of overcrowding in the Prison Service were absolutely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made a number of detailed proposals. I am sure the officials will read them with great interest, but I will not comment on them individually now. I thought they were points well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, spoke about there being too few criminal barristers. That is obviously right. There is no shortage of trade unionists for the criminal barristers in this House, I have to say, although that does not mean it is not merited. The noble Lord also advocated for the increased use of out-of-court disposals. It is worth reflecting that one of the great successes over the last 20 years is the reduction in the number of youths in custody. That is very much driven by the increased use of out-of-court disposals for youths.
When I started as a youth magistrate, there were 3,000 youths in custody; now, it is a matter of a few hundred, and out-of-court disposals were a part of that transition, if I may put it like that.
My noble friend Lord Hacking gave me one of his usual history lessons, for which I am very grateful. The point he made about trials getting longer and longer were of course absolutely right.
There are other points I would like to make. My noble friend Lady Levitt and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Marks, spoke about the Judicial Attitudes Survey and asked what the Government are going to do with it. One thing the Government will do, obviously, is continue to invest in regular recruitment and recognise the factors that have come up through that survey. There will be a major review of judicial pay, which has been commissioned, and it will look at the issues affecting judges and particular judge types. So, we recognise the point that my noble friend made.
The other point, which was made by the noble, Lord Carlile, was about prisoner transport and how—as I know from my own experience—this is often a source of delay. I can confirm that, in respect of the transport supplier, when the delays are unacceptable and there is performance failure, then direct action can be taken by the MoJ. That is done occasionally, and it is recognised that a completely unreasonable number of delays are caused by prisoners or defendants simply not getting to court on time—I absolutely recognise that point.
I have already welcomed my noble friend Lady Longfield, but I want to say that I am very glad she will be joining my colleague the honourable Nic Dakin for his round-table discussion on the topic of youth in the criminal justice system. My office is literally next door to Nic Dakin’s, so I am sure I will hear all about it.
The big point to close on—this has been accepted by all noble Lords who have spoken—is that that we really have a very profound challenge in front of us. As a Government, we are taking bold actions to try and address the two main problems that affect our criminal justice system, which are Crown Court backlogs and prisoner overcrowding. These two problems are hugely interlinked, and we are determined to address these problems and turn the tanker around. But there are many aspects to this, and I look forward to the interest of noble Lords as we continue along this road.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I shall say just a few short points in closing. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his considered reply. May I gently urge him to look at the research of Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College into rape cases where the victim does not give evidence in the presence of the court? The results of that research are very unfavourable to the procedure. It is just not working well.
Secondly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, for her maiden speech. I will simply say that she did not disappoint.
I noted the right reverend Prelate’s comment about creative thinking. There should be some creative thinking that does not immediately assume that we must get rid of jury trials in a large number of cases because we are so pessimistic about the future. We can be optimistic, and indeed, surely, as one noble Lord said, it is time to get on with what can be done now, without waiting for Sir Brian Leveson’s report. Some of it is staring us in the face.
For example, my noble kinswoman and others’ suggestion of the introduction of criminal masters or procedural judges could be started tomorrow. It would make a huge difference in courts such as Snaresbrook, which has been much mentioned. I would also urge upon the Government that my noble friend Lord Meston’s reference to allowing criminal and family courts to work much more closely together could also be used with civil courts and major fraud trials. There is a great deal of work that can be done that would shorten lists and delays.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his interesting historical analysis—it was before my time but, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I had heard all about it when I started at the Bar—urged that there should be ushers in every court. It is such a simple thing. If there is an usher and a clerk in the court, the work gets done. If they are not there, the witnesses cannot be brought in, the charges cannot be read out properly and there are unreasonable burdens placed on the judges. Those are simple things we can do immediately.
We have a difference about juries. I say both to my noble friend Lord Faulks and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that in my view they are wrong about juries. First, the reference to civil juries is irrelevant to this discussion. Civil juries did not send people to prison for a long time, in effect, and judges have to send people to prison if they have been convicted by a jury of a serious offence.
In relation to the Diplock courts, I say with enormous respect to the noble and learned Lord, whom I admire greatly, that it is a poor analogy. The Diplock courts deal only with the most serious cases and were created in an atmosphere that did not want to get rid of a single jury trial, but it was because you could not get a fair trial in Northern Ireland at that time for special reasons. I do not think that Diplock courts take us anywhere.
I hope I will be forgiven for not referring to everyone who has spoken, but in closing, I simply want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and say that the Government have a very big task on their hands.
Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 29 January and 6 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.