House of Commons
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker is in Ukraine at the invitation of Ruslan Stefanchuk, president of the Ukrainian Parliament, alongside Speakers from across Europe. He will provide an update to the House on Wednesday.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
We wish Mr Speaker all the best on his extremely important visit to our parliamentary colleagues in Ukraine. Following the fall of the Assad regime, the Home Office withdrew the country policy and information note and guidance on Syria and temporarily paused interviews and decisions on Syrian asylum claims. This was, and remains, a necessary step that several other European countries have also taken. The pause is under constant review, and when there is a clear basis on which to make decisions, we will start processing claims again.
Patricia Ferguson
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the UK Government, together with the international community, are looking for a peaceful solution in Syria that puts the people of Syria first. Organisations working with the Syrian communities in Scotland, such as the Scottish Refugee Council, have reported a sense of heightened anxiety among Syrians currently in the asylum system, and wonder whether people seeking protection should be kept in limbo any longer than is necessary. There are also concerns that the pause in decision making may increase the backlog of asylum cases, contributing to the legacy backlog left by the Conservative Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Ferguson, is there an actual question?
Patricia Ferguson
There certainly is. Is my hon. Friend able to give a timeline for her decision making?
Dame Angela Eagle
I understand the heightened anxiety among Syrian asylum seekers, but the Home Office relies on the country information in order to make decisions on whether particular people need protection, and that information is currently in the middle of quite profound change. When we are in a position to make decisions against new, more up-to-date information, we will certainly do so. I hope the Syrian community will be patient and not too anxious about the pause currently in place.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
How many hotels in Scotland are used to house asylum seekers?
Dame Angela Eagle
We do not comment on where hotels are, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are 216 hotels across the whole country. We will be getting those numbers down as quickly as we can.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Many seeking asylum, including from Syria, enter the UK by illegally crossing the channel, which is, of course, completely unnecessary, as France is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. In relation to those channel crossings, will the Minister accept that the Government’s plan to smash the gangs lies in tatters? Crossings are up by 31% since the election—they are about to break 300,000—and the first three months of this year have been the worst on record. Does the Minister accept it was a catastrophic mistake to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started? I was in Berlin last week, and the new German Government, and other European Governments, are looking to implement removals deterrents very similar to the Rwanda deterrent. Will she now do a U-turn and implement a removals deterrent so that all illegal arrivals are rapidly removed to a safe third country?
Dame Angela Eagle
Some 84,000 people crossed the channel from the day the Rwandan deal was signed to the day it was scrapped. The Conservatives failed to deter a single boat or deport a single person. Instead, they spent £700 million and sent four people—four failed asylum seekers—to start a new life in Kigali with free housing, free private healthcare and free university education, at a cost of £150,000 each. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that paying £150,000 per removed asylum seeker was an adequate answer to the challenge of small boat crossings, then I do not know what planet he is living on.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I join the Immigration Minister in wishing Mr Speaker well for his important trip to Ukraine.
The Government have set an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. We have set out new measures, including the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, starting the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders, and a new national policing centre for violence against women and girls and public protection.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Chichester-based charity My Sisters’ House gave vital wraparound trauma-informed support to 28 women in 2015. Last year, it supported more than 1,700 women. The charity has raised the ongoing issue of cross-allegations, whereby abusers are falsely accusing their victims as a means of keeping the control and the emotional abuse going. What steps is the Home Secretary taking with the Justice Secretary to ensure that the system properly recognises this form of continued abuse and protects victims from being retraumatised?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member raises an important issue about how coercive control can manifest and how abusers can continue their abuse in different ways, including using the civil courts. Part of the reason for introducing the national centre for public protection is to have the best possible national standards and training, properly for the first time across policing and then working across the criminal justice system, in order to keep victims safe.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
At last week’s annual police awards held by the Rochdale district of Greater Manchester police, the unsung hero award went to Jayne Ward, who is a sexual assault adviser, for her role in supporting a rape victim throughout every single day in court. That victim was rewarded with justice, and the rapist was sent down for 12 years. Jayne currently supports 150 sexual assault victims. Does the Home Secretary agree that we owe a great debt of thanks to Jayne and to the police officers who help to secure such convictions?
Yvette Cooper
I pay tribute to Jayne Ward for the remarkable work that she is doing to support victims of the most appalling and vile crimes, helping them to get justice and helping them as they go through the criminal justice system. I also pay tribute to the police officers working night and day across the country to tackle sexual assault and abuse.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The ambition to halve the prevalence of violence against women and girls is a laudable one, but could the Home Secretary give the House some more information? What number is she taking as a starting point to be halved? When will she be able to provide more information to the House and to my Select Committee?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for her questions. We are currently drawing up a strategy on violence against women and girls, which will be published before the summer recess and will set out the approach that we need to take and the need to reduce domestic abuse, sexual assaults and stalking—the crimes that are most prevalent and of which women are most likely to be the victims, but which we also need to reduce more broadly. We will set out details on the measures that we will be looking for as part of that strategy.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The accurate collection of sex-aggregated data by police forces is essential to addressing male violence against women and girls. What plans does my right hon. Friend have in place for her Department to implement the recently published Sullivan review?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that we take the Sullivan review extremely seriously. It is important to recognise the difference between biological sex and gender and to make sure that policing and the criminal justice system always have the accurate data that they need.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Women and girls will never truly be safe while terrifying online influencers such as Andrew Tate are allowed platforms that radicalise men and boys into extreme misogyny. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with Cabinet colleagues to support police in tackling violence against women and girls?
Yvette Cooper
Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 are being implemented over the course of this year. That includes the introduction this summer of measures expected to ensure that stronger action is taken to prevent young boys and children more widely from seeing inappropriate material, which can be very damaging and very extreme. We also need to work in schools to prevent abuse in relationships.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Rape victims were failed under the previous Government, and too few actually got to see the inside of a courtroom. Among those victims were the victims of Andrew Tate here in the UK, who suffered rape and other violence against them. While I know that the Home Secretary cannot comment on the current extradition notice with Romania, what message can she send to those victims, whom I have met and who will be meeting a Minister as well, about their day in court and getting justice?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend will know that there is a court case under way in Romania and that issues around prosecution and extradition decisions are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that she has worked with victims, including in her constituency, and it is hugely important that victims of appalling crimes have a route to justice, wherever they are in the world.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In at least 50 of our towns, gangs of men have groomed and then sexually tortured little girls, with astonishing depravity. Still, not one person has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Local inquiries cannot summon witnesses, are being refused by local authorities, and cannot address national policies like deportation. Fundamentally, the Government’s plan will not cover even one in 10 of these towns. Will the Home Secretary explain how she will choose which towns get a local inquiry and what she will say to the victims whose towns will not be included?
Yvette Cooper
The shadow Minister will know that we have asked the police to reopen cases and historical investigations, because it is crucial that where there is abuse, including historical exploitation and grooming gangs, prosecutions take place and perpetrators face justice for their vile crimes. We are supporting local inquiries and the review by Louise Casey into the scale and nature of exploitation across the country.
The shadow Minister refers to cover-ups. We are introducing a mandatory duty to report child abuse, and we are criminalising the covering up of abuse and exploitation. That is something I called for more than 10 years ago, and I am really sorry that the previous Government never introduced it.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The taskforce is driving forward work to ensure that the UK’s democracy is strengthened and protected. This includes work to tackle the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of elected representatives. I have recently provided detailed evidence on the taskforce’s progress to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and I will give evidence to Mr Speaker at a Speaker’s Conference evidence session on Wednesday.
Steve Race
People in Exeter want to be sure that the elections and referenda we hold are safe and secure from outside state actors who want to manipulate our politics for their own ends. We already know that Russian disinformation on social media in many African nations is already having a huge impact on their domestic politics. Can the Minister confirm that the taskforce will be taking into account our own Russia report and that this Government will do everything they can to defend our politics from the malign activities of external state actors?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is and always will be a priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. The Government are absolutely committed to safeguarding the UK’s democratic processes and have established measures to protect it. While there is no room for complacency, Kremlin disinformation operations largely fail here in the UK, despite their best efforts. That is in part because of the discernment and judgment of the British public but also because of the actions of our intelligence services.
John Slinger
I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that aside from the security measures that are sadly increasingly necessary to protect candidates and elected representatives, it is vital that everyone who believes in the importance of defending our democracy plays their part in doing so, and that this must include Parliament, social media companies, the traditional media, the education system, businesses, charities and civil society organisations? That way, we can collectively create a healthier and safer environment within which our democracy can flourish.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to say that the defence of our democracy is something that every sector of our society, business and the media need to play their part in. I assure him that defending our democratic processes is an absolute priority for the Government, and that there is work across Departments to understand the nature and scale of harassment and intimidation of candidates and campaigners. I assure hon. Members across the House that the joint election security and preparedness unit will continue to co-ordinate cross-Government work on all threats, including candidate security.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution recently spoke at an iftar hosted by the European Islamic Centre, which is connected to Jamaat-e-Islami and Abul A’la al-Maududi, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the Muslim Council of Britain’s annual dinner, and the Prime Minister hosted Adam Kelwick, an imam who celebrated the 7 October attacks and told followers to “pray for victory” for Hamas. Why are the Government so keen to spend time with and lend legitimacy to organisations and people they say they oppose? What will the Minister say to the Prime Minister?
Dan Jarvis
We are not, and I do not agree with the proposition that the hon. Member has made. All Ministers —of course, including the Prime Minister—take these matters incredibly seriously, and we always engage in the most responsible way.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When the defending democracy taskforce was established, it was proclaimed that its primary focus was to protect the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom. What work, therefore, has it done on the fact that there is a part of this United Kingdom—namely, Northern Ireland—where the democratic integrity of the United Kingdom has been upended by the fact that, in 300 areas of law, our laws are made not by this Parliament and not by the Stormont Assembly, but by a foreign Parliament: the European Union? What work has been done to restore democratic integrity to the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
I give the hon. and learned Member an absolute assurance that we work closely with all the devolved Governments on this matter. In fact, I was in Northern Ireland just recently to discuss this with the Justice Minister. The work that we are conducting as part of the taskforce is cross-party and designed to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to prevent interference in our democratic processes. We take the matter seriously, and we will work with others on it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was unable to get a meaningful answer, but with Islamist extremism behind three quarters of MI5’s caseload, it is essential to shield our democracy from its pressure. The Minister has repeatedly reiterated the Government’s non-engagement policy with the Muslim Council of Britain, despite a Government Minister attending its annual dinner. More recently, there have been concerns about attendees at Government events who have publicly expressed some frightening views. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government remain committed to a non-engagement policy with those who seek to promote extreme views that undermine our democracy? Where Government Ministers go against that, how does the defending democracy taskforce respond?
Dan Jarvis
I assure the shadow Minister that our policy on engagement has not changed. I have responded on this matter on a number of occasions. What I can say to him, addressing the substance of the issue, is that we will tackle extremism wherever we find it. The Government take these matters incredibly seriously. We will never allow them to be used as a political football. We will address these matters and tackle them head-on.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft reached a record high, with devastating consequences for our high streets and town centres. The Conservative party wrote that off as low-level crime, but the Labour Government are determined to take back our streets from thugs and thieves. That is why we are ending the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200, introducing a new offence of assaulting a shop worker and delivering 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers in communities across the country.
Jessica Toale
Many retailers in Bournemouth town centre and across my constituency have told me that the same people over and over again are responsible for shoplifting and putting their staff’s safety at risk. Good progress has been made locally with Dorset police’s Operation Shopkeeper and the town centre business improvement district’s use of the UK partners against crime system, but what more can be done to tackle repeat offenders and to learn the lessons from successful initiatives such as those in my constituency?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the House’s attention the excellent initiative taking place in Bournemouth. It is a real example of the results that can be achieved when we get local authorities, businesses and law enforcement all coming together. I am keen to look carefully at examples such as that of Bournemouth and what is happening in the town centre to see how we can learn from such best practices and they can be disseminated.
Jim Dickson
May I thank the Minister for her earlier answer? Across my constituency, from the Co-op in Dartford to the Subway on the high street and Pet & Garden Supplies on Colney Road, I hear the same frustrating tales from business owners and shopworkers about how powerless they feel to tackle shoplifting. The measures contained in the Crime and Policing Bill to tackle that problem have just been set out and they cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister bring hope to people across the Dartford constituency that we will turn the tide on shoplifting after it was clearly deprioritised by the Conservative party?
Dame Diana Johnson
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Conservative party left office, shop theft was at a record level, up 40% in the space of two years. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), now says “ZERO TOLERANCE” on shop theft, even in cases where less than £200 worth of goods has been stolen. Yet, in the two years that he was the police and crime Minister he left that £200 limit in place, allowed thieves to escape with impunity and, in the absence of any police, said that people should make their own citizen’s arrest. While shop thefts soared, all he had to say to the public was, basically, that they were on their own and should sort it out themselves.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Many of my constituents are exasperated by the fact that the police are unable to turn up when there is shoplifting or a burglary, yet they were able to send six officers to get themselves involved in a dispute with a local school and to warn off local elected representatives from getting involved. Sadly, that misallocation of resources and unwarranted police overreach is not an isolated example. May I urge the Minister to avoid engaging in political point scoring and instead join me in sending a very clear message from both sides of this House that our expectation is that the police should be focused on solving real crimes and staying out of legitimate free expression and democratic debate?
Dame Diana Johnson
I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been very clear about the priorities of this Government for tackling crime through our safer streets mission. We want to halve violence against women and girls over the course of the next decade. We want to halve knife crime over the course of the next decade. We will deliver the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers back into our communities that were decimated under the previous Government. The priorities of this Government are very clear in tackling crime and policing.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
My constituent lives just 500 metres from the Tesco Express store in Eastbourne where she works. She does not feel safe leaving as a result of the retail crime there and so gets a taxi back home in the evening. Will the Minister explain not just what the Government can do to help protect shop workers like my constituent, but what can big business such as Tesco do to better protect the employees who do such an important role for them and for their communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Clearly, legislation has been brought forward to protect retail workers from assault. However, a good employer will want to ensure their staff are well looked after. If there are issues about leaving work and needing to take a taxi, I am sure that good employers would want to address that and support those retail workers.
Matt Vickers
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) has outlined, this weekend we heard the shocking reports that the parents of a nine-year-old girl were arrested by six Hertfordshire police officers and placed in a cell for 11 hours because they complained about their daughter’s primary school on WhatsApp. At the same time, 270,000 shoplifting cases have been closed without a suspect being identified. Does the Minister agree that the police should be able to get on with the job of tackling crime on our streets? Can she comment on whether they were getting their priorities right in that case?
Dame Diana Johnson
As the shadow Minister will know, this is an operational matter for policing, and it is quite clear that the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner have set out that there will be a review of what happened in that particular case.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
To repeat what I was saying, under the previous Government violence and abuse towards retail workers increased to unacceptable levels. Everyone has a right to feel safe at their place of work. Alongside the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-op, who have long campaigned for stronger protections for retail workers, we are bringing in through the Crime and Policing Bill a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect those hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores, and to send a really strong message that violence against retail workers will not be tolerated.
John Whitby
On Friday I visited the central Co-op in Ashbourne, which recently experienced an armed robbery. Elizabeth and Georgia were working there when the robbery took place and are still deeply affected several months later. What action are the Government taking to stop violence against shop workers, especially in rural areas where the geographical distances involved often mean that the police take longer to respond?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that shocking case to the attention of the House. All our thoughts will be with Elizabeth and Georgia after what they have been through. I also want to applaud the Co-op for the leading role that it has played in helping us to develop this new offence of assault against shop workers, to ensure that it is not just armed robbery against its staff that will be punished but the acts of violence and intimidation that far too many shop workers find happening on a daily basis. On the issue of serious crime in rural areas, our neighbourhood policing guarantee will deliver thousands of neighbourhood police community support officers across England and Wales, including in rural areas, to speed up response times, build up public confidence and ensure that for those violent criminals who commit acts such as armed robbery, there will be no hiding place from the law.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
In Ashford and Staines in my constituency we have a real plague of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. Inspector Matthew Walton of the North division is doing a great job with his team to tackle it, in combination with the community and the retailers, but still the problem is getting worse. After the success of the facial recognition software roll-out in Croydon, will Ministers please consider extending it to Spelthorne, because it would be a welcome addition to policing in my area?
Dame Diana Johnson
As an operational matter, live facial recognition is something for the police to use as they deem fit, but from my experience of it being used in Croydon, I can see the benefits to policing. It seems to be a very effective tool that police forces should have in their armoury.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Many of us will know from our constituencies the havoc that can be caused in communities by the dangerous and deafening antisocial use of off-road bikes. That is why this Government are giving the police stronger powers to swiftly seize those bikes and other vehicles where they are being driven antisocially through local estates and town centres, as part of our mission to crack down on antisocial behaviour and make our streets safe.
Dave Robertson
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages in my constituency—and, I am sure, across the country—are sick and tired of off-road bikes being used inappropriately, antisocially and dangerously on our streets. The worst example I have seen was somebody doing a wheelie on a quad bike at 40 mph on Eastern Avenue in Lichfield. I reported that to the police and they are following it up as best they can, but they tell me that they need the new powers in the Bill. Can the Secretary of State reassure me, my constituents and the rest of the country that this Government will continue to crack down on this problem and will not rest until our streets are safe for all road users?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am sorry to hear about the appalling incident he describes. This is a challenge for us in many of our constituencies. My constituents in Airedale and Chequerfield see the total nightmare of off-road bikes being driven deliberately to harass people. If we have to wait for the police to give multiple warnings, they cannot take the swift action needed, which is why we need the change in the Bill.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Peter from Corfe Mullen has had numerous run-ins with e-scooters and off-road bikes. What consideration is the Home Secretary giving to the redefinition of electric bike so that it is genuinely an electric bike?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that there are many different forms and changes to the kinds of vehicles, bikes and scooters being used. The legislation applies not just to off-road bikes, but more widely to vehicles being used antisocially. That is important because the police need to be able to act swiftly and not end up having to try to chase and catch the same people again and again to take action.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is a significant concern to my constituents, especially the nuisance caused by off-road bikes and e-scooters. Last Friday, local officers specifically told me that they do not feel they have the power to pursue the riders of these bikes when they are in their patrol cars, with riders often taunting and even laughing at them because they know they cannot easily be caught. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that my local officers in Mansfield have the specific powers they need to stop those bikes and bring those terrorising our community to justice?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and people in Mansfield should not be terrorised by deliberate harassment by people on off-road bikes. That is why we are strengthening the law through the Crime and Policing Bill, but it is also why we support the work that some police forces are doing—for example, the work I have seen in Staffordshire where they were using drones to follow those on off-road bikes and make swift seizures or arrests.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
At the weekend, I was speaking to residents of Braunstone Town, and many, particularly the elderly, were frightened by the use of off-road bikes and similar vehicles given the noises they make and the risk to pedestrians. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that they will empower local police forces to bring those driving the bikes to justice?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point. Often, particularly for older people, the way in which the bikes are used is just dangerous. The deliberate ramping up of the noise to intimidate and scare people is disgraceful antisocial behaviour. That is why we are increasing policing powers and why we want to work with policing on things like the drone use and other measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Street theft increased by more than 40% in the last year of the previous Government, largely due to soaring rates of snatch theft involving mobile phones. There is clear evidence of organised criminality in those crimes—this is not just about petty criminals and opportunists. That is why the Home Secretary recently convened a mobile phone theft summit with tech companies, policing leaders and the National Crime Agency, and why our Crime and Policing Bill includes a new power enabling police to enter premises identified by electronic mapping if stolen items are believed to be there.
Kevin Bonavia
Mobile phone theft is a widespread concern in my constituency. Between 2019 and 2024, the spate of mobile phone thefts has risen by 22.3%. Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that this Government will take all steps to ensure their safety?
Dan Jarvis
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Our recent mobile phone theft summit resulted in clear commitments from attendees to work in collaboration to tackle mobile phone theft and the organised criminality driving it. That is also why our Crime and Policing Bill will give police the power, where it is not practical to wait for a warrant, to enter and search premises where stolen mobile phones are believed to be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The rising number of mobile phone thefts has caused great concern among many of my constituents. By the way, I am not technically minded—I know very little about how my mobile phone works—but many people have everything on their phones: their bank details are on that phone; their life is on that phone. If their phone is stolen, they are in big trouble. How will we restore confidence in the general public on mobile phones and having all our details on them?
Dan Jarvis
I think it is worth reflecting on the impressive results we have seen in recent months from the Metropolitan police in their work to intensify action on mobile phone theft. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is an important subject and we need to see that kind of activity around the country, including in Northern Ireland.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are committed to tackling rural crime and safeguarding rural areas through tougher measures to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and the theft of agricultural equipment. Alongside our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we are also providing funding to the national rural and wildlife crime units to ensure their valuable work can continue.
Paul Davies
Crime rates in rural areas have surged by 32% since 2011, compared with 24% for urban areas, with a total rise of almost 130 reported offences. Rural crime in my constituency includes theft of agricultural machinery, livestock and fuel. The area’s remote locations make it vulnerable to such crimes, which impact on local farmers and residents. What are the Government doing to ensure that rural crime gets the attention that it deserves?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital issue. Just last month I held a rural crime roundtable in North Yorkshire and met local residents and farmers to discuss this important topic. Last week, in recognition of the success of the national rural and wildlife crime units, I announced additional funding for both in the next financial year, so that they can continue to support the police in rural areas. We are also working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the next iteration of the rural and wildlife crime strategy. Later this year we will implement the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and put the necessary secondary legislation in place. Ahead of that, we will publish the Government’s response to the call for evidence on the scope of that legislation.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
One of the less widely recognised rural crimes is the use of catapults to maim and kill wildlife. Those weapons are also used in urban settings. I know that the Home Office takes the view that the wildlife protection legislation and the police powers ought to be adequate to deal with that, but at the moment they patently are not. Will the Minister consider reviewing that and possibly amending the Crime and Policing Bill to take account of it?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am always happy to review legislation and ensure that it is fit for purpose. I would be very happy to discuss that further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank the right hon. Member for his interest in this subject and for the Westminster Hall debate that he secured last year. I want to support the police to use live facial recognition safely while balancing public safety and safeguarding individuals’ rights. The Home Office invested over £3 million in 2024-25 to develop a small national live facial recognition capability by purchasing and equipping 10 mobile LFR units for deployment later this year. I have been listening to stakeholders and will outline our plans in the coming months.
Sir John Whittingdale
Although I recognise that the use of facial recognition technology can lead to more offenders being caught, does the Minister accept that deployment of a permanent network of fixed cameras across Croydon represents a significant escalation in their use, which makes it all the more important that a clear legislative framework governing their use is debated and approved by Parliament?
Dame Diana Johnson
I fully accept that there is a need to consider live facial recognition. At the moment the law governing the use of that technology comes from various different things—human rights and equalities legislation, and other measures—and we want to see whether that should be brought together. That is why I have been having a series of meetings over the last few months. As I said, we will set out our plans for live facial recognition in the coming months.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Harlow police department’s recent successful trial of facial recognition has led to some arrests. Does the Minister agree that technology can play a vital part in tackling crime but cannot be a substitute for neighbourhood policing?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we have committed to neighbourhood policing and 13,000 additional police officers and PCSOs on all our high streets and in communities up and down the land.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Member will know that we take our international obligations very seriously. We are satisfied that the good character policy is compliant with those obligations. We have strengthened our policy to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, will normally be refused British citizenship. The good character assessment has been a feature of UK immigration law since 1981 and there has never been any suggestion, either now or in the past, that it is inconsistent with our obligations under the refugee convention or any other treaty.
Pete Wishart
One of the most shocking and egregious things this Government have done is impose a blanket ban on British citizenship for all individuals who have entered the UK irregularly, without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, effectively disenfranchising all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who have made this country their home for years. The Refugee Council estimates that up to 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum could now be blocked from securing naturalisation. The Minister knows that there are no safe routes to get to the UK, so nearly all asylum seekers have to arrive irregularly. Surely the policy clearly breaches article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising those seeking protection for their mode of entry? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. All Members should be respectful and mindful of their language at all times. Now we need to hear the Minister respond.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that we explained when making the changes that each citizenship application will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there has been particularly exceptional or mitigating circumstances, such as modern slavery.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
The Government are today playing host to law enforcement counterparts from across the globe to discuss our joint response to organised immigration crime. The UK is not only hosting that summit but leading the way in its response to this appalling, evil trade, including through new powers introduced in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which I note the Conservative party voted against.
Christine Jardine
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the increased co-operation with allies on this vital issue. It is critical that we stop the dangerous crossings, but without tackling the problem at its source, with aid to tackle famine and conflict and by providing safe legal routes, do we not risk the crisis continuing? How will the Minister work with colleagues across Government to address those factors to ensure that we tackle the crisis fully?
Dame Angela Eagle
The summit is dealing with source countries. We are looking at how we can co-operate with countries all the way along the routes used by smuggling gangs to ensure that the right messages, rather than very slick organised immigration gang advertising, are conveyed.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
People smugglers do not just put the immigration system in jeopardy; they exploit the vulnerable and they put lives in danger. There is nothing progressive about allowing the vulnerable to be exploited by these smugglers. Does the Minister agree that we should be straining every sinew to crack down on these gangs and can she update us on her meetings today on this topic?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend and that is why today’s immigration summit, where 40 countries will be co-operating and attending, is such an important event. Today we also announced that, since we came into government, we have returned more than 24,000 people who have no right to be here. We have also tightened up the illegal working regulations to make certain that they apply across the board to the gig economy and to casual workers, too.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Since the Labour Government came to power, more than 30,000 people have entered our country illegally. The Prime Minister says he is very angry about that, but he is not as angry as the British taxpayer, who has to fork out £1.2 billion a year to keep those illegal invaders in our country. Does the Minister agree that anybody arriving here illegally should be detained and deported?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have a duty to ensure that those arriving on our shores who claim asylum are properly processed. The Conservatives prevented themselves from doing that by becoming obsessed with the Rwanda scheme and they left us with a huge backlog. We will speed up immigration processing so that we can deal with those people, protect those who have a right to be here and send back those who have failed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the steep increase in returns and removals that I have just announced.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not gimmicks such as Rwanda but international co-operation that will fundamentally deal with the illegal gangs who are facilitating crossings? Is that not why we should welcome today’s summit, at which people are coming together to co-operate and to tackle those gangs?
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is exactly right. These criminals are cross-national, very sophisticated and operate across borders. In order to respond properly, we have to do the same, and that is what today’s summit is helping us to co-ordinate.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Total funding for Gloucestershire police for 2025-26 will be up to £169.3 million, which is an increase of up to £11.2 million on last year and includes £1.5 million to kick-start the recruitment of additional neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers in Gloucestershire—to get those bobbies back on the beat in our local communities.
Cameron Thomas
I thank the Minister for her response. In 2015, Baroness May of Maidenhead, the then Home Secretary, accused police forces of “crying wolf” over funding cuts. In the decade since, police services across the country, such as mine in Gloucestershire, have never truly recovered from her scandalous cuts to their numbers. Gloucestershire constabulary is one of the worst funded in the country—the victim of an unfit-for-purpose funding formula. Last week, the chief constable announced 60 staff cuts as she battles with a £12 million deficit. Will the Minister meet me and my chief constable to discuss those challenges?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As the Minister has said, getting more bobbies on the beat in Gloucestershire and across the country is crucial to delivering the frontline policing that our communities deserve, but recent freedom of information figures show that more than 1,500 police officers are stuck on long-term sick leave, including 148 in my own Greater Manchester police force. On the job, officers witness violent and traumatic events that can damage their mental health, but too many report being left without enough support. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that mental health support is good enough in the police? That is one of the ways to get officers fit for a return to work more quickly, to be part of restoring the proper community policing that our communities deserve.
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady raises a very important point about the wellbeing of police officers and police staff. We have the police covenant, which is very important. I have already had the first meeting about the steps we are taking to improve work around the police covenant, but fundamentally occupational health is a matter for chief constables in their own forces. We are very keen that the work that has gone on to improve those occupational health standards continues and that the wellbeing of police officers is at the front and centre of our work, so that we have a healthy workforce to deliver for us on our safer streets mission.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Today we are hosting in London the first ever international summit on organised immigration crime and border security, bringing together source, transit and destination countries which all see the havoc and harm that criminal smuggler and trafficking gangs cause, undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. As part of that, the UK is strengthening the law against illegal working in the gig economy, so employer checks will have to be done, alongside increasing illegal working raids and returns.
As a result of our work with France, the French Cabinet has for the first time agreed to change its maritime rules, so that the French authorities can intervene in French waters to prevent boat crossings. We are bringing together Ministers and law enforcement from close neighbours such as France, Belgium and Germany, and from countries further afield such as Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China and the US. They are all discussing today how we strengthen that collaboration to choke off supply chains, pursue illicit finance, take down advertising, disrupt and prosecute the criminals and tackle this vile trade in human beings.
Natasha Irons
A constituent has contacted me about the difficulty he is facing in trying to get what he is entitled to via the Windrush compensation scheme. Given that victims of the Windrush scandal are not entitled to legal aid, a large proportion are assessed as eligible for compensation but cannot meet the high threshold of evidence necessary to prove that they are entitled to it. Will the Home Secretary look again at what legal support can be provided to the victims of this scandal, so that they can finally get the justice that they deserve?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues around the Windrush generation, who were so badly let down and treated by the Home Office over many years. We have increased support and advocacy for compensation scheme claimants, and the Minister for migration and citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), would be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Has the Home Secretary seen the police’s anti-racism commitment that was published last week, which says that the police do not have to treat everyone the same regardless of race and calls for arrest rates to be artificially engineered to be the same across racial groups? Does she agree that this two-tier approach to policing is totally unacceptable?
Yvette Cooper
The police operate without fear or favour, and they respond to the crimes they face across the country and to the perpetrators of those crimes, whosoever they should be and wheresoever they are. That is the right approach for the police to take, whether they are dealing with the most serious violence—which we have prioritised—or with neighbourhood crimes in communities. As the shadow Home Secretary will know from the approach we are taking to the Sentencing Council and the importance of us bringing forward rapid emergency legislation in that area, we are very clear that there can be no preferential treatment for anyone in the criminal justice system. It is really important that the principle of fair treatment for all is always maintained.
Chris Philp
I completely agree with the Home Secretary that people should stand equally before the law and be treated exactly the same, regardless of their race or identity. I agree with the Home Secretary about all of that, but unfortunately the anti-racism commitment published last week does not say that—in fact, it says the opposite. It expressly says that
“It does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’”.
Given that the Home Secretary and I agree that the law should be blind to race and that everyone should be treated the same, will she join me in tabling an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to override those provisions in the anti-racism commitment?
Yvette Cooper
The police already have to swear an oath on their impartiality and policing without fear or favour. That is the responsibility of every single police officer right across the country. The shadow Home Secretary will know that there are dedicated police officers who do exactly that and will continue to do exactly that, to ensure that they treat everyone appropriately and make sure that everyone faces justice before the law.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is absolutely key that people feel safe walking at night, particularly shift workers and residents, and good street lighting is a key part of that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Ukrainians in the UK deserve stability after fleeing war, yet almost half report severe stress and anxiety caused by prolonged uncertainty about their visa status. Some 44% have lost a job opportunity, 26% have been unable to sign new tenancy agreements and 25% have had a student loan rejected, all because of that uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable way of treating those to whom we opened our arms, and will she commit to giving Ukrainian refugees the certainty about their visas that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Lady will be aware that we continue to stand by Ukraine, and to support those whom we have been able to welcome to our country. We have provided certainty under the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which we opened on 4 February. Under that scheme, people can prove that they have ongoing status through section 3C leave during their application process.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The victims and survivors of terrorism need and deserve the highest levels of support to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government will set up a new, dedicated support hub for victims and survivors, supporting their needs in the immediate and long-term aftermath of a terrorist attack. Proposals for a new national day for victims and survivors of terrorism will also be consulted on, helping the country to remember and honour those who have been tragically killed or impacted by terrorist attacks.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Dame Diana Johnson
I was very concerned to hear about the incident to which the hon. Lady refers. I announced earlier that additional funding is going into the national wildlife crime unit and the national rural crime unit to assist forces in providing the cover necessary in rural areas.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson
The Government have announced that we will provide £7 million over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime, including by continuing to fund a specialist policing team. There is £100,000 available to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to assist with measures that retailers can introduce to make their shops and retail outlets more secure. That that may well be of use.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are topical questions. I call the Minister.
Seema Malhotra
I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about the case she raises.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, that is totally unacceptable. That is why we need our neighbourhood policing guarantee, and bobbies working on the high streets and in communities that have been devoid of police officers for too long, because of decisions taken by the previous Government. I am happy to discuss that case with my hon. Friend.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Dame Diana Johnson
I am certainly willing to hear representations on that.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to mention the television programme “Adolescence”, which many people will have seen, and the issue of rising violence among teenagers. We see this in a number of areas; the issues range from knife crime to extremism and violence fixation. Importantly, we have the stronger measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 to protect young people from seeing extreme violence and inappropriate material online, but it is also important for us to work with schools to prevent violence among young people, including violence in relationships.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Dan Jarvis
We take these matters very seriously. I will look carefully at the details of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
There has been a recent slew of successful European sting operations that have resulted in the arrest of prominent individuals involved in people-smuggling gangs. Does the Minister agree that this highlights the crucial importance of international co-operation, and signals that Labour’s plan to smash the gangs is working?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Hard, tough cross-border policing takes time. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but on a recent joint action day led by German and Belgian authorities, 500 German officers arrested targets and seized dozens of boats and engines, including some in warehouses targeted by the National Crime Agency. On a joint action day led by German police earlier this month, there were seven arrests in eight raided locations, and 90 dangerous life jackets were seized. That demonstrates a momentum in joint working that will put pressure on the criminal gangs.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In the south-west last year, 77 police community support officers were taken off our streets; my local Avon and Somerset force accounted for 60 of them. It said that the change was a direct result of lack of funding. Will the Home Secretary agree to raise the matter with the Chancellor as a matter of urgency, so that we can put more money back into frontline policing?
Dame Diana Johnson
An extra £1.2 billion is going into policing for the financial year starting tomorrow. Obviously, past Governments must account for their failure to fund the police adequately.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
When the Home Secretary visited Nuneaton to speak to local business owners, she heard from them directly about the problem of retail crime. There was a glimmer of hope, because our town centre officer was having a big impact, but that role is now vacant. Shops and other businesses say that retail crime is at an all-time high, with a 58% increase since January. Now that Labour is putting more money into people’s pockets, what more can be done to ensure that it is safe for it to be spent in town centres?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of town centre crime. We are investing additional funds of more than £1 billion in policing next year, and are providing an additional £200 million for neighbourhood policing, which was cut so heavily under the Conservative Government, so that we can bring it back to our town centres. We are strengthening the power of police officers and PCSOs to tackle street and shop theft—crimes that have soared in recent years because the Conservative Government turned their back on it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, we Conservatives proposed a new clause that would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK. That would have introduced accountability and transparency, but it was voted down decisively by Labour Members. The Government talk tough, but does the Home Secretary not believe that the British public deserve a transparent and honest answer to the question of what the level of migration will be under this Government, rather than the Government’s just blaming us, or saying “lower numbers” on every occasion?
Seema Malhotra
I am staggered by that question, because net migration reached record highs under the Conservatives’ watch. We are the ones with a plan to bring it down. Quite frankly, the hon. Lady should support that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Mohamed waited nearly three years for a decision on his asylum application, a period that was extended by the pause in processing Syrian asylum cases. If the Minister will not end the pause, what interim steps will she take to further support host communities such as Falkirk?
Dame Angela Eagle
As I said earlier, we are keeping under close review the pause in Syrian asylum applications. We cannot decide asylum applications against a country policy that is no longer relevant because of the rapid change in that country. We will resume those decisions as soon as we can.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Reports about the Met police raid and arrests at the Quaker meeting house in Westminster last Thursday have caused great alarm, particularly because Quakers are renowned for their non-violent and pacifist principles. The incident raises serious concerns about the police’s approach to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. What explanation have the Met police given the Minister for their actions that night?
Dr Johnson
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, this is an operational matter for the Metropolitan police, and I am sure that they will provide further commentary at some point.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dawn Thurkettle and the Rugby Street Pastors, and particularly the recently commissioned pastors, on all the excellent work that they do to lower the temperature on nights out in our town? They show kindness and listen to people on our streets, and play an important role in our community.
Dr Johnson
I would be delighted to pay tribute to Dawn and the Rugby Street Pastors for their excellent work. Many street pastors around the country do really important work in keeping people safe and secure on nights out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary consider raising an obvious lacuna in the law in the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe? Under the refugee convention, we can automatically deport foreign criminals who enter this country illegally, but under the convention on human rights, we cannot. Surely we can address that in partnership with other members of the Council of Europe.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that we have increased the return and removal of foreign national offenders significantly since the election. Deportations, returns and removals had plummeted under the previous Government. We are increasing them, and I believe it is right to do so. By working internationally, we have secured a new agreement with Germany, which will now go after the trafficking and smuggler gangs and the illegal warehouses in that country, but we need to ensure that we take action against dangerous foreign criminals.
Points of Order
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it clear that in the first question I asked, the number I intended to ask about was the 30,000 people who have illegally crossed the channel since the last election, which is a 31% increase on the previous period; and for the period since 1 January, the number was the highest in history. To be clear, the figure is 30,000 since the election.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The shadow Minister has got his point on the record.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Security Minister why the Government were spending so much time with, and lending legitimacy to, organisations and people whom they say they oppose. The Security Minister replied, “We are not.” I gave three examples, and for each of them there is photographic evidence. In one case, a picture shows the Prime Minister in No. 10, laughing with the man I mentioned. I have much admiration for the Security Minister, and I am sure that he did not say what he did deliberately, but can you advise us on how he might correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As he knows, the Chair is not responsible for the content of questions and answers. Nevertheless, Members should strive to be accurate in the comments they make to the House. If a mistake has been made, there is a procedure for correcting the record.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on HM Government’s response to the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question about an issue that is very important to the Government and to many Members across the whole House.
We strongly condemn the secessionist moves by Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, which seriously threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such actions are unconstitutional and dangerous, including to those living in Republika Srpska, whom he claims to protect. The UK, as one of the signatories, remains fully committed to the Dayton peace agreement, which protects the authorities of both entities, and supports Bosnia as a sovereign and politically independent state.
On Wednesday 26 February, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Republika Srpska President Dodik guilty, in a first-instance ruling, of refusing to implement decisions of the High Representative. The UK is clear that the High Representative’s jurisdiction is indisputable, and that disregarding the independent decisions of the judiciary of Bosnia and Herzegovina undermines the rule of law.
In response to the verdict, the National Assembly of Republika Srpska adopted a number of unconstitutional laws, and proposed a new constitution in clear violation of the Dayton peace agreement. These moves represent a significant escalation in Dodik’s secessionist path, and threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. As he accelerates those attacks on the state, he increases the threat to international peace and security.
Bosnia and Herzegovina has the institutions and mechanisms to respond to this crisis, and we support all efforts by domestic actors to de-escalate the situation and take appropriate action. Last week, I convened a call with my French counterpart and the other Quint partners—the United States, Germany and Italy—plus European Union institutions, in which we discussed our joint efforts to bolster security and stability. I also spoke to the High Representative last week.
In the last few weeks, I have spoken to the Bosnian Foreign Minister, Elmedin Konaković, reaffirming the UK Government’s full support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK special envoy to the western Balkans, Dame Karen Pierce, reiterated that message during her visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina on 27 and 28 March, at our direction.
We welcome the decision by Operation Althea, under the EU peacekeeping mission EUFOR—the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina—to activate its reserve forces to provide reassurance to the communities most affected by the rising tensions.
In conclusion, Dodik’s actions do not serve the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including those residing in Republika Srpska. The people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need their political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building an inclusive future, rather than exacerbating tensions and amplifying secessionist rhetoric.
Priti Patel
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Attempts to undermine Bosnia and Herzegovina’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and by extension the Dayton peace agreements, are deeply troubling. Over many years, the UK has been a reliable supporter of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democratic and pluralistic journey, and a trusted promoter when it comes to the security of the western Balkans.
We were proud, when in government, to have appointed Lord Peach as the special envoy to the western Balkans—his work was incredibly solid and robust—and we welcome the fact that the Government have maintained that position with the appointment of Dame Karen Pierce. We, too, look forward to engaging with her.
I know that the Minister has spoken with Foreign Minister Konaković, but what is the UK doing in practical terms both to support Bosnia and Herzegovina to stay the course and maintain stability, and to defend and promote freedom and democracy in the region? For the reasons that the Minister outlined, the issue is pivotable to the security and integrity of the region. How does he envisage that the situation could be de-escalated, and can he update the House on the Government’s position on strengthening ties between NATO and Bosnia and Herzegovina? What is his position on EUFOR and its response in recent days?
What direct discussions has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had with leaders from across the western Balkans, including about the very concerning actions by the leadership of Republika Srpska? Specifically on the protests in Serbia, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on regional stability and security, and what assessment has he made of any Russian involvement in response to the protests there?
Finally, can the Minister share what plans he has to work with Kosovo to shore up and build on its sovereignty and independence? The western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom for so many reasons, and now more than ever given the war in Ukraine, so we must be an active player in promoting and supporting stability in the region.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her points. I am glad she raised Lord Peach because that allows me to put on the record again my tribute to him for all his excellent work as the High Representative; it was a genuine pleasure to work alongside him. I am also delighted that we now have Dame Karen Pierce, one of our most experienced diplomats, in the role. She is already playing a crucial role across the region. As I said, one of her very first visits was to Bosnia, because of the very issues that the shadow Foreign Secretary has outlined.
The right hon. Lady asks what we are doing. I have been very clear about the diplomatic efforts that we are taking across the region, working with partners and allies including the United States, the European Union and members of the Quint. We continue to work with partners and engage with regional partners, who are absolutely crucial to that stability. The Foreign Secretary met Croatian Foreign Minister Radman on 24 March, and I spoke to Serbian Foreign Minister Marko Djuric on 27 March, as part of a regular series of engagements that we have been having, including through the Berlin process. The right hon. Lady will be pleased to know that we will now be hosting the Berlin process and that preparations for the summit are being led by Dame Karen Pierce. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary and I have had extensive engagements with regional partners. I was out in Serbia and Montenegro just a few weeks ago, and I intend to visit the region again soon.
The right hon. Lady asked about the important role of NATO, alongside EUFOR. I have referred to EUFOR already. We continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s aspirations for Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. Through joint training of UK and Bosnia and Herzegovina armed forces and our support for reforms, we are helping it strengthen capabilities and enable alignment with NATO standards. We are working to invest in and strengthen the capabilities of the Bosnia and Herzegovinian armed forces for peacekeeping operations. Countries that export security are also more secure themselves. We maintain offices at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
What we have seen from Russia—in Georgia, Moldova, Romania, the Baltic states and now playing out in the western Balkans—is nothing less than hybrid warfare. Democracies are working hard together to stand strong and support Ukraine, but does the Minister agree that we need to put more effort into working with our allies in support of eastern Europe and the western Balkans, which are very much on the frontline?
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, rightly raises Russia’s malign actions not only in relation to its illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine, but across the whole of Europe and globally. We continue to see a pattern of behaviour intended to hamper Euro-Atlantic aspirations, and exploit instability and division.
Recent attempts by Russia to divide the international community at the United Nations Security Council and in the OSCE have only further demonstrated the resoluteness of partners to work together to protect the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. My right hon. Friend’s work in the Committee on these issues is crucial. We are also working closely with our allies and the European Union on these matters, in relation to not just the Balkans but locations such as Moldova.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
My former party leader, the late Lord Ashdown, regularly expressed his grave concerns about the fragility of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, drawing on his own experience as the country’s former High Representative. Despite repeated warnings, the UK ignored the threat posed to peace in Bosnia by Milorad Dodik, his entourage and his supporters in the Kremlin. Dodik’s latest defiance of international authority, rejecting the legal orders of the international peace envoy, is only the latest act in his concerted work to undermine the Dayton agreement and regional stability in the Balkans.
It is clear that the UK has taken its eye off the ball in Bosnia. The Conservatives’ short-sighted decision in 2020 to withdraw our troops from the EUFOR Althea peacekeeping operation sent entirely the wrong signal about our commitment to the region. Does the Minister agree that the UK should recommit to the EUFOR mission, so we can work in lockstep with our international partners to prevent a further deterioration of the situation in the Balkans?
Stephen Doughty
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand that I cannot comment on the previous Government, but I know there is strong support across the House for peace and stability across the Balkans, and that we are all engaged in that effort.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we absolutely have not taken our eye off the ball. This region is one of the most important to the Foreign Secretary and myself, not least because of our long history of engagement in the region. It is why we have now put in place one of our most senior diplomats to act as special envoy, and why we have been engaged in the diplomatic conversations I mentioned.
On the role of the High Representative, we are clear that the political crisis was caused by Republika Srpska, President Dodik and his supporters. We support the High Representative’s role and we support the use of his powers, if necessary. His role remains vital for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future prosperity and stability, and we continue to work alongside EUFOR and indeed with the NATO presence we have there, too.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know that Dodik has continually denied that a genocide occurred at Srebrenica. I was absolutely appalled to see that after his conviction, he was invited by the Israeli Minister for antisemitism to go to Jerusalem to address an antisemitism conference. I hope that the Minister can restate the UK’s strong belief that a genocide occurred at Srebrenica and that other countries should not be inviting Dodik to address conferences, particularly on the subject of genocide.
Stephen Doughty
I obviously cannot comment on Mr Dodik’s travel, but I can say that we are absolutely clear on what happened at Srebrenica. My hon. Friend will know that I have visited Srebrenica and that we have done important work with Remembering Srebrenica. Again, there is a cross-party attitude on this issue across the House. We are in a year of very important and solemn anniversaries and it is crucial that leaders refrain from inflammatory rhetoric and actions, and instead focus on building trust between communities across the western Balkans, and particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
President Dodik’s language and actions are both reckless and dangerous. Given that the Minister has just admitted to there being Russian meddling in the region—as we know, it has been going on for many years—can I ask what conversations he has had with the Americans to ensure that they continue to have command of the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo? To the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), can the Minister say whether the UK could play a bit more of a role in EUFOR, and, from his discussions with the French Minister, whether there is likely to be an extension of that mandate?
Stephen Doughty
As I said, I met one of the American representatives on Friday, with other Quint members, and there is unity across the Quint on these issues. We will continue to work closely with the United States and other partners on this matter. EUFOR is vital for maintaining peace and security in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for upholding the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement, and we regularly engage with both EUFOR directly and the EU delegation.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we do not currently participate in EU common security and defence policy missions. Of course, we are open to future opportunities for co-operation, and we have identified the western Balkans, and, indeed, hybrid activities, as one of the areas where we need to see closer co-operation. The subject was discussed by the Foreign Secretary and the EU at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg a few months ago.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we need leaders in the west Balkans region who are focused on building a stable and inclusive future for all the peoples of the region, instead of escalating tensions with reckless rhetoric?
Stephen Doughty
I could not agree more. I sincerely hope that all, including leaders in Republika Srpska, will focus on delivering the reforms and progress necessary for their citizens, instead of using inflammatory rhetoric and divisive language, which seeks only to break down communities and unity, rather than building up the trust between communities that is so needed.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
In the 1960s, Germany took the very important step of showing programmes about what had happened in the second world war with the Holocaust; the exact opposite has been happening in Republika Srpska and areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where textbooks are being rewritten to actually increase that hatred. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have and what interventions they can make to try to get the truth of what happened during that war out to people, so that those countries do not just generate another generation of hatred?
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Ensuring that we understand what happened in the past and do not attempt to deny what happened is, obviously, crucial for all communities; building trust between communities is also crucial. He will understand that we have funded a number of programmes—as did the previous Government —including to support those who suffered sexual violence in the conflicts in the 1990s, as well as providing extensive support to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which has helped to account for more than 70% of the 40,000 people missing from the conflicts of the 1990s. Those sorts of actions are crucial to rebuilding trust and dealing with the legacies of the past.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I volunteered with the OSCE to ensure free and fair elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, following the Dayton peace agreement. I therefore have huge concerns about the escalating tensions. I welcome the diplomatic efforts we are undertaking to support stability, on which the Minister has updated us, but can he confirm that he is working closely with European civil society partners such as the OSCE to secure peace and stable democracy in the region?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to work with all organisations that seek to promote peace and stability in the region. My hon. Friend rightly mentions the OSCE, which is crucial. I know that the issue is of keen interest to members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in this place. We will continue to work with them, with the Council of Europe and with others, including our partners in the EU, the US and beyond. Civil society organisations are crucial to that work. Many examples of the work that we have done in the past to build trust between communities and on peacebuilding have been achieved through civil society organisations.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of reports that Russia Today and Sputnik are increasing their dissemination of disinformation in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the same time as the widely respected Bosnian service of Voice of America faces closure? Will he see what more we can do to counter Russian disinformation in the region, perhaps by increasing broadcasting by the BBC World Service?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the destabilising hybrid activities of Russia, not just in Bosnia but across the region. He knows the steps that have been taken in this country against RT and other Russian outlets; indeed, we have called them out across Europe and have worked with partners on that. He is absolutely right that free, fair, truthful and legitimate media are needed to ensure that citizens have the truth about what is happening, not the kind of lies that are peddled from the Kremlin. I cannot make specific promises, but he knows that we treat the BBC World Service very seriously. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), is here with me and will have heard his comments closely.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As has been noted, the actions of Milorad Dodik over the past few weeks and months have seriously undermined the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina and have undermined the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the country’s 1992-to-1995 war in the aftermath of the horrific genocide that took place in Srebrenica. What steps are the Government taking to work with partners such as the US, the EU and other western Balkan countries to ensure that the territorial integrity of Bosnia is upheld during this fragile period?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to work with our partners. My French counterpart Minister Haddad and I convened our Quint partners and the EU institutions on Friday for a joint meeting; Minister Haddad was visiting London and we took the initiative to meet our partners, because we were deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia. We have also been engaging with those in the region, including Serbia and Croatia. I, along with the special representative, the Foreign Secretary and others, will continue to do so.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
One detects the hand of Russia here, much as one does across the entire periphery of Europe, from the High North, Ukraine, the Balkans and the Caucasus, which the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned, to the Sahel, the Maghreb and Libya, right over to the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap. Will the Minister describe the British strategy for rolling back Russian destabilisation across the entire periphery of Europe?
Stephen Doughty
To do so in a few seconds would be a challenge, but I assure the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) that in all those regions we are not only conscious of what Russia is doing, but actively working with partners to push back. That is why it has been identified as an area for close co-operation with the EU; it is why we work closely with the United States and others; and it is why we work closely with individual partners in specific contexts, including in Moldova in response to Russian attempts there. The Balkans, Moldova, the Caucasus and elsewhere are all areas in which we see Russia spreading misinformation, lies and worse.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Dodik’s reckless rhetoric has been noted many times in the House this afternoon. Can the Minister assure me that work is being done with partners in the region to ensure that there is no contagion? I am thinking in particular of Kosovo.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend rightly raises Kosovo, a country that I have visited on several occasions and which we continue to support. We also continue to support the important dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina and to work with EU and other counterparts on this crucial issue. We play a crucial role in KFOR in Kosovo in promoting peace and stability. It is important, as my hon. Friend says, to understand the wider regional implications and to continue to work with all partners to promote peace and stability, whether that is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Kosovo or in responding to Russian hybrid activity.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the recent love-in between Washington and Moscow, it is hardly surprising that the killer in the Kremlin is encouraging all his sidekicks to stir up trouble in areas such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. Are the Government aware of and keeping under very close scrutiny other potential areas where allies of Mr Putin can be expected to start to stir up trouble and destabilise things as part of his move, now that he is on the front foot in Ukraine?
Stephen Doughty
I would not agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s characterisation. One only has to look at what President Trump has said in the last 24 hours on these matters to see that we are united in trying to not only find a sustainable peace in Ukraine but call out Russia on its actions and take the necessary actions. When it comes to Russia’s activities elsewhere, as I said there is very strong Quint unity on this issue, and it was a real pleasure to be alongside American and European counterparts with a strong, united approach. It is crucial that there is strong transatlantic unity on these issues, and we will continue to work for that with European and American partners.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Sarajevo security conference is in a couple of months, and there will be a session on defence technology. I have been asked along to speak about it. NATO countries in Europe are rearming and spending increased defence budgets on investing in and developing defence technology. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our friends in Bosnia and Herzegovina are also updating their capabilities? What message can I take to that conference?
Stephen Doughty
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend has been invited to that conference. It is important that we have links at a parliamentary level with countries in the western Balkans, particularly on these important matters. I mentioned earlier that we are working, including through our presence at the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo, on investing in and strengthening the capabilities of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s armed forces, and considering how they might be deployed internationally too. That is very important. We will continue to work with European partners, both inside and outside NATO, to ensure that we can all collectively contribute to European defence, particularly in response to the hybrid activities and new advances in warfare we see, whether it be cyber or drone technology.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last November, I visited the Srebrenica memorial centre, and I am sure the Minister will share my revulsion at the fact that it had to close its doors for a short period just a few weeks ago due to the political situation there. Before he does so, can he elaborate on the position that the United States of America has adopted in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and whether he views the US as a stable ally that recognises that the western Balkans are crucial to the security of Europe as a whole?
Stephen Doughty
We and the United States played a crucial role in the western Balkans, particularly in achieving the Dayton peace agreement itself. We continue to be committed to that. As I said, there has been strong unity among the Quint, and it is important that the United States and Europe work together on these issues. There has been a legacy of 30 years of relative stability—I say “relative” because there have been deep threats to it at different points—and we need that to continue for the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am sure we are all committed to that.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and knowing how much the Minister values soft power, can he reassure the House that there will be no further cuts to the British Council or the World Service in the Balkans on his watch?
Stephen Doughty
I will come back to the hon. Lady on her specific points about British Council and the BBC World Service funding, but I have mentioned our wider development spending in the region. While we are having to make very difficult decisions at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the fact that through around £50 million this year from the integrated security fund and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office official development assistance, we have continued to empower women and girls, strengthen democracy, build resilience to domestic and state threats, and promote peacebuilding and transitional justice. We have been engaged across a range of different areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina specifically.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments made about the British Council and the BBC World Service. A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting 77th Brigade, the anti-Russian-disinformation brigade based at Newbury. Has an assessment been made of the rise of Russian misinformation and disinformation in the Republika Srpska theatre in recent months? We heard during that meeting that Russia is increasingly using misinformation and disinformation across Ukraine, eastern Europe, and indeed the Balkans.
Stephen Doughty
We are clear that Russia continues to spread lies and disinformation and misinformation not only in the western Balkans but in many other locations across Europe. We continue to work with allies and partners—the EU and others—to challenge that. There is a particular challenge in the western Balkans, which is why we also support efforts there to strengthen free media, journalism and civil society organisations.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In my previous role as trade envoy to the western Balkans, I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on a number of occasions, and it was evident that though the entrepreneurial spirit was alive and well, business leaders were frustrated by the deadlocked structures that they must work in. Our embassy is doing what it can, but can the Government take any further initiatives that could increase economic activity and trade between our two nations?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member raises an important point, and I pay tribute to him for his work. He and I travelled together on a number of visits to the region—including to Bosnia and Kosovo—so I am well aware of his interest and engagement there. There are many opportunities for increased economic linkage and trade with all the countries in the region, and we continue to promote those. Indeed, I discussed them on my recent visits to Serbia and Montenegro.
The hon. Member is absolutely right that this is fundamentally about leadership in the region. As I said, the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need political leaders to focus on passing reforms and building inclusive futures, rather than exacerbating tensions as we are seeing with President Dodik in Republika Srpska, because that does not serve the people of Republika Srpska.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister has acknowledged that the secessionist moves in Republika Srpska could have ramifications for the western Balkans more broadly. One part of that is the north of Kosovo, where there is a Kosovo Serb minority. While the UK does not contribute to EUFOR and Operation Althea, we do contribute to KFOR in Kosovo. What contingency plans exist for British troops to reinforce KFOR through a strategic reserve, as happened in 2023?
Stephen Doughty
I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I am not going to get into operational details, but he can be sure that we prepare for all scenarios across the region. That is why we have welcomed the steps that EUFOR has taken in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The hon. Member is right to highlight the role that we play in KFOR. Indeed, I also visited KFOR with the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and saw the important work that it does in line with its mandate. It is important that everybody takes steps to de-escalate tensions and deal with issues that have not been dealt with. I have raised the Banjska incident a number of times, including with Serbia, and it is important that those responsible are held accountable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers; he understands the issue incredibly well. He will be aware of the recent judgments made in respect of human rights, in particular those involving discrimination against the Jewish community. Will he outline whether the deputations included discussions of faith and freedom and people’s ability to practise their faith, and what the outcomes are envisaged to be to secure the right for people to hold and live their faith, no matter what that faith is, in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. He will be pleased to know that interfaith engagement was part of the special envoy’s recent visit. I can write to him with a little more detail about that.
Of course, this is a country that has a strong tradition for a number of different faiths. At the moment, we are celebrating Eid and the end of the holy month of Ramadan, but alongside Muslim communities, Christian and Jewish communities have a long heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina—I have witnessed that with my own eyes. We remain a staunch defender of freedom of religion or belief, and we will continue to work with organisations that promote an inclusive and diverse society where everybody is respected and not discriminated against on the basis of their religion or belief.
Myanmar Earthquake
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The heartbreaking scenes from Myanmar and Thailand over the weekend have shocked the world. I am sure I speak for those across the House in expressing our sincere condolences to all those affected by this terrible tragedy.
The devastating earthquake has only added to the plight of the people in Myanmar, who were already facing extreme vulnerability and hardship. Over 3,000 people have died and that is likely to increase significantly in the days ahead. I thank all the first responders in Myanmar, as well as the humanitarian and civil society partners working tirelessly in extremely difficult conditions to assess the scale of destruction and provide lifesaving support. I put on record the House’s thanks to our team in Yangon, and express the UK’s continued solidarity with and support for the people of Myanmar as they face yet more hardship.
Within the first half hour of the earthquake on Friday, the UK released in-built contingency funding to our humanitarian partners in Myanmar, and on Saturday, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and the International Development Minister, Baroness Chapman, announced a further £10 million of life-saving support. That will be delivered to UK-funded local partners already mobilised to provide a humanitarian response on the ground because of the ongoing conflict. It will bolster their efforts, including in the areas hardest hit by the earthquake, where they will help provide the most vulnerable with food, water supplies, medicine and shelter, regardless of their location.
I assure the House that these funds will not be used to benefit the current Myanmar military regime or individuals and entities sanctioned by the UK. Instead, it will be directed to partners with whom we have a trusted and long-standing working relationship, with a strong record of delivering assistance in an extremely challenging operating environment across Myanmar. Our priority is to help the most vulnerable in all areas affected by this disaster, including those outside the control of the military regime.
The UK is also supporting the emergency response through other global funds, in which we consistently rank as one of the top donors every year; for example, the $5 million from the United Nations central emergency response fund and $2 million from the Access to Health fund. Those funds will support emergency health response efforts focused on first aid and trauma care for the affected population.
To conclude, our combined support demonstrates the UK’s continuing commitment to supporting the people of Myanmar. Despite the earthquake, we have seen reports of ongoing airstrikes against civilian targets. Such attacks have had devastating consequences on local communities over the last four years, and we condemn all attacks that target civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals. We welcome existing ceasefires and call on all parties to the conflict to give emergency responders and humanitarian partners full, unhindered and safe access to those affected.
We recognise that the earthquake has also had significant impact in Thailand, and have expressed our deepest condolences to the Government of Thailand and to the families who have lost loved ones. We provided consular support to British nationals who were affected and I am relieved to update the House that our high-achieving team in Bangkok continues to function as normal.
We stand with the people of Myanmar and Thailand at this challenging time, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. As she has rightly said, the thoughts of the whole House are with all those impacted by the terrible earthquake affecting Myanmar, Thailand and the wider region. It is a tragedy that over 3,000 people have already been confirmed dead and many more are injured, and that so many still remain missing, leaving families gripped by anxiety as they await news of their loved ones. They are foremost in our minds, and I join the Minister in expressing condolences to those affected.
The images of rescuers searching through rubble, digging with their bare hands, are deeply moving. We hope and pray that more survivors are found and that effective recovery and stability operations can take place as quickly as possible. We understand, as the Minister has said, that the Government have committed a £10 million humanitarian package for Myanmar in the light of the awful earthquake and that that aid is being delivered through trusted humanitarian partners—she has mentioned some of those already. Will the Minister give any details of the aid partners that the UK is working with? The Minister has explained that the package will provide food, water supplies, medicine and shelter—and quite rightly. Will she give further details of the quantities and the types of foods and medicines being provided and who they are being provided by?
The statement also refers to the release of an in-built contingency fund for partners already in the country. Can the Minister confirm how much this is worth? Is this on top of the £10 million that has been announced? What will it be used for? Can she give details of how multilateral funding is being spent in response to this earthquake? Can she also comment on any contingency planning taking place for responding to any further serious aftershocks? Are there sufficient arrangements to get aid over the border into Myanmar? Given, as she has said, that Myanmar is controlled by a military dictatorship, what safeguards are in place to ensure that British aid reaches those in genuine need?
What is the Minister’s assessment on whether deconfliction will be possible to shield humanitarian efforts from military action, given the reports that Myanmar’s military have been striking civilian areas despite the obvious need for a focus on humanitarian relief? What is the British Government’s assessment of those reports—if, indeed, they are accurate—and how do they intend to respond? Moreover, does the Minister believe that the fallout from the earthquake will affect the humanitarian situation for the Rohingya refugees? What specific assessment has been made of their needs in the light of this terrible tragedy? Will any of the £10 million that has been announced go towards support for the Rohingya, or will there be an adaptation of existing programmes to support them?
Can the Minister also update the House on whether any of the £10 million is earmarked for Thailand, or whether there is a separate package of support for Thailand? It would be helpful for the House to understand whether formal requests for assistance have been received from any of the countries affected by the earthquake, and what the UK’s official response has been, as well as whether Ministers have had any discussions with counterparts affected in those countries. We will, of course, also look to the UK Government to provide all the necessary support for British nationals who are affected in the region; that is crucial. We know that Thailand is a popular holiday destination, and she has mentioned some of the consular assistance that is taking place. We have seen various activity on social media about how the Government are ensuring that messaging is targeted, but can she provide any specifics on the nature of the support that FCDO consular teams are able to provide to British nationals in the region?
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Lady for her shared concern about this earthquake and for her many points of detail. On the £10 million, that is on top of the current allocation. Myanmar is one of the parts of the region that receives the largest official development assistance funding, due to the conflict there. This is an extra £10 million.
On the aftershocks, we are awaiting more news, it being only three and a half days since the initial earthquake, but given the shallow nature of it, the assessment is that the aftershock in Bangkok is currently the worst. Should I hear more on that, I will update the right hon. Lady.
In relation to safeguarding the aid, the right hon. Lady makes the important point that it would be easy for the military regime to divert the aid away from the frontline. This is where the experience of our excellent staff on the ground plays such an important role, because we have tried and tested methods of working through grassroots organisations to provide aid into the centre of Myanmar and in and around the region of Mandalay. We have trusted ways of providing that aid, without being concerned that some of it might be diverted into the military.
On the Rohingya, that is being seen separately. We will be working a little later in the year on more support for the Rohingya. In the settlement of the Myanmar question, we hope that the Rohingya will be able to return to their part of Myanmar over the long term. Right now, the immediate support that the Government are able to provide is very much assisting with central Myanmar, but I can reassure her that we have a different strategy for the Rohingya, which I can write to her about.
On the separate package for Thailand, the current assessment is that the consular team have no extra concerns regarding people coming across the border. Our consular team is working as usual and our excellent ambassador there has given us reassurances that the team in Bangkok are operating as usual.
On our counterparts, due to the long-standing nature of the development work in Myanmar, we work closely with colleagues across the region who are helpful in Myanmar. It is complex and there are many hard-to-reach areas, so we work closely with some EU partners and some partners in the region, who have come to the aid of those suffering in this earthquake. That includes Singapore, India and other neighbouring countries.
The right hon. Lady also asked about the British consular assistance. We have an update that there are no concerns regarding missing British travellers either in Myanmar or Thailand, but I will continue to update her should that change.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The terrible loss of life and destruction caused by the earthquake in Myanmar is heaping further suffering on the people of that country, who are enduring a violent, repressive military regime and a brutal civil war. Does the Minister share my horror that Myanmar’s military regime is continuing airstrikes and ground attacks even during this humanitarian disaster? What possibility is there of humanitarian aid reaching non-Government-controlled areas in the periphery of the country?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his work with the Burma Campaign over the years and for his question. We have heard the reports of airstrikes after the earthquake and are looking into that with our partners. The UK has consistently called on the military to cease its targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, and we fully condemn those attacks. The military must immediately cease attacks on the civilian population, including humanitarian personnel. All parties to the conflict must ensure full unhindered humanitarian access to the most vulnerable and ensure the safety of those facilitating it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I share the grief expressed by the whole House for the people of Myanmar. It is heartbreaking that a country that has already suffered four years of brutal civil war now faces further devastation. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s announcement of £10 million to support the emergency response. It is vital that these funds reach those most severely impacted by the disaster as quickly as possible. Can the Minister confirm how much funding has been dispensed so far and outline the steps her Department is taking to translate funds into lifesaving aid as quickly as possible?
As the death toll continues to rise and the ultimate scale of the disaster becomes clearer, will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to increase our humanitarian support to match the needs on the ground? In the spring statement, we saw that the UK’s development spending faces a cliff edge in 2026, with almost £5 billion in cuts anticipated by that time. That will reduce the UK’s ability to respond to disasters and provide the long-term consistent support that rebuilding Myanmar and its economy will require. Will the Minister confirm that bilateral aid to Myanmar will remain a priority?
The military junta in Myanmar has long blocked aid access for civilians in opposition-controlled areas. Aid workers have been attacked, and we hear reports that aid workers responding to the earthquake fear junta arrest and interference. What are the Government doing to ensure that humanitarian aid is getting through and that responders on the ground can work free from repression? Will the Minister outline the Government’s diplomatic response to the wider conflict and their response to what the UN are calling reports of human rights violations?
Myanmar needs our support in the aftermath of this tragedy. As the world’s spotlight turns to it, I urge the Government to take this opportunity to use every lever they can to push for an end to conflict and for a future democracy.
Catherine West
On the question of how much of the £10 million has been spent, it has only just been allocated within the 48 hours, so it is still building on that firm base we already have. We have been a donor country to Myanmar for many years, and so are building on a solid base. The £10 million will be spent rapidly on the emergency responses.
The hon. Member asked about the impact of UK ODA cuts on the response to the earthquake. We know that the extra £10 million that the Foreign Secretary announced is on top of the original allocations. The hon. Member shared her worries about the future impact given our announcement that gross national income spent on ODA will drop to 0.3%. I can confirm that the International Development Minister set out to the International Development Committee that the initial bilateral ODA allocations for 2025-26 are set at the level of live contractual arrangements with partners. Unlike in the previous reduction of aid where there were in-year reductions and programmes stopped from one day to the next, that is not how this Government will look at the aid budget.
The Minister for Development will lay out to Parliament how she intends to conduct the comprehensive spending review post 2025-26, and how she will bring that the percentage down to 0.3%, but it is immaterial how that relates to the question of funding in response to the earthquake, because of the extra £10 million. We will continue to monitor that funding, and should it need topping-up we could do so, but our assessment at the moment is that it is about right given how many different partners are coming forward.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Our hearts go out to all those affected by the tragic loss of life and devastation in Myanmar and Thailand. The Disasters Emergency Committee says that it is monitoring the situation and is considering launching an appeal, as it has done for previous tragedies of this scale. What discussions has the Minister had with the Disasters Emergency Committee and its 15 leading groups on its ability to operate in Myanmar and on whether it will launch an appeal? If it does so, will the UK Government use UK Aid Match to match the generosity that I am sure the British public will show, in order to ensure that as much money as possible reaches the frontline in Myanmar and Thailand?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his knowledge in these areas of policy. I ask him to allow four or five days so that the various international partners that make up the Disasters Emergency Committee have time to deliberate. As he is aware, we have a generous civil society in the UK. As soon as there is information to bring forward, we will make a public statement.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for her statement to the House. For those of us who have been closely involved on issues to do with Burma/Myanmar for decades now, the severity of the disaster is shown by the fact that, unusually, the regime has called for international support. However, it is a mark of the barbarity of that illegal and corrupt junta that it conducted 11 airstrikes against its own people after the earthquake took place, which is undoubtedly a war crime. We have a long history of engagement with Burma. Some 6.3 million children are absolutely dependent on assistance. It will be very difficult to sustain the necessary level of support in future following Labour’s dreadful cuts to the international development programme. What discussions has the Minister had with her American counterparts to ensure that we drive the UK and US joint spending and get greater value for money?
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for his knowledge of Myanmar/Burma and of the situation. I could not agree more with him in his description of the Tatmadaw and its approach over the years—absolutely ruthless and brutal to its own people. He talks about the children who are affected. He will be aware that between 4 million and 5 million children were out of school even before the earthquake, so there is a strong sense that this could not have happened to a more vulnerable country. He asked about the role of the USA. As he is aware, US aid has been paused internationally, but I was delighted to see at the weekend that the US Government have said that they will contribute $2 million immediately. We will seek to work with US partners, who know the area as well, so that we can join up our efforts.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I associate myself with the Minister’s words about what is going on in Myanmar and Thailand. In my former role as the Prime Minister’s envoy to Thailand and Myanmar, I had the opportunity to see the extraordinary work that British businesses do in both countries. I fully understand that the British mission in Thailand is supporting all such businesses there, as it has done for many years. In Myanmar the situation is far more complicated, yet there are still a number of British businesses—from big conglomerates down to entrepreneurs trying to cut a furrow in that country—and they employ Burmese nationals, who would otherwise be starving given the complex political situation there. May I urge the Minister to work with the Department for Business and Trade to see how we can support British businesses in and around Yangon that are otherwise not being supported because of the situation with the junta?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work on behalf of the Government on understanding the trade picture and getting to know the businesses. He is right that there are a number of businesses for which it is safe to undertake business activity, and where there is best practice they have supported the workforce through thick and thin, not just of course in Myanmar but in Bangladesh, which is going through a difficult time, and in Thailand. I will certainly take his message of support to our missions in Yangon and Bangkok, so that all our partners there can be aware of the support here in the House for that ongoing work.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement today. This is so much more than a humanitarian crisis. It is a double disaster: a humanitarian crisis on the back of civil war and further military attacks on the domestic population of Myanmar. Given the United States’ withdrawal of USAID and the withdrawal of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, what is being done to support the BBC World Service’s Burmese service in an environment where information will be absolutely vital to the maintenance of services and the saving of lives?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. He is correct that USAID has been frozen, but it was encouraging to see over the weekend an announcement by the US Government that $2 million will immediately be put towards dealing with this dreadful earthquake. That is a hopeful sign that we can work together on this emergency. On the BBC World Service, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that often the radio is the only thing that people are able to access and it gives them so much hope. With his permission, I will write to him specifically on the exact position of the BBC World Service in Myanmar.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Many, many compassionate people across West Worcestershire and the whole of the United Kingdom will be wanting to know what they can do to help in this situation, so will the Minister give us some further information on how UK taxpayers may donate and whether there will be an aid match?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestions. She is right that so many people will be thinking, “How can I do my bit for the people of Myanmar?” As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), details will be available as soon as the Disasters Emergency Committee—the joint appeal across all the different bodies—comes forward, which will be within the week, because of course the earthquake happened just on Thursday night and Friday morning. I want to say very clearly from the Dispatch Box that the DEC is a proper brand that can be trusted by our constituents, because it is very important that people do not give money online through Facebook and other platforms if they are not sure of them. As soon as the announcement is ready, we will work very carefully with international partners about where those donations can go.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for her compassionate words, which encapsulate, I believe, the opinion of all of us in this Chamber. The major earthquake in Myanmar has caused over 2,000 deaths and the collapse of numerous high-rise buildings, temples and houses, destroying families and livelihoods and dispersing families in all directions. What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts or officials about ensuring that everything is done to get children to a place of safety with the necessary aid, and that efforts will be made to reunite any displaced children with their families as soon as is humanly possible and with all urgency?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his usual compassion for the children caught up in this disaster. I reassure him that children were fortunately not in school, as it was the school holidays; children were not in earthquake-affected schools, which is a huge relief. Obviously, certain places of religious belief were affected by the earthquake. We do not have an exact picture yet, but we know that through the work that the UK has done over the years with the 4 million to 5 million children, whether through vaccinations and health programmes or through our education programmes, we have a very good and trusted way of working at grassroots level to get to the hardest-to-reach families to serve them and ensure that they have lifesaving aid.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The regime’s use of its Kremlin-backed military during a humanitarian crisis to attack its own people is a complete obscenity. Has the Minister called in the Myanmar ambassador so that he can offer an explanation?
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. Along with him and the whole House I condemn the actions of the Tatmadaw. I am sure he is aware that currently there is no ambassador as such, but there is a chargé d’affaires. We do not have formal relations with the chargé, but I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said; the message from this House is very clear.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister explain a bit more about the mechanism by which any aid donated in this country will reach people on the ground in Myanmar? Particularly given the airstrikes we have heard about, it is hard to imagine how such aid would get to areas that are currently under attack by the regime.
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that. To be 100% clear, the usual procedure is for the Disasters Emergency Committee, which is made up of Governments plus large non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies, to arrange a mechanism for safely giving donations. We know that if people give donations to different groups, they may not go to the right place. As soon as we have that information, which will be within a week of the event happening, we will provide it, but it requires co-ordination across a number of Governments plus the UN agencies, faith groups and all the other groups. As soon as that is ready, we will let the right hon. Gentleman have the details.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The earthquake in Myanmar could not have come at a worse time, given that millions are already displaced and needing humanitarian assistance as a result of the ongoing civil war since the military coup in 2021. I welcome the Minister’s condemnation of the multiple airstrikes that have taken place since the earthquake and the £10 million of assistance that has been announced. However, numerous charities have come forward with emergency appeals to support those affected, and I have heard some warm words about how we can build on that. Will the UK Government support those appeals—as mentioned by others across this House; we are speaking with one voice—through aid match, so that for every pound donated by members of the public, the Government will contribute a further £1 of UK aid?
Catherine West
I can confirm that that suggestion is under active consideration.
Birmingham City Council
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham city council and on the issues affecting the waste service.
This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government. The public rightly expect and deserve well-functioning local councils that provide the essential statutory services that residents rely on. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham city council for the past 18 months to support it in its recovery, and today I am publishing their latest report into the progress on that journey. The report lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham, as the ongoing dispute in the waste service is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets. I will therefore take this opportunity to update the House on the status of that dispute.
To address the report first, the council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey, and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress on addressing historical equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking the difficult decisions to get the council back on track, and the commissioners have recognised his calm leadership through stormy waters. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand, and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by reaching an agreement to settle the outstanding claims and end the ongoing equal pay saga. It is also set to re-implement a strategy for the Oracle IT system.
Those improvements are encouraging, but challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain momentum. There is a difficult road ahead on key aspects of the best value regime—on governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery. As Members will know, there is a live industrial action in waste services, involving one of the three recognised trade unions in that area. The Government will support the leader and his team in Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historical issues. That support includes an increase in core spending power for 2025-26 of up to 9.8%, or £131 million. That figure includes £39.3 million through the new one-off recovery grant, which illustrates this Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system. We have also put in place an in-principle agreement for exceptional financial support totalling £1.24 billion.
Turning to the waste dispute, councils deliver over 800 vital services that make a huge difference to millions of people across the country. However, it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Members across the House will know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local people, and I know that hon. Members whose constituents are affected will be acutely aware of that disruption.
From the outset, I want to be clear that the statutory intervention is led by commissioners, and Ministers cannot legally intervene in this industrial action. However, I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout this, as they have sought to find a resolution in which the reforms needed to build a sustainable council are still undertaken, and the waste collection service returns to functioning normally, in the way that Members would expect. This situation is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived residents. As a result, Birmingham has today declared a major incident, so that it can use the mechanisms that it needs to better manage the impact on local residents. I support that decision, and I will back local leaders in bringing the situation under control in the weeks to come.
Well-established arrangements are in place to enable local areas to escalate issues when they need support, and the Government are monitoring the situation closely. This is a local issue, and it is right that the key public sector partners in Birmingham lead on it. If leaders in Birmingham feel that tackling these issues would require resources beyond those available to them, and request national support, we of course stand ready to respond to any such request. This Government will always back local leaders and give them the support that they need, not swoop in to criticise or take over from Whitehall. We will not hesitate to give support in any way that Birmingham leaders need. As Parliament would expect, a meeting will take place with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support and protect public health.
It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, for the benefit of Birmingham’s residents that this industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to get around the table and find a resolution. Any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure fit-for-purpose waste collection services, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation and transformation for many years, so any deal reached must not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue. I support the council on its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that residents in Birmingham deserve. We will support the council in resolving its historic issues and establishing the leadership, governance and culture that will drive good-quality public services for the people of that city, so that it can take its rightful place with confidence as one of our great UK cities.
As the council moves to the next stage of intervention, I will continue to work with the council, commissioners and the wider local government sector to understand how we can best ensure that residents get what they need from their local council. I will monitor progress, as I have done since the general election, to ensure that continuous improvement led by the council can be secured. As I am sure the whole House would expect, the commissioner arrangements will need to remain in place while the situation in Birmingham is so fragile. The commissioners have a vital role to play in supporting Birmingham’s transformation, working hand in glove with local leaders.
The Government remain committed to working in genuine partnership with the city and its council, and I continue to encourage the council to strengthen its partnerships with regional stakeholders, including Mayor Parker in the West Midlands combined authority, to support economic growth and financial sustainability. We are keen to promote growth and regeneration opportunities for Birmingham, and we are confident that as the council continues to work to fix the basics, while making progress against the milestones, local stakeholders will be encouraged to work in partnership with the council to deliver a clear vision for the future.
I look forward to continuing dialogue with commissioners, the council and regional partnerships, including Mayor Parker, on opportunities for growth in the region. A partnership approach with a clear vision will increase Birmingham’s capacity to achieve sustainable growth. The people of Birmingham deserve a well-run, accountable and financially stable council with good public services, not least waste collection services. I am encouraged by the council’s leadership and commitment to the same, and I look forward to the council beginning to demonstrate more ownership of its recovery, and to seeing evidence that it can deliver the lasting improvements that are required. I will deposit in the House Library copies of the commissioners’ report, which is being published today on gov.uk.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I am sure that the fact that both my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I tabled an urgent question on this issue played a part in the Minister coming to the House today. He has said nothing on this matter for the 20 days in which it has been a live issue. It is shameful—a national embarrassment—that one of our nation’s great cities, our second city, finds itself in such a bleak situation.
As the Minister admits, the problem is of the council’s own making. It is a result of the flawed deal with Unite back in 2017, which led to legal action over equal pay, but it is the people who pay the price. We have had mountains of rubbish blighting the streets of Birmingham for more than 20 days, and there is no end in sight to the dispute with Labour’s union paymasters, Unite. Almost every area is plagued by overflowing bins, rats the size of cats, and opportunistic fly-tippers exploiting the chaos to turn open spaces into dumping grounds. That is the reality of Labour in local government.
From Edgbaston to Sutton Coldfield, from Yardley to Erdington, and from Balsall Heath to Sparkhill, the piles of waste grow even higher. This is a public health emergency, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) has conceded. Even the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands has said that he is “fed up” with waste piling up and the streets being filthy. That is why we call for a Cobra-led response. This issue demands a co-ordinated effort across local and national Government, harnessing the expertise of public health officials, civil contingencies professionals and emergency services.
We call on the Government to cut councillor allowances for the cabinet members who got Birmingham into this mess, and we urge the Government to appoint binmen from the private sector to clear up Labour’s mess. Where are Labour’s MPs today? I can only see one on the Government Benches. [Interruption.] Okay, there are two here, out of 10. While they have been campaigning for an airport in Kashmir, we are proposing workable solutions.
The Minister talks about the calm leadership of Councillor Cotton. What local residents need is action, not buzzwords, both from the local leadership and from central Government. He says that Ministers cannot legally intervene in this industrial action. Is he honestly saying that he has no influence with the union involved, Unite, which is complicitly holding the city hostage, and which contributed £10,000 to the Deputy Prime Minister’s election war chest? Surely she is now duty-bound to pick up the phone and speak truth to the real power behind the Labour throne, the unions.
Incredibly, Unite is calling on central Government not to live within its means, but to make hundreds of millions of pounds available to the council. Is that something that the Minister is considering? He talks about an increase of 9.8%, or £131 million, in the council’s core spending power for the forthcoming year. Will he confirm that a significant part of that is being raised by means of a council tax increase of 7.8%, and that that is a clear breach of the Prime Minister’s pledge to freeze council tax this year?
I pay particular tribute to Councillor Bobby Alden and the Birmingham Conservatives who, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coalfield, have been doggedly holding the council’s incompetent leadership to account. They have clear solutions to this crisis. Now that Birmingham has today declared a major incident, leading to the availability of new mechanisms, can the Minister confirm that he will meet them to ensure that those mechanisms are considered?
I find it extraordinary that the Minister should say that Birmingham city council has not yet requested national support. Will he not insist that it do so immediately? He also said that he would meet local leaders and commissioners. Given that this crisis has been ongoing for 20 days and counting, why has he not already met those local leaders, and when will he do so? Will it be this very week?
Jim McMahon
Well, well. No one listening to that response would think that the Conservative Government had been in government for 14 years, and were in office when Birmingham had to come to them for financial support. But Birmingham was not alone, was it? Councils were falling like dominoes because of the last Government’s chronic underfunding. The Conservatives talk about Kashmir; they left a cash crisis that affected every council. Every single council, whether it was Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, was let down by the Conservative Government. The Conservatives cannot even look their own councils in the eye. When it comes to reorganisation, local leaders who are doing what is needed for their area and showing local leadership have been being undermined by the national leadership. They are lions led by donkeys.
Beyond the party political nonsense that has been deployed, surely we can all agree that we care about the people of Birmingham and want this vital public service restored. Surely we all agree that given the last Government’s intervention in Birmingham, the journey of improvement is fragile. Yes, improvements have been made, but we have to maintain our course. The Conservatives must also accept that one of the biggest barriers to settling the council and giving it long-term stability was the storing up of equal pay liabilities. Resolving this issue is critical, not just for the council but for the people of Birmingham.
I can assure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that regular conversations have been taking place. That includes a meeting with the council leader a couple of weeks ago, and there will be a further meeting this week. We have said that we will do what is needed to help the council achieve what it needs to achieve, and to get the service back on track. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right approach, with local leaders showing local leadership and national Government providing the support that is needed.
Bizarrely, the hon. Gentleman referred to council tax increases. The council tax increase in Birmingham last year, under the last Government, was higher than this year’s increase. Why? Because this Government have a clear eye on looking after taxpayers and ensuring that any increases are contained. How did we do that? We did not do what the last Government would have done. We did not say, “Just go to the wall and see what happens.” It was this Government who provided nearly £40 million of new money through the recovery grant for Birmingham, to ensure that it did not have to pass that increase on to local taxpayers. That is genuine partnership, with national Government and local government working hand in hand. Is it not time that the previous Government accepted their failings over 14 years in office and accepted that the foundations of local government were left weaker, not stronger, when they left office? Will they now start putting the interests of the people of this country ahead of political interests?
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
This bin dispute is causing chaos in the city, including in Birmingham Erdington. What discussions have the Government had with Birmingham city council regarding not just the bin collections, but the impact on public health and the environment? It is so important that we look at the health and safety of local residents in Birmingham.
Jim McMahon
That is the crux of where we are: because the bin dispute has been going on for so long, the scale of uncollected rubbish being left in the streets is now posing public health concerns, which is why the council has declared a major incident today. It is showing local leadership, it recognises the public health implications, and it is working with local public sector providers. As I have already said, I will make sure that the Government stand absolutely ready to work with the council and to provide any support that it needs, as part of a genuine partnership.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind Members that if they are seeking to contribute in a statement, they must arrive on time. It is extremely discourteous to the Minister, and indeed to the House, to be late.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran all the way from the top floor of Derby Gate, but I was not fast enough. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an elected member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.
The people of Birmingham have a right to receive decent services, and it is critical that the ongoing dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), we are concerned about the impact on public health and the environment, and urge the Government to confirm that when waste collection resumes, it will be safely disposed of and recycled where possible, and not just given to the cheapest bidder.
Fundamentally, the Conservative Government slashed funding to local authorities year on year, forcing councils to do more with less and plunging so many, of all political stripes, into financial crisis. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not yet addressed some of the financial crises, particularly around confirmation of the special educational needs override, which I know councils across the nation are really worried about, and which is making it more difficult for them to make decisions about their future plans.
We welcome the multi-year settlements, which I am sure the Minister will refer to, but we remain concerned about how effective they will be. Two recent examples give us cause for concern: the roads funding, which appears to give local authorities more money, actually cuts England’s road repair budget by 5%; and the employer’s national insurance change, which promised to cover councils’ costs for direct staffing in full, did not do so in some cases, including for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. All that is underpinned by a broken council tax system that is regressive. In some areas, the council tax base is totally inadequate to provide for the growing list of services, and the Lib Dems want to see a radical overhaul.
Birmingham should serve as a lesson for the Government, because this matter is a result of the long-running equal pay crisis. What learning are they taking from the situation in Birmingham, and what extra measures is the Minister introducing to prevent public health and community safety issues?
Jim McMahon
I am pleased to say that we are making sure that we deal with the waste piling up in the streets and that the council gets the support it needs, but the hon. Lady is right to say that there is an interrelationship. This dispute does not sit in isolation; it is part of wider considerations on equal pay, and we have to bear in mind that the cost of meeting the equal pay liability for the people of Birmingham is £1 billion. There can be no steps forward in this dispute that double down on the inherent problems that led to the equal pay crisis that the city has faced. These are sensitive negotiations, but it is important that the council continues to negotiate and that people get around the table to find a way through.
The hon. Lady talks about the multi-year settlement that is being prepared for and the simplification of the funding mechanism, but she also mentions redistribution. Birmingham and councils like it have not found themselves in this situation in a vacuum; it has been partly driven by central Government not distributing money in a fair way to deal with service need and deprivation, and it is very important that we get the money to where that deprivation exists. Even under the current one-year settlement, Birmingham has had a 9.8% increase—in cash, that is £131 million.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Birmingham bin strike means that many of my constituents have not had their bins collected in weeks, and this week a constituent wrote to me to say that they had been bitten by a rat. I have been raising the public health situation and calling for the council to take emergency measures, so I do welcome the fact that it has declared a critical incident today.
Does the Minister agree with me that it is unacceptable that Unite pickets have been frustrating the council’s contingency plans by blocking depots, and that it is time for Unite to accept the fair deal on the table? Seventeen people cannot hold 1.2 million Birmingham residents to ransom.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend is right to say that the vast majority of the workforce of the service have agreed a way forward, by one route or another—whether by taking voluntary redundancy or accepting a new way of working—and that this comes down now to a small number of people who have not accepted that. In the end, that is where the dispute lies. I do agree that a city cannot almost grind to a halt because of such a circumstance in its waste collection service.
I encourage all parties—the local authority as the employer and the trade unions—to get around the table, and focus on the bigger prize here. After almost a decade of uncertainty on equal pay, the council and the trade unions have agreed a position from which they can move forward together. That is a significant moment in which I think all parties should take some pride. Let us not spoil it by the action today that could undermine the equal pay negotiations that have been so successful.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Minister really cannot get away with blaming the last Conservative Government for this situation. Labour’s own campaign improvement board said:
“Budget cuts and the size of the City are used as reasons to explain the situation however, this does not hold up to scrutiny”.
My constituents in the Royal town of Sutton Coldfield, which is part of Birmingham if only for local government purposes, are absolutely furious at this latest evidence of paralysis and incompetence under Labour. It follows Labour bankrupting the city, rocketing our council tax, seeking to close our libraries and trying to charge us for parking in our own park. Does the Minister not think that we now need a judge-led inquiry into the cause of the equal pay crisis, Birmingham’s bankruptcy and this dreadful bin strike? Surely the people of Birmingham, Britain’s second city, deserve better from the Labour party.
Jim McMahon
I am afraid that the picture that the right hon. Member paints of increased charges at a local level—whether for car parking or other types of charges, or the council tax going up in a way that some households will find difficult—is the story of English local government for the last decade, and Birmingham does not sit in isolation. In many ways, the size of the local authority—the fact that it is the largest local authority in Europe, not just in this country—goes some way to explaining how a ripple in one council of a much smaller size in Birmingham has a much bigger implication.
The right hon. Member talked about a judge-led process. This situation does not need a judge; it needs judgment. The judgment is that, after so much progress has been made on equal pay, now is the time to resolve the dispute, settle it and allow the workforce to move on with fair pay for men and women in equivalent roles across the local authority. I am sure he agrees with me that that is the way forward.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
My residents and constituents deserve better than the current scenes in Birmingham. Bins are not being collected, and the council is losing future revenue because commercial contracts are being cancelled. The reality is that bin services were not good enough even before the strike. When the strike ends—and it will end—what assurance can the Minister give my residents that refuse and health services in Birmingham will be decent and fit for purpose?
May I respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), whom I respect? He sought to deny a share of the blame for his party, but will the Minister confirm that last year’s 10% council tax increase was signed off in No. 10 and the Treasury at the time and that, under the previous Government, Birmingham lost 40p in the pound, with the sharpest cuts of any unitary authority?
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend rightly sets out how difficult the operating environment has been for local government and in particular for Birmingham. It was the previous Government who introduced the commissioner process, the previous Government who started the exceptional financial support process, and the previous Government who introduced the 10% council tax increase in Birmingham. When we came into office, we were determined not to let Birmingham stand by itself and that we had a role to play. The recovery grant was our contribution to that. The benefit for local people is that we are now able to manage the impact on council tax payers at a local level in a way that, frankly, the previous Government did not seem to care too much for.
How we move on from this point is what I think people in Birmingham want to know. How can we clear up the mess that has been left on the streets? How can we restore a waste collection service that delivers for the people of that great city? How can we have an equal pay agreement that really holds, and is not unpicked by a short-term agreement just on the current crisis? As I said, I think the council has done a good job in navigating very choppy waters, but it is not at the other end of them yet. The improvement journey for Birmingham will take some time. It requires a clear eye on the end that everyone is trying to work towards.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
When the Minister describes this as a local matter, it is clear to me that his Government are washing their hands of the problem. That is not good enough. The residents of Aldridge-Brownhills, which is on the edge of Birmingham, see and hear what is going on and we do not want the problem coming over to us—we do not want the squeaky blinders in Aldridge-Brownhills. What we do want is the Minister to get this problem sorted out and get those bins emptied for residents. It is quite simple.
Jim McMahon
I said that this is a partnership. Of course, Birmingham city council, as the employer in this trade union dispute, has to negotiate with the trade unions and the workforce to get those services back. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion. The question is then: what can we do, as a national Government, to support local government to achieve that? We have maintained support. The commissioners, appointed by the previous Government, are in place. We have provided additional financial support—not just to Birmingham—with £5 billion of new investment in local government, bringing the total settlement to £69 billion.
As I said before, £40 million alone was for the recovery grant for Birmingham, so I feel the Government are doing as much as we can, but we always stand ready to do more if needed.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
Over 14 years, Birmingham city council lost £736 million of funding under the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that that is a big recipe for the situation we are in now? Does he agree that both sides, the council leadership and the trade unions, need to put public rhetoric to one side, get around the table and sort this dispute out?
Jim McMahon
If we look at the progress made on equal pay, the trade unions and the local authority worked in partnership to agree a way forward. In the end, they recognised that they all care about the same things: they care about the people of Birmingham, about the workforce and about the long-term viability of the local authority. When common interest is applied, people can find a way through. I hope, going forward, that all interested parties can get around the table, find a way through and get the bins emptied.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Residents of Birmingham will have heard the Minister talk about monitoring, overseeing and reviewing what is happening. What they want to hear is what the Minister is going to do. Can he make it clear that if the talks are not agreed, there is no return back to work and the bins are not emptied, he will intervene and throw all the resources that are required to break the strike and ensure the bins are again emptied in Birmingham?
Jim McMahon
There is a difference in tone between resolving the strike and breaking the strike. We absolutely stand ready to support the council and the workforce more generally, who do want the situation resolved as many who work for the council also work in the city. They take pride in being local public servants and they want the city to be proud of the council in return; for many, that is being tested. We absolutely stand ready to work with the council and find a way through this issue. The council is working hard to resolve it; it understands that people are angry and frustrated, and that, from a public health point of view, it just cannot continue.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Chelworth Road in my constituency is a road of two halves: on one half of the road, which is in the Wythall division of Worcestershire, the rubbish is collected; on the other side, which falls under Labour-led Birmingham city council, the rubbish is piling high, council tax is going up by 21% and a major incident is being declared. Labour is delivering rubbish, while the Liberal Democrats are prancing around on their hobby horses on social media. The Minister talks about priorities, including putting residents first and delivering value for money, but surely this is further proof that only Conservative councils will deliver on those priorities. Will the Minister tell us at what point he will step in to get those bins collected?
Jim McMahon
The hon. Gentleman is trying to set up the good council and the bad council by party politics, but I am afraid that has been exhausted. The previous Government did this all the time: they would parade councils of a different colour around for shaming, whatever the issue, while for one of their own they would just hope that everything would move on and that nobody would notice. We are not interested in doing that.
This is about a new partnership, where national Government and local government work together to resolve these issues. If a Conservative council finds itself in trouble—there have been some, I should say, and there may be more in the future—I am not going to name and shame it and parade it around in the way the hon. Gentleman is trying to do today. We stand ready to work with councils of all political parties in the interests of the people at a local level, because that is what matters.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I give the Minister some friendly advice and suggest that he does not try to write this off as a little local difficulty? I am half expecting to hear him use the phrase, “Crisis, what crisis?” He cannot be blamed for not remembering the winter of discontent—using the wonders of Wikipedia, I see that it happened a year before he was born—but I can assure him that the Callaghan Government and the Labour party never shook off the pungent smell of the rubbish piling in the streets on their watch. He really does not want to have the same thing happen to him.
Jim McMahon
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what stinks: hearing Conservative MPs line up as if they were not in government for 14 years and creating the conditions for this to happen, while the foundations of local government were eroded. With that record, I would honestly keep the advice to myself if I were him.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
We have Birmingham Labour MPs campaigning for a new airport in Pakistan; meanwhile, we have rats the size of cats feasting on a month of rubbish in Birmingham, courtesy of Labour’s trade union friends. My simple question to the Minister is this: when will this rubbish be cleared?
Jim McMahon
We both share the intention and ambition that it will be cleared as soon as possible. There should not be any further delay in reaching an agreement when it is quite clear that the volume of waste to be collected is proving to be a waste hazard. With his background as a councillor, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is for the council, as a local employer, to resolve this matter with the trade unions by agreement. That is what we want.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:47 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 170 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 104 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B, and by Lords amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 1
Determination of additional multipliers
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 15B to 15E, and Government motion to disagree to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15.
Jim McMahon
I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments tabled in lieu of those to which this House disagreed. I reiterate my thanks to Members of both Houses for their continued diligence in the scrutiny of these measures.
The Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of permanent lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from April 2026, ending the uncertainty of the temporary RHL relief. The RHL relief stopgap measure creates uncertainty for businesses, as well as a significant fiscal pressure on the Government. This Government are committed to addressing that in the Bill.
The Government face the significant challenge that we must balance the books, so we cannot and should not make tax cuts without ensuring that those tax cuts are funded. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable the introduction of a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000, ensuring that the permanent tax cut from RHL properties is sustainably funded from within the business rates system.
The Bill will also help to deliver another of the missions set out in the Government’s manifesto: breaking down barriers to opportunity. It will remove eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England. As I have said before in this House, the Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. To eliminate the barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where—let us remember—over 90% of children are educated. The revenue raised through the removal of charitable relief will help to deliver our commitments to education and young people and will help us to meet our overarching mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity for all.
Lords amendments 1B and 7B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier through regulations. Lords amendments 2B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. The amendments are unnecessary, because the powers that they seek already exist in the Bill. Let me be clear: the powers in the Bill will already allow the Government, should they so choose, to exclude certain properties from the higher multiplier. This is not the intention that I have set out; the Government’s intention is that the higher multiplier will apply to all properties at or above the £500,000 threshold to ensure that local multipliers can be adequately funded. I urge the House to reject the amendments, because they are not required and they duplicate powers that already exist in the Bill.
Lords amendment 13B, tabled by Lord Thurlow, would require the Government to
“undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.”
The amendment would require the review to be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed. It also specifies that the review
“must consider the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.”
We have previously considered two similar Lords amendments, and our position has not changed. The amendment is unnecessary. The “Transforming Business Rates” work that is under way recognises the cliff edge in the business rates system and recognises that it may act as a disincentive to expanding. I reiterate the assurance that I have previously provided to the House: the Government are already looking at this precise issue.
The second part of Lords amendment 13B would require the Government to undertake a review examining the merits of a separate use class in business rates and an associated multiplier for warehouses that cater for retailers without a material presence on the high street. As has been set out, the Government are already exploring that objective through the projects that have been mentioned. The “Digitalising Business Rates” project will allow us to match property-level data with the business-level data held by HM Revenue and Customs. This will improve the way in which we target business rates. The Government therefore remain of the view that the amendment is not required. I urge hon. Members to disagree to it.
The Government are fully committed to transforming the business rates system. This is simply the first step in a wider programme of change in a system that is long overdue for reform. As the Chancellor set out in the spring statement last week, the Government will publish an interim report setting a clear direction of travel for reform, with further policy details to follow at the autumn Budget. Reforms to the business rates system will be phased in over the Parliament.
Finally, amendments 15B to 15E seek to move the measure to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools from one that is being made by Parliament through this Bill to one that the Secretary of State would make through regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument. The Government are committed to delivering on our manifesto commitments, and part of that is removing the charitable rate relief from private schools to raise revenue to help deliver on our commitments to young people and education, including the in state sector where, as I said, most children are educated. The Government’s view is that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, the Government cannot accept them, and we ask the House to disagree to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank their noble lordships for their diligent further consideration of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill and for the new amendments they have passed to address their concerns with the legislation. These changes shine a spotlight on Labour’s muddled priorities, exposing an approach that punishes aspiration, squeezes business, and increases the cost of living for consumers and the cost of doing business.
This very week, we will see the new jobs tax introduced and business rate hikes. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which is of great concern to many private sector businesses, and consumers will consequently see higher prices and lower wages. Tomorrow, we will also see a hike in council tax, energy prices, water bills, broadband and the BBC licence fee.
I will address the four primary groups of amendments in turn. First, Lords amendments 1B and 7B tackle the proposal to levy a higher multiplier on medical, dental and other healthcare settings. The amendments would prudently protect all healthcare premises—occupied or vacant—from the higher multiplier, addressing a glaring flaw in Labour’s Bill. For too long, we have cautioned against their detachment from practical governance, but now it is undeniable: rather than targeting the untaxed profits of internet giants as pledged, they are heaping costs on to hospitals and GP surgeries. It is baffling that Labour’s so-called reform of the rating system would burden healthcare at all, let alone doing so while they plan to hike national insurance on jobs tomorrow to fund the NHS—only to claw it back today by taxing those same health services.
Just yesterday, the Government pledged to funnel more cash into the NHS by taxing jobs through national insurance hikes, yet today they turn around and tax the NHS itself via business rates. It is a fiscal farce—a two-faced assault on healthcare that undermines their own rhetoric. As Conservative Members have mentioned in recent debates, Labour’s obsession with revenue grabs over sensible relief is choking the sectors we need most.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that there seems to be a disjointed approach, where the Health Secretary is asking for more healthcare in the community, whereas we will be asking anybody who moves from a central location into the community to pay these additional taxes and rates?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Member is right; there is no logic to the Government’s approach. They are giving with one hand and taking with the other, and they are making the kinds of decisions he talks about ever more difficult.
Lords amendments 2B and 8B address the ratings regime for anchor stores on our beleaguered high streets. We echo the words of the John Lewis chief executive Nish Kankiwala, who warned that Labour’s Budget is a “two-handed grab” at retailers that piles on national insurance increases while refusing to reform business rates as it promised to do. Retailers face a £7 billion hit from these policies, with consumers braced for higher prices as a result.
These amendments exempt anchor stores—the vital engines of our town centres—from the higher multiplier. It is a lifeline that Labour seems determined to withhold. Unoccupied anchor stores would also escape this punishing rate, preventing empty shopfronts from becoming permanent scars on our highstreets. Setting the threshold for the higher multiplier at £500,000 is a blunt instrument, as the Minister concedes. I can assure the Government that this will have consequences for businesses that are not big tech giants. It will hit large supermarkets, supermarket delivery and large department stores, showing that the Labour Government have not thought it through.
Conservative Members have rightly decried Labour’s neglect of retail, and they are right. The Leader of the Opposition has rightly highlighted that Labour’s rates multiplier fiasco is killing off the high street while real reform is dodged. Businesses face a double whammy of higher taxes and no certainty thanks to a Government who are more interested in punishing aspiration than powering growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.
We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.
The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.
I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.
I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.
The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Government for bringing the Bill forward, but I have to put on record some of my concerns—the Minister will not be surprised. He knows that it is never meant in an aggressive way; I put things forward in this way because it is important that my constituents have a chance to express themselves through me in this Chamber.
First, I echo the concerns of the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrats spokesperson in relation to hospitals and medical and dental schools. I have some concern over how that will trickle down, as it will inevitably, and put pressure on sectors where it does not need to be. The job of those three areas is to ensure that our hospitals can deliver the care and our medical and dental schools can produce the students with the expertise and knowledge to be the next generation of those who look after us.
My major concern, however, is about private schools. I know the point has been echoed many times, but I cannot let this occasion go without making my remarks, on which I have sought the direction of Madam Deputy Speaker and other parties. Members will be aware of the issue with private schools, and I have spoken about it on numerous times to put forward the argument for the faith schools in my constituency. Parents scrimp and save to ensure that their children can go to those schools and have the standard of education that they wish for them, and they have asked me to put that on record. The reason I persist in raising the issue is that I truly believe that some people of faith will be further disadvantaged when the Bill goes through. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but it will be the reality, and for that reason I must put it on record.
Although the rating provisions will not apply in Northern Ireland per se, the disadvantage to our sector remains in the removal of the tax considerations, which will affect schools in Northern Ireland. That is where the issue is. For the mainland, the effect is quite clear, but schools in Northern Ireland will be affected as well. I wish to be clear that I oppose these provisions on behalf of faith-based schools on the mainland as well, because parents of children at those schools want the same as those who spoke to me.
I am a very proud member of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I believe that that extends to parents’ freedom to educate their child with a view to how their faith is worked into that education. Lords amendment 15 has been referred to by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). For many parents, confidence that their faith will not be dismantled in the classroom is worth the financial burden of paying into their child’s education, but that is being denied by this legislation. I believe that they all deserve the opportunity to educate their child in a way that they wish, for which they will probably pay handsomely, but these proposals will adversely affect parents’ freedom to educate their child in their religious belief.
The option to home-school is one that parents may not have considered previously, yet may now feel is the only financial option available for them. Those parents may not feel qualified or equipped to deal with the skills that are vital to home-schooling, yet believe there to be no option as they simply cannot afford to pay the uplifted fees. That is the unfair burden that falls on the shoulders of those parents.
I firmly believe that the Government disagree with almost every Lords amendment because the Lords amendments interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and the application of local revenues. The Commons does not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient. Basically that means, “We need the money.” I have been a Member of this House for almost 15 years and an elected representative for some 40 years as a councillor and a member of the Assembly, and never, ever have I believed that money is the bottom line, and I do not believe that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that. We cannot take faith-based education out of the hands of a certain class of people to punish those high-class schools with swimming pools. Let me assure the House that Bangor Independent Christian school, with its Sunbeams nursery schools, has no pool. Regent House prep in my constituency has no swimming pool either. There are small primary schools that will have difficulty operating when these regulations come into force, and that is simply not right.
I know that the strength of the Labour Government means that this Bill will pass, but I am urging individual MPs across the House to consider who will be punished and to urge the Government to review this tax raid on education, even at this late hour. We believe in the right to live one’s faith, and we cannot tax that right out of reach. That is where this Bill has gone wrong, and has divorced itself from the reality of the people that I represent.
Jim McMahon
I think I addressed the majority of the points in my opening speech that have been raised subsequently, but I thank Members for their contributions. We have heard the Opposition’s concern that the multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced in the Budget. We clearly do not agree with that position. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, to end the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief. Also, as I set out in my opening speech, the relief was a temporary stopgap measure. Of course, it has been extended year on year, but it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. It has created a cliff edge.
During our last session—I cannot remember when it was; it feels like it was yesterday—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) seemed to acknowledge that the cliff edge that was built in the previous system was providing uncertainty to businesses and their ability to plan ahead. He must surely welcome the fact that this new lower multiplier—this permanent relief—gives all businesses, whether they are retail, hospitality or leisure, the long-term security that they have been asking for and, importantly, in a way that is sustainable and self-financing through the business rates system.
Through the Bill, the Government are taking steps to address all the issues that have been outlined. The chosen approach is both appropriate and prudent, and the challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires it. Any tax cut must be appropriately funded, under our commitment to sound financial management, so the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. It is important to say this to settle some of the arguments: that will affect less than 1% of properties in England. Less than 1% will pay more, but that will fund the lower multiplier, as we all recognise. That will help our town centres and our high streets, and it is what we need to do. This approach delivers on the policy set out in the Budget, and on our manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to make it fairer and fit for the 21st century, and to protect the high street.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister says that the solution that he has alighted on meets his manifesto commitment, but his manifesto says,
“This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.
That is not what the provision does—not exclusively. He knows that it levies extra taxes, extra business rates, on high street stores, large department stores, supermarkets, football stadiums and many others. They are not online giants.
Jim McMahon
The rating system adequately reflects the scale of properties. Less than 1% of properties in the business rates system will use the higher multiplier. That will fund the tax break for those on the high street that will use the lower multipliers. In the evidence session —the hon. Gentleman was there—we heard retailers say, “Of course, that will have an impact on our distribution centres, but we have so many stores that are below the threshold.” That allows national retailers with multiple locations to benefit; in the round, they find themselves better off as a result of this policy. As for rebalancing the situation for online retailers and those on our high streets, that is exactly what this measure does. Big distribution centres will pay for that relief.
I once again thank hon. Members for their contributions, but for the reasons set out, I respectfully ask this House to disagree with the amendments before us.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. As the escalators in Portcullis House are still not working, I shall allow an additional two minutes for the Division.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 62 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—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 provision of degree apprenticeships in England.
(2) The Report must include an impact assessment of the removal of apprenticeship levy funding for degree apprenticeships.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 3—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.”
New clause 4—Creation of Skills England—
“(1) A body corporate known as Skills England is established to carry out the functions transferred to the Secretary of State under this Act.
(2) At the end of a year after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations transferring to Skills England all the functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from transferring more functions to Skills England under other enactments.”
This new clause would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”
Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3B) When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—
(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and
(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”
Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(6B) When approving a standard under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—
(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and
(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”
Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 4, line 13, after “England” insert
“, including the impact of removing apprenticeship level funding for degree apprenticeships”.
Amendment 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(c) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England”
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which Skills England is created.”
Ian Sollom
In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.
I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would. It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee.
As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity. In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned:
“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.”
It also observed that in IfATE, at present,
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.”
The Skills Federation raised similar concerns:
“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.”
It also said:
“Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would help colleges such as Bridgwater and Taunton college, the biggest provider of apprenticeships in England? Will he join me, and other Members, in encouraging those colleges on their path towards awarding their own degrees?
Ian Sollom
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I certainly encourage those colleges on their path. As I will explain, my new clause will enable Skills England to support them more fully.
Equally concerning is the need for effective cross-departmental co-ordination. Skills policy does not exist in isolation. Skills England needs to work with, among others, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs, the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills, the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors, the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning, and, following the Chancellor’s spring statement last week, the new defence growth board on critical skills for our defence industry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the construction sector. We welcome the news that the Government will build 1.3 million houses, but that requires builders, plumbers, carpenters, electricians and plasterers, and they must be trained, so that they can do that job well. Does he feel that his new clause will enable the building of those 1.3 million houses?
Ian Sollom
I would hope that better scrutiny and accountability in Parliament would help with delivering what is required, and holding the Government to account when it comes to keeping their promises.
On the cross-departmental work that I mentioned, the lack of a published framework for Skills England as we consider the Bill is deeply concerning, and what we have seen so far suggests a structure that is heavily Department for Education-centric. Without statutory independence and appropriate seniority, Skills England will struggle to drive the cross-departmental co-ordination that Members on both sides of the House agree our skills system needs.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He is, of course, right that the measures would represent considerable centralisation, if it was not for the creation of Skills England. He has mentioned a number of Government Departments. Does he think that IfATE, a non-governmental body, has been successful in bringing all their work together, and that a Government body will not be, or is he arguing for something different?
Ian Sollom
I will come to my preference for an executive agency that fits what the Government want to do. That is the reason for my new clause, and I do not think that it need delay efforts. Ultimately, a statutory, departmental body would have more clout. On the basis of what we understand, at least, I think that the remit for Skills England is very different from the remit for IfATE when it comes to that cross-departmental working.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This Government have just taken bold action by abolishing NHS England, the largest quango in the world. Part of the motivation for doing so was the need to ensure that when something is not going right in the NHS, the buck does not stop with a quango that we Back-Bench MPs cannot question directly, but with Ministers. That is better for governance and for scrutiny; it means that when the Health Secretary says that something is not going well enough, we can question him robustly and challenge him to improve. Surely the hon. Gentleman sees that the way to push Skills England to be as robust as possible is by having strong governance.
Ian Sollom
There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude.
Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill. The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that
“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.”
There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that
“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.]
The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions 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”,
which
“may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.”
In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction.
In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee. It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment. This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement.
As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people.
Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning.
In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements. Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England.
The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance. As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured
“to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.”
The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input.
Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place.
The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently?
New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight. If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances.
I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Pam Cox. Happy birthday! [Interruption.] Do you wish to contribute, or are you going to celebrate your birthday on the Back Benches?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was rather blown away by that. My birthday was actually on Saturday, but thank you so much.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, as a member of the Public Bill Committee and of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. The Bill is vital because it paves the way for the creation of Skills England, a new and ambitious body that will bring a fresh urgency to the task of upskilling our young people—and there is an urgency about this.
As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said, Skills England will build on the extremely valuable work of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, and I would like to pay tribute—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Could you be seated for a moment? We are talking about the amendments to the Bill, not the overall Bill. The idea is to discuss the amendments and whether you disagree with them, but you need to bring your contribution in line with the debate this evening.
Pam Cox
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue is whether we should delay the introduction of this measure to allow more time to set up Skills England. A lot of preparatory work has already been done to set up Skills England, as we discussed quite fully in Committee, and we should get going on training up the carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other apprentices that we all know we need.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derby is seeing a fresh boost to its city centre with a new performance venue, a restored marketplace and the Friar Gate goods yard, which had stood derelict for 50 years, but is now being transformed into 276 new homes. What we do not want is for our ambition for our city to be held back by skills shortages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than the dither and delay proposed by Conservative Members, we need to get on with this legislation so that we can train the next generation of bricklayers, roofers, plasterers, scaffolders and electricians that our country so desperately needs?
Pam Cox
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree. This morning, before I travelled to Westminster from Colchester, I visited JTL, a national organisation with a base in our city that trains thousands of apprentice electricians and plumbers, and I had similar exchanges with them. So I very much agree, because the urgency I have mentioned is about their futures—securing their futures.
We debated this in some detail in Committee, and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has outlined the Minister’s responses. To my mind, those responses stand. I am satisfied that we should not delay in setting up Skills England, because the young people of Colchester—and, indeed, of Derby and elsewhere —simply do not have the time to wait.
On that note, last week the Government announced plans to train 60,000 new construction workers to help build the 1.5 million homes we will see going up in the course of this Parliament. Moves such as that and many others show that we are working at pace to reverse the many years of stagnation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Is the hon. Lady taking an intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech or is she taking an intervention?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I want to make a short contribution to this Report stage debate, particularly in favour of new clause 4 and amendment 6. On the train coming up to Westminster, I typed into my tablet “Short IfATE speech”, and every time I did so, it kept changing it to “Short irate speech”. Unfortunately, I am not very good at irate speeches—it is not really my thing—so I will make a slightly disappointed speech, but with a hint of optimism, because I hope this Minister may take this opportunity to do something of significant benefit for the technical and vocational education and training system in this country.
I know why the Government came forward with the idea of a new quango—it is not even a quango, but a sort of semi-quango—called Skills England. They did that because they were going to have to talk to British industry about a lot of other things. They knew deep down that they would be doing things that were really very unpopular, such as the Employment Rights Bill and the massive hike in national insurance contributions and business rates, and that aspects of those things are bad for employment and unpopular with employers. With Skills England, Ministers—then campaigners, but now Ministers—had come up with something they thought business would really like and want.
In truth, however, if the Government are going to fix the two big underlying issues in our system—the productivity gap we have in this country compared with France, the United States and Germany, and the parity of esteem we all say we want, and that the Conservatives do want, between academic learning and vocational learning —we need to make technical and vocational education better. We also need to make it simpler and more appealing, but above all it needs to be made better. That is entirely what the Sainsbury review—spearheaded by the noble Lord Sainsbury, a Labour Lord—was all about. It was about giving us a simpler, more appealing system, led by business, which would deliver the highest quality of technical education.
Edward Morello
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about creating parity between academic and technical education. Would a useful step in the direction of attracting people into the apprenticeship scheme be to ensure that they are paid the national minimum wage in line with their age group?
Damian Hinds
The truth is that there is always a balance about apprenticeships. Of course, there can be abuses: in the past there were abuses of the apprenticeship system with the lower rate that could be paid, although many employers pay the full rate to people of whatever age who are doing apprenticeships. However, it is also true that providers are getting four days a week—not five—of work from somebody, and a form of learning is involved. It is the same, with the opposite proportions, when someone is doing a T-level, which is partly done at college and partly on an employer’s premises. There is always a risk that if we make that gap too narrow, fewer people may be afforded that opportunity in the first place. That balance has to be got right, but I take my hat off to all the many employers who have invested very strongly in their young people, particularly in the way the hon. Member outlines.
Clearly, quality cannot be guaranteed just by the structure of the Government Department or Executive agency that oversees it, but quality is less likely if we get that structure wrong. The two key things with IfATE—key to this debate and for the amendments we are considering —are, first, its independence from the Government, and secondly, that there was the guaranteed business voice. I am talking in the past tense already, but I mean that it is independent and there is a guaranteed business voice.
Which Minister is not going to say, “We’ll listen to business”? Of course, Ministers will say, “We’ll listen to business. We want business to be at the heart of our plans and designing them.” They will say that, but it is not guaranteed in what the Government plan to set up, and just saying they will listen is not enough. Such independence gives people, meaning the employers, the young learners and everybody else, the confidence of knowing that the Government—and it might not be this Government—could not erode the standards because they wanted to artificially increase the volumes of people on those courses.
It has been a feature of the broader debate to have Labour colleagues saying, “We’re going to get the numbers of people getting apprenticeships up.” Well, wahey, of course they are going to get the numbers up. That much is blindingly obvious. I am reminded of a time in the past when many apprentices did not know they were on an apprenticeship, so loose were the requirements. The Conservative Government raised the minimum length of time for an apprenticeship and raised the minimum amount of time in off-the-job training. In college-based education, the Sainsbury review reported that in many cases qualifications had become divorced from the occupations and sectors they were there to serve.
We are already seeing, with the change in the minimum length of apprenticeships from 12 months to eight months, the rowing back or erosion of that standard. There is plenty of training in industry that does not require a 12-month minimum and there always has been, but if somewhere is going to have a short course, just do not call it an apprenticeship. That training is very worth while, but that does not mean it is the same thing.
In Germany, which is the country people usually look to as the international standard on these matters, an apprenticeship typically lasts for two or three years, with two days a week—not one day a week—in college. In those two days a week, young people typically do a full timetable of what we in this country call general education or academic subjects, as well as vocational education. In Germany, people can do an apprenticeship to become a food and beverage manager, but if they want to be a bartender there is not an apprenticeship for that role, because it does not take that long to train to be a bartender—they do another kind of training.
In this country, we have come to a strange position with the apprenticeship levy. There is lots of lobbying to count more and more things as an apprenticeship, so they can be paid for out of the apprenticeship levy. That is not the right way around. Already, we ask the word “apprenticeship” to do a lot. In most countries, it means young people aged 16, 18 or 21.
Mr Perkins
Thank you very much—that is a niche view. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about how the apprenticeship levy creates a straitjacket whereby there is a real value to what is being offered, but it perhaps should not fit into an apprenticeship. Is that not precisely the aim of the Government’s approach? Is he not advocating for precisely what the Government are suggesting, which is, “Let’s make it more flexible. Let’s say it doesn’t have to be a year There is value to investment of a different kind to an apprenticeship.”? Is he not arguing in favour of what the Government are proposing?
Damian Hinds
He is not, no; he is saying something different. Of course there is value in all sorts of training. In my working career, I did various stints of training but they were not called an apprenticeship. We do not have to call something an apprenticeship for it to be a worthwhile piece of training.
Already, we ask the word “apprenticeship” to cover a lot of things. As I was saying, in most countries it typically means younger people starting their career. Here, it covers career starters, career developers and career changers. If anything, we ought to be thinking about how we can refocus and differentiate between the requirements that people have at different times of their career, and the requirements their employers have as well.
The Bill is not about to fix that or address that, but I am hopeful—this is where I started—that the Government have indicated that they have heard the message on the two key elements needed when certifying and specifying qualifications: independence and a guaranteed business voice. New clause 4 would create precisely that independence. New clause 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), has a lot of merit. He put a great deal of thought into it in Committee, but the additional point about statutory independence is fundamental. If the Minister is minded to accept just one amendment—I hope she will accept two; what do we think?—it should be new clause 4.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the exclusion of a number of sectors. There is a danger that Skills England will be very much tilted towards London and the south-east, ignoring large areas such as the midlands and the north of England, which will suffer as a result of its very prescribed focus.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point, which stands on its own merits.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
To refer back to the previous intervention, as the MP for Bournemouth East in the south-west, I can assure the House that we are very excited about the prospect of extra construction coming to our area. In fact, Bournemouth and Poole college tells me that it has 600 construction apprentices on its books, but that it is having to turn away hundreds more. Those are opportunities being lost. The college welcomes the abolition of IfATE and the speedy transfer of responsibilities to Skills England. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should listen to colleges such as Bournemouth and Poole college?
Damian Hinds
Of course we should be listening to colleges such as Bournemouth and Poole college. We heard the Government announce earlier that thousands of people were going to go into construction, but then say that they could not do anything until they created this body and subsumed the functions of IfATE into it. I do not see how all those things fit together. Yes, we want more people going into construction, and a long list of other sectors too, but that does not necessarily mean an apprenticeship in every case. There is a whole suite of existing technical and vocational courses, and T-levels are still ramping up as well.
On breadth versus depth, IfATE has a huge range, with more than 600 occupational standards for apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications. Skills England is initially looking at a narrower set of sectors, but has a much broader remit for them, so it does more than IfATE. There are three big things on its list. The first is to identify where skills gaps exist, which is itself a very significant task. It may at first glance sound obvious, but it really is not. First, there is a question of what time horizon we are talking about. Are we talking about today, or planning five, 10 or more years into the future? More significantly, I am sure people would generally say that we could train more people to go into the social care sector. The issue is not so much whether we have the training courses available, but whether people are willing and happy to go into the sector. That is a broader question.
Secondly, Skills England has to work across Government with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee, as well, of course, as with the Labour Market Advisory Board, under the DWP. The MAC is a well-established body, having been around for a number of years, that has a remit on immigration; it will not necessarily have the same perspective as Skills England. As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire rightly said, the ISAC is going to be given its own statutory footing, which begs the question of where in the hierarchy Skills England will be. We want this to be a body that is able to speak authoritatively right across Government.
Thirdly, Skills England is going to identify the training that should be accessible via the growth and skills levy. That, again, is a huge task. What can be funded from the levy is a huge strategic question. What specific skills should we rightly expect a firm to provide, and what should be generalisable skills for the economy?
Even after all that, there is still the big question about supply and demand at college level—this may come back to the point the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made about listening to colleges, on which he was absolutely right. We do not currently stop people doing courses because there is a surplus of people in such and such a sector and a shortage somewhere else, but some hard questions are going to come up around the funding formulae for these things to ensure that we do have enough people going into construction, social care and so on.
My contention is that each of those functions is enormous. Amendment 6 would, therefore, perform a useful role. It is not about dither and delay, but about allowing Skills England to establish itself and to carry out those key strategic functions that it is there to do, and then to be able to subsume the functions from IfATE.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the contributions of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), who spoke powerfully to their amendments. It may disappoint them to know that I will be speaking against both new clauses, as they risk undermining the speed with which we need to effect change in the sector.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on a subject about which I am very passionate, and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. The transfer of functions to the Secretary of State and the creation of Skills England is one of the most critical reforms this Government are due to bring about. It addresses one of the most damaging legacies of the previous Government: the fall in apprenticeships. This matters when we look at the structure of the Bill, which is why I am concerned about new clauses 1 and 4 in particular. It also matters in constituencies like mine in Peterborough, and in neighbouring St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, where we have seen falling apprenticeship starts, falling training and rising unemployment. Peterborough is a city with one of the highest levels of young people not in education, employment or training. This is not just the folly of opportunities lost and young people let down, but the story of a failed economy.
I take the opposite view to that expressed by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, who seemed to elevate the independence of Skills England as a virtue in respect of what it could deliver; I see the independence of IfATE as one of the tools that led to its failure. The fact of its independence removed it from economic need, made it bureaucratic and meant it failed to address the needs of businesses and other providers to get the flexibility and delivery of skills that we need. Independence does not always guarantee success or the things that we need.
Damian Hinds
Would the hon. Gentleman extend that principle to the academic route? I have asked the Minister this question a number of times now. I do not think we would stand for anyone saying that the standard and specification for A-levels should be set in Sanctuary Buildings by the Department for Education. If we would not do it for A-levels, why would we think it is right for T-levels? What is the answer to that?
Andrew Pakes
I think we need a mixed economy in this area. The principles I elevate in this debate are speed, substance and bringing businesses around the table, alongside providers and colleges—such as my excellent provider in Peterborough, ARU Peterborough, with its new university campus—to deliver the goods and get the job done. My concern with new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6 is that they elevate a level of independence that does not address the overall issue.
In fact, many of the issues the right hon. Member for East Hampshire described in his speech were actually around delivery and political choices. Having the Secretary of State and the Department establishing Skills England will make it much more likely, in my view, that we deliver at speed on those challenges. However, I am sure scrutiny will come from all parties of this House if that is not the case.
Our No. 1 mission is economic growth, spread across all parts of the UK and built on a diverse base of industries and services. The Government have already made a powerful start, which could be undermined by these amendments if they cause further delay, with early work on the growth and skills levy to drive up standards and places, the move to functional English and maths, foundation apprenticeships providing flexibility and a route in, and a £600 million investment in construction skills. I particularly welcome the replies from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, who has acknowledged in written answers the need for social mobility to be a factor that Skills England will consider, so that we can actually change people’s life opportunities. This is something I am passionate about, and which the Co-operative Group and other employers I have talked to consider to be very important. This mission will fail without the urgency needed to get the Bill passed and to get Skills England up and running.
Skills England has already been set up in shadow form. Given the urgency of the task, it provides the best of external industry leadership in its Skills England shadow board, which will move to a full board. It provides independence for the voices around the table, and therefore already meets the needs that new clauses 1 and 4 seek to address. It also focuses on delivery and the speed with which we can get going to bring jobs and opportunities to all parts of the country.
The Government had already been clear, before these new clauses and amendments were tabled, that the transfer of the institute’s statutory functions to the Secretary of State will introduce more flexibility to the skills system, which I wholeheartedly endorse. It will allow us to be more responsive to the needs of employers, learners and the economy, which I also endorse. The Secretary of State will delegate these powers to Skills England. I think new clauses 1 and 4 risk delaying and creating confusion, rather than aiding purpose and delivery of what we need. I therefore oppose the moves to create a separate Executive agency or to bind Skills England before it is even created.
We need to get going. This is not just a political slogan or the subject of debates in this House, but the message I hear from businesses, providers and schools in Peterborough. We need a genuine partnership in places such as my community between colleges and employers to ensure that we are providing leadership at all levels; we need practical action and leadership, working together to improve lives and our economy. The independence of IfATE, as I said earlier, elevates it to a level that risks undermining the ability to get going quickly.
Let me provide an example. A few weeks ago, I met MDS, a not-for-profit membership organisation in my constituency that is a pioneer in flexi-job apprenticeships and training in the food supply chain, working with some of the biggest names in the food sector to create a workforce for tomorrow. It is looking to Skills England and this Bill to create the flexibility and opportunities that businesses and learners need. It would be sorry to see any delays or confusion over structure when it knows what needs to be done to get the jobs. It wants this Bill.
Can the Minister say what additional funding and resources are available to help businesses to provide pre-apprenticeship training for individuals who have been unemployed long term? Businesses want the Government and Skills England to do that quickly. They want to understand how, with SMEs and others, the Government are supporting the growth of flexi-job apprenticeships to help industries to attract new talent into the food and fresh produce industry. That is a direct criticism of IfATE and the structures we already have, and there is concern that delay through new clauses 1 and 4 will make it more difficult. As we have heard, Skills England will identify the skills gaps in our economy and work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to plug them. The direct link between the industry, the MAC and the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will address our industrial need and purpose at the necessary speed.
The new clauses are not necessary. This is a Bill about skills and about addressing our skills shortages, and it needs to get going. I support the Bill and oppose new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
During their time in government, the Conservatives broke our apprenticeship system and betrayed young people. The Liberal Democrats are thus calling on the Government, if they are serious about growth, to fix the apprenticeship sector by investing in education and training, including by increasing the availability of apprenticeships and career advice for young people.
I wish to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), which would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the Executive agency to be known as Skills England. There should be greater emphasis on developing sector-specific skills that support the natural abilities and interests of each student. I believe that we should focus on strengthening careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges to allow students clear alternative steps into a career that does not require them to go to university if that is not the best option.
Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. Businesses cannot get the funding that they need to train staff, so hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of funding is returned unspent, only to disappear into the Treasury. If that money were ringfenced to boost the further education budget, it would at least benefit the employers that contribute, but it does not.
I am glad that the Government are reforming the current system, but I urge them to accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, which would require a clear plan for their new proposals. We must improve not only the quality of vocational education, including skills for entrepreneurship and self-employment, but pupils’ awareness of such skills as they make initial decisions about their further education and career.
I have spoken to young people in my constituency who are undertaking apprenticeships in the hospitality industry. They have spoken positively about the opportunities to develop their skills while earning a wage. However, I have also heard that many apprenticeship jobs do not pay enough for people to meet their living expenses. It is extremely important that young people are provided with a footing solid enough not to discourage them from pursuing apprenticeships in their field of interest. I believe that the lower minimum wage for apprentices should be scrapped. We should ensure that apprentices are paid at least the same minimum wage as other employees their age.
I constantly hear from small and medium-sized businesses across my constituency who are struggling with workforce shortages. We need to build capacity in the workforce and within the economy to drive growth and ensure that British businesses can hire people with the correct skills to allow industries to thrive. Apprenticeships have a huge role to play in upskilling. Although I am glad that the Government are taking action to reform the current system, I urge them to accept new clause 1, which would give us proper detail on what the new system will look like.
Apprenticeships could play a crucial part in addressing many of the staff shortages that businesses face, by equipping people across the country with the skills that they need to thrive. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to truly invest in skills. I urge the Minister to accept the new clause.
Mr Perkins
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. On new clause 1, there is merit in the points that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) raised. There is a legitimate question about the basis on which Skills England operates. Many people want to see it being taken seriously, but whether it will be taken more seriously as an independent body or as part of the Government is a big question on which there are different opinions.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) said that the Government need to get serious, but adopting new clause 1 or not adopting it will not in any serious sense make the difference to whether the Bill is a transformational one. The new clause would make a very small amendment to a Bill that is fairly limited in scope, so we should be realistic about how much of a difference we are debating. There is some merit in the Government’s argument that the drafting of the amendment would cause additional delay and would prevent Skills England, which already exists, from getting on with taking the necessary powers.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made some interesting points. It is always important to take seriously what he says; he is a former Education Secretary and a serious man. Having listened carefully, I have to say that many of the complaints that he rightly made about our fragmented and complicated skills system and the extent to which many employers have felt distanced from it are entirely legitimate criticisms, but are largely a commentary on the system bequeathed to us by 14 years of the previous Government.
The right hon. Gentleman considers it a criticism of this Government that they have a policy that they think will be popular with business, but I see it as a virtue. As co-chair alongside my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) of the all-party group on apprenticeships, I have heard from businesses how much they welcome the greater flexibility that the Government propose.
It will be important to understand how Skills England will seek to ensure that greater flexibility. There is real merit in degree apprenticeships, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised, but I also hope that Skills England will ensure far greater provision at the bottom end of the scale—not just at levels 2 and 3, where take-up has fallen dramatically since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, but at level 1. I would like to see the apprenticeship levy being used to support people who have come out of our school system with very few qualifications, possibly having had an education, health and care plan. They are able to access work, but will need longer to get up to speed in jobs. There are tremendous opportunities for level 1 apprenticeships to support people with special needs from traineeships into the world of work, so I hope that the Government will consider them.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire described the merit of the German skills system, which is admired across the world, but it is important to say that it involves a far greater cultural understanding. One of the ways in which the Germans understand themselves is about their skills system and the value that they put into a craft or trade. Achieving that is not just about the structure of our skills system; it would require a complete reversal of our understanding in this country over the past 30 or 40 years. There is huge merit in much of the German system, but we cannot simply adopt it and imagine that we will somehow achieve a cultural change. It needs to be wrapped up in the industrial strategy that the Government must continue to develop.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Government envisage Skills England having a far wider scope than IfATE. I welcome that, because one of the great failures of the system under the previous Government was that there was an array of unconnected bodies and initiatives floating around. He referred to the skills system, but right now I do not believe that this country has a skills system. What we have is an array of initiatives without any coherence.
I very much hope that in Skills England we have a body that will start the task of bringing our very complicated and fragmented system together. I have no idea whether Skills England will be a success, but I am confident that it could be. The direction in which the Government are attempting to go, if they have the courage to follow it all the way, has the potential to bring about the change that we desperately need.
We have a basic understanding of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships in this country, but we need much more coherent pathways through levels 4 and 5. The previous Government did a tremendous amount to promote level 6 apprenticeships, which are popular in some trades, but they mean getting a degree six or seven years down the line, which is a hell of a long time. Many things could go wrong in someone’s employment in that time—they might lose their job, or the company might cease to exist—and in any case they might not want to commit to six or seven years. Having stop-off points at levels 4 and 5, so businesses understand that there is something beyond level 3 that does not necessarily look like a degree, would be tremendously valuable. I hope that the Government will look to do that.
Of course it is fundamental that we listen to employers, whether they be businesses or public sector employers, and that all of them feel that they have a stake in the skills system. I do not for a minute believe that the Government or Skills England will not want to listen to employers, who are entirely the arbiters of whether we have a successful skills system, but I do not think that a body has to be independent to listen to employers. There is a potential argument that a body within government would be better placed to take a much more strategic approach than the independent IfATE ever could. It will be useful to hear how the Minister anticipates Skills England reaching out and listening to employers and businesses, particularly about which courses will be appropriate for the growth and skills levy. They might not look like apprenticeships, but they will be crucial qualifications that people will be able to work towards.
I welcome the Government’s decision to take forward many of the construction skills bootcamps. The Government quite understandably have question about the value of bootcamps; a huge amount of the previous Government’s adult education budget went in that direction. Within the construction sector, there was real value to them, and I am pleased to hear from training providers in my constituency that they have been told that the construction bootcamps will carry on.
We often speak about the skills environment as though it were purely outside of here, but we Members of Parliament are all employers, and we are all involved in skilling up our staff. I am very pleased to say that my apprentice Ellie Chapman recently successfully completed her level 3 apprenticeship. She is not an apprentice MP but an apprentice office support worker, and she has done a tremendous amount in my office over the last 16 months. She was also top in her class at Chesterfield college. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much—and well done, Ellie. It is important that we walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I encourage other Members of Parliament to consider whether they have a role for an apprentice in their office.
On that happy note, I encourage the Government to keep going, and to listen to employers. It is really important that we get this right, because there is nothing more important for the success of our economy than having a more coherent skills system that enables us to make the very best of all our people.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend. I welcome this Bill and the establishment of Skills England. I oppose new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6.
I do not agree with the amendments to delay, because we need action now. The Bill is a crucial step forward in addressing challenges felt across the country, particularly in south-east Cornwall. We need access to well-paid, stable employment close to home, so that people do not have to leave their community or take on debt just to access higher skills and wages. In my area, transport connectivity is a barrier to employment. Cornwall and the south-west have been overlooked and underfunded. The Bill represents Labour’s focus on cracking on and delivering real change for people who really need it. I want to ensure that the Bill delivers for south-east Cornwall, and across the duchy and the south-west.
There are already great apprenticeship schemes established, but we must make sure that more of them are viable and accessible. That is what the Bill delivers. In the most recent full academic year of 2023-24, there were 760 apprenticeships started in south-east Cornwall, but only 530 people successfully achieved their apprenticeship standards. Of those 760 who started, the majority were aged 25 or older, and the most common level of study was intermediate. I am very proud of those who achieved their apprenticeship standards, and I know there will be many more to come. However, I am concerned that our younger people have not been able to access these opportunities as readily as should have been possible, and that those who took up apprenticeships under the previous Government did not always progress to a higher level.
The 760 apprenticeships started represents a significant drop from 2018-19, when 1,070 apprenticeship schemes were started south-east Cornwall. The numbers continued to decline over the five years before the Labour Government took office, representing a 28.4% decrease in apprenticeships started over five years. The Bill is a vital opportunity to reverse this decline, which is felt really strongly in south-east Cornwall, and to bring much-needed improvements to our workplaces, our economy and local skills. We need to remove unnecessary barriers and blockages in the skills system, so that we can respond more quickly to the needs of apprentices, their employers and the economy. Skills England already existed in a shadow form, and it is time to bring it directly out into the light and make it work for those who need it most.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I will aim to keep my remarks brief, having spoken on Second Reading and served on the Bill Committee. Before I speak about why we should not amend the Bill to include new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6, I will set the scene. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be unsurprised to hear that I warmly welcome the role that the Bill will play in paving the way for Skills England. It is right that we crack on and allow the Secretary of State to transfer to Skills England the tools to find and fill the skills gaps across the country, so that the workforce is equipped with the skills to power economic growth.
My constituency sits just next to Stansted airport, and we have many young people undergoing courses at the Stansted airport college, which I was privileged to visit last Friday. I did not take a whirl on the simulator to learn how to fly a plane; I saved that for a future visit. I was delighted to find out how the college uses our local talent in Hertford and Stortford to fill the critical, growing skills gaps in the aviation and aerospace sector, and to see the careers-focused courses that are giving young people skills for work and life.
Just this morning, I was proud to welcome the Minister for School Standards to Manor Fields primary school in Bishop’s Stortford, where we heard about the impact of the teaching assistant apprenticeship for local support staff, and met the fantastic providers of those courses. It was really moving to hear the apprentices talk about how their confidence had been built by taking those courses.
For a young person, the opportunity to find and develop a skill or something they are passionate about does not just get them into the workforce; it builds their confidence and helps them to find the path that is right for them. That is why it is so important that we get Skills England set up and do not delay getting the Bill through. I know about this from personal experience, having left school at 16. I did not follow the path of an apprenticeship. I did not know what the direction was for me. Apprenticeships are so important for young people who need to find a path and need the certainty of a career at the end of it, but perhaps do not want to stay in traditional education. It builds their confidence, and helps them find their place in the world. This is work that we simply cannot delay.
Young people are being let down by a skills system that is not working for them. One in eight young people is not in education, employment or training, which is holding them back, and the economy back, too. In 2022, more than a third of UK vacancies were due to skills shortages. We need urgent reform—we cannot afford to delay. I urge hon. Members to pass the Bill unamended this evening so that the Government can get on with reforming the skills system and delivering Skills England, to create the opportunities for young people in Hertford and Stortford and across the country that will build their confidence, help them find a path that is right for them, and make a difference to their lives.
Peter Swallow
I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee for this vital legislation. It is a small Bill, but, by goodness, it is mighty. I rise to speak against amendment 6. In doing so, I will highlight a local success story in recognition of the third National Supported Internship Day. It took place on 27 March, which also happens to be my birthday.
For 15 years, Bracknell and Wokingham college—my local college—and Activate Learning have been working together with over 100 employers to offer supported internship placements for learners with special educational needs. The scheme offers invaluable opportunities, and provides the skills, confidence and qualifications necessary to thrive in the workplace. Their partners include the National Grid, the Royal Berkshire hospital, Johnson & Johnson, and Sodexo. It is an excellent example of a local college working with big players in the energy, medical and food industries to provide high-quality schemes for stable, well-paid employment. It is proof that young people with special educational needs can thrive with the right support. We face one in eight young people being not in education, employment or training—the number is at an 11-year high, after 14 years of the Tories—and we need more supported internships to address the challenge.
Skills England will deliver opportunities across the country in key industries including green energy, construction and healthcare. That is vital for the Government’s five missions, and for communities like Bracknell. It is a step towards ending fragmentation. A less complex, more flexible skills system will deliver for young people, especially those with special educational needs. By bringing together the constituent parts of the skills architecture, Skills England will create a system that is fit for purpose, responsive to the needs of employers and businesses, and capable of driving economic growth in the years to come. It will lay the ground for a better system.
There is a need to move fast. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out, the UK’s productivity is almost 40% below that of the US, and 20% below that of other major economies, such as France and Germany. A major reason for that is a lack of appropriate skills, so the Conservatives’ amendment 6, which would delay the creation of Skills England by a year, is nothing short of irresponsible. We need to work faster, not more slowly. The amendment is indicative of their approach to government: where there was a challenge, they ducked it; where a decision was needed, they put it off; and when a broken system needed fixing, they left it for the next lot. Well, the next lot are now in government and will not put off for tomorrow what needs to be done today.
We know that skills are a crucial driver of economic growth and the key to tackling productivity gaps, but our economy is changing rapidly in ways we cannot fully anticipate, so it is crucial that our education system equips young people with a broad range of the skills necessary for success in the jobs market of tomorrow. That is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
On the face of it, this is a technical Bill, but the benefits and opportunities that the transition to Skills England can create across the country, including in communities such as Birmingham Northfield, are real and tangible. The amendments would have similar effects. In terms of timing, while new clause 1 would delay the establishment of Skills England by six months, new clause 4 and amendment 6 would delay it by a year. There is a risk that by accepting such amendments we would recreate IfATE under the name of Skills England. As my hon. Friends have said, we cannot wait that long. A new approach is needed.
As the first Skills England report, which was published last September, identified, there has been a steady decline in employers’ investment in training during the past decade. Investment in real terms has fallen by about 20%, even though 90% of the roles in critical demand across the economy require training or education.
In my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell by 35% during the last Parliament, more than double the national rate. This is a social issue as well, because more than half the young people not in education, employment or training in Northfield are classed as vulnerable, and adult skills funded education is accessed particularly in the areas of my constituency with some of the highest levels of social need, including Longbridge and West Heath, Weoley and the three estates in Kings Norton. I am sure the situation is similar for other hon. Members.
According to a response to a freedom of information request in 2022, some £1 billion a year nationally in apprenticeship levy funding was unspent. At the same time, major local employers have expressed their frustration to me about skills shortages in areas from construction and home upgrades to computer science.
I have seen some of the good work already done locally to provide apprenticeships and other forms of technical education. Next month, we will witness the 20th anniversary of the closure of MG Rover in my constituency. Today, South and City College Birmingham, which is partly built on the old Austin site, is one of the largest training providers in the west midlands. A number of hon. Members have paid tribute to their local colleges, and I would like to do the same. That college offers impressive programmes, developing the technical and soft skills of students in a multitude of industries including catering, automotive and advanced manufacturing.
As manufacturing jobs start to return to Longbridge, these facilities and the experienced staff who work there will be vital to delivering economic growth and opportunities for young people, but they are attempting to fit into a system that is not fit for purpose and is not working. In other words, skills policy is essential for the Government’s plans for economic recovery and industrial strategy, and it is appropriate to place accountability for the new development directly with Ministers for this period.
We heard a lot on the Bill Committee as well as elsewhere about whether Skills England should be created as a stand-alone agency at arm’s length from the core Department. As we heard on Second Reading, the Government may review Skills England’s status after 18 months to two years, which seems like a sensible way forward. That is a legitimate debate, but we should not agree tonight to delay Skills England’s creation.
It is important to say that IfATE has not lived up to expectations and that the status quo is a barrier to the Government’s objectives. Nine years ago, the then Minister for skills, Nick Boles, told the House’s Education, Skills and the Economy sub-Committee that IfATE would
“be much more akin to the Bank of England”
in terms of its independence compared with a traditional arm’s length organisation. I think most hon. Members would agree that that has not been borne out.
During the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, where there was common agreement between employers and employee representative organisations that the GCSE entry-level requirement was a barrier for employers taking on the young people who were best equipped for those apprenticeships. However, that recommendation was blocked—by DFE Ministers, we were given to understand—from the final report. Similarly, employers and people with direct knowledge of the skills system I have talked to over the last few weeks have stressed some of the frustrations that existed in the trailblazer employer organisations: within the bureaucracy of IfATE, some recommendations and expertise would be either delayed or disregarded by the route panels, some of which were made up of employers who did not necessarily have expertise in a particular industry.
It is important to reduce some of that bureaucracy so the Bill’s effect of removing a requirement for a regular review of an apprenticeship’s standard—in practice, every few years—is a sensible change. There are, at the last count, 658 live apprenticeships listed on the IfATE website. That implies 219 reviews every year or four a week; I think we are entitled to question how effective those reviews can be given IfATE’s current resources.
If I may, I will list one more example of where the current system is going wrong. The special educational needs and disabilities teaching assistant apprenticeship standard, which was discussed during the last Parliament and then formally created during this one, lists a very large number of organisations that contributed to its design. The overwhelming majority are employers, who, of course, need to be represented. Only one trade union was represented and I question why that was the case. However, not a single SEND parents’ organisation or other group that represents the needs of those young people was drawn into the creation of that standard. I think we are entitled to ask whether that is the right approach. The discussions that led up to the creation of the standard, in practice, were heavily DfE-guided, so I think we are entitled to question the independence of the current system as it exists.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If I may, I will start by joining my colleagues on the Government Benches in my opposition to new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6. Well-meaning they may be, but I am impatient for change.
Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest rates of youth disengagement in education, employment or training in the country. As always, when we look at those heat maps, we see the big yellow splodge in the middle of the midlands, which is Stoke-on-Trent, showing that we have one of the highest numbers of workers in the country with no form of formal qualification whatever. Our young people tend to find themselves unable to access any form of training or support that they need to make a future career for themselves.
I declare my interest as a governor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, as we offer T-levels. Even though I do not have an apprentice in my office like my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), as of next week a T-level student will be in a placement there for the next 18 months, to help their advancement.
My impatience stems from the necessity of identifying the skills that we need in the city I represent and of making sure that the next generation of young people coming through education have them. That is the only way I can see for us to fulfil our desire and ambition to rebuild our economy and attract those higher quality, well-paid and long-term jobs into the city that will mean higher wages and the ability to dig ourselves out of our city’s economic troubles. I do not expect or hope any Government to come over the hill like a cavalry, with a big sack of cash, saying, “Here you go—here is what you need.” It is partly on us to do that, by matching up the skills that we have and the skills that we need in the city to do the jobs of today and the future jobs of tomorrow. That is really important. The local skills improvement plan put together by our chambers of commerce and colleges has gone some way to achieving that. However, as always, it is a bit like wading through treacle, because we get to where we think we are going to be and all of a sudden something appears that makes it more difficult. Then, the people who struggle with that are the young people.
I am afraid that anything that seeks to delay the advancement of this Bill, such as new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6, will not get my support this evening. I do, however, wish to spend a few minutes on my own new clause 2, which is a probing amendment. It is not intended to cause any frustration or Divisions; I say to the Whip that I am not seeking to test the House’s opinion on it. However, when we consider what apprenticeships will look like in the future and what they mean for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, it is important to understand that level 7 apprenticeships, funded by the apprenticeship levy, are a genuinely important part of the educational offer available to young people in my constituency.
The week before last, I visited DJH accountants in Stoke-on-Trent, which is a significant regional player that is training its own generation of chartered accountants at level 7 using the apprenticeship levy that would otherwise just disappear into the Treasury. People there explained to me quite succinctly, and I agreed, that through their own means they simply would not have the available capital or cash to fund the quantity of training courses that they run. The apprenticeship levy allows them to grow a group of young people into chartered accountants. The people I met were all young. They were not at the mid or tail-end of their careers looking for a final bump before they got to their pension; they were young people who had come in after GCSEs, done their basic accountancy skills and had their eyes firmly set on a chartered accountancy qualification. The levy was allowing them to do that.
I asked the young people where they were all from, expecting them to be from the city, which they were. I then asked them where they wanted to work once they had their chartered accountancy status and, wonderfully, they all wanted to stay in Stoke-on-Trent and practise the craft that they had been learning. The economic benefit of that to my city is that if it were not for the ability of that company to train to level 7 using the apprenticeship levy, it would have to import that labour from neighbouring areas. So somebody who already had the level 7 qualification, or had been trained somewhere else through a company that could afford it, would come into Stoke, do the level 7 job, attract that level 7-equivalent salary and take it back to where they actually lived. That would mean that the level 7 salaries those young people were going to earn and spend in Stoke-on-Trent would end up migrating to other, slightly more affluent places in the midlands—and, candidly, there are many more affluent places in the midlands than Stoke-on-Trent.
The economic damage done by turning off the apprenticeship levy, or even the skills and growth levy, from level 7 apprenticeships could mean that the places such as Stoke-on-Trent that already suffer from ingrained regional inequality see it further ingrained into their local economies, because the people who have those skills travel in to do the work, or work from home, and the money flows out of the city and is spent in those other local communities.
There is also the message that we are sending to young people in the city. If level 7 qualifications are not available to them, they will be unlikely to have the means to pay for a level 7 qualification themselves. Having a level 7 qualification in Stoke-on-Trent is quite a rarity. You are more likely to find somebody with no qualification than with a master’s level qualification. New clause 2 is a hook to allow the Minister to go away and consider this. I do not believe for one second that it is the determination of the Government to artificially stymie or cap the aspirations of young people in Stoke-on-Trent by suggesting to them that those level 7 qualifications are not available to them.
I appreciate that there are concerns in the system about the levy not being used for its intended purpose, but to take people through higher level qualifications who already have a career behind them. There are obviously organisations and companies that have done that because, rather than send that money to the Treasury, they have sought to upskill their own workers. I understand why the Government want to get tough on that, because it is not what the levy was intended for, but the level 7 learners that I have met are all young. They are people who have a clear idea of the path and trajectory of the career they want to take, and the levy simply makes that more viable and likely to be achieved in an economically depressed and deprived place such as Stoke-on-Trent.
The other side of the issue is that 95% of the apprenticeships at the University of Staffordshire are at level 6, and 5% are at level 7. It provides level 7 training for the Ministry of Defence and a number of public services. Some of that is funded by the apprenticeship levy. That is an invaluable income stream for the university to deliver that training for people who then go back into the public sector to make it more efficient, to crack down on waste and to deliver those skills that we as a nation determine that we need.
That will undoubtedly need to be looked at as we have more defence spending, because we will need people with those level 7 qualifications in the defence sector, in the manufacturing companies, and in the electrical and chemical engineering companies. Ordinarily, companies in places such as Stoke-on-Trent will simply not have the capital or the cash to provide that. Only by drawing down from the apprenticeship levy will they be able to train people locally to do those jobs. If we are not training people to do those jobs, the opportunity that comes from that Government investment simply will not be felt in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, and the regional inequality that is already quite clear in my city will become more entrenched.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) talked about finding people finding career, and that is what all of us want for the young people in our communities. It is certainly what I want for the learners in my city, but that career should take them as far as they want to go. That career should take them, if they want, up to a level 7 qualification that allows them to build a life and a career that they enjoy and are happy doing. My concern is that the unintended consequence of the Government’s decision that level 7 qualifications will no longer be available from the apprenticeship levy will be that in cities such as mine, aspiration and ambition will be capped because the cash and the capital are simply not there to meet those young people’s demands.
I have no truck with or support for the delaying amendments of the Opposition, and I have no intention of doing anything with my new clause other than sitting down in a moment. I hope that the Minister will take back the concerns that I have raised this evening and see whether there is a way, maybe through devolution deals, through reorganisation or through the mayoral strategic authorities, in which certain areas could be able to continue with the levy funding for level 7 qualifications that we so desperately need.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6. The simple truth is that we cannot have any more dither and delay. Our starting point in this debate must be the fact that we are in a skills crisis, and one that lies at the feet of the Conservatives. Twenty-six years ago, I worked on the new deal taskforce for the Labour Government of the time, clearing up the mess that the Major Government had left in the skills system. Fast-forward over a quarter of a century, and once again we find the Labour Government having to clear up the mess in skills left by Conservatives.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and our amendments—new clause 4 and amendment 6—are suggested in the same spirit. There were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers, but now the Government are bringing it into the Department. Alongside other changes, such as shortening apprenticeships and axing higher apprenticeships, that risks damaging the status of these qualifications, which we have been working to build up.
The Budget was bad for employment, and it will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices. Rather than addressing the problems that they are creating, the Government are reorganising. It is the umpteenth reorganisation in recent decades. The Government’s own recent impact assessment says that the reorganisation will lead to a delay and drop in apprenticeships, hence our amendments.
For decades, politicians have said that they want to make apprenticeships more prestigious. On average, twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, but higher apprenticeships grew fastest of all. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went from just 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. We increased the quality of apprenticeships, too, which was much needed, as has already been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
In 2015, a devastating Ofsted report found that some apprentices who had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, and the skills they were learning were things like making a cup of coffee, which are not life-changing skills. Things were being funded that did not benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage. Whereas we lengthened apprenticeships, this Government have cut the length of apprenticeships to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the DFE, they are eroding that employer ownership that we worked to build up. Whereas we grew higher apprenticeships, they are about to abolish most level 7 apprenticeships. That is a taste of what is to come if our amendments are not accepted. The Government are doing this because in opposition they promised that employers could take 50% of their levy funds and spend them on other things.
On 20 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will respond to this debate said that this commitment was “currently being reviewed”. But just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said the Government were still fully committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. When I asked the Minister in Committee whether that was still the policy, she said that she would have to get back to me. As the Skills Minister said in the Financial Times, far from the 50% being a promise—as employers were led to believe—it will, in fact, all depend on the outcome of the spending review.
Businesses are starting to raise the alarm. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that a “lack of clarity” about the levy is creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses” and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers say that this is leading to firms pausing hiring of apprentices.
Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training have increased by about a quarter from £2 billion to £2.5 billion. Moving 50% of all that money out of apprenticeships would obviously lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has an internal forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it—I think we all know why that is.
The previous Government moved to make it more attractive for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on younger people. Since April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that and cut bureaucracy for smaller businesses, but the Government’s answer is different: they plan to abolish the highest-level apprenticeships and redistribute the money. I thought the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on his amendment 2 was so right. I will not be as articulate as him, but I will try to add to the points he made, and I hope the Minister will listen to her wise colleague. Employers and educators can see that this is a trial run of what it will be like as Ministers take more control with this Bill, and they are warning that it is a big mistake.
Dan Lally at Sheffield Hallam University says that level 7 cuts will
“disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner…These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices…come from the areas of highest deprivation.”
For example, level 7 apprenticeships are absolutely central to the NHS’s long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships. That means there will be a shortfall of about 2,000 medical places a year. Students who had already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have sadly been left in limbo, and I am concerned the Government will do something similar to nurses as part of the level 7 cuts. The NHS’s workforce plan proposed an extra 50,000 nurses coming through the apprentice route. Around a quarter of them tend to be on an “Agenda for Change” band 7, which typically requires a master’s equivalent, so we would expect about 11,000 of those nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. If the Government get rid of them, that is a huge hole in the NHS plan.
As well as the NHS, local government makes huge use of level 7 apprenticeships, including the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on housing targets. Deborah Johnston at London South Bank University says:
“Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of…reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.”
The professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK. It says:
“removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly said that it would lead to people being outside Stoke-on-Trent, but in some cases it would lead to them being outside this country altogether. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries.
Likewise, the Chartered Management Institute has said:
“cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership…at a time when business and the public sector need them most.”
I have been contacted by several firms worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship—a way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. Attwells Solicitors, for example, says:
“Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions”
and that
“Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them.”
As well as hitting employers, on the other side of the ledger—this is why our amendment is important—axing level 7 will be destabilising for university providers. It will particularly hurt those institutions that have tried to do the right thing for those who traditionally do not go to university. Sixty-six universities deliver level 7 apprenticeships, and a prestigious institution such as Cranfield University, which is a postgraduate-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they plan. York St John University has something like 100 level 7 apprentices. Other institutions such as the Open University, Manchester Met and the University of West London are all exposed, too.
Culling level 7 is a big mistake. These apprenticeships are vital across the public sector and are a way into the professions for people who might otherwise struggle to enter them. Above all, they are the capstone of a drive to make the apprenticeship system more prestigious. British Airways carried on running the Concorde even though it was a small part of its business because of what it called the halo effect. It knew that it changed the way the organisation was seen. By creating the top of that pyramid—the very top of the ladder; people can go all the way—level 7 apprenticeships create a halo effect around apprenticeships, and that is a vital part of why we should not get rid of them. Worse still, it was crystal clear from the Minister’s replies in the Bill Committee that the Government are keeping open the option to move on and take an axe to level 6 apprenticeships too, which would make that mistake even bigger and will not, in fact, drive money towards L2 and L3.
The other day we learned that the DFE is to cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something for which Ministers criticised the previous Government but are now doing themselves. Ironically, that came out at the same time as, and was overshadowed by, the welfare reform Green Paper, which mentioned training 18 times. In Committee, the Minister refused to confirm whether the Government would continue to provide the extra 10% funding to get T-levels going, even though providers are crying out for clarity on that. It is no wonder that many employers would like the certainty that comes with a degree of independence from politics.
Wise people on the Labour Benches want that, too. Lord Blunkett said in the other place:
“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 noted:
“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.]
Even those on the Labour side who were involved in dreaming up Skills England have argued for its independence. Likewise, various employer bodies, including the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Skills Federation and the Construction Industry Training Board, have argued that it should be more independent.
As Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out, the problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels as if the second half is missing, and that second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body. The original draft of the Bill did not even mention Skills England. As Baroness Blower, another Labour peer, has pointed out, the appropriate move from where we are now would be to make it a statutory body. That is why our amendment would make the Bill do what the Government are pretending it does by actually setting up Skills England, which was clearly the intent of many on the Labour Benches.
Given all the problems that the Government are creating, the very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget. The impact assessment states:
“The transfer of functions 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”.
So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Employers and educators are criticising the uncertainty that the Government are creating; Labour peers are arguing that Skills England should be made independent, but the Government are ignoring those on their own side with experience; and employers are warning against axing valuable qualifications, but the Skills Minister is determined to end them. Yet another reorganisation, yet more centralisation, no clear vision—it is another big mess.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I thank hon. Members for their constructive engagement throughout the debate. However, from listening to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), one would think that this was all doom and gloom, when it is actually a new season of growth and skills. We are springing into action, and I encourage him not to be stuck in the past.
As I have said before, including when we discussed the Bill in detail in Committee, it is wonderful to hear the passion that Members from across the House have for improving our skills system. It is clear that we all share a desire to better meet the skill needs of employers and learners. The Government are determined to unlock growth and spread opportunity, and the Bill will help us to deliver the change that we absolutely need.
I will start by speaking to new clause 1 before touching on the other new clauses and amendments.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Can the Minister explain, in answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and others, the rationale behind eliminating level 7 apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
Information on that will come out in due course, but if the right hon. Member gives me a little more time, I will be able to elaborate and respond to Members as I go.
New clauses 1 and 4 relate to the creation of Skills England and its legal status. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), would require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for a new Executive agency, to be known as Skills England, within six months of Royal Assent. New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, would require the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body.
Our position—that we establish Skills England as an Executive agency—remains extremely clear and is entirely in keeping with the usual process for establishing arm’s length bodies. The Department is complying with the robust and vigorous process for establishing Executive agencies, which applies across Government. The Executive agency model balances operational independence with proximity to Government. That is needed to inform policy and support delivery of the Government’s mission. That model enables us to move quickly, which is vital given the scale and urgency of the skills challenges that we face.
The Government have committed to reviewing Skills England between 18 and 24 months after it is set up. That will includes an assessment of whether the Executive agency model is enabling Skills England to deliver its objectives. That is consistent with good practice. Skills will power this mission-driven Government and our plan for change. Our approach means that we can get on with the job at hand: fixing the skills system and helping more people to get the training they need to build our homes, power our towns and cities with clean energy, and master new digital technologies.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for visiting the best town in England, Harlow, last week. Does she agree that this Bill will help benefit young people in my constituency and give them the skills that they need ?
Janet Daby
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill will help young people to gain the skills that they need—in his wonderful constituency and in many other wonderful constituencies as well.
Amendment 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston would frustrate the complete establishment of Skills England by delaying the transfer for a full year of the functions as set out in the Bill. Members have heard the Government set out already that delay is not an option; that has been repeatedly said. They should not just take my word for it: technology training provider QA has said that this is a pivotal moment for shaping the skills system to meet the UK’s industrial and economic needs, and it is right. The complex and fragmented nature of the skills system is contributing to critical skills gaps in our economy today: opportunities are being missed today, growth is being held back by a lack of skills today, and we cannot afford to be sluggish in our pursuit of a more joined up, data-driven approach.
In the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievement compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. When the Conservatives were in government, starts in his constituency fell by 13%; almost 100 fewer people were starting apprenticeships on their watch. This Government marked National Apprenticeship Week with a set of reforms going further and faster on growth, whereas under his Government a third of vacancies were due to the lack of skills. We will press on.
The British Chambers of Commerce has urged us to work at pace to establish Skills England, and we are doing exactly that. Since being set up in shadow form, Skills England has got to work. It has got to work by identifying skills gaps in the economy and building relationships with strategic authorities, employers and other groups. Indeed, Skills England has worked with mayoral, strategic authorities and other forms of regional government as well as regional organisations to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met in line with the forthcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear long-term plan for the future economy, and with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that growing the domestic skills pipeline reduces our reliance on overseas workers. Our constituents will not thank us for sticking in the slow lane. There is no need to wait another year, and we are ready to go now.
New clauses 2 and 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston respectively would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish within one year of Royal Assent reports on the impact of the Act on T-levels and higher education. Members will be aware that we have already included in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to report on functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education that will be exercised by Skills England, including their impact on technical education and apprenticeships. This report will need to be published not after a year but after six months, which is much sooner. We have therefore already made commitments to transparency in the Bill, and that was welcomed by stakeholders, including the Association of Colleges in its written evidence to the Bill Committee. We all agree that T-levels and higher education are central to fixing our skills challenges and, as I made clear in Committee, the Skills England six-month report will include necessary information on T-levels as well as technical education and apprenticeships delivered in higher education settings. The Conservative party has argued that we must avoid Skills England being overlooked and distracted from its important work. Surely, then, we should avoid forcing it to spend its first year producing more and more reports covering the same issues.
Amendments 1 and 2 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston respectively. These amendments would also place additional reporting requirements on the Secretary of State, this time in relation to degree apprenticeships. As with T-levels and higher education, the report that the Government have committed to providing after six months will necessarily include information on apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships. Amendment 1 is about funding for those apprenticeships. We are setting Skills England up to build the evidence and the partnerships needed to deliver change, but policy and funding decisions on skills provisions will not sit with Skills England; they will continue to sit with the Secretary of State. That is entirely right and appropriate, and nothing in the Bill changes that. We will set out more information on level 7 apprenticeships in due course.
Gareth Snell
If I have heard the Minister right, the first report that will come out will include aspects of the implications for higher-degree apprenticeships, but the funding decisions will still sit with the Department, as they should. Will the report refer to the funding decisions made by the Secretary of State, so that when it comes to the impact of the decisions made, we can see correlation and causation?
Janet Daby
I absolutely hear my hon. Friend and his concern for level 7. I do not want to stray too far from the Bill and what it seeks to achieve, but I am very happy to look at that further with him, and to get back to him.
On Sunday, it will be eight years since the levy was introduced, and only now, under a Labour Government, are employers getting the flexibilities they have been crying out for, including on maths and English, and on the length of apprenticeships. That is in response to industry needs, and recognises the needs of jobs, and the need to get young people a foot in the door, so that they can start good careers. After nine months in government, this Labour Government have cut through red tape and are driving the skills that our employers need, showing that Labour is the party of business. We are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people most in need of developing skills, and ensuring that young people get a foot on the careers ladder.
Amendments 3 and 5 were again tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. They would create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and individuals when considering whether to approve a standard or assessment plan where it has been developed by a group of persons. As I made clear in my response to the hon. Member in Committee, the Secretary of State is already subject to a general public law duty that requires them to take into account all relevant considerations when making decisions relating to the functions for which they are responsible. There is therefore already a requirement for the Secretary of State to balance the needs of users of the system when executing the functions described in the Bill. In fact, the public law duty is broader than the factors listed in the amendments and includes, for example, consideration of value for money and quality.
Turning lastly to amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, it is critical that technical qualifications and apprenticeships reflect the needs of employers, and that they have confidence in them. Employers tell us that speed and flexibility are crucial if we are to work together more effectively to plug skills gaps. The precise make-up of “a group of persons” is not currently mandated in legislation. Flexibility is necessary to ensure that the membership of every group reflects the factors relevant to an occupation. Specifying in the Bill that a group must always include a particular voice would introduce new and unnecessary constraints on the structure of groups.
To conclude, this Government are committed to transforming the skills system so that it can deliver the highly skilled workforce that our country needs. Skills will power this Government’s relentless focus on delivering our mission. That is why this Government’s first piece of educational legislation paves the way for Skills England to identify and fill skills gaps.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Janet Daby
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are on a mission to deliver strong and sustainable economic growth and to break down the barriers to opportunity. Skills will power this mission-driven Government and our plan for change.
I thank Members across the House for their contributions. I especially thank members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny; the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for chairing the Committee; and my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) and for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft) for their crucial work in guiding the Bill through Committee and the other House of Commons stages.
The Bill has benefited from scrutiny both in this House and in the other place. I welcome the broad support for the creation of Skills England and its work. It is clear that we are united in our recognition of the need to develop a world-leading approach to skills. It is vital if we are to build the highly skilled workforce that we need to meet today’s challenges and grasp tomorrow’s opportunities.
We need skills to get Britain building; we need skills to deliver energy security; and we need skills to advance AI and increase productivity. We need to improve the quality and availability of training to give people from all backgrounds from across the country the power to seize opportunities and improve their lives and their family’s lives. That is why this Labour Government’s very first piece of education legislation will pave the way for Skills England.
According to employers, over one third of vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. This must change. We need to move fast to identify and plug skills gaps in the economy. The Bill is a crucial step in delivering this change. Skills England will combine for the first time insight into skills gaps with the development of technical education to meet the gaps, and the network will ensure that skills needs can be tackled across the country. Skills England is already making a difference. It is changing the way skills gaps are identified and how key organisations are working together to fill them.
This Government are ready to go. As soon as the Bill passes, Skills England stands ready to take forward its work as a strong, coherent, single organisation. Delay is not an option. We must act and we will act. We are acting now. I commend the Bill to the House.
Neil O'Brien
I have already read out quotes from employers and those in education and the public service warning about the problems building up in the skills system because of the decisions the Government are making. This evening the Government have decided not to listen to some of the wise people on their own side, including a former education Minister, but I hope that they will listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), because they are on the edge of making a huge mistake by butchering higher apprenticeships —a huge mistake that they will live to regret. They are not listening to their own Members this evening, but I hope that they will in the future.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
21:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 164 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 and 5 together.
Administration
Ordered,
That Gill Furniss be discharged from the Administration Committee and Bambos Charalambous be added.
Finance
That Matt Bishop be discharged from the Finance Committee and Paul Davies be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Croydon Area Remodelling Funding: Brighton Mainline
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. At this time on a Monday night, Members may not find the prospect of discussing the Croydon area remodelling scheme, or CARS, the most exciting way to spend their time, but I can assure them that it is. The scheme is not just about providing vital upgrades to two of busiest train stations in the country and bringing much-needed investment into one of London’s most significant areas of opportunity, but about supercharging growth, opportunity and transport links right across the south-east.
CARS is a Network Rail plan to add capacity and ease congestion on the most complex part of Britain’s rail network, and to improve services on one of the country’s most critical rail lines: the Brighton main line. The lack of capacity at East Croydon station and the complex series of junctions north of Croydon—the Selhurst triangle—mean that trains across the Brighton main line, including the Gatwick Express and those across the wider south-east network, have for many years been vulnerable to delays and cancellations.
At the time of developing those plans, Network Rail reported that service punctuality on the Brighton main line was the lowest of any major route, with the bottleneck at Croydon being one of the main causes. The Croydon opportunity area is earmarked for 14,500 new homes and 10,500 new jobs by 2041, there will be extensive housing delivery in the Brighton city region, between Horsham and Crawley, and along the south coast, and Gatwick is forecast to grow by 58% by 2047 even with only one runway, so the pressure on the Brighton main line is set only to increase.
However, the Croydon bottleneck means that there is no practical way of improving journey times, meeting passenger demand and opening up new destinations on the Brighton main line in the future, because the maximum number of trains that can be scheduled through East Croydon is 70 per hour. In 2019, the service was running at maximum capacity; it is now almost back to pre-pandemic levels, with 62 scheduled trains.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I look forward to hearing how Mr Shannon’s intervention relates to the Croydon area remodelling scheme and the Brighton main line.
Jim Shannon
The most important thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to try to help her in some small way. Does she agree that years of underspending on public transport have left railway and bus services drowning in repair work, and that if the Government wish to have a thriving public transport service outside London, local authorities must be given the funding to fix services—be they in Croydon or Newtownards—rather than having to shake a begging bowl for pennies, as they do now?
Natasha Irons
I agree with the hon. Gentleman: sustainable long-term funding is the only way for any area outside London to grow sustainably.
In addition, CARS would see significant improvement to East Croydon station, Britain’s 21st most used station, by adding two new platforms, a larger concourse to improve facilities for passengers and better connections to local transport networks. It also provides an opportunity to modernise Norwood Junction station, Britain’s 117th most used station, by extending the platforms so that more services can stop there and adding a footbridge with a lift to finally bring step-free access to this much-loved local transport hub.
Despite a consultation with stakeholders and passengers showing that 90% of respondents were in favour of CARS, in 2020 the previous Government shelved these crucial infrastructure plans, turning their back on economic growth in Croydon and across the south-east. However, passenger numbers on the Brighton main line continue to recover well post-pandemic, with station entries and exits at East Croydon station now back up to almost 80% when compared to their pre-pandemic levels and back up to 92% at Gatwick Airport station when compared with the same period.
Given the renewed interest in the expansion of Gatwick airport, the need to look again at CARS is more vital than ever. Gatwick is Europe’s busiest single-runway airport and with the Gatwick airport to Victoria route being the seventh busiest flow for rail passengers nationally—second, when we take out the Elizabeth line extension—even without a second runway, demand for train services into Gatwick are already reaching capacity. The economic case for Gatwick expansion, creating an estimated 14,000 new jobs and generating an estimated £1 billion a year for the British economy, has been well documented and the Government have outlined that any expansion would need to see the number of passengers arriving at Gatwick via public transport increase from its current 44% to 54%.
It is not hard to argue that without the urgent improvements that CARS brings to this line, that ambition is difficult to achieve. Further delays in getting CARS off the ground could not only hold back economic growth for the coast-to-capital region—a region estimated to be the seventh largest regional economy in the country—but it could also hold back economic growth for our country.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for solving the Croydon bottleneck, as it is known. As she has outlined, it affects not only her area of Croydon, but my area of Carshalton and Wallington—the hon. Member and I have seen each other on the train on the way into this place. Does she agree that public transport and train demand in particular can be affected by the frequency and reliability of the services? If we were to fix this problem, that could actually increase the demand for train use in our areas, which would be a good thing not only for the economy, but for the environment.
Natasha Irons
I absolutely agree that once people get into the doom loop of thinking that the train is not going to arrive, they find other routes or stick to their cars. If we can improve rail performance in every region across the country, I am sure we will see passenger numbers also go back up to those pre-pandemic levels, and even increase beyond that.
I appreciate that the Government have rightly stated their intention to grow every corner of this country and that good public transport will no longer be confined to the boundaries of our city. I urge the Minister to consider the wider impact that investing in CARS could have for our coastal communities, what it could do for towns and regions outside London, and what it could do for my part of outer south London. With an estimated extra 4,000 seats per hour on the Brighton main line, 15% higher than what would be provided without it, CARS is not just good for Croydon and the whole of the south-east—it is good for our country, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this debate and allowing us to discuss this critical area of rail infrastructure.
As my hon. Friend has so clearly outlined, the Brighton main line is a crucial artery connecting the south coast to the heart of London, carrying millions of passengers each year. It is a lifeline for commuters, a gateway for visitors and a crucial link for businesses that are driving our economy forward. It also provides a direct rail link into Gatwick, the UK’s second busiest airport. In her constituency, East Croydon station is a major public transport hub, providing links to services across Sussex as well as the London Tramlink. The line facilitates billions of pounds in economic activity every year, enabling businesses to thrive and communities to stay connected. That is reflected in the substantial investment in the line in the recent past. The £7 billion Thameslink programme transformed north-south travel through London, delivering faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys for passengers. Thameslink saw an entirely new, bespoke fleet of class 700 trains introduced to the Brighton main line, radically increasing onboard capacity and improving the reliability of the service. In addition, major stations such as London Blackfriars and London Bridge were entirely rebuilt, and the vital link to the Elizabeth line was created at Farringdon—
Simon Lightwood
Indeed, via the major hub of East Croydon station in my hon. Friend’s constituency, the Thameslink programme also established new direct connections to Peterborough and Cambridge. More than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick airport station, delivering a new, more accessible station concourse and doubling the space for passengers.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the investment made in the line historically. Indeed, in Gatwick’s case, a very large portion of the investment was made directly by the airport, rather than by the Department for Transport. This debate is about the fact that in shortly over a decade, the line will be completely at capacity, so any train leaving Brighton will be full by the time it arrives at my constituency of Crawley. Not a single passenger from Gatwick will be able to get on the train to London without these improvements, and we are running out of time to secure the change necessary to avoid that outcome.
Simon Lightwood
Gatwick Airport Ltd has applied for a development consent order to bring its northern runway into routine use alongside its main runway. I understand that it has committed to providing a £10 million rail enhancement fund to support improvements to the network required to accommodate additional passengers and mitigate the impacts on performance.
As I said, more than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick airport station, delivering a new, more accessible station concourse, doubling the space for passengers, improving the reliability of trains calling at the station and ensuring that it is a fitting gateway to the UK. For too many years, Gatwick airport station has been a major bottleneck on the Brighton main line due to the extended time that passengers need to board and alight from trains. Since the significant expansion of the station and the widening of platforms, passengers can board and alight much more quickly, reducing knock-on delays further up and down the line.
As part of the Gatwick upgrade, the track layout through the station was remodelled to increase capacity and speed, reducing journey times between Brighton and London by five minutes and improving performance. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East and her constituents have started to see the direct benefits of those interventions at Gatwick, be it in the efficiency of their train service or the ease with which they can start their holiday.
Despite those investments, demand and crowding on the line continued to grow up to 2019. It was a victim of its own success, we could say. Before the pandemic, the Croydon area remodelling scheme was rightly identified as a priority scheme to address crowding and provide more capacity on the line. As my hon. Friend has outlined, the complex junction at Selhurst and pinch points at East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations create limits on capacity. CARS was developed to address that through significant remodelling of the tracks and rail junctions north of East Croydon station and as far up as the Norwood Junction station area.
CARS also envisaged a major redevelopment of East Croydon station. At the time, Network Rail estimated that it would take over 10 years to fully deliver the CARS scheme, at a cost of around £2.9 billion. Delivery would also involve significant and ongoing disruption for passengers up and down the Brighton main line. However, the pandemic created significant changes in travel patterns and uncertainty about future demand, while at the same time stretching public finances. In response, the previous Government took the decision to pause the scheme at the 2021 spending review. No development work has been undertaken on CARS since then.
In her spring statement last week, the Chancellor was clear about the challenges facing our public finances and the steps that she is taking to restore stability and support growth. The ongoing spending review is an important part of that process. We are working to carefully assess each element of public spending, including rail investments, ensuring that every penny spent supports our missions and the plan for growth. Given that this process is ongoing, I regret that I am not able to comment on individual projects such as the Croydon area remodelling scheme until the spending review has concluded in June.
My Department and I certainly recognise the substantial benefits that the CARS programme could bring by unlocking development in Croydon and providing capacity for growth across the coast-to-capital region. I also restate the offer made on Thursday by the Secretary of State for Transport to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East to discuss CARS and the drivers for investment she has outlined so clearly. However, I remind her of the multibillion-pound costs of the scheme, in the context of the significant funding challenges that the Government face across a range of public services and infrastructure investment ambitions. We will continue to work with rail industry partners, local authorities and stakeholders across the region, exploring opportunities to improve rail services in the south-east and to ensure that the Brighton main line remains a world-class transport link—one that meets the needs of its passengers and supports economic growth.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025.
This instrument forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring energy-related products are sustainable and efficient, by enabling new regulations to be enforced as they apply to Northern Ireland. Ecodesign policies aim to reduce environmental impacts of products by reducing their energy consumption, reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses and consumers money on their energy bills. As hon. Members will already understand, following our exit from the European Union, Great Britain assimilated its regulatory regime for energy-related product standards into domestic law, which we may in future amend. Hon. Members will also be aware of the agreement reached by the UK and the EU regarding the Windsor framework, which was passed overwhelmingly by a large majority in this place. The Windsor framework helps to ensure the flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing trade barriers and safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. It allows Northern Ireland to maintain dual market access by continuing to apply EU rules with respect to the regulation of energy-related products. Therefore, it is vital that we keep the enforcement legislation for Northern Ireland up to date.
The instrument will update both the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 with respect to Northern Ireland. These updates will ensure that the specific Northern Ireland tables in the 2010 and 2011 regulations accurately reflect the latest product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures, and enable these measures to be enforced by the relevant market surveillance authority. There are seven new product regulations that will apply in Northern Ireland, which range from smartphones through to tumble dryers and heaters. The ecodesign regulations seek to improve the energy efficiency of all products, while the new energy labelling regulations reflect new labelling standards. Repairability and recyclability of products have been included for the first time under EU ecodesign and certain energy labelling regulations to ensure further sustainability and to benefit consumers.
The statutory instrument will ensure that these schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of these EU ecodesign and energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to the enforcement regulations. The requirements updated by this instrument will not restrict manufacturers’ ability to sell into the EU or Northern Ireland, unless they are not willing to meet the EU regulations. The EU’s higher standards are likely to become the industry default and we can assume that manufacturers are likely to choose to meet those standards. If that is the case, these measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant standards.
Since Great Britain is looking to achieve higher product efficiency, it is very likely that Great Britain will seek to meet similar standards. As such, we will be consulting as soon as possible on the merits of mirroring the new EU regulations, with the first consultation, on tumble dryers, expected to be launched shortly. Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis and maintain the UK’s internal market. Our consultation will be on the appropriate means to achieve that aim. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your charismatic and generous chairship this evening, Dr Huq, and to respond to these regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
We agree that, by ensuring that products meet minimum requirements for energy efficiency, regulation can reduce their negative environmental impact, make them longer lasting and encourage greater recycling. Energy labelling also gives more information to consumers, helping them to make better-informed decisions about their energy usage. In principle, energy efficiency clearly helps to reduce bills and emissions. We understand that these particular regulations need to be implemented as part of the Windsor framework.
However, we offer a word of caution to Ministers. These regulations put a modest compliance cost on manufacturers that sell their goods in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Government are now considering aligning the whole of the UK with net zero laws written and decided in Brussels. We would be signing up not only to the European Union emissions trading scheme, with its significantly higher carbon price—increasing our carbon price has not been ruled out by Ministers in a succession of answers to our questions—but to a whole slew of regulations that will be enforced by the European Court of Justice.
There certainly needs to be co-operation with our European neighbours, but we must also maintain our sovereignty and flexibility in an increasingly volatile world. Brussels will, understandably, always act in the interests of the European project and its member states. That is why we must protect the interests of our citizens by putting British industry and consumers first.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to oppose these regulations, not because I am against improving energy efficiency, but because in our opinion they represent yet another example of unfair and unnecessary regulation being imposed on Northern Ireland. Although the Government have insisted that these measures are vital, it is noticeable that they are choosing to consult on similar regulations that will be implemented across the rest of the United Kingdom, while simply imposing them in Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister: why is it acceptable to consult in one part of the United Kingdom, but not the other?
The Minister referenced some items that the regulations would cover. These regulations will cover air conditioning units, comfort fans, computers, domestic ovens, hobs—there is a catch-all phrase for all electrical and electronic household and office equipment. They will also cover electric motors, electronic displays, dishwashers, tumble dryers, washing machines, light sources, fridges, smartphones, mobile phones, space-saving heaters, vacuum cleaners, water pumps and welders. These regulations have an impact on everyday life and everyday items in Northern Ireland specifically—they will only affect Northern Ireland. The items listed are parts of everyday life for each of us and each of our constituents. I therefore ask Committee members: why, in recognition of the implementation of these regulations, are my constituents of less importance or less worth than those of a Welsh, Scottish or Cornish MP? Why do we have to accept a differential or disruption on supply of these goods being forced on the people of Northern Ireland? Why does Northern Ireland continue to be treated as an afterthought when it comes to regulation?
This instrument, as drafted, follows a pattern we have seen before: Northern Ireland being forced to align with EU-derived rules, while the rest of the United Kingdom retains the flexibility to shape its own policies. The Minister said it was likely that manufacturers would follow the EU standard. I question whether a Government should really draft and implement regulations based on the likelihood of something happening by an outside body that they seek to have no control over.
This is not just an administrative issue; it has consequences. Businesses in Northern Ireland will face additional costs and compliance burdens compared with their counterparts across Great Britain, which may ultimately avoid them or get a say in shaping how the regulations are enforced. That places Northern Ireland and its consumers at a competitive disadvantage, creating yet another barrier to economic growth at a time when we should be supporting, not stifling, investment—something that we had been told, by both this Government and the previous one, would not happen under the Windsor framework. While the goal of improving energy efficiency is commendable, imposing a rigid one-size-fits-all approach does not guarantee real progress. Indeed, it risks increasing costs for manufacturers and consumers, while delivering minimal environmental benefits.
Have we assessed whether the regulations will genuinely reduce energy consumption in a meaningful way, or are we simply enforcing them for the sake of regulatory conformity? There was no consultation for Northern Ireland, no consultation with trade bodies, with consumer rights organisations or with families, who might, when their tumble dryer broke down, have looked for a cheaper or second-hand model, but now will have to buy the one that meets EU standards. Why should a constituent in South Antrim have less access to different products than someone in Southampton?
On consultation, the explanatory memorandum simply says that the bodies were not consulted because of previous consultation outcomes. Why were trade or consumer bodies not consulted in Northern Ireland? Was it because the Government did not want to hear their concerns, or let other hon. Members on this Committee know what they had to say? Or did they simply assume that they would not raise any objections, as they did last time?
Beyond the economic and environmental concerns, there is a broader constitutional issue at play. The Government speak of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this United Kingdom, yet time and again we see it subjected to different rules, dictated by external frameworks. That raises a fundamental question: are we truly committed to regulatory consistency across the UK, or is Northern Ireland to be permanently treated as a special case?
For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the regulations. If consultation is appropriate for Great Britain, it should be appropriate for Northern Ireland as well, as part of the United Kingdom. I believe that anything less is unacceptable, and I urge Members to oppose the measures.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I have nothing further to add on the meat of the debate than what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk put forward. I rise to explain my delayed arrival to the Committee; I was a Teller in the Divisions in the Chamber, but I came as quickly as I could. I did not mean any rudeness to you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I am sorry for the delay.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The essence of these regulations is that a part of this United Kingdom should be subjected to regulation governing energy-related products, not by the laws made by this Parliament, nor even by the laws made by the devolved Stormont institutions, but by laws made by a foreign Parliament and initiated by an unelected foreign institution—namely, the European Commission. Those are the laws that would be imposed on consumers and citizens of Northern Ireland by these regulations.
Any rational observer might expect that the right to make the laws of any part of a country would rest with the elected representatives of that country—but in fact, pursuant to the protocol/Windsor framework, the right to make those laws was surrendered to a foreign polity. We have an absurd situation, illustrated by these regulations, whereby seven new EU regulations are being enforced automatically upon citizens of the United Kingdom, and the very Parliament of that United Kingdom is prohibited from changing, amending or disapplying them—or doing anything other than applying them—because the lawmaking powers on these issues have been surrendered to the EU.
That is all set out in graphic, frightening detail in annex 2 of the protocol, where we read 289 areas of law where the United Kingdom can no longer make laws for Northern Ireland. These regulations represent one of those ambits or areas of law.
Of course, that has many ramifications, including the important democratic fact that it disenfranchises the people of Northern Ireland. The fundamental principle of this nation, and indeed of any democratic nation, is that people live under the laws made by those whom they elect. These laws, however, are made by those elected not by anyone in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, but by people in 27 foreign countries. That is the absurdity of what has been imposed in these regulations.
That issue is of immense constitutional significance and, in truth, it is why there is no consultation. There is no consultation about whether these laws should be applied to Northern Ireland for the simple reason that, if there were a consultation, and if that consultation suggested that they should not be applied, it could not be adhered to. It would only show up the impotency of Parliament and the institutions in the United Kingdom, because the right to make these laws has already been surrendered to a foreign Parliament. The view of the Government is that there is no necessity or point to consulting, because their hands are tied.
However, if there is a suggestion that similar regulations might be imposed in Great Britain, there has to be a consultation. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum says that there will be such a consultation—why? Because that is the normal process. We do not impose something without going through the due process of consulting about it. But what we are doing here tonight is the antithesis of that. We are imposing on Northern Ireland regulations upon which we will not consult, because we have already sold the right to consult and the right to make any decision other than to impose them.
It is not just a constitutional issue; it is a practical economic issue. It applies to the vast range of energy-related products, from smartphones through to tumble dryers. Take tumble dryers as an example. There are basically two types: the convector or vented tumble dryer, and the heat pump tumble dryer. Under the regulations, it will become illegal to have a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland, or for a retailer to sell one. It will be impossible for a manufacturer in Great Britain to complete an order for a convector tumble dryer in Northern Ireland. A convector tumble dryer operates at lower ambient temperatures, so many of them are in garages attached to houses, whereas a heat pump tumble dryer would not operate in those colder temperatures. We are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, “You cannot any longer have a British-made convector tumble dryer in your garage. Why? Because the EU says you can’t.”
Think of the magnitude of the absurdity of that: citizens of this United Kingdom are being dictated to not by the democratic mandate of this House but by the undemocratic control of a foreign Parliament. That is the abiding absurdity of the regulations. The Government’s answer to all of that will be to just align the whole of the United Kingdom to the same EU standards, as we will see tomorrow with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill and as we are seeing through their approach to these regulations. What was the point of Brexit? The whole point of Brexit, we were told, was that we could be master in our own house and make our own regulations, but now we will simply reregulate back into line with the EU. That is a very retrograde step.
One other very important thing about the regulations is that they provide that there will be no further debate about such matters when it comes to further new regulations. All there will be is a statement by a Minister that they have come into effect. Courtesy of what is being approved tonight, there will never again be a debate, a discussion, a Delegated Legislation Committee or a debate on the Floor of the House about new measures, because that right is being surrendered as well. That was confirmed by Lord Hunt in the other place.
I say to the members of this Committee—although I know that, whipped as they are, they will not do it—that this is a step they should not take. They should have some thought for their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, and stand up for the right that they should be governed by laws that this Parliament can make and that this Parliament can change, and not subject them, colony-like—because that is what it is, colony-like—to the laws of others.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I start by saying that we have our obligations under the Windsor framework, which was passed in this House with an overwhelming majority. We are not here to litigate the rights and wrongs of that process; that has already been done. We are here to discuss the specific regulations that are being put in place. Critically, the regulations are about improving the efficiency of products that we believe will be good for consumers and good for businesses, and will create opportunities.
Jim Allister
Surely the truth is that we are here to impose regulations that the EU thinks will be better for consumers, because it treats Northern Ireland as EU territory. These are not the regulations of the United Kingdom Government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me say to the hon. Member that we have absolutely looked at the regulations. As the UK Government, we believe that they are good for consumers. In fact, the ambition that has been set by the regulations is one that we wish to mirror ourselves. We will consult on these standards, not because the EU is telling us to but because we think that it is the right thing for UK businesses and consumers.
The vast majority of manufacturers who sell not only in the GB market but in the EU market are already making the transition, because that market is much bigger. They are already driving up product standards. That is good for businesses, and we want to support and encourage that.
I hear the arguments and the caution about not being dictated to by the EU, but please hear me when I say that we think it is right that we drive up standards for our consumers. We would want to do this. The EU has done it, but we would want to do it in our own right. That is why we have tabled this SI and it is why we are also planning to consult on improved standards.
Robin Swann
I thank the Minister for giving way. My opening comment was not about being opposed to the cost or energy savings that the regulations will bring about, but why is it right for them to be enforced in Northern Ireland now? Setting aside the Windsor framework and its implications, as a UK Minister, why does she feel it is right and proper that the rest of the UK is consulted and gets to engage, and that people get to have their say? Or is the Minister really saying to this House, “When the time comes, we will tell you that because it is the right thing to do, we are doing it?” The consultation that she is talking about, mentioned in paragraph 7.2, as well as her explanation of it, are actually fictitious, too, because it sounds to me as though this Government are going to do it anyway, while the Opposition sit on their hands.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are trying to work within the Windsor framework. We are not here to litigate that. It sets out a set of protocols and procedures that we are working under. EU rules have come forward, and it is right that we make sure that we create the legal framework so that these measures apply in Northern Ireland. Critically, irrespective of all that, the basics of what is proposed are good for consumers. They are about improving the efficiency and design of products. In the case of smartphones, it is about improving some of the protections that are available to consumers. The hon. Gentleman and other Members should want that, and we as a Government do want that, irrespective of whether or not we want to litigate the Windsor framework.
We are introducing the SI because we believe it is the right thing to do. We believe it is important that we improve and drive up standards. We will consult on the proposition because we think it is good. Based on the engagement we have had, manufacturers are supportive of the direction of travel. As they want to sell in the EU single market, that sets the default for industry. In that spirit, we propose the SI today and I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Hobhouse.
The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 25 February, implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. For precision-bred plants in England, they provide the practical and technical details to implement a new, science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants as set out in the Act.
The territorial application of the draft regulations is England only, and they cover the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants, as well as their use in food and feed in England. That includes a process administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm that plants are precision-bred and not genetically modified before they can be marketed. Also established is a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency, which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system to make it fit for the future.
The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet the growing demand while becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve that, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for the sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades.
Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, resistant to pests and diseases and beneficial to the environment. In turn, that will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers. However, to capture those benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus across key advisory committees and institutes is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to human health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, adding a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. That deters investment and limits the companies that can bring products to market and the traits that we can benefit from.
Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act now to change that. Through these regulations, we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice, we are treating precision-bred organisms more like their traditionally bred counterparts. By capitalising on the UK’s existing strengths and reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally. The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here.
We have worked with industry from the outset. Industry are clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and confident in the policy direction we are taking. Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework, with the potential for some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, an SME based in Norwich, has developed a non-browning banana that can reduce food waste and improve farm gate revenues by as much as 50%. Another product close to market is Simplot’s precision-bred strawberry, which would make one of Britain’s favourite fruits available to purchase beyond the summer months—lovely.
We recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, most notably around traceability and labelling, the impact on the organic sector, the UK internal market and trade with the EU. We agree that those issues are important and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. For example, we are continuing our engagement with devolved Governments and with the relevant sectors, such as the organic industry. We are also exploring ways to further improve transparency and the provision of information about precision-bred plant varieties.
We believe that we have struck the right balance, with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. This Government are pro-science and pro-innovation, and we are confident that the provisions in this secondary legislation will translate the benefits of precision breeding into reality.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this instrument. This SI enacts policy from the groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act brought in by the Conservative Government in 2023. While this instrument specifically introduces measures on precision-bred plants, as it relates to that Act I must declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.
I would also like to make it clear that when debating this issue, we are discussing gene editing or precision breeding rather than genetic modification. It is incredibly important that we make that distinction because the methods are very different. Gene editing is different from genetic modification, in which genetic material from an exogenous, or unrelated, species can be introduced. That does not happen in gene editing, a process in which any changes must be equivalent to those that could have been made using traditional plant or animal breeding methods. Gene editing therefore speeds up the natural process. Does the Minister agree that that distinction is acutely important and we must articulate it, particularly as there are concerns among the public about the use of genetic modification? This enabling legislation, further to the groundbreaking 2023 Act, is a fantastic innovation that we need to welcome and embrace. If we clearly articulate it to the public, they will come on board with us.
To return to the instrument that we are considering today, I very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the Conservatives and lay these regulations. As I said earlier, this instrument implements the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, introduced by the last Government. Precision breeding has incredible potential; for example, it could lead to increased resilience to pests, diseases and the adverse impacts of climate change. As this instrument relates to plants, it will help to support food production by introducing desirable traits in plants and crops that could otherwise take many years to develop.
The measure could help to improve the nutritional content of plants, or make them more resistant to the threats that they face, including disease and extreme weather events. All that will be a vital tool in the fight for food security in the UK and around the world, with climate-resilient crops meaning a reliable supply of the food on which those living in certain climates depend. It also has environmental benefits, as it reduces the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In other words, this can be a win-win for producers, consumers and the precious environment alike.
Clearly, the most significant component of the regulatory framework of precision breeding must be safety. I hope the Minister will take a moment to reassure us that DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency will regularly review risk, and ensure that all precision-bred plants and crops are safe to be marketed for use in food and as a feedstuff. Does the Minister agree that precision-bred products should not be authorised if they are in any way a risk to animal or human health?
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are very happy to support these regulations, although I hope that the Government will work at pace to deliver on the other potential benefits for which the previous Government’s legislation set the foundation, specifically gene editing for precision breeding of animals and birds, which once again has huge potential to combat diseases.
In the light of the extremely concerning developments in Europe in recent weeks, including foot and mouth disease in Germany, Hungary and now Slovakia; African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe; and diseases already present in the UK, such as avian influenza and bluetongue virus, will the Minister give the sector a timeline for the introduction of further secondary legislation on animal and bird breeding?
As an example, much work is being done to develop resistance to avian influenza in birds, and to develop pigs that are resistant to porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome, or PRRS. Facilitating the roll-out of such innovative research and technology will be of huge assistance with that mission. It will also help to reduce the need for certain medicines and to combat antimicrobial resistance, as well as indirectly, and also very directly, helping human public health. I note that the territorial application for this SI is England only. What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations about ensuring that this technology can benefit all the United Kingdom?
The Minister will be familiar with my repeated calls for action on the Animal and Plant Health Agency in Weybridge. Once again I ask her, as I have asked her colleague many times, to make the case to the Treasury for the £1.4 billion of additional funding urgently needed to redevelop its headquarters. That programme was started under the Conservatives, with £1.2 billion committed in 2020, and I note that the Labour Government have committed an additional £208 million. For the sake of agriculture, animal health, rural mental health, biosecurity and national security, please will the Minister and her DEFRA colleagues continue to press that case with the Treasury?
I conclude by reiterating that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are pleased to support this statutory instrument, and we look forward to the Government speedily introducing further legislation on animals and birds.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I will not say a great deal, but the Minister is quite correct to introduce this statutory instrument. Plainly, its provenance is in measures taken by the previous Government. Since she mentioned where most of this work is under way, I am interested to know how much she expects the legislation to boost the sector in this country, and whether she has had any discussions with the European Union, which will probably take a dim view of some of this. One of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that we can make such legislation, whereas it was previously extremely difficult to do so.
How does the Minister believe that the legislation will impact growth in the sector, and can she assure us that in applying this basic research, we will be able to capitalise on it? Unfortunately, the story in this country is that we are exceptionally good at doing basic research, but other countries and jurisdictions take on that research and we see very little of the uptick or benefit from it. It seems to me that this is a case in point. It would be unfortunate if we were to carry out such research—it will be expensive—in England, only to find that it was exploited elsewhere, particularly in America. What is the Minister doing to make sure that will not be the case? Does she intend the Government to offer any fiscal or other encouragement to companies that might seek to exploit our basic research?
Emma Hardy
I thank the most loyal Opposition for their support with this SI, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. It is incredibly important that we make clear the distinction between genetic modification and what we are talking about here, and that we note how different the two things are. I welcome the Opposition’s support with that clarification.
I will take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species’ traits we can benefit from. The overwhelming scientific advice is that it is not proportionate to apply existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnology when those plants could have resulted—this is the key point that the hon. Member for Epping Forest made—from traditional breeding processes. These regulations provide a science-based approach and are proportionate.
I will cover some of the points that have been raised. On animals and birds, I recognise the professional view and real feelings of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, and he is keen to know more about the Government’s plans for implementing the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for animals. While we are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration, no decision has yet been taken on introducing legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to precision-bred animals. I have no further information about that, because only plants are in scope of this SI.
Dr Hudson
I note that no decision has been taken on animals, but I asked about animals and birds. We have the pressing situation of avian influenza, and technology is under development in this country to breed birds that are resistant to that horrific disease. Can I press the Minister to make the case to DEFRA for enabling precision breeding of animals and birds forthwith? Will she write to the Committee with an update on when DEFRA will bring forward that SI?
Emma Hardy
I am happy to clarify that I was talking about animals and birds. I can attempt to provide further information, but without wanting to appear deliberately vague, no decision has been taken. However, if and when one is, I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman knows.
Emma Hardy
I will take that point back to the Farming Minister.
As for the assurance on risk, the advice is consistent across scientific sources and is supported by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, as well as institutions such as the Royal Society and the European Food Safety Authority. These principles also underpin regulatory approaches adopted abroad, where England is now aligned with countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina. I reassure hon. Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that there is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest: we are not talking about the same things.
Devolved Governments were also mentioned. We recognise that there are concerns about divergence in the UK, and that is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Governments. The Farming Minister recently sent letters to his counterparts in the devolved Governments to invite them to discuss these matters further. We recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved nations on these issues and we look forward to those meetings.
On the EU position, which the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned, although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission has published a proposal for the regulation of plants by new genomic techniques. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and note the recent progress made by the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. The proposal is similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but it will take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, we do not have time to wait.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire made the point about the danger of doing research in this country and it being used by other countries. I take his point, but is there not an opportunity to use this technology in developing countries and provide support in relation to famine?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which was thoughtful, as always, and demonstrated our care for other countries around the world. We have talked about resistance to pests and changes owing to climate change, and this is generally a good and innovative technology that can be used to benefit many people. As I said, although the EU seems to be moving in this area, we are diverging and we do not have time to wait.
Emma Hardy
I will try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question and then he is welcome to intervene. A report by the Breakthrough Institute and Alliance for Science estimates that the EU’s current regulations on gene editing could result in an annual economic opportunity cost of $182 billion to $356 billion for the EU. That is why we want to act now to place English scientists and breeders at the forefront across Europe to make the most of opportunities presented by precision-breeding technologies.
Dr Murrison
The Minister has pretty much answered the question I was going to put to her, which was: what assessment has she made of the competitive advantage? I am trying to be helpful to the Government. I know that they say they want lots of growth, and this is an opportunity to get growth, is it not? But to get growth we need competitive advantage, not just with the States, but with the EU. So my question really is: how much does she think we will be advantaged by the legislation? She has given me a figure, which sounds like a lot of money. I encourage her to go further and, as Europe becomes more and more restrictive in the technologies that it appears to be fighting scared of, the UK must be able to be rational in how it positions itself. In this area, that means being encouraging to our science base, of course, as well as our ability to exploit the findings of that research here in the UK.
Emma Hardy
As I said, there is an opportunity of $182 billion to $356 billion that we can perhaps not exploit—that is maybe the wrong word—but utilise, or take advantage of.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman—we can capitalise on the opportunity, because we will be the first country that takes this through. As I have noted, the EU position seems to be moving, but we recognise that that will take some time, whereas I hope we will agree to this SI today. On that note, I thank everybody for their contributions and the Opposition for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Proposed 24-hour Adult Gaming Centre: Whitby
Communications infrastructure in Hazel Grove
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
Political Donations
(1 day, 5 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
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I begin by thanking Mr Jeremy Stone, who is here today, for starting this petition, and congratulate him on gathering more than 140,000 signatures, which is a fantastic feat. The petition, titled “Tighten the rules on political donations”, states:
“We want the government to…Remove loopholes that allow wealthy foreign individuals to make donations into UK political parties (e.g. by funnelling through UK registered companies)…Cap all donations to a reasonable amount…Review limits on the fines that can be levied for breaking the rules…We think that ultra-rich individuals or foreign state actors should not be able to use their money to give unfair advantage to a political party in order to further their own agenda.”
I think that is a principle that all of us here will agree with—that foreign interference through donations has no place in British elections or politics, and that democracy cannot be for sale.
I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the union and I have received donations from both Unite and the Communications Workers Union, the full details of which are freely available on my MP profile on the UK Parliament website. Functions like this mean that we, as MPs, can be constantly transparent and honest to our constituents about where money is flowing in politics. As a member of a political party, I am very aware of how much parties rely on donations; however, donations can become concerning when their origins are unclear and the public cannot be sure whether some foreign interference, or any other suspicious dealings, may have slipped through the cracks in the rules.
About a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) introduced a similar debate on political finance rules, which covered a lot of the points that I am sure will be mentioned again today. He similarly began by declaring his interest of being a member of a political party, a sentiment that many others here will echo. He used his speech to highlight Transparency International’s research on questionable sources of donations.
In particular, the group found that almost £1 in every £10 reported by political parties and their members since 2001 has come from unknown or questionable sources. Some £13 million comes from donors who are alleged, or proven, to be intermediaries for foreign funds or hidden sources; £10.9 million comes from companies that have not made sufficient profits to support the political contributions that they have made; and £4.6 million comes from foreign Governments, Parliaments and regime-linked groups.
Reported donations from private sources are growing, from £30.6 million in 2001 to £85 million in 2023. That is unsurprising, given that, in this period, former Governments increased campaign spending limits by 45% to be in line with inflation, meaning that the larger parties’ de facto fundraising targets rose to around £100 million in the major election years. The previous Government also increased the threshold for reporting donations by 50% in 2023, thus demonstrating how complex the system is.
Alongside that, the Elections Act 2022 constrained the independence of the Electoral Commission and banned it from prosecuting criminal offences under electoral law. The Electoral Commission said:
“The UK Government does not consider this to be an area of work we should undertake and considered it to duplicate the work of the Crown Prosecution Service…and Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland”.
Ministers can now even set the Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy priorities through their own strategy and policy statements. Transparency International said:
“This is inconsistent with international good practice, unnecessary, and fetters the Commission’s independence.”
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. With her permission, I might just broaden the concept of a political donation, because, in many ways, it is not always quite as simple as a cheque hitting a given political party’s bank account. Whatever one thought of him—he was a great man in Scottish politics, and is no longer with us—it is a fact that Alex Salmond, for a number of years, hosted a show in his own name on RT, a Russian television channel, on which he, on a regular basis, put forward views that were not always particularly helpful to the concept of a United Kingdom. That seems to me to be a subtle way of foreign Governments influencing decisions and trying to interfere.
Irene Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I agree with his point.
At the time of the Elections Act 2022, the House of Commons Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, whose corresponding Department was responsible for introducing the Act, also concluded that there was no need for such statements and no evidence to justify their introduction. The recent Backbench Business Committee debate on political finance rules mentioned some case studies and evidence from previous elections of overseas donations. For example, the 2020 report of the Intelligence and Security Committee found that Russian oligarchs had used their business interests, donations to charities and political parties to influence UK affairs.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She talks about the considerable parliamentary interest in this issue; we know there is considerable interest among the public too, because of the number of signatures on Mr Stone’s petition. Is she also aware that survey evidence has indicated that over three quarters of those polled do not want foreign nationals not registered to vote here to be able to donate to our political parties? As a result, does she agree that we need to see legislative change?
Irene Campbell
I absolutely agree that we need to see change; my right hon. Friend makes the point very well.
More recently, as people will be aware, Elon Musk proposed to donate a large sum to Reform UK. While he could not make a personal donation, there are ways that he could get around the rules, which I will describe. The current rules on donations to political parties are defined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is based on the 1998 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, “The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom”. A lot of what I have said already demonstrates how complex this area is.
The Committee summarised the purpose of the rules by saying that
“what happens here is the concern of those who live and work here and the political parties should not be entitled to fill their coffers with donations from abroad, made by persons and corporations who have no genuine stake in the country.”
More recently, the Elections Act 2022 changed the electoral rules, removing the 15-year limit on the voting rights of British citizens living overseas to vote in UK parliamentary elections, and allowing them to register on the electoral roll and donate to political parties without a time limit.
To be clear, under current UK electoral law, foreign donations are banned as they are not a “permissible source.” Permissible sources include individuals on the UK electoral register, UK registered companies, trade unions, unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. It is worth noting that, under the rules, parties can accept donations or loans with no upper limit, as long as they come from one of those permissible sources. Donations are defined as
“money, goods or services given to a party without charge or on non-commercial terms, with a value of over £500.”
There are additional rules around the thresholds for party headquarters and local accounting, but I will not go into detail because they are not straightforward.
There are ways for foreign individuals to get around those rules. For example, a multinational corporation owned by a foreign national could legally donate to UK political parties. Additionally, unincorporated associations, which are permissible donors, do not have to conduct permissibility checks on their own donors, leading to a lack of transparency in their donations.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The hon. Member made an interesting point about the role of companies, and specifically referred to Reform UK. Will she join me in putting on the record that Reform UK is not a political party like most of ours are, but in fact a limited company registered at Companies House, with the primary shareholder being the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? Does she agree that, where necessary, any change to legislation needs to incorporate such risk factors?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with the statement the hon. Member has just made.
The Electoral Commission, the independent regulator for the rules, has said that, at present, donations can be made using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. There are variable monetary penalties from the Electoral Commission for breaking the rules, which are outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. These can be between £250 and £20,000, depending on the severity of the breach, which is another area that the petition seeks to address.
There are many electoral reform recommendations from independent bodies that address some of the concerns in this petition. In relation to fines for breaking the rules, the 2021 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended reviewing the maximum fines that can be issued for breaking electoral rules, saying that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose
“should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher”.
The Electoral Commission supports that, saying in 2020:
“The Scottish Parliament recently raised the maximum fine to £500,000 for Scottish referendums, and we believe this would be a reasonable benchmark for the maximum fine in relation to other parts of the UK’s political finance regulations”.
Additionally, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends that political parties introduce caps on donations. It said:
“A cap of £10,000 should be placed on donations to a political party or regulated donee from any individual or organisation in any year.”
Similarly, Australia’s new electoral reform Act imposed caps on political donations and electoral expenditure, after recent elections where a multimillionaire donated 117 million Australian dollars to a political party.
Both bodies have also addressed the loopholes that allow possible donations from foreign parties. In particular, the Electoral Commission said last year that parties and campaigners should
“only accept donations from companies that have made enough money in the UK to fund…their donation.”
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
A 2020 report from Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found:
“Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties”.
It is really important that we close these loopholes so that we are not at risk of Russian interference.
Irene Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend. To further close loopholes that allow foreign interference, the Committee on Standards in Public Life added that the Government
“should legislate to ban foreign organisations or individuals from buying campaign advertising in the UK.”
As public office holders, we are all beholden to the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. To dedicate ourselves to these principles, we must ensure that there is no question about the transparency and lawfulness of the donations that we receive. Any rules regarding electoral donations must reflect and represent those principles, which we hold dear.
The Labour manifesto promised to
“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations”.
In December, the Prime Minister’s spokesman confirmed that the Government are committed to
“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”
Regarding the commitment to reviewing the rules on political donations, he said there will be a
“relevant update in due course.”
In her response to the debate in March, the Minister agreed that foreign money has no place in the UK electoral system, and that the current rules do not provide strong safeguards. She also made clear the crucial role that the Electoral Commission has, and the possibility that its roles and responsibilities may change.
There is much evidence and many policy interventions to be considered before the Government’s approach to electoral reform is published. However, now is the time for robust legislation that works. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members who wish to speak that they should bob, and they need to have been here from the beginning of the debate. Interventions—should Members take them—are meant to be just that: short and relevant to the points being made.
I point out to Members that if you mention a current Member by constituency, you need to have formally informed them beforehand, so that they will know they have been mentioned. I call Jamie Stone, Chair of the Petitions Committee.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I do not want to add much to what I said in my intervention. This is a very dangerous principle. I have people saying to me in the street, “It’s getting like America—you can buy political results, politicians and policies.” This strikes me as fundamentally dangerous. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments, and we pride ourselves on the way we do democracy in this country. Every time such things are said to me, I feel that another little brick has been taken out of the edifice of what we do.
As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I thank the petitioners for bringing forward the petition, which expresses what an awful lot of people out there think. The very fact that the Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, gets the honour of a Government reply each time we have a petitions debate strikes me as a very good thing indeed.
I will leave my comments there. As I said in my intervention, there are more subtle ways of influencing politics in any country than a cheque or cash in the bank. We need to be constantly vigilant.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.
The Labour manifesto pledged to
“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”
I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.
In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.
The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.
As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.
I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?
Markus Campbell-Savours
The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.
Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Conservative Friends of Russia, later renamed the Westminster Russia Forum, was founded in 2012 as a lobby group, posing as a think-tank, with absolutely no research published. It was founded at the Russian embassy in London by, among others, Vladimir Putin’s man in London, Sergey Nalobin, and Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. The opening was attended by Boris Johnson and his wife, Carrie. To date, the public has never had access to the group’s activities or fundraising records, but, through this group, Putin’s regime had access to Conservative MPs and, according to one of Britain’s top spies, Kremlin money changed hands to influence the Brexit campaign.
We know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), whom I will shortly email to notify of this mention, then leader of the UK Independence party, met the former Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, which the hon. Member initially denied. We know that Arron Banks, who donated millions to the leave campaign, met the Russian ambassador at least three times. We know that event organisers for the forum were largely London-based businesses but with an interest in Russia, and that, at its peak, events drew 170 attendees. We also know that the Conservative party took millions of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs, and accepted such donations at least as recently as March 2022, after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine and several years after its occupation of the Donbas and Crimean peninsula. The Westminster Russia Forum was disbanded shortly after the full invasion.
I consider it a matter of public interest that the full extent of the group’s activities and fundraising is published unredacted. The Liberal Democrats further call for the full, unredacted release of the Russia report to pierce the veil of secrecy of Russian influence in UK politics. We call for greater independence for the Intelligence and Security Committee to investigate Russian interference. The Conservative party declined to do so, and it is easy to imagine why. No longer should the PM have control over its membership, nor the authority to prevent publication of its reports, as Boris Johnson did with the Russia report. This is both a matter of national security and of public confidence in our politics.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I think I made myself clear: if you are going to mention a Member, you need to inform them before you mention them, not after, to give the Member the opportunity to turn up. I suggest that you inform the Member concerned as a matter of urgency, Mr Thomas, and apologise for not doing so beforehand.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. In the interests of transparency, I would like to declare that I have received no donations from business, but I have received donations from UK citizens, including via the trade union GMB, of which I am a member, and through fundraising dinners and quizzes in my constituency, which anyone is welcome to attend.
I would like to thank Mr Stone for starting this petition and having such great success in raising the issue with the public right across the country. We cannot be complacent in protecting our democratic rights, and we must take heed of what has happened elsewhere. When the US relaxed funding laws, it changed the course of election costs. In 1990, the average cost of a successful campaign to the House of Representatives was $981,000, while a successful Senate race cost an average of $9.3 million. In 2022, after the relaxation of the political donations legislation, the average cost of a successful campaign for the House of Representatives was $3 million, while the average cost of a successful Senate campaign was $28.5 million. We cannot afford to let that happen within the UK.
Standing for Parliament is an honour and a privilege, but not only for those who can afford it or have rich friends; it is for those who come from all walks of life. One of the big loopholes that I perceive within our campaign finance rules—I hope that the Minister will consider it in fulfilling the campaign pledge in our manifesto to clean up political donations—is the rules for political party spending and the long and the short campaign. Although we have rules for the short campaign that are adhered to in the final few weeks, we do not have a consistent set of rules for the 55 months when political parties of any sort are campaigning.
The rise of online spend is much more difficult to track and understand. As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, there are ways of supporting political parties that are not always about straight donations, but that can be done through algorithms and other online activity. I will not mention any particular Member, but I will mention the behaviour of two parties when it comes to donations received. We have people with backgrounds very much linked to tax havens, such as the billionaire property developer Nick Candy, who is one of the main fundraisers for the Reform party. He is also a link between the Reform party and Trump and Elon Musk. He was very clear when he told The New York Times,
“We are going to have fund-raisers all over the world, in every part of the world where there are British nationals”—
not necessarily British taxpayers. He went on:
“We will have fund-raisers in the US, in Monaco, and we will have huge fund-raisers in the UAE, where we have an expat community there who are unhappy with the amount of regulation and tax in the UK.”
To be clear, he is the UK treasurer for the Reform party. We need to close the loophole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said earlier. If someone is not a UK taxpayer, they should not be funding a political party in order to create outcomes around regulation and tax. There are other examples I could point to, and I am sure many will.
Alex Sobel
I am sure my hon. Friend knows of the Carlton Club, which is a private and unincorporated association with close links to the Conservative party. It has received over £200,000 in donations from companies run by wealthy Swiss, German and Russian nationals. Over the same period, since 2020, the Carlton Club has donated £312,000 to the Conservative party. Do we not need to remove the ability to use unincorporated associations to wash money that would otherwise not be able to be donated?
Emily Darlington
That is a very good foray into my last point. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention unincorporated companies or LLCs that are not transparent about where their money comes from. I have to ask why businesses are the ones giving money in the first place. I always think: what is the reward? I understand it better when it comes from a trade union that represents millions of workers. The trade union pulls together donations. Its members are asked whether they want to donate. Under the current legislation, they are asked whether they are happy to pay their dues and make political donations. Those individuals work and pay tax here in this country. But when there is a lack of transparency and the public cannot see how much money the company is making and then donating—the Carlton Club may fit into that; I have never been there, but I hear it is pretty lavish—that is the final loophole that I ask the Minister to consider.
I end my comments there because I know that many colleagues want to speak. I ask the Minister to consider my points and take action.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the 177 people in Bolton West who signed the petition.
Before I came to this place I dedicated more than a decade of my career to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms across the UK, India, the UAE and the US, so I have a professional imperative to speak out on cleaning up our politics, as well as a moral one. That is why I have been campaigning on the issue week in, week out since I was elected to this place in July of last year. I was pleased to attend the launch of Transparency International’s “Checks and Balances” report in the autumn of last year, along with the anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge.
Having pored over the petition data in granular detail, I know that this is one of the rare issues that cuts across north and south, blue and red, and urban and rural. We all want our politics to be clean and fair so that it can deliver the very best outcomes for our constituents. For me, that is the heart of the issue that we are discussing. Our democracy relies heavily on donations to provide funding for parties and candidates to engage with the electorate.
However, recent scandals across all major parties involving donations being linked to criminal, unknown or potentially malign foreign sources have led to some of the lowest levels of public trust that we have ever seen. Only 12% of people trust political parties, and there is a corrosive view that politicians are all in it for themselves. The issue has become so severe that I argue that the very integrity of our political system is under serious threat. Our constituents will not cast their votes if they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. Without voting, of course, they lose their stake in our politics. Who can blame them? For far too long, successive Governments have failed to act on political finance reform, leaving our system vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to subvert our much-cherished democracy.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Electoral Commission, which has warned that significant loopholes in our political finance laws allow money of unknown origin, and potentially foreign influence, to infiltrate British politics. Independent scrutiny bodies, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have repeatedly warned about the risks posed by opaque political donations. That is why we desperately need what I hope will be a forthcoming elections Bill. I urge the Minister, in her response, to provide a clear timeline for that piece of legislation. We desperately need to close loopholes, empower regulators and protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence.
Jim Shannon
Continuing that line of thought, Northern Ireland will need to be part of such a new legislative ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must all be subject to the same rules in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Phil Brickell
I agree that we need to move across the entirety of the United Kingdom to clean up our politics. Time waits for no person, so we must act now. With that in mind, I would like to propose five key reforms, which I gently ask the Minister to consider.
First, and most importantly, the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption has called for “know your donor” checks, which would legally require political parties to conduct thorough checks on the source of donations. If a donor’s origins cannot be verified, that donation should be rejected outright. As a former compliance professional for more than a decade myself, I know that such checks can be proportionate and risk based, avoiding excessive administrative burdens. This approach would align with anti-money laundering practices already established in the private sector and mirror existing requirements in the charity sector. If charities must conduct due diligence on their donors, why should political parties be exempt?
Secondly, has the Minister considered reducing the donation reporting thresholds to bring more donations into light? Coupled with the “know your donor” checks, I think that would improve scrutiny and put off lower-value donations from dubious sources.
Thirdly, there is a glaring loophole around shell companies. Under current rules, companies that have never turned a profit in the UK can still donate to political parties. That is an obvious weakness for potential foreign influence, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it is permitted. The solution is simple: the Government should mandate that a UK-registered company can only donate from the UK profits that it makes. That seems like a principle we can all get behind, and it would go a long way to protecting our much-cherished democracy.
Fourthly, as we have already heard, we must address the role of unincorporated associations, which provide a potential trapdoor for dark money entering our politics. Currently, candidates are not required to verify the ultimate source of donations received through these associations, effectively creating opaque slush funds. Forcing unincorporated associations to conduct better checks on the sources of the original donations would very quickly put an end to that risk.
Fifthly, despite the current political financing laws being riddled with loopholes, they are not even enforced properly. The Tories neutered the Electoral Commission and stripped it of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. What better way to return politics to service than by equipping the commission to hold all parties, including my own, to account? We could start by increasing its capacity for deterrence, by putting up its fining powers. In this era of plutocrat donors, the current paltry fines that the Electoral Commission can impose are hardly going to put wrongdoers off. As I understand it, enhancements to the regime in that respect would not even require primary legislation.
This is an existential issue for our politics. It is not about one person, one party, one donor or even one jurisdiction. Transparency International UK has found that between 2001 and 2024, nearly £115 million in political donations came from unknown or questionable sources, with £1 in every £10 donated to political parties having an unclear origin. Reflect on that for a moment. It is simply unacceptable. The early signs are positive, and I thank the Minister for her engagement with myself and colleagues on this matter already. It demonstrates that the Government understand why today’s debate is crucial. Failing to act sends a dangerous message that British democracy is for sale; we cannot and must not allow that to happen.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am proud to declare my membership of Unite the union. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for support I have received from other unions, because trade union money is the cleanest money in politics; we know exactly where it comes from.
We all know the saying, “Money is power,” and I would hope that none of us are naive enough to think that this does not apply to the UK. If we want to create a democratic system where everyone’s vote has equal value, we need strong protections in place to prevent the very richest individuals in our society from warping our democracy. As we heard today, we are not the worst in the world. I remember a visit I took with you, Mrs Harris, on an international delegation, during which I spoke to a Member of Parliament from another country, which I will not name. We got talking about election spending limits for individual candidates. When I told them what it was in the UK, they turned to me and said, “What are you going to buy with that?” But just because we are not as bad as some does not mean that we cannot do better—and we have to do better, because public confidence in the financial transparency of our system has plummeted.
Just 15% of Brits surveyed by the Electoral Commission last year believed that spending and funding is transparent in our system. Sadly, the evidence shows that this is a problem of trust, as big money continues to have a corrosive influence on our politics. The last Government stripped the Electoral Commission of its ability to prosecute criminal offences and placed it under ministerial control—hardly impartial. As well as manoeuvring the electoral system further in their favour, the last Government quietly passed a statutory instrument to raise campaign spending limits. National election spending caps rose by 80%, and the amount of money that an individual can donate to a party without declaring who donated it rose from £7,500 to £11,180.
I am sure that there will be some Members who think that there is nothing wrong with very wealthy people putting their money behind a party that reflects their principles, but why should we not know who they are? We have to be a little more clear-sighted about the reality: first, because of the size and scale of these donations; and secondly, because if we follow the money, we notice a pattern of some people suspiciously changing teams whenever we are about to see a changing of the guard. It would be naive to suggest that large donors are doing this purely out of the goodness of their own hearts.
I was alarmed to read the recent report by Transparency International, which found that 10% of all UK political donations originate from dubious sources. That is because it suited the last Government to allow front companies, which are set up for the sole purpose of laundering money. I was unsurprised to read that two thirds of that dark money went to the Conservative party. While I am pleased that my party in government has introduced the foreign influence registration scheme, I am concerned by reports that we may have not moved further on plans to ban any foreign political donations. This should not be a left or right issue—it just has to be based on the idea that every vote is worth the same.
It goes without saying that people like the owner of the social media website that I will only ever call Twitter, who is not even registered to vote in the UK, does not own companies incorporated in the UK and invariably avoids paying his full share of tax in the UK, should not be free to throw money at our politics, but here we are. The wealthiest man in the world could conceivably shower huge sums on any party that will help him to advance his divide and rule politics, which are designed to protect his vast wealth. This exemplifies why we need to get big money out of our politics and protect it from the undue influence of the super-rich.
The Institute for Public Policy Research has recommended capping individual and corporate donations to political parties at £100,000 a year. That seems like a modest starting point. We need a crackdown on dark money entering via shell companies that have never turned a profit in the UK and through unincorporated associations with no legal requirement to disclose their funders. We should also reinstate the Electoral Commission’s ability to monitor and prosecute offences and put the resources it needs behind that—nothing hon. Members have not already heard today. I would also like to see my Government revisit the proposals to ensure that individuals donors are registered electors and that companies that donate are owned by people who live in Britain and pay their fair share of tax here. That is extremely important.
Political funding is not the only way that the very rich are able to exert undue influence. However, it is the most obvious place where we can take decisive action now. After a decade in which billionaire donors more than trebled their wealth and working people saw the biggest pay squeeze since the Napoleonic wars, we absolutely need change.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for opening this debate, and Mr Stone, who started the petition. May I also say to the parliamentarians present that the speeches today have been excellent? I have really enjoyed listening and I thank hon. Members for that. I also thank the 235 people in Stroud who signed the petition and the many more who have emailed me about their worries regarding political donations. I have spent a lot of the last two years knocking on doors and the most common theme has been, “You’re all the same—you’re all corrupt.” The lack of trust in politics was very alarming, and it is something that parliamentarians of all parties need to be aware of.
I would like to talk briefly about two issues: the financing of political parties and lobbying. In Stroud, we were supplied with a contract by a Tory councillor for personal protective equipment that was 85% faulty. People on the frontline were left with faulty equipment. We all wonder, but do not know, why that contract was issued. Something like £93 million has been donated to political parties, and two thirds of that was donated by 19 individuals in this country. Is it fair, in a democracy, that there is so much power in the hands of so few people? That is something of which we need to be aware. As many hon. Members have said, the external foreign donations are what brought this debate to a head, because we are all extremely alarmed by stories of hundreds of millions of pounds going to certain political parties.
I will not talk for very long because we have heard so many excellent speeches, but I would first ask if we should question whether the donations system is a good one on which to run our politics in the first place. Secondly, “know your donor” checks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned, are incredibly important. We must vet donors and make sure that the money is coming from a fair place. We need to look at all overseas donors. In fact, I would say that we need to ban any overseas donors to our political parties. I also believe in a cap on any political donations, if we are going to have political donations in the first place; £100,000 seems rather generous to me—we should bring that down.
Briefly, I want to talk about the influence of lobbying. This came as a slight shock to me. I became a politician having been a medic all my life. If we ever had any influence from the pharmaceutical companies, we totally ignored that evidence, yet as politicians we allow lobbyists to come and talk to us. I was on a platform talking about obesity, and there was even someone from Sainsbury’s supermarket on the platform. Is it right that we allow people to influence our policy in that way?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Member hits on an important point. It is surely up to us all to judge the value of what we are told by any particular lobbyist. We listen to constituents who lobby us all the time, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. What is bad is the lack of transparency about lobbying, not just of parliamentarians but of officials in government. Does he agree that a much more open and transparency register of lobbyists would be a big step forward?
Dr Opher
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The lack of transparency is a key issue. In 2023, oil and gas lobbyists spoke to Tory MPs on average 1.4 times per day, so is it really any wonder that they are now stepping back from their commitment to net zero? We must stop that sort of influence in Parliament. We must take the evidence and respond in the right way.
We must restore trust in politics and reform how donations are made. We should look at the whole system of party funding and restore faith in politics.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I want to start by taking stock of where we are as a country. We are in a particular moment in British history. The Conservative Government that this Labour Government replaced did a number on this country in two ways. First, as we have heard from other hon. Members, our electoral and political system has been diminished—for instance, the Electoral Commission has fewer teeth. Secondly, vast swathes of our country feel hopeless. When I knocked on doors over the past two years, I began to feel that the opposition was not in fact the Conservative party but hopelessness. Whether it is the fabric of our society being torn apart or our public services being underfunded, people have been cast adrift, and they are increasingly unconfident about the ability of democracy to fix our problems. That is why fixing these problems is so important for this Government.
We are also in a particular moment in world history. That moment is one of democratic backsliding, and of the rise of authoritarianism, populism and misinformation. If we as a leading western democracy do not fix our rules around political donations and our electoral and political system, we will not be able to contribute to the survival of democracy in this moment, when democracy faces such a significant challenge. We have to get it right for our own people, but we have to get it right, too, for the democracies of the world.
It is important, therefore, that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations, and that the Prime Minister has said that he wishes to protect democracy from the threat of interference. The Government are right that we need to move further and faster to protect our elections and our national security against foreign interference. That means shoring up and shielding the integrity of our democracy and our institutions, which have been made vulnerable to foreign actors by some of the changes made by the previous Government, which we have heard about.
We also need to reflect on the fact that this world moment involves a particular intersection between the concentration of wealth that can sway elections in the hands of a small number of people who happen to be tech billionaires, and the fact that these wealthy men are foreigners to our country. If they were to get engaged in our politics under the current system, they could sway our elections through donations, as well as through their use of technology and communication channels. That is particularly important, because there are challenges around the use of the online space to spread misinformation, the role of artificial intelligence and the role of hacks, as well as questions about donations to political parties, candidates and agendas.
We know the names of some of these tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. There is also, as we all know, Elon Musk. I talk about Elon Musk here for illustrative purposes, rather than just to single him out as an individual; any of the individuals I have just mentioned could use their tech wealth to be involved in the political activities of this country. But as I saw when I went to Queen’s Park Infant Academy and spoke to some of the younger people there, they are concerned about foreign donations into our country’s political system.
One young person said to me, “What do you make of Elon Musk?” I did not quite know what to say, so I flipped the question back and said to that child, “Well, what do you make?” Her answer was absolutely pitch perfect. She said, “Why is a South African-born person, who lives in the United States, has funded a presidential election there, and is now part of the US Government, threatening to get involved in UK politics. I can’t even have a say in UK politics.” I think she makes an interesting point, and I thank her for making it.
Elon Musk cannot legally make a donation personally to a British political party, but he could go through UK subsidiaries of his companies, and we ought to be worried about that. He has suggested that he could donate significant sums of money to a political party in the UK. My concern is not about who he chooses to give that money to—I would not want his money coming to the Labour party. My concern is about his ability to give that money under present rules and the influence that that could buy. We have to be concerned about that.
There is a second point: we have a prevalence of wealth among tech billionaires, who may be getting involved in the political system of our country, and these are individuals who also have control over platforms, such as X and Starlink in the case of Elon Musk. That gives him significant control over access to information, and also over the integrity of information on those channels. For instance, with Ukraine, he has made on-again, off-again threats to end Starlink’s support for Ukraine. With X, we know that he has removed content moderation, and as a consequence we have seen that site become a den—a haven—for misinformation and populist rhetoric. We need to think not just about donations and who donates, but about what power those people have to influence agendas through their control over tech and social media channels.
This is dangerous not just within a democracy, but on the world stage. Elon Musk might be talking about funding one political party in the UK, but he could fund parties around the world if their electoral laws allow. It is not just about his view of one particular party in this country, it is about his view of particular agendas—here I will mention his endorsement of Alternative für Deutschland in Germany.
How do we go about toughening up the rules? I believe there are three things that we can do. First, we should close the loopholes, and ensure that when companies make their profits in the UK for two years, they are able to make donations, but at no other time. We should also introduce a requirement for political parties to know their donor and identify the true source of donor funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules. Frankly, if Elon Musk were to become actively involved in financing UK political parties and then to breach election law, the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission could levy is £20,000. I do not think that a man who is worth £263 billion is going to be very concerned about £20,000.
Thirdly, we need to look at closing the loophole in our donations system that allows donations from shell companies that have never even made a profit in the UK. Often, they have chosen to be in shell companies because they do not want to contribute tax towards our welfare system, to fund the schools and the hospitals that many of our voters depend on and whose improvement they say is their main priority.
We need to strengthen democracy by strengthening our rules around donations. We need to be conscious of the threat to democracy in the UK and around the world from the concentration of wealth in tech billionaires, who often have narrow agendas. We need to be especially conscious of the capacity of those billionaires not just to fund our politics but to distort it through the communication channels that they have.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding donations to my election campaign and through my local Labour party.
Often in debates like this, we look at our political system and there is a preoccupation with the form of the democratic system—for example, debates about our voting system or whether we should have a second Chamber. Important as they are, they can often dominate the discourse. The internal mechanisms of democratic political systems are important, but we also need to examine and discuss the relationship of those internal mechanisms with external actors and the political electoral systems in which we operate. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) moving the motion, and I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing the matter before us.
At the general election, I stood on a manifesto that pledged to protect democracy by strengthening the rules on donations to political parties. I take that commitment seriously, as effective regulation of political finance is, in my view, crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral systems across the UK. As has already been mentioned, under current legislation, any company registered as conducting business in the UK is a permissible donor to a political party operating in Great Britain. It is therefore possible for money from foreign sources to enter our politics via donations from UK companies. That undermines the credibility of our political system and gives greater scope for a further decline in trust. That leads to the interests of those foreign groups or individuals, in practice or perception, being seen to have influence in our political system through their funding.
I want to address one point that has been raised in this debate, which is the matter of accountability and deterrence. Although foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the current legislation fails to act as a sufficient deterrent. There is an often-quoted behavioural study of day centres that sheds light on this issue—apologies, Mrs Harris, but I will cite it again. In the study, parents who arrived late to pick up their children were fined, but instead of reducing lateness, the number of late pick-ups actually increased. Understandably, the parents began treating the fine as a fee for extra childcare, seeing it as an acceptable trade-off rather than a punishment.
We face a similar risk in our political donation system. Under current rules, the electoral system can issue fines of up to £20,000 for breaches. However, for a political party that can spend millions of pounds on a campaign, that amount may be seen as a small price to pay for breaking the rules. It becomes less of a deterrent and more like an operational cost, just as the day care fine became the cost of convenience. If we are serious about protecting the integrity of our electoral system, we must ensure that penalties are strong enough to truly deter illegal behaviour, and are not just seen as a fee to be factored into campaign budgets.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, the Committee on Standards in Public Life agrees and suggests that maximum fines should be 4% of the campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher. Without sharper teeth in our regulations, we risk allowing those with deeper pockets to buy an unfair advantage, undermining the very principles of democracy.
I therefore support the Government’s intention to strengthen the rules on donations to political parties to protect our democracy and uphold the integrity of elections. I understand that they will be published in due course, but I urge the Government to do it as quickly as possible. While the current rules remain in place, the potential for abuse remains evident. The Electoral Commission stated in January this year that it would use its expertise and experience in regulating the political finance regime to help to ensure that any changes are workable and evidence based. Any proposals to change the rules on donations should be properly scrutinised and debated before becoming law.
I look forward to this debate continuing when said changes to electoral law are put before the House. To maintain public trust in our electoral system, those rules must be strengthened. It is upon all of us in this place to increase people’s engagement with the political process. However, to develop that engagement and promote transparency, we need to build trust. One way in which we can build that trust is to take action on the rules on political donations.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate and the petitioners for bringing to Parliament this important petition, warning of the corrosion of trust between elected politicians and voters and of the vulnerability of our political finance system. I was proud last month to bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill on political donations, and I am pleased that Members from across the House continue to shine a light on this important issue. I hope that today’s debate has further encouraged the Government to take political finance reform seriously and give it the priority it deserves.
This debate has made one thing very clear: there is growing agreement across the House that our system of political donations is in urgent need of reform. We must act to restore public trust in our democracy, and that means protecting it from undue influence, whether foreign or domestic. For too long, our political finance rules have lagged behind the reality of modern campaigning. The result? A system that concentrates too much power in too few hands, while many voters feel increasingly unheard.
Politics should be for everyone, not just the super-rich. The Liberal Democrats would introduce a cap on political donations and close the loopholes that continue to allow foreign money into our system. Our current rules leave the door dangerously open to influence from sources that do not always reflect the values or interests of the British people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) rightly observed. We believe that every voice should count equally. That is the only way we can ensure that it is the people of this country—not billionaires, not oligarchs and not corporate lobbyists—who decide our future at the ballot box.
We have heard good points from the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the lack of transparency in lobbying. Trust in politics is faltering. A recent poll showed that more than two thirds of the British public support a cap on political donations. The case for change is clear, and the public know it. It is time that the Government caught up.
Under the current rules there is still no limit on how much a single person or company can donate and, despite years of warnings, loopholes in our political finance laws remain wide open. These weaknesses have allowed foreign actors to funnel money into our politics through opaque networks and UK-registered companies. Successive Governments have failed to act. Now the new Government have a real opportunity to deliver meaningful political finance reform and safeguard our democracy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps will be taken to ensure fairness and transparency.
Public participation in politics is worryingly low—and why would it not be when so many people feel that their voice does not count and that decisions are made in private boardrooms, not public debates? As public servants, we have a duty to change that, and we can start by strengthening the integrity of our political system.
This is not just a question of fairness; it is a question of national security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) explained. The malign Russian influence on one of the most important referendums in British history must be investigated as a matter of urgency. Our current rules leave our democracy exposed. Whether through digital interference, shell companies or strategic donations, hostile actors have found ways to reach into our democratic process. We have seen worrying headlines about foreign billionaires expressing interest in bankrolling political parties. Under our current rules, we are worryingly powerless to stop that, even when the money could distort public debate and undermine faith in our institutions.
Britain has long taken pride in being a beacon of democracy, but pride alone is not enough. We need meaningful action from the Government to protect what we value. Our political finance system is riddled with loopholes, and they are not minor technicalities: they are gaping vulnerabilities that can be and have been exploited. If we are serious about protecting our democracy, we must introduce a fair and proportionate cap on political donations, and close the blatant loopholes that allow foreign money to flow unrestricted into our politics. These are not radical ideas; they are overdue reforms backed by a broad public consensus.
Our politics must serve the British people, not the privileged few. Every citizen deserves an equal voice, and protecting our democracy from undue influence is the test of our commitment to that principle. Let us act now. Let us introduce fair caps, close the loopholes and give our constituents confidence that their votes matter just as much as anyone else’s. If we want to restore faith in our democracy, we must show that it really belongs to the people.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This is the second time in a few weeks that we have debated this issue. I am aware that we are likely to be interrupted shortly for multiple votes, but I will do my best to make some progress in responding to the many and varied points that have been made.
The debate about political financing always feels like an equal opportunity debate: we can all find something in other political parties’ financial arrangements that we would like to criticise and call into question. However, the high degree of cross-party commitment—and the fact that Governments of all parties over the years have passed legislation to ensure a high degree of security in UK political financing—demonstrates that our politics, on the whole and by any international comparison, is pretty clean. Members have raised a number of points, however, that have been widely debated and that are worth our consideration, and that I know the Government are already looking at.
The first point that is important to highlight is that foreign donations to political parties in the UK are already illegal. It is also illegal for foreign citizens to channel their own money through UK sources. Although we have heard a great deal of political debate about donations, prompted by Mr Musk and his comments, it is clear that if a UK company acted as an agent for a donation by a foreign company, that would be an impermissible donation under current laws. If a person or an organisation makes a donation on behalf of another without disclosing who that donation is from, that is also against our laws as they currently stand. The key thing is to make sure that we have effective measures in place for the enforcement of those rules.
A number of Members referred to the role of the Electoral Commission. It is important that we reflect that more recent legislation is based on the original Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which was passed by a previous Labour Government. I draw the attention of Members who have criticised more recent legislative developments to the words of a then Labour Minister when that legislation passed through the House. With respect to the Committee that designed the legislation, he said:
“The Neill committee made clear its view that prosecutions in respect of breaches of the law relating to controls on donations and election expenses should be placed in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and should not be the concern of the commission…the commission does not have that power... the commission will be an enforcement authority but not a prosecuting authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 631-632.]
There had clearly been some drift over time, whereby there was a lack of clarity as to who was responsible. Given, in particular, the significant civil penalties that can be levied by the commission, there was a requirement for absolute clarity that prosecutions for breaches of the law were a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, since any objection to those would likely end in a judicial review anyway. That is something that all Members should welcome in terms of bringing clarity to the process.
I have a few brief questions for the Minister, which will reflect what we debated previously on the Floor of the House. First, it is clear that, contrary to the points that have been made, taxation has never been a basis for suffrage in the UK, and a number of situations relating to that have been clarified in recent caselaw. Students, for example, are exempt from paying council tax, but none the less have a vote in local elections where they reside. There are also expats from the UK who have paid no taxes for a long time but have the right to vote, while others pay significant UK taxes on investments, pensions and other assets held in the UK and do not have a vote. As such, it is important to recognise that although those who pay taxes in the UK have a significant connection to this country, that is not the only basis on which people may exercise a vote.
The last Government, in the previous Parliament, made a commitment during the passage of the National Security Act 2023 to enhance powers so that regulators, law enforcement and security services could share information with political parties. That was, in part, designed to help avoiding a repeat of the situation in which the Labour party found itself taking £700,000 from Chinese spies. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that those commitments are delivered, so that our political parties can access that information when risks are identified?
Will the Minister close the loophole that was created by the Labour Welsh Government and the SNP Scottish Government, which for the first time allows Russian, Chinese and Iranian citizens who are resident in Wales and Scotland to donate to UK-wide political parties and campaigns, when those donations would otherwise be banned? Will she tell us why China is not to be included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? I appreciate that the Government are seeking to enhance relationships with China, but that does create a significance risk of foreign interference. Will she say on record, as she previously did in the House, that she accepts that UK politicians are low risk, and that—although there are significant rules in the politically-exposed persons agenda, which has had a impact on the ability of parliamentarians from both sides of the House and their families to access financial services—no significant risk has materialised?
Finally, will the Minister commit to ensure that there will be the fullest possible consultation with all political parties and wider stakeholders on any planned changes to political finance law? There is a long-standing precedent that, when Governments of any party seek to change such law, they engage with the widest possible group of stakeholders. However, thus far, there have been no discussions with the parliamentary parties panel, no formal consultations with parties, nor any discussions on Privy Council terms about what those changes may be. It would be helpful for the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box whether that will happen as it always has in the past.
It is clear that to address the concerns that many Members have set out, there needs to be a reflection on not only the influence of political financial donations but the impact of benefits in kind. For example, technology companies seek to use algorithms hosted, based and written outside of the UK to influence where the eyes of UK residents and voters fall when engaging with the political system. We know that that creates a significant risk that needs to be addressed. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate, and it is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate, and I congratulate Jeremy Stone on creating the petition, which received such a large number of signatories. It is great to see so many Members join this Westminster Hall debate, which builds on a previous debate on the Floor of the House. We have heard many passionate and principled speeches on a matter that should rightly concern all of us. Those speeches illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who would seek to disrupt it, and they help to illuminate our path forward on this vital agenda.
We inherit a precious democracy forged through centuries of struggle and reform. The Reform Act 1832 began to address electoral inequalities, and the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928 extended suffrage to all adults, regardless of gender or property ownership. Our democracy has continued to evolve. The Government intend to continue that tradition by widening participation and extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Over the years, our democracy has shown its resilience and ability to adapt to challenges. Faced with concerns about undue influence in politics, Parliament has repeatedly risen to the occasion. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is a great example. The Act addressed concerns held then about political funding and established our modern regulatory framework. The UK has shown its capacity to preserve the core principles of democracy as the world changes and new threats emerge. Today, as democracies all over the world confront the challenges of foreign interference, we must again be vigilant and take action to safeguard what is precious.
Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted. The only exception is for donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Irish political parties. That exception recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence: political parties are required by law to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible, and there are rules that safeguard against impermissible donations via proxies.
Although it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognise the continued risk posed by actors who seek to interfere in our democratic process. The current rules no longer match the sophistication and perseverance of those who wish to undermine our laws, and that threat must be addressed through stronger safeguards. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to
“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”,
including through enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. We are considering a series of new measures that would achieve that, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations.
Many Members raised the notion of restricting the size of individual political donations. The Government do not plan to introduce such restrictions, as we are rightly focused on safeguards that protect against the threat of foreign interference. I mentioned at the start that we must protect what is hard won. It is vital that those who play a crucial role in our democracy can fundraise effectively and communicate their ideas with the electorate. Those who choose to participate in electoral campaigns must follow the strict accounting and transparency rules that apply to political donations, and the strict spending limits for election campaigns.
Members have mentioned the important role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. The robust enforcement of political finance rules is crucial to promoting public confidence in our democratic processes, ensuring their integrity, and combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we have also committed to reviewing the powers of the regulator to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties. I can assure Members that we are currently weighing evidence from stakeholders, including recommendations from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission. [Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. The debate is now suspended for Divisions. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for every subsequent vote. Everyone who has spoken in today’s debate is expected to return for the winding-up speeches.
Rushanara Ali
I want to sum up some of the contributions made by colleagues. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, who of course opened the debate, for the points in her speech; to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his contribution; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for his contribution, as well as other hon. Members—I hope I am not missing colleagues out—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell).
There were some excellent contributions about some of the outstanding issues that we need to address, as a Parliament and a Government, by my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and, of course, by the Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds).
Various questions were raised in the debate. In relation to the issues surrounding donations, we recognise that further work needs to be done. The Government are concerned about the growing threat of foreign interference and are focused on ensuring that we have systemic resilience and institutional strength. Of course, any suspected breaches of the rules, now or in the future, will remain a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police.
A number of colleagues mentioned donations from overseas electors. As has been mentioned, the franchise change for British citizens living overseas came into effect on 16 January 2024, removing the 15-year limit on overseas citizens’ voting rights. Overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that includes the right to donate to the parties or candidates they support, but foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors, and overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identities confirmed as part of the registration process. Colleagues asked questions relating to the 15-year rule; we have no plans to reintroduce it.
A further question was raised about increasing the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for breaches of the political finance framework. As I stated earlier, robust enforcement of political finance rules by the Electoral Commission is crucial for maintaining public trust in our electoral system. As I said, that is why, as part of delivering on our commitment to strengthen the rules around political donations, we will look at any changes that are necessary to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.
The strategy and policy statement was raised. We recognise the vital role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity, and this Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. The current strategy and policy statement does not reflect the Government’s priorities, and we will not keep it in its current form. Alongside our broader electoral reforms to strengthen democracy, we will be reflecting on what actions are necessary in relation to the statement in the coming months.
Hon. Members raised the issue of safeguards against political donors being given favourable treatment in relation to Government contracts—for instance, PPE contracts. The Procurement Act 2023 strengthens existing obligations in respect of conflicts of interest. Contracting authorities must take all reasonable steps to identify, mitigate and keep under review conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Where a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, and if steps to mitigate it cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded from that procurement.
Hon. Members raised the issue of foreign nationals being allowed to donate in UK elections. Electoral law ensures that only those with legitimate ties to the UK can donate. That includes people of varying nationalities who are established in the UK and are legitimately entitled to vote in certain elections, such as resident Commonwealth citizens. We do not propose to renege on that principle; instead, we are focusing our efforts on the real risk of foreign interference coming from external actors with no such legitimate links.
Reference was made to lobbying. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 ensures that there is transparency around meetings between Ministers and external groups. When it comes to foreign influence, additional controls are being implemented through the foreign influence registration scheme that will require those being directed by a foreign power to carry out, or arrange for others to carry out, political influence activities to register with the scheme.
I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues, and I am happy to follow up in writing if there are outstanding issues that I have not been able to address.
Tom Hayes
The Labour party was elected on a manifesto that committed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote; the Minister referred to this earlier. Can she confirm that we will give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, and perhaps set out a rough timetable for when that might happen?
Rushanara Ali
We have already set out our plans in Parliament, and before the summer recess we will set out a strategy in relation to what we intend to do, including the legislation.
Cameron Thomas
I am delighted to hear that the Government will give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Do the Government intend to appropriately educate 16 and 17-year-olds about the right to vote?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I do not think I should have allowed that first intervention, and I certainly should not have allowed the second. This is completely out of scope. Can we stick to the motion?
Rushanara Ali
Hon. Members have raised a number of issues. That particular point is important, and I have addressed it in other debates in Parliament.
I look forward to working with colleagues across parties on the subject we are debating today, as well as on the broader democracy agenda. We will get this work done well only if we work across parties as much as possible, while recognising, of course, that there will be some differences. I think we can all agree that if we want the next generation to be prepared and active in our democracy, we must work together to ensure we get this agenda right.
I reiterate my commitment to working with colleagues on this important agenda. The work to protect our democracy is a cross-cutting and UK-wide effort that extends beyond political finance regulation. Working with the intelligence agencies, the devolved Governments, the police and external partners, we remain vigilant against the full spectrum of threats, from cyber-vulnerabilities to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Before the summer recess, we will publish a comprehensive document outlining the Government’s approach to electoral reform for this Parliament. Once again, I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions to this important debate. I believe we all want a robust, vibrant and representative democracy, and that means taking the necessary steps to ensure we safeguard ourselves against foreign interference and uphold the integrity of our elections.
Irene Campbell
It has been an honour to open and close this debate. Democracy should not be distorted by money from unclear and illegal sources. Foreign donations can lead to foreign interference. Serious changes must be considered so that the public can once again have confidence in the transparency of political parties. I am encouraged by the response from the Minister on her progress with this.
I again thank Jeremy Stone, who started the petition and gathered more than 140,000 signatures. His hard work has ensured that this conversation continues in Parliament and is given the attention it deserves. I also thank the Petitions Committee staff for their hard work in preparing for these debates that we Members on the Committee have the honour of opening and closing. Finally, I thank the representatives from the Electoral Commission I met in preparation for this debate for the valuable briefings and information they gave me.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 707189 relating to the rules for political donations.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme: User-friendly Explainer
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
In August 2024 we established the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme. Since then, we have enshrined the scheme in law and published the Government’s compensation scheme summary. I have been intent on producing a simple and user friendly explainer document. This was driven in part by feedback from the infected blood community and parliamentarians that a shorter, more digestible document which sets out the key relevant information was necessary.
I am pleased to announce that today this has been published on www.gov.uk to coincide with the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025 coming into force. This document has been developed with key representatives from the infected blood community.
[HCWS565]
NHS England Revised Financial Directions 2024-25 and 2025-26
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am revising the 2024-25 financial directions to NHS England made on 26 March 2024 and setting the 2025-26 financial directions to NHS England. The amendment to the total revenue resource use limit for 2024-25 has been agreed with NHS England as required under section 223D(4) of the National Health Service Act 2006.
The directions reflect recent funding settlements with HM Treasury and include a number of transfers of funding between NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. The 2024-25 revisions include additional funding received in-year for the NHS pay awards and other in-year pressures, including elective activity. The 2025-26 total is as set out by HM Treasury at the autumn Budget, but with some additional transfers between NHS England and DHSC. They will be published on www.gov.uk. The existing NHS mandate remains unchanged by these publications.
[HCWS569]
Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Recovery Grant
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
On 31 March, the Government published the targeted drug and alcohol treatment and recovery grant funding for local authorities in England for 2025-26.
Drug and alcohol addiction costs the country billions of pounds in additional health and criminal justice expenditure.
Dedicated investment in high-quality treatment and recovery services will reduce crime and save lives. This will benefit people who are experiencing drug and alcohol addiction, their families, and communities, many of whom are vulnerable with complex needs. Through access to individual placement and support employment support, we can help people to sustain their recovery and local employers to recruit from an untapped pool of talent.
This funding is an important component of our plan for change in health, through which we will build an NHS fit for the future, tackle the underlying drivers of ill health and health inequalities, and deliver three fundamental shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention.
It contributes to the safer streets mission by reducing crime and re-offending and funding services that continue to provide support for people who are sleeping rough who have a substance misuse problem. It also supports the opportunity mission by increasing support and early intervention for children and young people’s substance issues as well as reducing the adverse childhood experience of parental substance misuse.
Allocations will see £310 million go directly to councils to build on their vital work of improving outcomes for people who need treatment and recovery support.
Full details of the grant allocations to local authorities for 2025-26 can be found on www.gov.uk. This information has been communicated to local authorities.
[HCWS568]
NHS Pension Scheme: Remediable Service Statements
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
In 2014 and 2015, the previous Government reformed public service pension schemes with the intent to better balance the interests of public service workers, employers and taxpayers. When the reforms were introduced, they provided “transitional protections” which allowed members who were closer to retirement age to remain in the previous “legacy” schemes rather than move to the “reformed” schemes. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found that these protections in the judicial and firefighters pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination—the McCloud and Sargeant case. Member Class Number of Members RSS Extension Retired by 1-10-23—formerly unprotected and only legacy benefits in payment 5,012 1 July 2025 (three months) Retired by 1-10-23—formerly taper protected and only legacy benefits in payment 25,827 1 July 2025 (three months) Retired by 1-10-23—formerly unprotected and both legacy and reform benefits in payment 14,376 1 October 2025 (six months) Retired by 1-10-23—formerly taper protected and both legacy and reform benefits in payment 21,175 1 October 2025 (six months) Retired by 1-10-23—formerly protected and benefits in payment for remedy period 241,233 1 December 2026 (20 months) Retired between 1-10-23 and 1 July 2025 67,690 1 December 2026 (20 months) Active 561,572 1 September 2025 (five months) Deferred 144,076 1 September 2025 (five months)
Governing legislation—the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022— was enacted to remedy the discrimination identified by the courts. A core element of the remedy is providing affected members with a choice of pension benefits, legacy or reformed, for the period the discrimination had effect. Schemes must provide affected members with remediable service statements which set out how this choice will affect the value of their pension benefits. Members who have already retired must be provided with a remediable service statement to allow them to make their benefit choice retrospectively.
The governing legislation requires that a statement is provided to each affected member on or before 1 April 2025 or “by such later day as the scheme manager considers reasonable in all the circumstances in the case of a particular member or a particular class of member.” Today, I am updating the House on the delivery of remediable service statements for affected NHS pension scheme members.
The production of remediable service statements involves a complex and challenging programme of work. Technical complexities, some of which extend beyond the NHS pension scheme, have affected delivery timelines for statements.
The NHS Business Services Authority, as the scheme administrator of the NHS pension scheme, is prioritising the delivery of remediable service statements. However, in order to ensure that affected members receive robust statements that enable informed decision making I have agreed to a revised delivery plan for these statements with the authority, on which it is communicating with affected members. The revised delivery plan prioritises members based on their likelihood of facing financial detriment as a consequence of the discrimination. Government acknowledge that the revised timelines mean many members will receive their statement later than anticipated and that this will have an impact, especially on those retired members who will financially benefit from their choice.
As part of the revised delivery plan, Government will be holding the NHS Business Services Authority to account against extended deadlines for the delivery of remediable service statements. These extended deadlines are detailed in the table below:
[HCWS566]
Community Pharmacy Funding 2024-25 and 2025-26
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am delighted to announce we have now concluded our consultation on funding for community pharmacy for 2024-25 and 2025-26. We have agreed with Community Pharmacy England that in 2025-26 the funding will increase to £3.073 billion, an increase of £375 million compared to 2024-25. This means, in addition to other changes, that on a like- for-like basis the value of the funding will increase by 15.0% compared to 2024-25, compared to 5.8% growth to the budget of the NHS as a whole. This is on top of a consolidated increase in 2024-25 of 4.1%.
This investment will enable us to embed and build on the range of clinical services that we commission from community pharmacy as we seek to improve access through reform and better use the skills of pharmacy teams to keep people well in their communities.
In addition, we have agreed to allow pharmacies to keep £193 million of funding that was paid to them primarily over the pandemic period to support the vital supply of medicines. This will bring more certainty of funding for contractors and support pharmacies in purchasing the medication prescribed for patients.
We know that community pharmacy has been neglected. We are determined to work with the sector to get it back on its feet and delivering for patients. This agreement with CPE will provide much needed investment and start to stabilise the community pharmacy sector. It marks a show of confidence in this Government to deliver the left shift—moving care from hospital to community, and moving from sickness to prevention.
I would like to pay tribute to CPE’s committee. I am grateful to them for working constructively and at pace with officials to agree how best to use this significant new investment to support the sector, and to continue to provide services to patients across the country. We have prioritised patient access to medication, support and advice. We are also embedding and extending the clinical service offer. We will provide additional support for people newly prescribed medication for depression, as well as offering access to NHS provided emergency hormonal contraception across the country for the first time.
We have also committed £215 million to grow the Pharmacy First service, as we look to build on the over 1.9 million consultations already delivered as of November 2024 and provide a platform for prescribing services in the future.
These services will continue to increase the access and support available for people close to home, in the heart of their communities.
I am therefore very pleased to share this announcement and look forward to continued collaborative working with Community Pharmacy England and the wider sector as we build on what we have announced today and deliver what we all want for community pharmacy, a service fit for the future.
[HCWS570]
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024: Implementation
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (the 2024 Act) received Royal Assent in April 2024. The 2024 Act made targeted changes to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) to enable law enforcement and intelligence agencies to continue to tackle a range of evolving threats in the face of new technologies and increasingly sophisticated terrorist and criminal groups.
The IPA provides a framework for the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the intelligence services, law enforcement, and other public authorities. It helps safeguard people’s privacy by setting out stringent controls over the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It consolidated regulatory oversight of the use of investigatory powers into a single body: the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. It also created the “double lock”—the requirement for IPA warrants for the most intrusive powers to be approved both by a Secretary of State (Yvette Cooper) and then by a Judicial Commissioner. One of the key cornerstones of the regime is a requirement that public authorities must be able to demonstrate that any use of the powers is necessary and proportionate.
Today I have laid before Parliament the draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice, Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2025, which are necessary to implement the 2024 Act. The regulations will bring into force eight new and revised codes of practice—the codes, which have also been laid before Parliament, and which provide operational guidance for public authorities to have regard to when exercising functions to which the codes relate. They also include a number of provisions relating to the IPA’s notices regime, including to specify what types of changes may be included in the new notification notices, introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention, and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to notice processes with regards to membership of the Technical Advisory Board.
These regulations, and the codes of practice, have been informed by a public consultation which closed on 6 January 2025. The consultation responses included various suggestions for amendments to the draft codes of practice and regulations. We have made several changes as a result, including stylistic changes, further clarity on processes, and changes to the Technical Advisory Board’s membership requirement. A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation has been published on www.gov.uk.
These regulations are a crucial step in implementing the 2024 Act, which will ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework continues to protect our national security and to prevent, investigate, disrupt, and prosecute the most serious crimes. The Government have published an explanatory memorandum alongside the regulations.
[HCWS567]
Retirement of a Member: Lord Carter of Barnes
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 28 March, of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Barnes, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Apple: Advanced Data Protection Service
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the privacy of Apple customers of the company’s decision to withdraw their advanced data protection service in the United Kingdom.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am chair of Big Brother Watch.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
This Government take privacy very seriously. We have a long-standing position of protecting privacy while ensuring that action can be taken against child sexual abusers and terrorists. I cannot comment on operational matters today, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices. This has been the long-standing position of successive UK Governments for reasons of national security.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
Once again, the Home Office has demonstrated its disdain for the privacy and digital security of British citizens and companies. Strong encryption is essential to protect our data and our commerce from attack by organised crime and rogue states. Any weakness inserted into encryption for the benefit of the authorities is also available to those who would do us harm—yet that is precisely what the Government are demanding from Apple. Can the Minister please explain why the Home Office wants to make Apple’s British customers the most at risk in the world of being hacked?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know the noble Lord has long had an interest in these matters, because we served together some nine or 10 years ago on the Investigatory Powers Act. But he has to understand that, today, I cannot comment on operational matters relating to any issue, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices. That is standard government procedure, and I cannot comment upon it. I know that I will, I am afraid, disappoint the noble Lord, but that is the answer I have to give him.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The fact that Apple has withdrawn this level of encryption from the UK is in the public domain, even if the noble Lord does not wish to comment on whether a notice has been issued. Can he comment on the fact that, for whatever reason, Apple has withdrawn that level of encryption from the UK? It is reported in the United States newspapers that it is because of a technical capability notice issued by the United Kingdom Government. Has this come up, in any sense, in discussions His Majesty’s Government have had with the United States Government in relation to both trade arrangements that might exist between us in the immediate future and our ambition to be an AI superpower in the near future?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises issues that I know he has an interest in. Decisions made by Apple are a matter for Apple, and the removal of any features is a matter for Apple. Again, for reasons of national security I cannot confirm or deny any conversations that we have had or any issues that are undertaken.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that my noble friend cannot comment, obviously, on any notice issued to Apple in this regard, but what he could, I am sure, comment on is the nature of the assessment made by His Majesty’s Government of whether or not such a notice might be issued. Can he confirm that the consideration will include a trade-off between the general weakening of security and the position of confidentiality, against the gains that will be obtained by the security services in any opportunity to de-encrypt materials? In so doing, can he comment on whether or not such an assessment also looks at what other capabilities the security services may have in respect of individuals on whom they wish to obtain information?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes interesting points. The Government take privacy very seriously and have a strong reputation internationally for protecting human rights. Access to data can happen only under specific circumstances and with strict safeguards, and it is taken, when it can be taken, against child sexual abusers or terrorists. I come back to the point that I cannot comment on the operational issues relating to points made in this House today, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices, and that is the position that I will have to advise the House of during the course of this Question.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I understand the Government’s concern with their own privacy and secrecy, less so that of family group chats and journalists’ WhatsApp messages. To avoid that, does the Minister acknowledge that it is not possible for Apple to open doors to all its customers’ data and ensure that only the police and intelligence services walk through, when it is obvious that criminals, foreign adversaries and others would exploit that weakness? Also, at a time when the Government are seeking to establish the UK as a leading hub for innovation and technology, does the Minister agree that it would be baffling if the Home Office were to squander that advantage by trying to bully tech companies into undermining their users’ privacy, security, civil liberties and free speech?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Investigatory Powers Act, on which I served during its legislative passage with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, contains robust safeguards. It contains independent oversight to protect privacy and ensure that data is obtained only on an exceptional basis and only when necessary and proportionate to do so. That is the only answer I can give the noble Baroness today. I cannot comment on the operational issues or on the case she has mentioned in relation to Apple. I cannot confirm or deny any notices, and I have to stick to that position today for the House and for national security issues.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I acknowledge that the Home Office has already said, as has been endorsed today by the Minister, that it does not comment on operational matters, but it has been widely reported that this decision by Apple was taken in response to a government demand to view users’ encrypted data both in the UK and abroad. Of course it is right that the Government act to keep people safe, but they must do so while respecting people’s privacy. Can the Minister comment on how the Government intend to engage with Apple and other tech companies going forward to make sure that future discussions on security do not result in another unproductive breakdown of relations?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government take privacy extremely seriously. We have a strong international reputation for privacy, and we continue to work with companies to ensure that privacy is respected, but I cannot comment on the issue the noble Lord has mentioned concerning any ongoing issues or operational matters. I cannot confirm or deny any notices, and I will, I am afraid, have to repeat that again for the House today.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
On a non-operational matter, can the Minister confirm that all decisions of the kind that have been mentioned will routinely be referred to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal so that it can decide whether government decisions were proportionate or disproportionate?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All proceedings will be referred to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and the decision whether to hold the discussion in public or private is for the tribunal. Those matters will be examined and any judgments on any issue at any time will be made by the tribunal. I hope that is a non-controversial matter for the noble Lord.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that while encryption gives great security, if you add a journalist to the distribution list you lose that security?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can only say that to my knowledge, that is a matter for another nation and not this one, and not this Home Office.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, further on a non-operational matter, are the Government always clear that their actions conform to the judgment of Podchasov v Russia by the European Court of Human Rights last February? It held that weakening end-to-end encryption or creating back doors could not be justified. Therefore, the Government could be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to privacy. Are the Government happy to be in the same boat as Russia as regards individual rights and encryption?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that Russia and this UK Government are so far apart that there is no correlation between the two under any circumstances. In fact, we will also once again publicly condemn the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. That is how far apart we are on these matters.
Access to data happens only under specific circumstances and with strict safeguards, so that robust action can be taken against child sex abusers and terrorists. That is the position of the Government. If any data is accessed, it is accessed by the Investigatory Powers Act for the tribunal, and under strict regulation, for the purposes of stopping bad people doing bad things.
Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the legislation establishing the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority will account for the principle of separation of powers regarding its standards-setting and enforcement functions by having independent committees for each area.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as announced in the King’s Speech, the Government intend to publish the draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill in due course. The Government’s aim is to modernise the Financial Reporting Council’s framework for standard-setting and to uphold the principle of the separation of powers in the establishment of the audit, reporting and governance authority. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the contents of the Bill in advance of its publication. However, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that transparency and due process should be at the forefront of standard-setting processes.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I thank the Minister—I think that his answer was yes. The Takeover Panel had to separate itself as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is long overdue in the field of audit and accounting. Will it be clear in the legislation that the enforcement side should not rely on the same historic legal advice as the standards side on a “true and fair” view? The FRC has relied on controversial legacy legal opinions on a “true and fair” view that were obtained when the big four had significant sway over the FRC and elsewhere. We need to know that ARGA should mean the end of systemic vested interests, including benign vested interests and groupthink, and marking its own homework.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Financial Reporting Council has put in place transparent procedures which ensure a separation between decision-making on standards and enforcement. The draft Bill will continue the transition of the FRC into a revamped regulator—ARGA—with powers for the setting of standards, including on accounting, reporting and audit. Decisions to open an investigation under FRC enforcement schemes are taken by the Conduct Committee. Once an investigation has opened, case decisions are taken by the FRC executive council or its deputies based on the recommendation from the independent case examiner, which plays no part in standard-setting.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is fundamentally wrong that a body funded and populated by corporate and audit industry interests makes the rules which affect distribution of income and risks. Its cognitive capture means that Whitehall reforms are neglected. To take just one example, the audit partner of PwC spent just two hours on the audit of BHS. There are still no disclosures about the audit time budgets, composition of audit teams or lists of questions asked by auditors. Why is the Minister not willing to seek the immediate disclosure of these facts?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. As we know, the UK has certain accounting standards, such as GAAP and the international financial reporting standards. These standards are non-mandatory. However, the Companies Act is very clear that a true and fair view of the accounts must be stated. That is a very high standard, but it is up to the individual or the committee of the company as to what should be reported in the accounts. This new Bill will set much higher standards for companies to abide by.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can the Government provide assurances that the powers granted to ARGA will not create an overly burdensome regulatory environment that discourages investment in the UK?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. At the end of the day, we would like any regulator to perform the work but not to overburden SMEs or, for that matter, to stifle growth, which is the Government’s number one priority.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, the creation of a new auditing authority was first mooted in 2018 under the last Government. Despite numerous statements that this is a priority, firm after firm has collapsed, raising new concerns about the adequacy of the UK’s auditing arrangements. While it is of course important that we get this right, can my noble friend reassure your Lordships’ House that we will not have to wait another seven years before we make progress?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the length of time that it has taken to reach this point. Let us not forget that the collapse of BHS and Carillion caused havoc in the country. It was a wake-up call, when 11,000 people lost their jobs in BHS and 30,000 people lost their jobs in Carillion. Improving auditing standards is an important step, not least to better inform lending and investment decisions. I hope my noble friend will take heart from the fact that this was included in our manifesto commitment and in our first King’s Speech. We look forward to the proposals receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in due course.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. I thank my noble friend for his answers to the questions, but my heart sinks when he talks about presenting the Bill “in due course” and when he will not even tell us what is actually going to be in it. One area that may be covered in the Bill is the regulation of the actuarial profession. At the moment, we have planning blight. Will he please expedite the process?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question and for all the work he has done in the actuarial sector itself. Let us not get ahead of ourselves. The Government are committed to publishing a draft Bill in this Session of Parliament. Until such time, it is important that we do not pre-empt the contents of the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Chancellor has written to other regulators encouraging them to look at ways to help the economy to grow and be more competitive. What are the plans in this area for encouraging growth and competitiveness?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. It is important that, whichever regulator we have, it is effective. Currently, the regulator has some weaknesses in its powers; the new regulator will, I hope, address those weaknesses. It is important that, when anyone looks at the accounts, investors have confidence to make investment decisions. That will drive business and growth.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, late last year, the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council said of the transition to an audit, reporting and governance authority:
“It’s long overdue. It’s the right thing to do. It may sound a bit boring and bureaucratic, but it’s really important”.
Given the highly technical nature of this area, publishing a draft Bill makes sense. However, can the Minister confirm that this process is being used for genuine scrutiny and not to kick proposals into the long grass?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. It is true that these reforms are long overdue, which is why this Government are working on them at pace. My noble friend will understand that I cannot pre-empt any pre-legislative scrutiny process for either the content of the draft Bill or the timing of its introduction. However, we are fully committed to delivering these changes and doing so in a way that ensures that parliamentarians, businesses and wider stakeholders are part of the journey.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister set out some of the recent scandals that have occurred. Can he tell us how many people have gone to jail over those scandals and whether the proposed legislation will hold these people to account?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I do not know whether anyone has been sent to jail, but I will find out and write to him. It is important that noble Lords recognise that the current regulator has limited powers. The new regulator will have additional powers to ensure that directors are held responsible for their fiduciary duties. It is important that we get it right and that we consult widely, but, at the same time, we do not want to overburden SMEs and other businesses with the new regulator. We are taking our time to make sure that we get it right.
UK Fishers: EU Agreement
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve outcomes for UK fishers after the current agreement with the European Union expires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states. We know that the EU wants a new multiannual access agreement. We will listen to what it has to say and will work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for the UK economy and coastal communities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there have been alarming reports in the press that our European friends seem intent on securing and even improving their access to our exclusive economic zone fisheries ahead of any negotiation of other issues. Can the Minister confirm that this Government will not only defend but substantially increase the quota position of our fishermen in our waters ahead of the 26 June deadline?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry. We would like to see long-term strategies to provide the industry with greater stability, which is important to it. At the same time, it is important that we always follow scientific advice when developing negotiations and catch limits.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, last week in the other place, the Conservative shadow Environment Minister admitted that the previous Government’s negotiations failed our fisheries? Does she agree that a rollover of the current system will fail them again? Can she tell the House what consideration the Government are giving to proposals from the Liberal Democrats to roll out a multiyear quota system that would help the industry to plan for the future and stop the current cliff edge?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I just mentioned, we need long-term strategies to give greater stability to the fishing sector. We are also very keen that we develop our policy in this area by working with the industry and talking to fishers and their representatives, so that they have direct input into how we move forward and that we understand, from their perspective, how best we can support them.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, given the overriding importance of reaching an early agreement with the EU on defence and security, does the Minister agree that the right way to handle the issue of fisheries with the EU at this stage is to use the 19 May EU-UK summit to agree to a joint commitment to find a mutually agreeable solution on fisheries within a particular time well ahead of the 26 June deadline?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I made quite clear, we intend to negotiate with the EU in the best interests of the fishing industry and to protect our fishing communities. However, due to the nature of the current negotiations regarding the EU reset, I am not in a position to give any further information about what we discussed at those meetings.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern that fishers have lost 10% of their grounds through energy use, particularly through the Great British Energy Bill? How does she intend to address this spatial squeeze and ensure that the fisheries’ grounds loss is not permanent but will be compensated?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware—because we have talked about it in relation to other issues with Defra—that we are working closely with other departments in this area, including DESNZ, to address exactly the kinds of issues she raises. I will go back to the department and talk to my colleague the Fisheries Minister, Daniel Zeichner, specifically about the point that she just raised.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister knows that we have French and Danish fishing fleets not only fishing in our waters, as per the agreement, but bottom trawling in our marine protected areas. Are the Government going to start protecting those marine protected areas, or shall we call them something else?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are looking with different groups and industry to increase protections across MPAs and at the best way to move that forward. Around 100 of our MPAs have by-laws which are in place to protect designated species and habitats from fishing gear that we know is damaging, including bottom trawling. As I have said before, we are looking at how we can move forward in this area.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, the Fisheries Minister is looking at better matching the fish we catch in UK waters with what we eat as a nation. Given that the Government spend more than £5 billion on food procurement, can the Minister confirm that they are doing everything possible to support UK fishers and farmers in their procurement?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have said before in the House that we intend to hugely increase local procurement of food by government departments, hospitals, prisons, schools and so on. Clearly, fish is part of that, as is locally produced food from our farms. We are very keen to move that forward at pace and are currently looking at how best to do that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, given the urgency and general importance of an agreement on security, has this in any way been made dependent on an agreement on fisheries?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, following the trade and co-operation agreement, the Government will enter into post-2026 fisheries issues at the time laid down for that and not at any artificial date, and that they will negotiate in good faith and in good time on that timetable and not on any artificial proposal to advance that date?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We will always negotiate in good faith. Regarding any new negotiations, we do not have any talks with the EU currently scheduled. We are content with the existing agreement and with the full and faithful implementation of the TCA post-2026 fisheries access arrangements. However, we will of course listen to the EU and the industry, and we intend to continue to protect the interests of UK fishers.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Can the Minister comment on recent reports that our fishers are using heavier ropes to avoid snagging mammals, whales, dolphins and creatures of that ilk?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not aware of any such reports. If the noble Lord would like to share them, I would be very happy to see them. Regarding mammals being caught, we are proceeding with electronic monitoring to get better data. The reports that come in are probably only the tip of the iceberg of the number of mammals that are affected.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, sadly, the fishing industry and fishing men and women felt very sold out by the last Government. Will His Majesty’s Government now commit to always putting the needs and aspirations of British fishermen and fisherwomen above and beyond those of French fishermen and fisherwomen?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I previously said, we will be very robust in any negotiations and discussions. It is important that we support our fishing industry and get the best outcomes that we possibly can.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is not it important, amid all the intricacies of any discussions that are going on, to remember that we are a sovereign state with our own territorial waters for which we are responsible, and that that is an infinitely better position to be in than when we were members of the common fisheries policy?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Have the Government consulted inshore fishermen, particularly Scottish inshore fishermen, whose interest is rapid access to continental markets for their high-value product, and who were so badly frosted by the previous Administration?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The difficulty with negotiating for fisheries in the UK is that it is such a diverse industry. For example, fishers in Scotland will have very different needs from fishers in Cornwall—from those who may be catching crabs and lobsters to those who are after cod and pollock. It is a very complex area. The outcomes report on sustainability of fishing stocks, for example, is an extremely complex read—if anybody fancies it, I can provide them with a copy. But I completely take the noble Lord’s point, which is why we are very keen to work with industry to properly understand what it would like to see in the future.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister believe that we have sufficient ships looking after our territorial seas and our exclusive economic zone—fishery and the things on the seabed—or does she believe, looking at the SDR, that we should get an increase?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not certain that we would ever have enough ships for my noble friend to be satisfied.
Employment Rights Bill: Productivity
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Employment Rights Bill will “support the Government’s mission to increase productivity”, as stated in their factsheet for the bill, and what evidence they have to suggest that it will increase productivity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, last year we published a comprehensive package of analysis showing how the Bill could increase productivity. Evidence included in that impact assessment shows that making workers happier and healthier helps boost productivity. This analysis draws on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders. For example, research from the University of Cambridge shows:
“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy. What analysis have she and her colleagues in Government carried out of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of day one rights?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course we have taken into account the impact on small and medium-sized businesses, but having an entitlement to fair, flexible and secure working should not be available only to those who work for larger organisations. At the moment, 9 million employees—almost 40% of the whole private sector—work in small and micro businesses. Any exceptions to policy based on business size would create a two-tier labour market, with some workers facing fewer protections, leading to an uneven playing field between employers of different sizes and reducing incentives for small businesses to grow.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
There is plenty of time. We will hear from my noble friend first and then from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be familiar with the Cambridge Centre for Business Research 2024 policy brief, which my noble friend referred to. It is titled The Economic Effects of Changes in Labour Laws, and it tracks changes in legislative protection for workers around the world from 1970 onwards, including in the UK. The conclusions of this research speak directly to the Employment Rights Bill. On 5 March, Professor Simon Deakin, the CBR director and co-author of this brief, stated that
“stronger labour protection is associated with higher employment and lower unemployment”
and that
“laws, including those regulating flexible working, working time, and employee representation, can have positive productivity effect”.
In anticipation of Committee on the Bill, will my noble friend the Minister join with me in inviting Professor Deakin and his research colleague to come to Parliament and to brief us on their findings, and, if they accept, will the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, accept a challenge to put the case that the CBR’s conclusions are not supported by 50 years of global datasets underpinning its research and therefore do not justify the causative link?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He is citing one example. There are numerous examples of external support for our arguments. Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research—but, of course, I would welcome the opportunity to meet the academic to whom my noble friend referred.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, clearly, we have many hours in front of us as we scrutinise this Bill. Much will depend on definitions and explanation, not least a proper definition of zero-hours contracts and the role of agencies in employment. But the glaring omission is the absence of any mention of freelancers. Does the Minister agree that freelancers form the mainstay of many important sectors, not least our creative industries? Will she undertake to ensure that the Bill focuses as much on freelancers as it does on other sorts of employees?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: we will have many happy hours debating this Bill in Committee and on Report in due course. On the issue of freelancers, he will know that this is only one piece of legislation. The make work pay programme includes a much more substantial piece of legislation. Where issues cannot be resolved fully in this legislation, they will come up in the wider Bills going forward.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, this claim that the Bill supports productivity falls under the economic analysis section, which some have, perhaps rather unkindly, referred to as the economic fantasy section. The argument is similar to the one used for NICs Bill: increase the cost of employment; take out jobs at the lower-paid end; invest more in tech and innovation; and increase the average productivity of those left in employment. Does the Minister not agree that the danger with a flat economy, such as we have at the moment, is that we end up simply increasing unemployment, depressing real wages and lowering overall growth?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have to be clear about the fiscal inheritance which we inherited from the previous Government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know noble Lords do not like to hear it, but I am happy to repeat it again. That, of course, demanded tough choices to fix our public services and create long-term growth and investment. The Government have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 for the smallest companies, meaning that more than half of businesses with NICs liabilities either gain or see no change next year. Businesses will still be able to claim employer NICs relief, including those for under-25s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible. These are tough times economically, but we are determined to do everything we can to ensure that our growth agenda remains undimmed.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of HSE analysis which shows that unionised workplaces have fewer accidents and injuries and better well-being, and of TUC research showing that unionised workplaces have more investment in skills, better family-friendly policies and a voice for working people? Does she agree that that is good for productivity?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for making these points. I should reiterate that Britain’s working people and businesses will be the driving force of the UK economy, but the current labour market is not delivering for either. The productivity gap with France, Germany and the US has doubled since 2008; average salaries have barely increased from where they were 15 years ago; and the average worker would be more than 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crisis.
A final point: alongside its productivity performance, the UK lags the OECD average on most employment protections. We inherited an economy that was in decline, with poor productivity, and we intend to fix that.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Jonathan Reynolds rightly met Rupert Soames, the chairman of the CBI, to listen to its concerns about the reference period for seasonal-hour workers. Will the Minister undertake to meet the FSB, which is looking for a rebate of statutory sick pay? The Government should consider this, at least for days 1 to 3.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course I am happy to meet with all the stakeholders. No doubt a programme will be put together to do just that.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the best motivators in the workplace is employee share ownership? What do the Government intend to do to increase the extent of employee share ownership? What incentives might they consider?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. It is slightly beyond my brief today, but I am sure that if there is scope we will embrace that idea, which is a very sensible one.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, as a former leader of the Unite the Union, I warmly welcome this Bill, but I would like to see it go a little bit further when we deal with sectoral collective bargaining. Can the Minister listen to employment rights experts when they say that sectoral collective bargaining underpinned by legislation is the right way to achieve wider and broader growth in the economy and, importantly, a growth in productivity?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The employment Bill that we have before us today is a very substantial piece of legislation. There will be further opportunities in the make work pay plan to come back to some of the wider issues and I look forward to debating those when the opportunity arises.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading last week, I asked the Minister to name one company—apart from the four that are routinely trotted out by the Government—that is supportive of this Bill. She did not answer the question, so I invite her to have another go, because we would really like to talk to them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that we have had extensive discussions with all the employment bodies that are engaged. Those stakeholder discussions are continuing. I am sure that we can provide further details, but the important thing is that those stakeholders have been engaged and listened to. We are continuing with that engagement and that will help the policies going forward.
Business of the House
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That with effect from Tuesday 22 April, Standing Order 38(4) (so far as it relates to Thursdays) and (5) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the end of the session so far as is necessary to enable notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House to have precedence over other notices and orders on Thursdays.
Disclosure (Scotland) Act 2020 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Cluny
That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.
Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Designated Vendor Directions) (Penalties) Order 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.
Town and Country Planning (Fees and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 March.
Scunthorpe Steelworks
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will of course be aware that there would be severe economic and social implications if these blast furnaces are closed, but does she acknowledge there would be vitally important national security concerns as well? Will she ensure that such concerns are taken fully into account right across the Government?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. Of course we take national security issues very seriously. We keep developments in all strategic industries, including steel, under constant review. For example, high-quality steel, including for defence programmes such as the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines, is already being made by UK EAF producers. British Steel is not a critical supplier for other defence programmes.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would join all your Lordships in expressing sympathy to the workers and communities not just in Scunthorpe but in Teesside who have had their steel industries whipped away from them. We have not heard much about the Government’s modern industrial strategy lately. We need one across the country and, as we have heard, we need steel to ensure we have the raw materials for manufacturing and our defence industries. If there is one, can the Minister set out for your Lordships what the Government’s steel industrial strategy is? What are the three key elements of that strategy?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, steelmaking in the UK is absolutely fundamental. We are in the process of developing a detailed steel strategy and we will come back to your Lordships’ House with further details. I make it clear that the Government will simply not allow the end of steelmaking in the UK, despite the situation we inherited, in which there has been a 50% decline in crude steel production over the past decade. We will continue to give steel, and steel in the UK, an absolute priority.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. The closure of Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces and other steelmaking sectors is devastating news for almost 3,000 workers and their families. British Steel must not allow the final two blast furnaces to close until the two arc furnaces are installed to continue producing steel and ensure customers do not have to rely on international supplies. Will the Minister reaffirm that all options remain open, including a strong national intervention to protect our proud steel industry and ensure that British steel continues to be made here in the UK? Will she also reaffirm support for Scunthorpe’s green growth zone and companies in the artificial intelligence sector?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question and reiterate that steel is an absolute top priority for this Government. We have made a generous conditional offer on financial support for British Steel, and negotiations are continuing with the company and trade unions to find the best possible outcome that will protect jobs, steel-making and taxpayers’ money.
We obviously cannot pre-empt the outcome of the consultation process. However, we have extensive cross-departmental contingency plans in place to ensure that British Steel workers, their families and the wider Scunthorpe community will be protected. They include plans to establish a task force, should this become necessary, which will consider and prioritise measures that create jobs and support the local economy through recovery.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, is it really the case that neither the Scunthorpe nor the Teesside steelworks will remain open? Does that leave us as the only major country in Europe without any steel-producing facility?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Government will simply not allow the end of steel-making in the UK. We are looking seriously at options for primary steel-making here. With the help of independent experts, we are reviewing the requirements and viabilities of technologies for the production of primary steel in the UK, including direct reduced iron. As I say, steel is an absolute priority for this Government, and we will be producing a steel strategy very soon.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to hear the Minister talk about developing a steel-making strategy, but I am sure that she appreciates that it is impossible to have a successful steel-making strategy without controlling the cost of energy. The cost of industrial energy in the UK is about seven times that of China and three to four times that of France or Germany. I have met steel executives in this place, who are basically saying that their industry cannot survive unless the Government control the profiteering of energy companies. How are the Government going to control profiteering by energy companies?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we continue to do everything that we can to protect the steel industry. That obviously includes looking at the costs concerned. If necessary, we are committed to providing £2.5 billion to help rebuild the steel industry over the next five years. This will be available through the National Wealth Fund and other routes. We are continuing to look at what further steps need to be taken to protect the steel industry in this country.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, do the Government agree that in recent years private sector steel producers have effectively had the Government over a barrel in negotiations? Will they commit to protecting taxpayers’ interests alongside the jobs of those working in the steel industry?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that this is a balance, but there are many good reasons why we need a steel industry in the UK, although obviously not at any price. We have made a significant offer of financial support to British Steel, and I hope that when those discussions continue the matter will be resolved.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I detected a dissonance in the answers there. At one point, the Minister said that we will always have a steel industry, but she just said “not at any price”. Those two things do not work together, so which is it? Is it we will have a steel industry whatever or there is a price that we will not pay for the steel industry?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I say, we have made a very generous conditional offer of financial support to British Steel and negotiations are continuing. This is a live negotiation, and I cannot comment on commercially sensitive details at this stage, but we believe that our co-investment offer is fair and generous. We call on British Steel to accept that offer and the associated conditions. Obviously, there is a point at which those negotiations will not come to fruition, and we are making contingency plans, but we very much hope that we do not have to use them.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we should all just reflect for a moment on the agonies that so many families who are so deeply involved in this crisis must be going through. Following the remarks that the Minister has just made, can she give us some idea of the timescale to which the Government are working? She has made much of the fact that a generous offer has been made and, obviously, there are so many different interests to balance. However, returning to the point I made at the start of this short exchange, there are, above all, huge areas of national security here. Will she ensure that, within a limited timescale, all the Government, in particular the Ministry of Defence, are involved in reaching the decisions that must be made?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
First, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a very worrying time for British Steel’s workers and all those who are affected. First and foremost, we are thinking of them. The negotiations are live and continuing. We will continue to negotiate for as long as we can. There is certainly no deadline in our mind. We will continue to keep that pressure up. We want this matter to be resolved. We feel we have made a good offer and very much hope that those negotiations will be fruitful and that we can find a package with British Steel that is acceptable.
PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that carers provide vital services and support to those who desperately need them. The speculation, leaks and briefings have spread fear, anxiety and distress among the most vulnerable about cuts to benefits, particularly for carers. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that clear, effective and timely communication gets to those who will lose benefits and those who will not? What help and assistance will be provided to those who have had the cruellest of times as a result of this rushed decision?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the one thing we can definitely agree on is that we support carers. We are grateful for the work they do. Society has reason to be grateful for the work they do. This Government have supported them. We have shown that by, for example, boosting the carer’s allowance earnings threshold by £45 a week to the highest level it has ever been since the benefit was created in the 1970s, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by 2029-30. The Government are making necessary changes to stem the rising costs and reform the focus of our sickness and disability benefits system. Those changes will affect some people on carer’s allowance.
The noble Baroness need not worry about reading leaks. All the details are set out in the Green Paper, which I commend to her as a good read for this evening, perhaps before she goes to bed. We are deliberately setting out to consult on how we can support those affected by any of the measures in it. I assure her that nothing will happen overnight. No one is going to lose their benefits overnight. Even when the new changes come in, nobody will lose their benefits until there has been a full and individual assessment of their personal circumstances.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that our society, with an ageing population and keeping people with profound disabilities alive, is increasingly dependent on carers. Can the Minister assure the House that nothing will be done that will undermine the value we attach to carers’ responsibilities and make them feel that our society does not value them as a whole?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that excellent question. I reiterate our absolute appreciation of the work that is done by both paid and unpaid carers. We are very conscious of the fact that, as a country, we have not been able to sort out the problems in our social care system. Adult social care has put extra pressure on to unpaid carers, which is one of the reasons—a clear reason—why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to produce a report by next year on the medium-term challenges, so that we can try to get a long-term fix by 2028. In the short term, I hope that carers will be reassured by the investment the Government are making to, for example, allow them, for the first time ever, if they are working alongside caring, which many are, to earn the equivalent of 16 hours at the national minimum wage before losing any of their benefit.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, forgive me if some of the statements and replies are confusing to me. Something is said in one place and something is said in another. Can the Minister tell us why, in the debate that followed her Spring Statement last week, the Chancellor said that the Government were providing “additional support for carers”, when they are actually reducing carers’ benefits spending by £500 million by 2029-30? The statements and replies are confusing.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, there is confusion, but I do not think it is the Chancellor who created it. I have heard a suggestion that carers’ benefits are being cut. Let me be clear: carers’ benefits are not being cut. Carer’s allowance will rise to £83.30 from next week, or the end of this week, and the Government have boosted the earnings threshold in carer’s allowance by the highest ever amount.
Secondly, reforms are being made to disability and sickness benefits. One of the consequences of those is to change some of the people who currently are entitled to the personal independence payment. Because carer’s allowance is paid to people who care for someone on personal independence payment, there will be some people currently getting carer’s allowance for whom there may not be an entitlement in future.
We spelled out clearly in the Green Paper that we would look at how we could support those who are losing entitlement in general as well as, specifically, carers who are losing entitlement. I want people to be clear: we are not cutting the value of the benefit; we are not changing the fact that they can earn more—but there will be some people who are getting carer’s allowance now, and who might have got it in the future, who will not get it. However, given the rate at which the PIP case load is growing, with all the changes that we are making we are stemming the rate at which spending on sickness and disability benefits goes up, not cutting it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, at the very end of the Green Paper, in an annexe, is, I believe, the one and only reference to the impact of the personal independence payment cuts on unpaid carers. It says:
“The government will consider the impacts on benefits for unpaid carers as part of its wider consideration of responses to the consultation as it develops its detailed proposals for change”.
As the impact on carers is not included in the list of questions for consultation, can my noble friend the Minister explain exactly how the Government propose to consult on it? Are we talking about anything more than possible transitional protection?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend at this stage what it will be, both because we are listening to the wider views and because we are going to take our time to work this through. To be clear, we specifically said in the Green Paper that we would look at the impact on carers and look at ways in which we could support carers who might find themselves losing entitlement to carer’s allowance.
To give a sense of timescale, assuming that Parliament approves the primary legislation that will bring about these changes to disability and sickness benefits, the changes to PIP that will affect carer’s allowance will not come in until November 2026. Only after that will somebody who is getting PIP at the moment see their entitlement change. It will be only as and when they are called to a review and their own circumstances are reviewed that their entitlement changes, which could in turn affect carer’s allowance. So I am confident that we have plenty of time available to us to work through the way in which we can support those who will lose out as a result of these changes.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister explain how the Government will approach what is an increasing number of households, particularly as people get older, where you have two people in a household, both with some level of incapacity and one in receipt of PIP, who may lose it? How will the Government assess the carer who has health issues and get a balance that recognises that, for those two people living together, there is a level of support between the two? Remove the finance from one of them and you affect two people.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. There are cases—unusual cases—where both members of a couple are entitled to sickness or disability benefits, and even cases where both are getting carer’s allowance to care for each other. I do not know how many such cases there are. For that to work, each party would have to be sufficiently sick or disabled to be entitled to PIP, and would have to lose it, and each would also have to be able to provide at least 35 hours’ unpaid caring work a week. It is not that such circumstances are not there, but the interaction of different parts of our benefit system is complex, which is why we want to take our time to work through the impacts on various circumstances.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Will the Minister explain the interrelationship between the DWP and the Department of Health and Social Care? Many unpaid carers are unable to work because of the many hours of care they provide. If they lose their carer’s allowance they will have to return to work, which will mean that the disabled people they care for have to have care provided by the state. Does the Minister have any figures to hand?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Some people get carer’s allowance—I know the noble Baroness understands this, but this is for the benefit of the House—while others will have a carer’s element in universal credit, and that automatically means they are not expected to be available to work. However, I assure her that work coaches can adjust conditionality in individual cases, taking account of the caring responsibilities, even if the carer’s element is not paid. Again, we will look at this as part of our consideration of the impacts.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. I would expect nothing less from our Government than support for unpaid and paid carers. Exactly what arrangements are being made for consultation with unpaid carers? They are an inchoate and ununionised bunch, although there are many admirable charities. In a related question, what are the latest figures for the assessment of carers who are still falling into the trap of unwittingly working too many hours and therefore are still being penalised by DWP? We were told that the Government were acting on that.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, those are two important questions. I know we are working up the consultation process at the moment. That process will not start until we publish all the versions of the Green Paper in early April, including the accessible versions, but we are holding public events in person and virtually, as well as being open to written responses. I will make sure that we are open specifically to comments from unpaid carers.
On the question of overpayments and carer’s allowance, my noble friend may be aware that we have started an independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments, which will conclude this summer. It is being led by Liz Sayce, who brings enormous experience as a former Disability Rights UK chief executive and now a visiting professor in practice at the LSE. The review is specifically focusing on carer’s allowance overpayments. We are trying to work through the questions of how to manage that at the moment and whether there is there any way to reform the system to stop this happening in future.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D. On Motions A, B and C, the other place has disagreed with Amendments 1B, 5B and 8B as they would interfere with public revenue. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on Amendments 1B, 5B and 8B.
I turn to Motion D. The other place has disagreed with Amendment 21B for the reason that the Government and the OBR have already outlined the impacts of this policy change. I have no doubt that the amendments tabled at previous stages of the Bill by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, were well intentioned, and I am grateful to them for ensuring that these important matters have been properly addressed during our debates.
More broadly, I assure all noble Lords that giving careful consideration to and properly assessing the impact of the Bill is a priority for this Government. I commit on behalf of the Government to continually monitoring and assessing the impacts and effects of these policies.
Specifically with regard to special educational needs and disability, which has been the subject of several such amendments, the Government recognise the challenges within the SEND system, where outcomes for children and young people are often poor. The Government understand that change is urgently needed and we are committed to delivering long-term, sustainable change.
On the issue of SEN transport, while the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with SEND, I can commit that all these issues will be fully considered as part of the forthcoming spending review. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will be content not to insist on Amendment 21B. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I simply thank the Minister and, again, all who have been involved in the passage of this difficult Bill, especially those who have supported me and my noble friend Lord Altrincham. We have had seven days of debate in the House and nine successful votes, in collaboration with other Benches. That demonstrated the serious concerns about this Bill, right across the House.
There is a strong feeling, echoed externally in our hospices, in hospitality, on the high street and in many other places, that the Bill is not the best way to meet the challenges that the country faces, and that it will endanger the growth we need so badly. However, this is a House of scrutiny, and the other place has taken a different view. As a responsible Opposition, we will not seek to defeat this Bill, no matter how deeply we feel about it. His Majesty’s Government must be able to set their tax policy, and of course we respect that.
I should add that I am grateful to the Minister for his closing words, especially in relation to SEND transport, and for his undertaking to monitor—as I think he said—the impacts and effect of the Bill going forward. We will hold him to that. Moreover, he knows that I and one or two others will continue to encourage the Treasury to learn from all of this and experiment with fuller sectoral assessments in the future.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the amendments that underlie Motions A and B that came from the House of Lords were in the name of my colleague and noble friend Lord Scriven. On his behalf, and on behalf of my Benches, we recognise that we have come to end the of the road on this Bill and we will not press for any further amendments.
I will make a couple of comments. I have just come from a fairly extensive meeting with R3, the insolvency and restructuring professionals’ body. Those around the table were telling me of the cascade of small businesses that are already going into voluntary insolvency because of the increasing costs that they face this April. When the Minister says that he will look at evaluating the Bill and its impacts, I hope he will make sure that his view casts across that territory, because it is obviously fundamental to the agenda for growth. Within those discussions, of course, were many private social care providers. A number of the smaller ones—at least three of the practitioners around the table—were dealing with insolvencies triggered over the last few weeks.
From what the Minister said, I hope that he and his Government will recognise that they now need to use other means to step in and shore up the key sectors that are faced with costs they cannot sustain and are therefore closing services which we absolutely need. I hope very much that his commitment to ongoing evaluation will incorporate all of that and be granular—we were hopeful when we heard his words on SEND transport, because that is quite a granular issue—rather than the overarching kind that we have been dealing with in this House.
However, the Minister has always been gracious. I understand that this has been exceedingly difficult and that the Government face very difficult and strenuous times. We recognise that, at this point, we can take this Bill no farther. We thank everyone who has participated, from all Benches, and all the people in our back offices and Whips’ offices who have provided so much support.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comments. It is with regret that I will neither insist on my Amendment 8B nor plan to add any further amendments. The other place has played its financial privilege card for the second time, even though this amendment had been radically and pragmatically modified to simply provide the Treasury with the option of a statutory instrument to reverse the big drop in the NICs thresholds for small businesses. It will discover this in the economic damage that this Bill will potentially do to employment and growth.
In the meantime, I simply thank noble Lords—almost 300 of them—for voting for my amendments. I especially thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their unflagging and invaluable support. I thank the Minister for his patience and for at least listening; I appreciate that he had little or perhaps no room for manoeuvre. I support the Government wholeheartedly on their overriding mission of economic growth, but I remain baffled, bemused and bewildered by their policies.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today and all noble Lords who have taken part in all stages of this Bill for their careful scrutiny; I thank them for their thoughtful contributions. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, specifically for indicating that they will not be insisting on their amendments today.
As I have set out, the other place has disagreed with Lords Amendments 1B, 5B and 8B, as they interfere with public revenue. They did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient. The other place also disagreed with Amendment 21B for the reasons I have set out. On this basis, I hope noble Lords are content not to insist on these amendments.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8C.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21C.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:32 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 7 agreed.
18:07 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 11 agreed.
19:24 - Division on Amendment 34 (to Amendment 33) - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 34 (to Amendment 33) agreed.
19:36 - Division on Amendment 37 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 37 agreed.
“Application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005: autism and learning disability
(1) In Schedule 1A to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, paragraph 2, after the last line of the table, insert—
“Case F | P has autism or a learning disability and is not subject to any of the mental health regimes | See paragraph 5A” |
“5A (1) This paragraph applies in Case F in the table in paragraph 2.
(2) P is ineligible if the following conditions are met.
(3) The first condition is that P objects to being—
(a) admitted for treatment as a mental health patient, or
(b) given some or all of the mental health treatment.
(4) The second condition is that a donee or deputy has not made a valid
decision to consent to each matter to which P objects.
(5) In determining whether or not P objects to something, regard must be had to all the circumstances (so far as they are reasonably ascertainable), including the following—
(a) P’s behaviour,
(b) P’s wishes and feelings, and
(c) P’s views, beliefs and values.
(6) But regard is to be had to circumstances from the past only so far as it is still appropriate to have regard to them.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt, Case F and this paragraph do not apply to determine P’s ineligibility in respect of admission for assessment of mental disorder.””
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 would prevent the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards scheme being used to replace detention under section 3 of the Mental Health Act for people with learning difficulties or autism who do not have a mental health condition.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1, which is in my name, and then to Amendment 4, in the same group, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 1 is exactly the same amendment that I tabled in Committee. I have brought it forward yet again because I felt it was so important and I did not feel that we went into as much detail as we should have to recognise the real challenge that the Mental Capacity Act could have to the Mental Health Act, as amended by the Bill we are debating. I am enormously grateful to the Minister; she has not only had a one-to-one meeting with me specifically about this clause but has sent me a letter. I hope it will be appropriate for me to quote some of it.
I am concerned, as are others, including many charities—I refer to the charities I am registered to in the record—such as the National Autistic Society, Mencap and of course the Law Society, which I am grateful to for drafting this particular amendment. There is a difficulty with the Mental Capacity Act. Under the Bill, we wish to prevent people with autism and learning disabilities who have no additional identified mental health condition being deprived of their liberty—they should not be. The worry is that the existing Mental Capacity Act will be used instead to take away their liberty and admit them to a mental health hospital. We know the history in this area, which we have debated many times in this House.
In my discussion with the Minister, I raised with her the fact that the NHSE service model for commissioners sets this out very clearly. At 4.3, it says:
“Alternative short term accommodation (available for a few weeks)”—
we are talking about just a few weeks—
“should be available to people, as and when it is needed, to be used in times of crisis or potential crisis as a place where they can go for a short period, preventing an avoidable admission into a hospital setting. It might also provide a setting for assessment from teams providing intensive multi-disciplinary health and care support (see principle 7) where that assessment cannot be carried out in the individual’s home”.
I think we all recognise that there will be some circumstances under which people will not be able to remain wherever they are, in either their domestic home or their normal place of residence. But, none the less, there should be alternatives to them being admitted to a mental health hospital.
To detain them under the Mental Capacity Act and the DoLS—deprivation of liberty safeguards—has other consequences. Those rights in the Mental Capacity Act include the rights of the nearest relative or nominated person to object to discharge, accessible and automatic referrals to tribunals, independent reviews of medical treatment, statutory care and treatment plans, and of course Section 117 aftercare. So it is not a question just of the Mental Capacity Act being used to deprive people of their liberties; there are associated issues that almost take away even more rights from the individual.
As I mentioned, the Minister and I have discussed this in some detail and I am very grateful to her for agreeing in her letter to me, first, that she has concern—I believe she has genuine concern—about this area. In order to mitigate what might happen under the Mental Capacity Act, she has shared something with me in her letter. I hope this does not seem impertinent, but it is such a good letter and I hope she will put it in the Library, because I am sure it would be of interest to many people in the House. She gave me a lot of data about how the Government are already making sure, and will continue to make sure, that there is proper monitoring of people who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act who may have autism or a learning disability but who do not have an associated mental health condition.
In bold letters, the letter says:
“Ahead of the changes to Part 2, Section 3, we commit to monitoring the data on the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people detained under the MCA”—
Mental Capacity Act—
“and will include a line on this in our standard publications”.
The existing data shows that the number is very few—it is in single figures. But, although it is in single figures, the Act that we hope to put on the statute book does not want anybody: we do not want even one person detained, as they have been previously. We hope that the Mental Capacity Act will not be used.
In addition to this commitment in bold from the Minister in this letter, I am half-comforted, because the other half of the equation is what happens if people are to stay in the community but in specialised environments and with specialised staff to deal with what might be a crisis. We have mentioned that, with autistic people, there could be a meltdown, which can be quite traumatic for the individual and for the people around them dealing with them, but is not a psychotic incident—an autistic meltdown is not a psychotic incident and it does not warrant automatic admission to a mental health hospital. How are we to identify suitable places when these facilities are needed? Again, the Minister has made commitments to the services that should be available in the community for people with autism and learning disabilities to make sure that those services and facilities are available.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in my name. I thank noble Lords who have added their support. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I thank the Minister for the very helpful meetings and correspondence about the outstanding issues my amendments seek to rectify. I apologise for the slightly lengthy explanation that follows.
I declare my interests: I have the benefit of expertise from a psychiatrist attached to the Royal College of Psychiatrists parliamentary scholar programme and research support from a PhD student from King’s College London. Until November 2024, I was chair of the independent oversight panel to review the use of seclusion and segregation for adults with learning disabilities and autistic people. I am grateful to panel members for advice on my amendments relating to long-term segregation. The key message of the report published by the panel, My Heart Breaks, was that long-term segregation has no therapeutic benefits and that it can retraumatise already traumatised people.
When the Mental Health Act was introduced in the early 1980s, our understanding of learning disability and autism was limited, and therapeutic interventions were inadequately developed or trialled. The impact of trauma on the development of people’s behaviour—the behavioural responses to their trauma—and mental illness was very poorly understood. Regrettably, during the 2007 review, the appalling conditions experienced by patients subject to long-term segregation had yet to gain public awareness, so this group of people was once again overlooked and harmful restrictive practices persisted unchecked.
We now possess a much clearer understanding about the nature of learning disability and autism. We therefore know that they cannot be cured my medication or short-term therapies, and we understand the harmful impact of restrictive practices.
We know that therapeutic community-based settings offer far better outcomes where they exist, enabling people to lead fulfilling and productive lives, and community care is more cost effective than prolonged in-patient stays. Although I acknowledge the introduction of the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, this legislation alone cannot address the deeper systemic issues that I have encountered in my work.
The Bill is an opportunity to add the necessary external scrutiny, and the stricter safeguards needed for long-term segregation. Without this, we risk becoming more of a record-keeping tool rather than a catalyst for real change, and the Bill relies heavily on the Mental Health Act code of practice, which is guidance and not law. In practice, we know that services do not always follow it. It is a large document; I reckon that most psychiatrists probably have not read it. It is huge already, and we are going to add more to it.
The amendments I propose directly address these shortcomings. Amendment 55 would require notification of long-term segregation within 72 hours, significantly strengthening oversight from the beginning of this restrictive practice. The Minister has told me that the CQC is already looking for the best way to introduce notification, and I hope she can say more about that. If she is not minded to place this in primary legislation, please can we have an estimate of when this restrictive practice notification will be brought into practice?
Amendment 3 mandates immediate investigation and safeguarding reviews when minimum standards—which would need to be outlined in the code of practice—are breached, or when long-term segregation becomes prolonged or repetitive. Given the profound deprivation of liberty involved, I believe these safeguards are essential. If the Minister accepts no other amendment, can she please accept Amendment 3? One might assume that safeguarding is already in place, but my review found that there were certain definitions of what safeguarding is, and being in long-term segregation for long periods of time was not one of them.
Amendment 56 mandates independent reviews that would provide external oversight within 28 days of a patient being placed in long-term segregation. Experience shows that independent evaluations, especially when they are multidisciplinary, are one of the most effective mechanisms for disrupting institutional inertia and preventing prolonged and unnecessary segregation.
The introduction of independently chaired care (education) and treatment reviews by the Government in 2019 has already demonstrated the value of external scrutiny, but these reviews are only funded until the end of the current year. They have exposed and addressed issues that have been tolerated or overlooked within the host hospital for years. The impact is clear: when independent professionals review cases, inappropriate long-term segregation is far more likely to be challenged and addressed. Given their success, I believe that independent reviews should be a statutory requirement. If the Minister is not minded to accept Amendment 56, could she reassure your Lordships’ House that these independent reviews will continue to be funded for as long as long-term segregation exists?
We already have statutory oversight mechanisms for other hospital interventions. Medication and electroconvulsive therapy require review by second opinion doctors under the SOAD CQC system, yet long-term segregation—one of the most restrictive interventions possible—lacks equivalent scrutiny. Although tribunals oversee a patient’s detention under the Act, they rarely examine specific treatment decisions, such as segregation. A formal independent review process could be built into existing legal and oversight structures, such as SOAD and the CQC, without requiring significant structural adjustments. Of course, there will be workforce shortages in the short term. However, the cost of independent reviews is undoubtedly lower than the financial and human rights costs of keeping patients in long-term segregation for years.
The Government plan to revise the code of practice. Amendment 52 seeks mandatory updates to the code of practice to provide clear guidance about the minimum standards needed for the accommodation used, and strict standards for the initiation, continuation and termination of the enforced social isolation that is euphemistically called “long-term segregation”. Defining minimum standards is critical, given the appalling conditions in which some people are being detained. They are beyond your Lordships’ imaginations, I assure you.
Amendment 57 mandates the appointment of an independent responsible officer by a hospital manager to proactively monitor and address the use of LTS, to ensure compliance with independent recommendations and to actively promote less restrictive alternatives. This too could be brought into practice very quickly, because the SOAD independent review and obligations on hospital managers are already in place.
I thank Mencap, the National Autistic Society, the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and VoiceAbility for their help drafting Amendments 4 and 5, which would require His Majesty’s Government to publish a fully costed plan to provide sufficient community services. These services are needed to switch on the important learning disability and autism elements of the Bill. One of these amendments was originally tabled for Committee and has been revised in light of the Minister’s response. Both would require the Government to consult with stakeholders to develop and publish a costed plan to ensure that integrated care boards and local authorities provide a sufficient number of the right services, as needed, to people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to the issue of people with autism and learning disabilities being detained in hospital. Clause 3(4) amends the Mental Health Act to prevent people being detained under Section 3—in other words, for six months—if they have autism or learning disabilities. Should this not also be preventing detention of people with autism and learning disabilities at all, and certainly for 28 days, for example? Limiting this restriction to Section 3 is unhelpful for people suffering with these disabilities. This is a small point to raise with the Minister.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to one of my noble friend Lady Hollins’s amendments on community services and to four of those on long-term seclusion. I will speak very briefly to each topic.
On community services—I also support my noble friend Lord Adebowale’s amendment on this issue—I understand the Government’s concerns about timing and, presumably, costs, but I believe nevertheless that the Bill should provide legislative pressure to deliver community services for autistic people and people with learning disabilities. There is little point in using the Bill to set out a new legislative framework for this group if this does not include some notion of a plan or timetable, and it is highly likely that the service will simply fall back into the established patterns of non-therapeutic containment if this is not included.
I fully endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about the Autism Act. As one of the witnesses to the autism committee recently said, this is a pretty good law, but where is the action? Where is the implementation? That is the point, and we need some reassurance on a plan being forthcoming within a reasonable timeframe.
On long-term seclusion, I suspect that most members of the public would be surprised to know that what amounts to, in some cases, solitary confinement—I use that pejorative phrase deliberately—is used for such long periods in our institutions. We are talking about 15 days at a time and potentially more than that, over the course of a month, if there is a break between the 15 days and the next 14 days, for example. We should be particularly concerned about what happens out of sight in these institutions, where what should be a very rare occurrence at best can become all too easily routine.
These amendments open this long-term seclusion to greater scrutiny and control. They may not prevent it happening altogether, but they will help to make it a rarer occurrence. I refer in particular to two amendments, neither of which I have my name against—that is my mistake rather than anything else. Amendments 3 and 53 both refer to the code of practice and require that if people are kept in long-term seclusion for 15 days, or indeed the majority of 30 days, there will be clear monitoring and subsequent active intervention to take account of that. They are entirely reasonable amendments and do not raise funding, timing or any other issues. They are about ensuring proper scrutiny of what is happening to vulnerable people in some of our institutions.
In saying that, I am reminded of reading the report from Blooming Change, a young people’s organisation. I quoted the report at Second Reading, and it describes problems with safety and quality. There are descriptions of being injured during restraint, being drugged and restrained, and being scared all the time. It includes the terribly sad quotation:
“‘hospital makes you worse’… going into hospital with one problem and then leaving with trauma, new behaviours, new diagnoses, assaults, PTSD – it’s awful.”
We ought to be able to ensure that the code of practice for long-term seclusion is adhered to and that where it is not, it is properly investigated.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I have added my name to, particularly those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. In Committee, the whole issue of people with learning disabilities and autism caused a number of concerns. I note that the Minister has gone some way towards dealing with some of those concerns, and it is a tribute to her listening and enaction skills that progress has been made.
I think it would be fair to say that there are still some concerns on Benches across the House about potential unintended consequences for people with learning disabilities and autism if the Bill goes through in its present form. In some areas, I would describe the statement from the Minister as, “It’ll be all right on the night”—but we know that, sometimes, it is not all right on the night, and things will happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, puts forward quite an important base for long-term segregation. There is no evidence that it has a long-term therapeutic benefit for people who have learning disabilities and autism, and so the provision for it still being there, without laser-focused monitoring and intervention, is a weakness. The Minister really has to convince the House that the Government have a plan to deal with this.
The worry about having too much faith in the code of practice, as we found out in Committee, is that simple words such as “should” and “must” have very different meanings for whether or not there is a statutory obligation on an organisation. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on the focus in the code of practice and on strengthening the words used.
Amendment 4, to which I have added my name, is something that the House should focus on and understand. Throughout the history of implementation of improvements in mental health and other areas where community carers come in, they have always fallen down on implementation, due to a lack of either funding or resources. Amendment 4 focuses on implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has just said, in the Autism Act 2009 Committee, we heard from two witnesses who said there is a plethora of policy but it is always the plan on implementation that fails. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, focuses on that implementation and asks that the Government have a real plan to do that.
It was worrying as we went through Committee, particularly when issues were raised about the numbers in the impact assessment, that the Minister pointed out that they are indicative. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is required because, if we take a look at the trend of the percentage of total healthcare spend that has been allocated to mental health, including the Government’s announcement last week, we find that there have now been two years in which the total spend will be reduced. That means that some of the good ideas that the Government have mentioned with regard to the implementation of this Bill and community services are potentially at risk.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness will press her amendment, but, if she does, she will have the support of these Benches. We think this is vital, and we are not quite convinced, unless the Minister says something to that effect from the Dispatch Box, that that crack—that real weakness—has been dealt with.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, before I begin my remarks, I express my gratitude to the Minister and to officials for their engagement with not only me but other noble Lords between Committee and now. I know I am not alone in appreciating the amount of time and work that the Minister and officials have put into meeting with us, addressing our concerns, and even having follow-up meetings; that was very much appreciated.
I will speak to Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Browning, and briefly address some of the other amendments in this group. We supported my noble friend Lady Browning’s intention to retable this amendment, which seeks to address the loophole which could lead to the use of the Mental Capacity Act to detain patients with learning disabilities but without a recurring condition.
As noble Lords have acknowledged, both in Committee and today, once the legal basis for detention under the Mental Health Act is removed for these patients, there was always a profound risk of them falling under the deprivation of liberty safeguards. Nobody wishes to see extra safeguards introduced into the Mental Health Act for that to be simply replaced with detention by another Act. My noble friend said today that she has received further assurances from the Minister—we are grateful for those assurances—and that she is no longer minded to test the opinion of the House. Had she been minded to test the opinion of the House, she would have had our full support, but I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given to my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying how grateful I am to noble Lords for their amendments and for the contributions they have made today. I express my thanks at the beginning of this first day of Report for the generosity of time and expertise of noble Lords from across the House—I have greatly appreciated it.
I turn now to the specifics. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is aware, I agree with the principle behind Amendment 1, but there are limited circumstances where it might be appropriate to use the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that patients get the right support. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed my letter and that it was helpful. For people who have recently received treatment for a psychiatric disorder under the Mental Health Act, the Mental Capacity Act may be required to continue to support the individual in hospital in the short term while a community-based placement is being arranged.
Monitoring our reforms will indeed be crucial, as many noble Lords have said today. The NHS England assuring transformation dataset collects data on the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people detained in mental health in-patient settings under the Mental Capacity Act. As the noble Baroness herself referred to, the current number is fewer than five; nevertheless, it is, as she said, important.
I reiterate from this Dispatch Box the commitment that I made in the letter. Ahead of reforms to Part II, Section 3, we commit to monitoring the number of people with a learning disability and autistic people who are detained under the Mental Capacity Act, and will include a line on this in standard publications. Should we see an increase in this number following the reforms and discover that the Mental Capacity Act is being used inappropriately, we will ensure that appropriate action is taken.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her work on long-term segregation. Many noble Lords have raised facilities and community resourcing. I will address this, and the concerns about commitments in this Act being applied, when I turn to Amendments 4 to 6. On Amendments 3 and 55, there is a requirement in the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 to publish instances of isolation in mental health units. We have consulted on making this and other restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours for all patients in mental health hospitals, allowing the regulator to take prompt appropriate action.
Practical concerns were raised through the consultation that was held, which we are legally required to consider. I hope noble Lords will understand that because of this I am unable to commit to mandating reporting at this stage or to give a timeline, which I was asked for. However, noble Lords can be well assured that I more than understand the urgency. My officials have written to the CQC to commission it to develop a proportionate reporting mechanism, as has been referred to, and these changes can be made in regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about restricted practice notification. Because this is to be made in regulations, clearly that will be, as usual, when parliamentary time allows. Every NHS-funded organisation is responsible for ensuring that safeguarding duties are applied. The code of practice requires the local safeguarding team to be made aware of any patient in long-term segregation.
On Amendment 56, the code of practice already sets out that a patient’s situation should be reviewed by a clinician at least once every 24 hours and at least weekly by the multidisciplinary team. The CQC has received funding to continue the programme of independent care or care (education) and treatment reviews for two years, and reviews recommenced in May 2024. We need to consider the programme’s impacts and the outcome of the spending review before future decisions are taken. Doing this outside legislation allows for flexibility. The independent care (education) and treatment reviews model has evolved as we have learned about what works best. We want to be able to continue to deliver the right approach. On Amendment 52, we will review the guidance in the code of practice on the use of long-term segregation, drawing on available evidence. This does not require primary legislation.
To my point on drawing on available evidence, we will indeed use the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, alongside other evidence, to consider changes that need to be made to the Mental Health Act code of practice, which we will review as part of the implementation of the Mental Health Act reforms after Royal Assent. We hope that this, alongside other actions that we are taking—including the continuation of ICETRs and NHS England’s quality transformation programme—will make progress to reduce long-term segregation.
There were points raised about Amendment 53, which we will return to in the debate on the fifth group. On Amendment 57, it is our belief that this duplicates existing requirements. The Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018, once fully implemented, will require mental health units to have a responsible person who must keep a record of any use of force by staff.
I absolutely understand the concerns that many noble Lords have raised about community support. This has driven Amendments 4 to 6. I also recognise the need for accountability and scrutiny of these reforms—a point that has been made several times.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that I hope I am about to do better by him than, “It will be all right on the night”, but he will be able to judge that. I am pleased with what I can commit, which is that within a year of Royal Assent, and each year subsequently, we will lay a Written Ministerial Statement in both Houses. This will include setting out details of the work that has been done over the preceding 12 months to implement this legislation and plans for how we will implement future reforms. It will include progress on the learning disability and autism reforms and plans for community provision.
Regarding Amendment 68 and the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we have heard concerns about possible unintended consequences, such as the potential criminalisation of individuals or detention via other legislative routes. To avoid such scenarios, we will commence changes to Section 3 only once there are strong community services in place and it is safe to do so, because flexibility is essential.
I hope that these commitments will satisfy noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
Will parliamentarians be able to question and amend the plan that will be laid before Parliament every year? The lack of ability to influence that process and that plan concerns noble Lords.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have heard from noble Lords that they are concerned with having transparency, holding the Government to account and being updated on the situation. I absolutely agree with all those points, which is why I am pleased to make that commitment. Parliament has a number of routes available to it to hold the Government to account. I have just outlined the manner in which we will be transparent and the way the Government will be held to account by having to do that. As always, parliamentarians have the ability to scrutinise in many ways.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, we have heard a lot of very salient and not just helpful but wise words in the debate on this group of amendments. I thank the Minister for standing at the Dispatch Box and making commitments that are now on the record with this Bill. When people ask what Parliament’s intention was, she has left us in no doubt on some important points, particularly on my amendment concerning the need to monitor the use of the Mental Capacity Act in respect of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. I am grateful that she has done that and for a similar commitment I think I heard her make around some of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had.
Finally, the Minister has not given us exact dates as to when implementation will take place. We imagine it may be staged—not all in one go—but before the end of this year, the committee upstairs will report on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Autism Act. That will cover a wide range of issues, particularly services to people with autism. I hope that, perhaps in her deliberations on this Bill, when she sees that report—I cannot predict what the outcome of that will be—she will take those into account as well. For certain, services provided under the Autism Act, if they are provided in a timely way, will reduce the number of services that will be needed under the Mental Health Act. It is not rocket science; it is pretty basic that if you provide those services, that downward spiral in mental health is reduced. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“(v) a person or persons with parental responsibility who have not received a court order restricting the exercise of their parental responsibility.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group—Amendments 2, 25 and 27. They all relate to the relationship between parents, special guardians and others with parental responsibility, and the Bill.
I must first say that I am extremely grateful to the Minister and her team for having been allowed to try these points out on her on several occasions. I am afraid that I did not make a great deal of progress, but I hope that I made just a little. I do not propose to ask for the view of the House on any of these three amendments, but I hope that they will go into the code of conduct.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for adding her name to it. I am grateful too to the Minister for beginning, by way of the government amendments, to ensure that the Mental Health Bill does not conflict with orders of the family court under the Children Act.
Amendment 34 would ensure that the AMHP—approved mental health professional—appointing the nominated person for a child who lacks competence must appoint either the special guardian, when the family court has ordered one, or the parent with whom the child lives under a child arrangements order. His Majesty’s Government’s amendment reflects the current position under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act, and this amendment merely reflects the current position under Section 38. Under the Bill, however, the nearest relative becomes the nominated person and moves from a “must” in the Mental Health Act to a “should” in a code of practice.
According to the Government’s policy paper, His Majesty’s Government wished to give the AMHP the discretion to appoint someone other than that special guardian or the parent with whom the court has ordered that the child resides. Both those court orders affect parental responsibility. A special guardian takes all effective day-to-day decisions for the child and, according to the Children Act 1989, parents are left only with consent to a change of name or if the child is to leave the jurisdiction.
A kinship carer or foster carer is given parental responsibility by way of a court order after a report that has to be produced by the local authority to the court. Under a child arrangements order, the matter of who the child lives with or sees is determined, again, by a court order. A matter that is usually part of parental responsibility decided between the parents is now the subject of a court order. Breaching that order is, in fact, contempt of court—or a breach of a court order, as is normally said.
Many of these admissions of sick children who have no capacity are in the evenings or at weekends. That is what I was informed last Thursday by Dominic Marley of the AMHP Leads Network, whose clear view is that it does not want to be foisted with the discretion that His Majesty’s Government offer them. Why? It is because, quite simply, AMHPs are not equipped, unlike the family courts, to assess that there is now no risk of harm to a child, or to appoint someone other than the special guardian or the parent with whom the child resides.
How can AMHPs assess, at 10 pm on a Saturday night, that the daily life of a child is no longer what was outlined in the special guardianship order, or if the child now lives with that parent without a problem, even though that parent may have a history of not being able to care for them due to illness, or a history of violence, but has now recovered or reformed sufficiently? How can AMHPs assess that the parent who was ordered not to have contact after a week-long trial of the evidence in the family court is, in fact, safe to have contact with the child as the nominated person? AMHPs are simply not equipped to delve into complex family issues that have already been determined by the family court—nor, when they are trying to do a mental health assessment of a sick child, do they want to be distracted by this.
The remedy, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, outlined, is to enable the reformed parent in either of those cases to go to the county court under the nominated persons process, which, indeed, often hears cases within 24 hours. There is, of course, also the remedy to go back to the family court, but that would take longer. It is for that court to assess, we hope with a family judge, what the position is and whether that parent is now safe to be involved in the child’s life as the nominated person. It is unfair to put that responsibility on AMHPs, who see only a small number of Children Act cases each year. Also, as these cases are not straightforward—by definition, they have been subject to an order in the family court—AMHPs would almost certainly need His Majesty’s Government to provide out-of-hours specialist legal advice across England and Wales to help them do this. That matter would, obviously, be open to litigation.
AMHPs and the staff of a unit should not have this responsibility or discretion. What if a father who has a no contact order is given access as the nominated person and harms the child? Even if that does not happen, I cannot help wondering, can the mother go to the family court and say that the dad is in breach of the no contact order or in contempt of court by seeing the child as the nominated person? And would the dad defend that breach and say, “I need to call the AMHP to the family court”? This seems to be getting rather expensive and complicated. Family court orders should be respected, so who the AMHP must appoint as the nominated person should again be on the face of the Bill. Most importantly, this would eradicate the risk of harm to a child from a parent, who has been found by a court to be a risk to their child, getting contact with them, or getting access as the nominated person until another court determines otherwise. Court orders are amended by court orders, not AMHPs.
After eight years of looking at the Mental Health Act to reform it, we are now at Report stage and there are still significant conflicts between this Bill and the Children Act. I am left wondering why. Sadly, despite the considerable engagement that other noble Lords have mentioned by the Minister, which I know is appreciated, as of last Thursday, His Majesty’s Government have not met with the lead AMHP network that I have outlined, which represents over 90% of local authorities in England and Wales and has been in existence for over 20 years. The network is not aware of any other professional network being in existence. It was promised by the last Government that, before a Bill was produced to Parliament, it would be met with. As of last Thursday, His Majesty’s Government have also not consulted with the British Association of Social Workers, which has a special interest group of AMHPs. Why not? Will the Minister please outline precisely whether any AMHPs have been met with and, if so, tell us who are they are and make them known? The network I have spoken to is very concerned about this discretion.
The Minister has immunity while being a servant of the Crown; AMHPs and the staff of a secure mental health unit do not. All the AMHPs are asking for is what is indeed reflected in Whitehall. The DHSE has responsibility for the Mental Health Act and DfE for the Children Act. This is not their expertise. I do hope I will not be attaching this Hansard to a letter to a coroner, a CQC inquiry or any other inquiry if, God forbid, a child is harmed or killed in a secure unit by a parent.
Governing is about deciding. Without Amendment 34, His Majesty’s Government have, in my view, decided to take an unnecessary risk with the safety of some of our sickest children. As noble Lords may be aware from how I have outlined this speech, I intend to divide the House if necessary—but I hope the Minister will concede the point.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I would like to support both the amendments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the amendment just spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. It seems to me that, in the potentially complex and fluctuating family situations with which mental health professionals may find themselves having to deal, it is absolutely fundamental that they identify and consult those who have parental responsibility. It would be quite wrong, even in a hasty or urgent situation, for such people to be marginalised.
So far as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is concerned, I likewise entirely agree that the practical realities of operative family court orders, which may or may not be relevant, will certainly need to be understood and properly looked at before any urgent decisions are made. They will also need to be fully considered later when more measured decisions have to be made. For that reason, I would certainly wish to support her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall comment on this important group of amendments. I have real sympathy with the amendments that have been tabled. I join others in thanking the Minister for the helpful and constructive conversations that we have had since Committee in a number of areas, including this one.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this is Report and I do not propose to do more than underscore all that is been said by noble Lords who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lady Berridge. Approved mental health professionals carry with them a huge responsibility for the well-being of those whose interests they are called upon to protect. When a child or young person suffers a mental health crisis, it is the job of the AMHP to make the right assessments, take the right decisions and follow the right procedures under the law to ensure that the young person is looked after appropriately and swiftly. To do that, he or she needs a clear set of ground rules to follow.
We need to imagine a situation, such as the one posited by my noble friend, in which a child’s mental and emotional condition is such that they lack decision-making competence. An AMHP is then called in. In that situation, when it comes to appointing a nominated person for the child, the scope for confusion and indeed delay is enormous. Who should be appointed? Is it the mother or the father, or is there someone else who should take precedence?
The Minister has acknowledged through the government amendments before us that, when there is a care order for the child, the AMHP should have no choice but to appoint the local authority as the nominated person for the child. That is a welcome step forward but, as my noble friend has rightly said, what if there is a special guardianship order or child arrangement order issued by the court under the terms of the Children Act? In those circumstances, too, the AMHP should be relieved of the obligation of making a decision that, if it is the wrong one, could leave them open to legal challenge. I very much hope the Minister will be receptive to the powerful arguments that my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have advanced on these significant issues.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this important area, and I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for Amendment 2.
On that point, I can say that a copy of the report made following a care and treatment review must be sent to those who have a legal duty to have regard to the review recommendations, so that they are implemented appropriately. We agree that parents play an important role. However, it may not be appropriate for the report to be sent to parents in every case: for example, where safeguarding concerns have been raised. Inappropriate sharing of information could result in the patient withdrawing their consent to the review. So we will provide statutory guidance on the role of the parent to assist the responsible commissioner in considering who to involve in care and treatment reviews.
On Amendment 25, also tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the Bill already allows anyone involved in the patient’s care or welfare, which includes parents, to apply to the county court to terminate the appointment of a nominated person. I can assure the noble and learned Baroness that we will make this clear in the code of practice and the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, as she has raised an important point.
To address Amendment 27, we are concerned that making it a requirement for parents always to be consulted when a nominated person is chosen could put undue pressure on a child to choose a parent. However, we agree that the witness should consider the views of parents and others who may have insight into the suitability of a nomination. I can tell the House that we will therefore set out in the statutory code of practice how the views of the family and others should be fed into the witnessing process.
I have also heard the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the nominated person regarding children who lack competence. In response to this, as she acknowledged, I have tabled Amendments 29 to 33 to make it clear who an approved mental health professional must appoint in certain circumstances. For an over-18 lacking capacity, an approved mental health professional must appoint a competent lasting power of attorney or Court of Protection deputy, if they have one. For all under-18s lacking capacity or competence, where there is a care order, they must appoint a local authority which has parental responsibility for them or, if relevant, a competent Court of Protection deputy. Where there is no care order, the approved mental health professional can appoint a person who does not have parental responsibility for 16 and 17 year-olds. This allows for suitable alternative arrangements, for example, informal kinship arrangements for young people who live independently. I hope that this reassurance and commitment on my behalf provides the further clarity for which the noble Baroness has been advocating.
Finally, in response to Amendment 34, we agree that in the vast majority of cases we would expect a parent, or whoever has parental responsibility, to be appointed. This would include consideration of special guardians and child arrangement orders. As I have set out before, we do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person. A child arrangement order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. For example, the parent might struggle with their own health issues but could still be an effective nominated person.
The situation is different in the case of a care order because the local authority is being given lead parental responsibility. We have engaged with the Children’s Commissioner on this point. As I believe the noble Baroness may be aware, I recently met the Children’s Commissioner on a range of issues, including discussions about the Mental Health Act.
If there are no relevant people, approved mental health professionals must follow the patient’s past and present wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint. We do not believe that the eldest person should be given preference, as this represents an outdated assignment of responsibility. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that I have been advised that my officials met the chair—but I understand that the term is lead—of the AMHP Leads Network last November.
I can make a further commitment, which I hope will be helpful to your Lordships’ House. I am committing to establishing an expert taskforce to support the development of the statutory code of practice to provide clear guidance for professionals involved in the nominated person appointment process for children and young people. Views will be very much welcomed on who should be part of this; I have already invited the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to make suggestions about that. With these reasons, I hope that noble Lords can support our amendments and will not press their amendments.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, the information I have is that Dominic Marley of the AMHP Leads Network had not seen a draft of the Bill that was to go before Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that? The Minister has outlined that there can be an assessment of ill-health already before the courts. Is she confident in legislating when a group of professionals are saying that they are not competent to assess the illness or otherwise of that parent and that the matter, already determined by a court, needs to go back to a court to be re-evaluated? They say that they are not competent to do what you are asking of them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I note what the noble Baroness has said. We have discussed these issues a number of times in the Chamber and outside. On her second point, the situation is as I have outlined, and I do not feel I should go further today. These are the points I wish to bring before your Lordships’ House. I am happy to take up the points she raised separately. However, on her point about the exact details of the meeting, to be quite honest I cannot give that level of detail. I am very happy to find out more from my officials. The noble Baroness originally asked whether there had been a meeting, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that I pledged at the very beginning, before the Bill came to this House, that I would do all I could to help its passage. I made that pledge to the Secretary of State. Given the continued conflict, as we see it, with the Children Act, would the Minister be prepared between now and Third Reading—rather than us dividing the House on this later—to have a little more discussion on this issue? We discussed it at great length during our inquiry into the draft Mental Health Bill. To us, it is a significant point that does not appear to have been properly resolved. In wanting to support the Government in making sure, as my noble friend has said, that they are not opening themselves to legal challenge, and to ensure a safe passage of the Bill, can I put that possibility to the Minister?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not least because she has also given me a bit of time to add to my earlier answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the meeting with the lead of the AMHP Leads Network last November. That meeting took place after the Bill was published.
On the point the noble Baroness raised, whether the House will be divided will be a matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and others to decide, but I am always happy to have discussions. If the noble Baroness wishes to do that, I will be very pleased to, as always.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I do not think I need to say anything else. I am relieved to hear from the Minister that it will be expressly in the code of practice. I am also grateful for the idea that I can put forward some suggestions, which would be very helpful. I do not propose to take any further steps on my three amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“125FA Community Services Sufficiency Plan: commissioning of services for autistic people and people with a learning disability(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a document setting out a plan for resourcing and commissioning sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability to ensure the operability of provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025. (2) The document shall be referred to as the “Community Services Sufficiency Plan”.(3) The Community Services Sufficiency Plan must be published within one year of the day on which the Mental Health Act 2025 is passed.(4) The Community Services Sufficiency Plan must include—(a) a definition of “sufficient community services” in relation to autistic people and people with a learning disability, including how sufficient community services will be assessed regarding the operability of provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025;(b) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure community services are available to meet demand for autistic people and people with a learning disability after the end of the 28-day detention period under section 2(4) of this Act (admission for assessment);(c) the actions that the Secretary of State will take to ensure that sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability are available to prevent detention under section 3 of this Act (admission for treatment);(d) plans to allocate appropriate resource to ensure operability of services, including, but not limited to, financial resource;(e) plans to ensure that responsible bodies and individuals receive the necessary training in autism and learning disability to carry out support, diagnosis, and treatment;(f) plans for data collection to support the commissioning of sufficient services for autistic people and people with a learning disability;(g) targets and milestones relevant to—(i) the number of autistic people and people with a learning disability who are detained under this Act, and(ii) the development of sufficient community services for autistic people and people with a learning disability,(h) any other information the Secretary of State deems relevant.(5) For a period of 10 years beginning on the day on which the Community Services Sufficiency Plan is first published, the Secretary of State—(a) must keep the plan under review, and(b) may revise it.(6) If the Secretary of State revises the Community Services Sufficiency Plan, the Secretary of State must publish it as revised.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the promises made by the Minister, but they are not wholly reassuring and I had intended to test the opinion of the House. However, I would like to put on record the lack of support from the Opposition Benches, even though I have the support of many Members of the Cross-Bench group and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. This lack of support is surprising, given the failure of their own plan, Building the Right Support. I fear it would be wasting the time of your Lordships’ House for me to proceed, so, instead, I will keep an eagle eye on the progress of the promised plan and the resources allocated to make it achievable, as well as the degree of challenge and amendment that will be facilitated. I will not move Amendment 4.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, these amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe are really amendments from my noble friend Lady May, who unfortunately cannot be in her place today. As my noble friend told the House in Committee, when she was Home Secretary, a recurring concern raised by police officers was being called out to situations where they were expected to determine whether someone was at the point of crisis and what should happen to that individual. As we know, that usually meant taking the individual to a police cell as a place of safety—an issue that is addressed in other parts of the Bill. But police officers continue to be concerned that they are asked to deal with something for which they have no, or insufficient, training or knowledge.
As my noble friend reminded the House, a police presence is also often not good for the individual, as not only is that individual not being given the healthcare support they need, but the presence of an officer in uniform coming to deal with them could exacerbate their mental health situation. Even if the police officer is able to get somebody to a hospital, they might still be required to sit with an individual to make sure they do not harm themselves or others. My noble friend Lady May cited the Metropolitan Police’s evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, where it gave an example of a patient in A&E who was required to be guarded by eight Metropolitan Police officers over 29 hours to prevent them being a high-risk missing person.
In its letter to the current Secretary of State, the National Police Chiefs’ Council was concerned that the law as it currently stands
“arguably views mental health through the lens of crime and policing related risk, which raises … issues including disproportionality in the criminal justice system, discrimination, adverse outcomes for people suffering with poor mental health as well as increasing stigma attached to mental health”.
I make it clear that, although this amendment removes the statutory demand for the police to be the primary responders to incidents of mental health where there is an immediate risk to life or serious injury, the police will still have a role to play.
The amendments specify that the authorised person attending an individual should be
“trained and equipped to carry out detentions”
and should not be
“put at unnecessary risk by carrying out those functions”.
This is in line with the College of Policing’s 2019 mental health snapshot, which found that almost 95% of calls that police attend that are flagged as a mental health response do not require a police response.
The Minister will be aware that, in the joint Home Office and Department of Health review and survey of Sections 135 and 136 powers, 68% of respondents agreed that all or part of Sections 135 and 136 powers should be extended so that healthcare professionals could use them, provided that they were not putting themselves at risk. Paramedics in particular supported a change, with more than 90% agreeing and more than 60% strongly agreeing.
However, this is not just about the interests of the police and healthcare professionals. More importantly, we need to focus on the individual at the point of mental health crisis. They deserve the right response, the right care and the right person.
I note that the Minister, in our conversations—I appreciate her giving forewarning of this—discussed how the amendment as it stands appears to give the police more powers. I discussed that with my noble friend Lady May before I came to the Chamber, and she was surprised at this and said that it was somewhat disappointing, given the constructive meetings that the Minister and my noble friend have had, and given that the Metropolitan Police said that they were supportive of this move when my noble friend met representatives last year.
There is clearly a difference of opinion here, and we appreciate that we need to find a way forward. I know that my noble friend Lady May is open to discussions with the Minister to ensure that the principle behind these amendments is met. Could the Minister give a guarantee to meet my noble friend and that, following these discussions back and forth, she will be able to bring back an amendment at Third Reading?
The fundamental principle remains unchanged: the role of police in detentions under the Mental Health Act must be reduced, and it must be reduced for the patients’ and the workers’ benefit. If the Government can accept the principle but not necessarily the precise wording, I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurances that I and my noble friend Lady May have asked for. I am afraid that, if the Minister cannot give the assurance that she can bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, having had discussions with my noble friend Lady May, we will have to test the opinion of the House. I hope that the Minister can help to find a constructive way forward with my noble friend.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am extremely pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has moved his amendment for the Opposition. I will not be voting for it, but I am pleased that it has been moved because in Committee I moved amendments along the same lines.
I know that my noble friend the Minister agrees with the suggestion that there is a challenge here for the Government—she told me so. This issue is not going to go away, and it would be a constructive way forward for there to be a meeting—I would ask to be included in any such meeting. We are clear about where we want to get to, and that the appropriate phrase is “right care, right person”. I do not think that that is currently being delivered, so something needs to be done. I hope that we can move to a better system, in a constructive way.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, I find myself in exactly the same place. We all know why the police have said that they are not the appropriate people to be first responders when somebody is having a mental health crisis and presenting a danger either to other people or to themselves. We also know that not putting anything in place, or not putting the right people in place, means that somebody having a crisis will not necessarily be seen by an appropriate person.
A number of us have looked at this and talked to people in the field, and we think that what will happen is that there will be a response from somebody on the front line in the National Health Service, either in an A&E department—because that is where a lot of people will go—or, more likely, from an ambulance. That will put the ambulance service under even greater strain and pressure than it is under now.
It is the hope of those of us who have been involved in the discussions so far—and the intent, I think, of the noble Baroness, Lady May, who is the prime mover behind this—that we do not do that. We should not wait until there is a terrible incident in which somebody is badly harmed; we must try to foresee that situation.
I suspect that, around the country, since the police have taken the decision that they have, front-line health services have had to come up with new ways of responding. The issue has not gone away; people are still going to have mental health crises in which they are a danger to themselves or seem to present a danger to others.
I propose that we follow the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there be further discussion on this—preferably with people from mental health organisations and from different parts of the NHS, as well as the police force—to see whether we can come up with something that will plug a very obvious gap.
As I have said before during the passage of this Bill, this is the last chance for the next 10 to 15 years to pass legislation on this subject. We need to behave diligently, take appropriate action now and not wait to rue the day in the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling these amendments. They seek to amend Section 2 of the Mental Health Act, which relates to admission for assessment, and Section 3, which relates to admission for treatment, as well as Section 5(4), which relates to detention for six hours pending application admission.
I emphasise that the police do not currently have the ability to detain under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act. These amendments, as the noble Lord has referred to and as we discussed earlier, would give police additional powers, where they currently do not have powers to intervene. The noble Lord will be aware, and he mentioned the fact, that we do not support extending police powers in this way, and we understand that the police do not support an extension either.
I am very happy to continue discussion with the office of the noble Baroness, Lady May, as I have done previously. I know that my noble friend Lord Davies would also welcome a discussion, which I am very happy to commit to.
The noble Lord asked for amendments on Third Reading, but such amendments are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that amendments are therefore restricted to technical points. For all those reasons, I cannot give the agreement that he sought on an amendment at Third Reading, as it is not within scope to do so.
With regards to the ambition to reduce police attendance at mental health incidents, we recognise the pressures that police are facing, which noble Lords have highlighted, and agree that, in many cases, it is far preferable for those in mental health crisis to be responded to by health and care professionals. However, action is already under way to address this. Almost all police forces in England and Wales are implementing the “right care, right person” approach—a police-led initiative to reduce inappropriate police involvement in cases where people have health or social care needs. There has already been a 10% decrease in Section 136 detentions last year. We are taking steps to improve mental health services to avoid people reaching a crisis where police involvement may be required in the first place, which is a far more preferable position to be in. That includes through the Government’s commitment of £26 million of capital investment to open new mental health crisis centres, which are far more suitable environments for those in mental health crisis to receive care and treatment.
Therefore, extending these legal powers currently held by the police to other professionals would represent a major shift in roles and responsibilities for health and care professionals. It would place significant additional pressures on the NHS and potentially lead to staff, patient and public safety issues which mental health and urgent and emergency care leads have already raised significant concerns about. It is for all these reasons that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, just before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has to reach his crucial decision on this amendment, perhaps I may clarify something. As I understood it, my noble friend the Minister said she was more than happy to respond to the invitation or proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and various other colleagues to discuss the issue further, but she obviously could not commit herself in advance to bringing forward an amendment. Is that the position?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was very specific about bringing an amendment forward at Third Reading, and it was to that that I explained it was not possible to commit. I thank my noble friend for allowing me to reiterate that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the points that were raised, and I listened carefully to what she said. I had hoped that she would be open to resolving this issue, as I know she is with my noble friend Lady May. However, once again, there is a difference of opinion. As I understand it, amendments brought forward at Third Reading do not have to be only technical amendments and I had hoped that the Minister would give an undertaking to bring back an amendment at that stage. Given that we have a disagreement of interpretation on two issues, I am afraid I think it best to test the opinion—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It might be helpful for your Lordships’ House to know that to fulfil what the noble Lord says, there would be a need for collective agreement to offer a commitment to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, which I do not have. I emphasise the point made by my noble friend on this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
That is entirely understandable. I know the Minister always means well in our discussions and always tries to find a solution, but, given that, it may be helpful to finding a solution if I test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
“(7) In section 145(1) (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—““authorised person” means a medical practitioner, approved mental health professional, mental health nurse or doctor, or a person of description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, who has been trained and equipped to carry out detentions under this Act and who would not be put at unnecessary risk by carrying out those functions;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
Lord Scriven
“(2A) In section 17B (conditions) after subsection (7) insert—“(8) The responsible clinician must ensure that community treatment orders align with the code of practice as set out in section 118(2B).(9) A community treatment order shall have a maximum duration of 12 months, subject to the following provisions— (a) the responsible clinician may extend the duration of a community treatment order beyond 12 months only after— (i) consulting the patient, the patient’s nominated persons, and any relevant mental health care professional involved in the patient’s treatment or care planning;(ii) undertaking a review process to evaluate the ongoing necessity and therapeutic benefit of the community treatment order;(iii) consulting a General Medical Council registered psychiatrist regarding the conditions of the community treatment order and obtaining their written agreement that an extension is necessary and in accordance with the principles set out in section 118(2B);(b) community treatment orders with a duration of less than 12 months are not subject to the review process set out in subsection (9)(a)(ii);(c) a tribunal may recommend that the responsible clinician consider whether to extend, vary, or terminate the duration and conditions of a community treatment order.(10) Where a community treatment order is extended beyond a period of 12 months, the order shall be subject to review at intervals not exceeding six months, in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 9(a).(11) At the conclusion of the default period or any extended period, the responsible clinician must undertake a review to assess the effectiveness of the community treatment order in aligning with the code of practice stipulated in section 118(2B).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that community treatment orders align with the code of practice, limits their default duration to 12 months, requires a structured review process for extensions, mandates six-monthly reviews for extended orders, and reinforces patient consultation and oversight by mental health professionals.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I start this group on community treatment orders by thanking the Minister and her team of officials for dealing not just with this issue but with most issues in the Bill on a collaborative basis, which should be a blueprint for how Ministers should deal with people with different opinions to those of the Government. It is genuine thanks from these Benches.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Parminter for giving her lived experience of community treatment orders. In Committee, there was a huge divide in this House about whether they should continue rather than pragmatism on how we deal with the problem. My noble friend Lady Parminter focused our minds on that.
My amendment tries to deal with what I see as the major flaw of community treatment orders, whether or not we have a review of them, and that is their potentially indefinite nature. As for the way that these community treatment orders are implemented, whether they are effective or not, there seems to be a revolving door which some people find impossible to get out of. This has led to a number of issues about whether they have therapeutic benefit and whether the treatment is actually effective. There have also been huge issues to do with racial disparities in their use and the length of time that people are on a community treatment order.
Even if we agree Amendment 23, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 62, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to have a review of their effectiveness, something needs to be done now to ensure that the initial community treatment order is time-limited—I suggest 12 months—then if it is to be reviewed, it has to be reviewed by not just the consultant who is treating the individual but also by another GMC psychiatrist who has to agree in writing that there is therapeutic benefit for the community treatment order to continue. That review should take place every six months. That would not stop community treatment orders, but it gives an absolute, firm process, which needs to be in the Bill—not in the code of practice—to ensure that individuals who are on a community treatment order have certainty about the length of time and review. It would also require a second doctor’s written agreement about the therapeutic benefit of reviewing and continuing the treatment order.
I understand that the Minister will probably and quite rightly say that the Bill has moved forward and that there are certain elements which help with the review of treatment orders and the people being put on them. For example, the community doctor has to be consulted. However, there is a difference between being consulted and giving agreement. That is why my amendment talks about the agreement of a second doctor. Consultation in itself does not mean that community treatment orders cannot be indefinite, as they are in some cases. My amendment is practical and solves this problem. As my noble friend Lady Barker said, we tend to get legislation about the Mental Health Act once every 15 years, and we cannot wait another 15 years to deal with this anomaly.
I and others on these Benches would be supportive of a review of community treatment orders and of the evidence about whether they are effective in the grand sense. However, the practical pragmatism is that people will continue to be put on community treatment orders, that, even with the changes that the Government have put in the Bill, people would still be there indefinitely and that the second doctor’s opinion would not necessarily have to be taken into consideration if the order were to continue to ensure that there was therapeutic benefit.
I will not say much more, but I believe that my amendment is practical, needed and will get the correct balance both for service providers and for those who are on a community treatment order to deal with some of the unintended consequences we have found since they were introduced. It is a practical step to ensure that we get them right, if reviews take place. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and to agree, in essence, with everything he said. Amendment 11 is truly important; it would immediately affect the well-being of some very vulnerable people in our community. Should the noble Lord decide to divide the House, the Green Party will support his amendment.
I will chiefly speak to my Amendment 23, which also relates to community treatment orders and calls for a statutory periodic review of them. I can see quite a few noble Lords in the House, so it is worth very briefly going back a little over what we discussed in Committee. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill concluded that CTOs should be abolished for people under Part II, the civil sections. For people under Part III, the Joint Committee recommended a statutory review of CTOs with a provision to abolish them unless the Government legislated to keep them.
My amendment does not go that far, but it starts from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned, citing the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: it is likely to be at least 15 years before legislative attention returns to the Mental Health Act. That is a very long time—especially for the health of people who are going through certain experiences. I stress that it is not my own initiative that brought this amendment forward; the organisation Mind encouraged me to do so. I will quote from a couple of people who Mind has spoken to about CTOs, because we have to consider what the actual lived experience is like. One person said:
“Being on a CTO is like being cornered … It is good that you are out of hospital but only a little better because it is so intrusive”.
Another person who had been on a CTO said that it can feel like:
“A tag that nobody can see but you know it’s around your mind”.
Throughout the debate on this Bill, we have considered getting rid of CTOs entirely. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made the very powerful case that there may be circumstances and conditions where they are indeed appropriate. However, my amendment simply calls for a statutory review, so that we do not wait 15 years and then say, as we have been saying about so many aspects of what we are trying to fix now, “This has been terrible for so long. We really need to do something about this”.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that I am still planning to arrange the Trieste meeting; I am afraid I have not got there yet. Looking at community alternatives has to be the way forward. There are models around the world where that is achieved. If we were to have a review, as my amendment would require, then everything in proposed new subsection (3)—which looks at
“the impact … on people from different ethnic minority backgrounds”,
preventing readmissions and whether CTOs provide “therapeutic benefits”—would be considered within a reasonable period. We could affect and improve people’s treatments within a foreseeable period and not sentence them to another 15 years.
It is not my intention to divide the House. I very much hope that the Bill will continue to work on this, and that the arguments for including a statutory review will become evident as the Bill progresses. On that basis, I urge noble Lords, particularly the Minister, to consider that, and I echo the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made. My engagement between different stages of the Bill tends to be limited by the fact that I am juggling a great many Bills at the same time. However, I have heard reports of how the Minister has been engaging with noble Lords, and I hope that she and the department will bring an open mind to the idea that we should not sentence people to another 15 years of CTOs without a statutory review, because there have been so many questions and concerns about them. On that basis, I hope that we can move forward as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly speak in support of this very important set of amendments. As my noble friend Lord Scriven set out on Amendment 11, which I very strongly support, the case for having some conditionality around community treatment orders is overwhelming, including making them time limited and having a second doctor’s certification to confirm their therapeutic benefit. Both are very hard to argue against. They get the right balance between, as we heard in earlier stages, those who want to get rid of the orders altogether and those who feel that we need to tighten up the conditions. The other two review amendments are also very important.
Finally, we need to remind ourselves, as we did at Second Reading and in Committee, that black people are seven times more likely to be on a community treatment order than other members of the population. That is why this is so important.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for the excellent way he introduced his Amendment 11. I fully support everything that he said.
The suitability of community treatment orders is an issue that has obviously featured heavily in the discussions on the Bill so far. I think that many of us came to the debates on the Bill, having read the Joint Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report, thinking that we were going to support the abolition of community treatment orders or be very sympathetic to that idea. However, two contributions gave us a reason to pause and think. One was the personal story from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter; the other was hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, say that she previously believed that they should be abolished before realising that they are entirely appropriate for a small number of situations or cases. In fact, given that one of the principles of the Bill is imposing the least amount of restriction, maybe they are the least restrictive solution for some incidents.
Having said that, very serious concerns obviously remain about the use of community treatment orders in their current form. Other noble Lords and I spoke in Committee about the overrepresentation of black males, which is what my Amendment 62 intends to address. It was a shame that the deliberations on this issue came so late at night, but I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement. I asked three simple questions: what do we know about why black people are disproportionately detained? What do we not know? What research and work are we conducting—I know this sounds like a PhD research thesis seeking to generate the research questions so that someone can go from an MPhil to their PhD—and what is the gap in research to generate the questions for the primary research?
I was very reassured by the responses from the Minister and her officials that they take this seriously. They set out in detail the work that they are doing. In fact, the Minister put a lot of that in a letter to me. It would be unfair of me to ask her to read out precisely what is in that letter, because we would be here for quite a few hours, but can she share some of those assurances with the House? It would be very helpful for other noble Lords to understand why, given that letter, I have decided that I will not push my amendment to a vote.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has struck the right balance. The amendment acknowledges that there are issues with CTOs and allows for their continued use, under restrictions. It is really important that, in every case, there is a review, and 12 months would seem an appropriate time for that review, rather than cases just being forgotten about, people being caught up in other casework or cases falling behind the filing cabinet—if there was another analogy I could use, I would. If the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, decides to divide the House, these Benches will support him.
I look forward to hearing some of the assurances the Minister gave to me and others on racial disparities. I hope also that she can address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling and speaking to Amendment 11, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. At the outset, I can say that it is already the case that community treatment orders can be renewed only under specific conditions, which aligns with the intent and direct requests of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
Alignment with the code and the four principles is already achieved by new Section 118(2D) of the Mental Health Act, which requires clinicians, before placing someone on a community treatment order, to have regard to the statement of principles in the code. Clause 6 ensures that a patient can be put on a community treatment order only if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of it having therapeutic benefit for the patient.
I assure your Lordships’ House that a responsible clinician cannot extend a community treatment order beyond six months, unless the conditions, including therapeutic benefit, continue to be met. A community treatment order can be extended for a further six months and then a subsequent 12 months, but only if these conditions continue to be met.
The current code of practice states that, before renewal, the responsible clinician should consult with the multidisciplinary team, the patient, the nearest relative—which in future will be the nominated person—and an advocate. I put it to the House that we are going further than the request from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, by introducing a new requirement for the patient’s community clinician—who must be an approved clinician, overseeing the patient’s care as a community patient—to be consulted before a community treatment order is renewed beyond six months.
I have heard the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that the Bill requires just the second-opinion appointed doctor to be consulted, whereas the amendment requires the extension to be agreed with them. In response to that, I assure the noble Lord that, in addition, the community clinician must provide a statement that it appears to them that the community treatment order criteria continue to be satisfied.
We are increasing the frequency of automatic referrals to the tribunal to ensure that patients can come off community treatment orders when they are no longer benefiting them. The tribunal will have a power to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsiders whether a CTO condition is necessary. To elaborate further in view of the points raised, this means that, following an initial tribunal referral at six months, another referral is required after a further six months, followed by a mandatory referral 12 months after that, if the patient has not made an appeal themselves. The tribunal will have to agree the CTO criteria, including the requirement that a therapeutic benefit continues to be met. We are therefore already meeting the requests that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has rightly made and, in some places, going further than we have been asked to do.
I turn to Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As I said on the similar amendment tabled by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, CTOs remain a valuable intervention, albeit they need reform—as I more than acknowledge and accept. We will review these changes as part of our ongoing monitoring of the implementation and impact of the reforms. A review after two years would be premature, as it would be based on data from before any reforms were commenced. I say to the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House that we will instead commit to review the impact our reforms have as part of our wider monitoring and evaluation of the Bill as it is implemented.
Amendment 62 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are, as the noble Lord acknowledged, committed to addressing racial disparities under the Act—something I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was concerned about. I was very pleased to host a session a couple of weeks ago with leading academics, a number of officials from the department and Members of this House. We discussed in detail what is known and what further evidence is required. I give the assurance that work—as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has kindly acknowledged—is already under way, and we will continue to explore this issue. I am therefore happy to commit to undertake further investigation into racial inequalities under the Act.
The scope is to be developed further, but may involve synthesising findings of existing research, conducting a review of recent literature, and exploration of potential evidence gaps that require future research with experts and academics. Further research will receive sufficiently high-quality research applications and will be subject to the outcome of the spending review. I hope noble Lords will understand that we therefore prefer not to commit to a timescale in primary legislation but to allow time to develop and deliver research to ensure the best-quality evidence in this extremely important area. I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for that helpful explanation and description of community treatment orders. Despite all the words, whenever independent research is done, whether by the CQC, the Joint Committee or mental health organisations, the same answer keeps coming back. Something is fundamentally flawed, maybe not with the policy but with the implementation of CTOs. I note the Minister quoted the rule in the code of practice but, as we know, the code of practice does not necessarily have the legal status of something in the Bill. Therefore, for that reason and because there is an issue with community treatment orders, I believe that putting this in the Bill will not just change the practice but get the correct safeguards for people who are put on them. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(iii) seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma;”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12, I will speak also to four other amendments in my name included in this group: Amendments 13, 15, 37 and 41.
To set the scene, there is a theme running through all the amendments in this group—not only mine—which is patient empowerment. All of us, I am sure, welcome the fact that patient empowerment is already writ large in the substance of this Bill, and as the changes that it makes are taken forward, as they will be, I am certain that they will be hugely beneficial to patients. However, as we heard in Committee, there remain features of mental health law and practice that give cause for real concern. My contention, which I am sure is shared, is that we should try to do all we can to make sure that the procedures, clinical practice and, if possible, cultures are made as good as they can possibly be in the way that this legislation is drafted.
My Amendments 12 and 13 are identical to amendments that I tabled in Committee. The point of them is to signal something important about the culture of mental health care. Many of us may take for granted that the aim and purpose of treatment in a mental health unit is to promote psychological well-being and recovery and to minimise distress, but we know that there are many patients undergoing treatment for whom distress and psychological trauma are ever-present features of in-patient care, particularly children and young people. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, reminded us of that earlier. My Amendment 58, which we will debate in a later group, is designed to tackle this problem in a practical way.
The same applies to my Amendment 41, which brings us back to an issue that I am glad to say received strong support from noble Lords in Committee: the need to beef up the provisions in this Bill around advanced choice documents. ACDs are a great idea and I am delighted that the Government have recognised their potential for enhancing patient well-being, because that is what they will certainly do. We know from research that they have the potential to reduce compulsory detention rates appreciably, as well as reducing time spent in hospital. However, as the Bill is now expressed, patients will not be guaranteed an opportunity to create an advanced choice document, if that is their wish. All that we have in Clause 42 is a provision to allow commissioners to make information on ACDs available to people for whom they are responsible. I do not think that that is good enough.
I turn to my Amendment 15 and, in doing so, focus on an issue that has been brought to my attention by the Law Society relating to nasogastric tube feeding of patients in mental hospitals. The central concern here is that the Mental Health Act 1983 contains no specific safeguards for situations where nasogastric tube feeding of a patient is being proposed. That is because it is considered to fall under Section 63 of the Act, which does not require a second opinion appointed doctor. I suggest that this is unsatisfactory.
In January of this year alone, according to the most recent data, there were 1,975 uses of restraint to facilitate nasogastric feeding in England. Furthermore, a recent comprehensive audit of in-patient mental health units in England reported that the duration of nasogastric tube feeding under physical restraint ranged from a single feed to 312 weeks, with a mean duration of 29.1 weeks. In other words, this is an invasive procedure and the degree of invasiveness can be measured not just by the amount of force used but by the length of time for which the treatment lasts.
Professor Phil Fennell outlined the significant gaps in patient protection in the use of nasogastric tube feeding in his 2019 article, The Regulation of Tube Feeding: a Critical Analysis, and this highlighted the need for regulations.to govern the use of nasogastric tube feeding to achieve a more patient-centred approach to what is quite a drastic medical intervention. The same issue was previously raised in 2007 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which pointed out that forcible feeding is potentially a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the convention, and it, too, questioned why it was not subject to regulation in the same way as ECT is under Section 58 of the Act. The response at that time was that the provisions were compliant with the ECHR.
However, this was before the decision in X v Finland, and in this case, the European Court of Human Rights found that Finland violated X’s rights under Articles 5, 8 and 13 of the convention. X was involuntarily admitted to a mental institution and forcibly medicated with nasogastric tube feeding, which the court deemed unjustified and a breach of her rights to liberty and privacy. Additionally, X lacked an effective remedy to challenge the forcible medication. However, the court did not find a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6.
The Law Society has put it to me that this highlights the wider need for safeguards, as patient X did not have sufficient avenues for challenging forcible nasogastric tube feeding. It strongly contends—and I agree—that the Bill represents a real opportunity for making a change to the law in a way that creates a direct safeguard for patients consistent with the safeguards applicable to electro-convulsive therapy, and that is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
Finally, I direct the House’s attention to Amendment 37. This returns us to a Committee debate we had on 22 January. The patient voice in mental health care is, I would argue, inherently weaker than it is in other fields of healthcare, and the patient experience that much more determinative of outcomes. That really matters because, as we know from evidence provided by the CQC and many patient-representative groups, the care of patients in mental health settings is frequently underresourced. It therefore carries with it a heightened degree of risk that acceptable standards of care are not always maintained.
In this amendment, which replicates the amendment I tabled in Committee, I am putting forward the idea that, if every patient discharged from a mental healthcare setting were to be given the opportunity to rate, comment on and provide constructive feedback on the treatment they had received while in hospital, the value to the system and the potential value to the patient could be very significant.
I know that the Minister does not take issue with this. Indeed, I am sure she is sympathetic to what I have said. What I must question, though, is the premise of her response to me in Committee. In that response, she sought to argue that the visits and interviews with patients carried out by the CQC fulfil a function that, in terms of transparency and empowerment of patients, is identical to the kind of debriefing that I am arguing for.
Having heard what I have heard from well-informed patient groups, I must beg to disagree. The reality of the CQC’s encounters and interviews with patients is an evidence-gathering process that is all too often skewed. Here are some of the comments from patients that have been relayed to me. “I know when we had a CQC visit, the nursing staff would steer CQC in the direction of patients who would reflect positively about the ward.” Someone else said: “A lot of the time, if you speak to the CQC, they will have staff present at the same time, so you can’t be honest”.
Patients have also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the CQC’s monitoring process in general. I will share a couple of typical comments. “There’s been examples of where it took three to four years of the same consistent reports”—of a mental health unit—“for the CQC to eventually do something about it”. And again, “If this process”—of the CQC—“was working, young people would be having a much better experience”.
It has been put to me that one of the differences between the process adopted by the CQC and the debriefing process that my amendment proposes is that the CQC does not take an individualised approach to its monitoring. I am sure that the CQC is sincere in wanting to speak to people about their poor experience of hospital care, but, in practice, people say they have often felt dismissed when speaking about what they have experienced.
There is a wider point here as well. In the words of another patient: “De-briefing isn’t just complaining. It’s discussing and reflecting on events during admission and the patient’s experience in order to learn from it. A complaint is given and then dealt with behind the scenes, whereas a de-brief is a reflective discussion between multiple people where the young person is an active participant in discussing their own experience”. Another said: “It gives people the room to process things”.
In practice, the independent mental health advocate would take responsibility for the debriefing process. The Minister expressed concern about that and about the risk of overburdening those individuals. I appreciate that concern, but suggest that a conversation with a patient, or former patient, taking the form of a debriefing is squarely in line with the existing role of an independent mental health advocate. It would not be asking him or her to do appreciably more than they do already. As one patient put it:
“The IMHAs doing the de-briefing is already technically what they do, there just isn’t a formal name to the process … They don’t need any specific training to be able to manage the process as they already know what to do. They are there to advocate”
for them.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I will first reflect on the introduction to this group from the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I found it deeply moving. As many of your Lordships know, I am a mental health nurse. I have worked in locked units and acute units. Some of the things that he just described happened 30 years ago. What is so sad is that they are still happening now.
I will speak to the three amendments in my name, Amendments 14, 42 and 43. I thank other noble Lords who have added their names to them. These amendments have been drafted with help from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and are supported by several mental health patient and user groups and charities that work with the Mental Health All-Party Group in particular.
Amendments 14 and 42 would ensure that advance choice documents within the Mental Health Act are aligned with the existing best practice on providing such documents. Amendment 43 would ensure that clinicians and relevant bodies have a responsibility or duty to consider the information that is provided in the advance choice documents and use it to inform care and treatment orders given under the Mental Health Act. This is important. Clinicians, nurses and social workers need time to undertake the responsibility of sharing what is in those documents and trying—even if they are not always able to—to design care that reflects what people have asked for before. We continue to have a shortage of staff in mental health and very tight budgets compared with some other parts of the health service. If this is put as a duty in the Mental Health Act, it will help to resolve some of those issues.
I hope that the Minister can support the amendments, so that the rights of some of the most vulnerable patients from all ethnic groups in this country are strengthened within the documents, with the right to ensure that staff have enough time to deliver what is in the documents.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that short but extremely powerful contribution, informed by so much professional experience. I think that the whole House would like me to acknowledge that.
My Amendment 63 is about the powers of tribunals to determine challenges against treatment decisions. In many ways the argument for this follows on from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, just said. Things go wrong. However much we are trying through this Bill to improve the treatment of people with serious mental illness, I am afraid that we all acknowledge that things will continue to go wrong. Again, I have tabled this amendment at the request of Mind, which feels that there should be something like this. The amendment would not create any automatic right. It says that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about appeals. It would set up the framework to make this possible.
We had extensive discussion on this in Committee. I will not rehash all of that. We are trying to create mechanisms of common justice, ways forward and possibilities. We all acknowledge that so much of what is in this Bill will not be delivered within a month, a year or even two years, but it is trying to create the frame to make that possible. This is a very strong argument for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, powerfully made the case for Amendment 14. I added my name to it as it is so important that it should have a full slate.
I will briefly address Amendment 13, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to which I have also added my name. All through Committee, it kept occurring to me, though I never found the place to reflect it, that the word “trauma” does not appear once in the Bill. I was really surprised about that. I thought about several debates that I have had, going back to the Domestic Abuse Act and the Schools Bill under the previous Government that never became an Act. There was a lot of discussion about the need for trauma-informed environments and trauma-informed care. There is a general sense of intention from your Lordships’ House that this is one of the things that we are thinking about, but there is nothing about it in the Bill.
Therefore, this amendment would add the words
“seeks to minimise the patient’s distress”
and promote their
“recovery from any childhood trauma”.
That is possibly a bit narrow. The Minister might take away and think about the fact that nothing in the Bill talks about the fact that so many of the patients we are talking about will have been through hideous traumas: childhood abuse, domestic abuse, war situations, torture—all kinds of circumstances. This is a chance to ensure that we put in the Bill, perhaps even more broadly than in this amendment, an awareness of the need to think about trauma. I think we are all thinking this, but let us ensure that it is written down in law.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s points about trauma.
I will speak to Amendment 53. I credit my parliamentary scholar with writing it. His experience as a practicing psychiatrist confirms my experience of many years ago, before I retired as a psychiatrist. The code of practice is too often ignored or inconsistently applied, leaving vulnerable patients without essential safeguards. A thematic review of independently chaired reviews into the use of long-term segregation, which I oversaw for the previous Government, found that around a third of providers were not reviewing long-term segregation in line with the current code’s requirements. Unfortunately, this problem extends beyond LTS and is evident across other settings, including acute care for individuals with personality disorders.
There is often a disconnect between what we assume guidance and policy achieve and the reality of front-line psychiatry. As the strategist Helmuth von Moltke said, no plan survives first contact with the enemy. In this context, no guidance survives contact with the complexities and pressures of day-to-day clinical care. That is precisely why guidance alone is not enough. Despite the requirement to have regard to the code, breaches frequently go unchallenged. Again and again, we see that statutory law, not just guidance, is needed to ensure compliance and protect patients’ rights. Also, detained patients are not in a position to take a provider to court if their treatment is not in line with the code.
That is why this amendment seeks to introduce a statutory accountability mechanism for non-compliance with the code of practice. It would establish enforceable obligations on providers, ensuring that failure to adhere to the code carried real consequences, that compliance is not optional, and that hospitals would be held accountable when failure to follow the code resulted in harm or breaches of a patient’s rights.
Legislation typically drives funding priorities. We have seen time and again that, where the law mandates action, resources follow. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act limits detention to 28 days. If this timeframe was merely guidance, would it be as strictly adhered to? Without a statutory requirement, would the same level of resource be dedicated to mental health tribunals? When the maximum detention period under Section 136 was reduced from 72 hours to 24 hours under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, we saw an immediate and dramatic change in practice across the country. If this had been guidance alone, I doubt we would have seen such swift and universal compliance.
Prior to the Mental Health Act 1983, patients could be detained indefinitely, with minimal safeguards and little external oversight. The introduction of statutory time limits and legal protections under the 1983 Act marked a turning point, contributing to the decline of long-term institutional care and supporting, importantly, the rise of community-based mental health services and rights-based community care. Without statutory backing, there is no guarantee that revisions to the code of practice will be implemented or enforced.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at this stage I do not wish to detain the House for very long. I will simply reflect on the fact that, when we debate mental health legislation, we are always trying to do three things: one is to update current thinking in legislative circles on what patients want and need; the second is to try to gently confront the sometimes conservative disposition of practitioners, by pushing for progress; and the third is that we try to avoid the situation where the biggest imperative for legal change is scandal and crisis when something goes wrong.
The amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, along with others proposed by noble Lords in this group, do that. They have reflected on what has been seen over the last 10 to 15 years in the patient experience and the most progressive aspects of professional development, in particular the growing acceptance that patients can have informed insight into their condition, even if they are at times very ill.
That is why a number of practitioners—admittedly in the face of some professional resistance in other quarters—have gone down the route of advance choice documents. The key thing I will say to the Minister is this: it is always difficult in mental health practice to come across evidence which is up to the same standards that we have in physical health—namely, randomised controlled trials. However, there have been randomised controlled trials of advance choice documents in a number of different places around the world, and in the United Kingdom. They may not always have been called advance choice documents—they may have had other names—but the findings from those trials say that these are cost-effective interventions.
However, we know that there will not be widespread uptake, that attention will not be paid to what people have put in those documents, and that they will not become standard practice unless they are in law. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, was right to come back to try to put this in the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will take each amendment in turn.
The points on trauma were made extremely well and sensitively. Amendments 12 and 13 recognise the impact that childhood trauma can have on psychological well-being. This is indeed so. However, it does not apply to all patients, and that is why we do not wish to restrict decision-making by giving particular reference to this in legislation. I can point to Clause 8, which already requires decision-makers to consider the nature and degree of the disorder and all other circumstances, which could include childhood trauma. The definition of medical treatment under the Act is broad, as noble Lords have seen. Therefore, we expect it to cover interventions aimed at minimising distress and promoting psychological well-being. Additionally, NHS England’s care standards require that in-patient care be trauma informed.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully in support of the amendments in this group. I also thank the Minister for her full reply. In the interests of time, I will not cover all the issues at length; however, I am grateful to the Minister for her welcome assurances on my Amendment 41. It is excellent news that the Government will be taking forward my plea to strengthen the provisions around advance choice documents when the Bill reaches the other place.
On nasogastric feeding, I was glad to hear that discussions would be taken forward with the professions in the mental health sector. I hope that the Law Society’s concerns will be taken into account in those discussions.
Finally, I must express some disappointment at the Minister’s reply about the idea of a debriefing process for patients after leaving hospital. We cannot be sure that the work of Dr Dash will deliver progress in this area, and I still feel that the case I tried to put is strong. I will reflect on what the Minister said, but I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House when Amendment 37 is reached. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to align the Mental Health Act with the existing best practice on providing advance choice documents.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Amendment 14 is not moved, but I express my thanks to the Minister for her work on advance choice documents.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“(2) The treatment may be given to a patient who has capacity to consent to the treatment only if—(a) the patient has consented to it, or(b) the patient has not consented but a certificate has been given by a second opinion appointed doctor under subsection (4).(3) The treatment may be given to a patient who lacks capacity to consent to the treatment only if—(a) the giving of the treatment would not conflict with any of the following—(i) a valid and applicable advance decision, or(ii) a decision of a donee or deputy or the Court of Protection, or (b) the giving of the treatment would conflict with such a decision but a certificate has been given by a second opinion appointed doctor under subsection (5).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the requirement for a certificate by a second opinion appointed doctor does not apply to urgent electro-convulsive therapy if: (1) the patient consents, or (2) the patient lacks capacity but the treatment does not conflict with an advance decision etc.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 16 and speak to all the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I speak first to Amendments 17, 18, 19, 21, 36, 39, 45, 64, 65, 66 and 67, which follow recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in Committee.
Amendments 17, 18, 19, 21, 36, 39 and 45 remove the Henry VIII power from the Bill that allowed the Government to set out in regulations the exceptional circumstances where a second opinion appointed doctor’s certificate is not necessary to administer urgent and compulsory electroconvulsive therapy, and instead sets out these limited circumstances in the Bill. These situations arise when the regulator determines that there are exceptional circumstances delaying the appointment of a second opinion doctor and the treating clinician deems urgent electroconvulsive therapy necessary to save the patient’s life. In recognition of the seriousness of the situation, the new process will also ensure that these exceptional cases are monitored and reported on by the regulator.
Amendments 64, 65, 66 and 67 ensure that, where regulations are made under the power to make consequential provision to amend or repeal primary legislation set out in Clause 52, they will be subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure. Amendment 65 extends this to Clause 53, which confers equivalent power on Welsh Ministers in areas of devolved competence.
I turn back to Amendment 16, which addresses concerns from stakeholders that the Bill was not explicit on whether urgent electroconvulsive therapy is permitted when the person is consenting or lacks capacity but treatment is not in conflict with a decision to refuse it—as is currently the case under the Act. This amendment makes clear that treatment in these scenarios is still permitted, addressing any possible risk of misinter-pretation.
On Amendments 20 and 22, the Bill as introduced expressly permits remote assessment by the second opinion doctor’s service only for urgent compulsory electroconvulsive therapy. These amendments clarify that remote interview and examination are permitted for all second opinions provided by people appointed by the regulator. Remote interview and examination may be used only when deemed appropriate. If not, these functions must be conducted in person. Specific guidance will be provided in the code of practice.
Turning to Amendment 26, approved mental health professionals have raised concerns that the requirement for the nominated person to sign an appointment instrument in the presence of a health or care professional “witness” could result in delays to having a nominated person in place, which could undermine the safeguard and place geographical restrictions on who could take the role. This could mean, for example, that patients who are placed in out-of-area hospitals have greater delays in appointing a nominated person.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for detailing very clearly the Government’s amendments. I also thank the Minister, who I see in her place, for, again, a very collaborative approach and for, on this occasion, implementing exactly not just what was in my previous amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Tyler, but what came from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
On the use of ECT, the powers in the government amendments before the House mean that the balance is absolutely correct on not having the second doctor’s signature and consent, as well as on the need to save life and the use of ECT. I thank the Government sincerely for not just listening but acting on the concerns that were around.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for these government amendments, which, as the noble Baroness made clear, cover two principal policy issues. Accordingly, I have two sets of queries.
On the changes for the rules for authorising electroconvulsive therapy, I am sure it is not the Government’s intention in any way to water down the safeguards surrounding the administering of ECT. However, in relation to Amendments 16 and 17, taken together, can the Minister reassure me? The Bill, as modified by the proposed amendments, will posit that there could be circumstances in which a patient who has the capacity to consent to ECT but who has not consented to it could nevertheless find their refusal to treatment overridden by the decision of a single treating clinician. Even in a situation where the judgment of the clinician was that ECT was necessary to save the patient’s life, it seems to me a significant change from the current rule whereby the decision of a second opinion appointed doctor is required in all cases where it is proposed to administer ECT to a non-consenting patient who has the capacity to consent.
Amendment 17 makes it clear that the regulatory authority—the CQC, in other words—may give permission for ECT to be administered only on the say-so of a single doctor where a SOAD is not available and “exceptional circumstances” apply. I will not ask the Minister to define what “exceptional circumstances” might consist of, but it is to be assumed that a primary example of such circumstances might be when time was of the essence and no SOAD could be located soon enough to avoid exacerbating the risk of harm or death.
So my questions are, firstly, has this proposed change been prompted by a general awareness across the mental health sector that the availability of SOADs can frequently prove a problem in circumstances where urgent decisions are needed? In other words, to put it bluntly, are we being asked to change the law because of habitual shortcomings in NHS communication arrangements? I would be concerned if that were the case.
Secondly, what guidance, if any, will the CQC formulate for itself to ensure that, when its decision is sought to temporarily waive the requirement for a SOAD, it will not do so just on the basis of a SOAD being unavailable? Will it also commit itself to a standard procedure whereby it will seek at least some background detail from the treating clinician of the case before him or her, such as the reasons why they consider that administering ECT to that particular patient carries particular urgency? In other words, can we be reassured that the treating clinician’s opinion will be subject to at least a modicum of testing and cross-questioning before the CQC issues the go-ahead for ECT to be administered? I hope so, because anything short of that could turn into a tick-box exercise.
The other government amendment on which I would appreciate further clarity is Amendment 26, which
“changes the process for appointing a nominated person”.
One of the changes proposed is that the various statements and signatures required for appointing the nominated person no longer have to be contained in the same instrument. The other is that the nominated person’s signature no longer has to be witnessed. I was grateful for the Minister’s explanation, but it implies that the written instrument that appoints the nominated person and is signed by the patient in the presence of a witness can be executed without the nominated person themselves being in the room, or indeed anywhere near. At the moment, the Bill says:
“The instrument appointing the nominated person must … contain a statement, signed by the nominated person in the presence of”
the same person who witnesses the signature of the patient.
I previously assumed that the reason for that provision was the responsibility that the Bill places on the witness—quite a serious responsibility—to ensure, as far as possible, that the nominated person, whoever they are, is a fit and proper person to act in that capacity. It would appear now, with this amendment, that there is no need for the witness even to clap eyes on the individual who is nominated. How can that be right? Without at least meeting the nominated person, how can any self-respecting witness certify, hand on heart, that, in the words of the Bill, they have
“no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,”
or that they have
“no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person”.
Are they simply meant to take the patient’s word for it?
This alteration in the wording raises all sorts of question marks in my mind, given the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee about misplaced loyalty towards a particular individual, a naivety on the part of a child or young person, or even some degree of psychological manipulation of a young person—for example, someone who makes it their business to set a child against their own parents.
In Committee, the Minister herself emphasised the need for the law to prevent exploitation and manipulation. While I did not at the time think that her response was completely reassuring, I saw it at least as an acknowledgement that the role of the witness could not be fulfilled properly without some sort of contact with the nominated person. Was I right or wrong on that? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how my misgivings in this area, about the way in which the nominated person procedure comes to be implemented in practice, might be allayed.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his comments and express my thanks also for the many contributions made by noble Lords around the House.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked some searching questions. I think the main thrust of his comments was to look for reassurance that due diligence will be gone into in all of the areas that he raises. I am not sure that I can answer every line in detail, but I want to reassure him in particular about the nominated person question, which I know has caused him enormous concern.
In addition to what I have said, I emphasise that there is no intention at all to water down the safeguard, and that Amendment 26 will make sure that patients get access to a nominated person quicker, along with all the rights and powers that entails, meaning that safeguards provided by the role will not be delayed. That is the crucial point that we have to factor in as to why these amendments are deemed necessary. As he quite rightly says, this is particularly important for patients and those who may be subject to out-of-area placements.
The change that we are bringing in is that the nominated person’s signature does not need to be witnessed in person. None of the safeguarding checks is changed in any way by this. In answer to the noble Lord’s concern, we would expect that, in the majority of cases, the witness will still meet the nominated person face to face. In exceptional circumstances, where this is not possible, we believe that it is better to be able to appoint a nominated person, subject to all the appropriate safeguarding checks, than to have to wait until a person can have their signature witnessed.
A second opinion doctor is not currently required for urgent and compulsory electroconvulsive therapy; this is new under the Bill. I need to emphasise this point. What the amendment does is sets out the exceptional circumstances where a second opinion appointed doctor—sorry, it is a bit of a mouthful—is not required. I hope that gives some clarification.
We have to make sure that these are all taken in the round. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and noble Lords across the Chamber, that many of these are regarded to be due to exceptional circumstances, where time is of the essence.
As to whether some of these provisions are based on failure, it is from learned experience and bringing together everyone who has a view to make sure that everything we bring forward is in the best interests of the patient. That is the crucial thing. This is where the detailed work will be done under the code of practice, bringing together all the different parties in a measured way. It will take a few months to do this. That is critical, so that we can all be reassured that the processes are brought into play.
I can understand the concern about making sure that communication is there in situations of stress, but I believe that these amendments are designed to address this issue, with, as I have said, the patient’s interest absolutely in the forefront. There will be opportunities as the code of practice is put together for us to make sure that our endeavours are followed, bringing the best opinion together with the best interest of the patients.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“62ZAA Life-saving section 62ZA treatment: modified procedure in exceptional circumstances(1) Where—(a) a request is made to the regulatory authority under section 56B for the appointment of a second opinion doctor to perform the function of giving a certificate under section 62ZA in relation to any treatment, and(b) the regulatory authority determines that there are exceptional circumstances which mean that there will be a delay in appointing a second opinion doctor,a function of a second opinion appointed doctor under section 62ZA in relation to the giving of a certificate containing a statement under subsection (4)(c)(i) or (5)(c)(i) of that section may be performed, instead, by the approved clinician in charge of that treatment.(2) But no treatment may be given in reliance on a certificate given by the approved clinician by virtue of subsection (1) once the second opinion doctor has been appointed under section 56B.(3) Each time a patient is given treatment in reliance on a certificate given by the approved clinician by virtue of subsection (1), the managers of the hospital or registered establishment in which the treatment is given must notify the regulatory authority of that treatment as soon as reasonably practicable.(4) The regulatory authority’s annual report under section 120D must include—(a) a statement of how many times the regulatory authority has made a determination under subsection (1)(b) in the period to which the report relates and a summary of the reasons why any determinations have been made, and(b) a statement of how many times during that period treatment has been given in reliance on a certificate issued by virtue of subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
Where exceptional circumstances mean that a second opinion appointed doctor is not available to authorise life-saving electro-convulsive therapy, this amendment would allow the approved clinician to do so. The amendment replaces the regulation-making power currently in new section 62ZB(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 26, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 26, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out text that is replaced by my new clause inserted after clause 18.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 26, line 4.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“Remote assessment for treatment(1) Section 119 (practitioners approved for Part 4 and section 118) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)(a), for the first “and” substitute “or”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A person authorised by subsection (2) to carry out an interview or examination may, to the extent that they consider appropriate, carry it out—(a) by live audio link, or(b) by live video link.”(4) In subsection (3), before the definition of “regulated establishment” insert—““live audio link” , in relation to the carrying out of an interview or examination, means a live telephone link or other arrangement which enables the patient and the person carrying out the interview or examination to hear one another;“live video link” , in relation to the carrying out of an interview or examination, means a live television link or other arrangement which enables the patient and the person carrying out the interview or examination to see and hear one another;”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would enable remote assessments to be carried out by certain people for the purpose of non-urgent electro-convulsive therapy and certain other treatments. It also replaces clause 18(7) which makes equivalent provision for urgent treatment.
Baroness Berridge
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, bearing in mind the time. I have tabled these amendments again on Report, regarding the appropriate tribunal to hear the nominated person’s claims. I am very appreciative of the information given earlier to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that parents would be able to go to the tribunal. I am also very grateful for the letter that the Minister wrote to me.
The only point on which I wish to have clarification is that there is a difference between the Mental Health Act tribunal and the county court in relation to funding. A parent who goes to the county court will be subject to means testing for Legal Services Commission funding. That is not the case for the Mental Health Act tribunal. So, bearing in mind the importance of the county court to parents, will the Minister outline whether there are any proposals to enable parents to access Legal Services Commission funding?
Lord Meston (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this point up again. I mentioned it in Committee. The reference to the county court, currently in Schedule 2 to the Bill, is the only place in this jurisdiction where the county court is given anything to do. It seems to me now to be an anomaly and an anachronism. It is simply carrying forward the use of the county court from the 1959 Act and the 1983 Act, which provided for that court to deal with applications to displace nearest relatives.
I do not believe that, if the mental health legislation was now being started afresh, it would refer to the county courts. The county court is, in any event, now greatly overburdened, but that is not the only reason to replace it. A mental health tribunal, or indeed the Court of Protection, would be better equipped to deal with these cases, having specialist expertise and judiciary.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and, in particular, what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said. He has considerable experience of the county court, which I do not have, excepting when I used to appear before it.
What concerns me is that, if a case is sent to the county court, to a judge who is not a family judge, there will be considerable difficulties for that judge. I support the idea that it should be either the mental health tribunal or—as I would prefer, and as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has suggested—the Court of Protection. The judges of the Court of Protection are judges of the High Court, Family Division, of which I was president. That would be the right court. If it is said by the Government that they are not prepared to move on this issue, and I suspect they might not be, could they at least put in the court code of practice that, if it is sent to the county court, it will be dealt with by a family judge in the county court? The county court sits also as a family court. That would at least ameliorate the situation.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Berridge, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whose last suggestion I hope will be listened to by the Minister.
I must commend my noble friend for her tenacity with this issue. As she has outlined, there is a significant concern that the use of the county courts to decide on matters pertaining to the termination of nominated persons is not the most appropriate process. I do hope that the Minister will give my noble friend words to her comfort.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her Amendments 24, 28 and 35. They would mean that the mental health tribunal, rather than the county court, handled the termination of appointment of the nominated person. The county court already has a role in displacing the nearest relative. It has the expertise, procedural tools and legal framework to handle sensitive disputes involving external parties, such as conflicts of interest or allegations of abuse. The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England and the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales are focused on reviewing detention under the Mental Health Act. This would add an additional burden on the tribunal, risking undermining its core function and delaying detention reviews.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the issue of legal aid. County court mental health cases are largely limited to applications for the displacement of a nearest relative. Legal aid is currently available to a person seeking the displacement of the nearest relative, except where the person bringing that application is doing so in a professional capacity and to the nearest relative themselves. That would also apply for the nominated person, which will replace the nearest relative.
Legal representation is available where the applicant meets the means test, unless they are under 18, and the relevant merits criteria. If there are any further points of clarification, I will be pleased to make them to any noble Lords who have raised points today, including the noble Baroness.
As we do not feel that the mental health tribunal is the right place for what I was referring to before I went on to legal aid, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the Minister know which judge deals with these issues in the county court? The point that I made as a possibility was that it should be one of the family judges. She will know that circuit judges do both family and civil, but generally there is a designated family judge and a designated civil judge. I am just hoping something can be said so that it gets at least to a judge like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who would understand what was going on.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, does indeed know what is going on—I agree. I cannot answer the noble and learned Baroness’s question directly, but I would be pleased to look into that point in order to do so. Maybe the noble Lord could help me.
Lord Meston (CB)
Perhaps I can relieve the Minister. I can tell her who has to deal with it: it is whoever is available at the time, and these applications tend to come in really quite urgently.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, the reassurance she has given and the details she will provide me with, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 26 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 27 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 26
Baroness Merron
(c) the nominated person has signed a statement that they—(i) meet the age requirement (see paragraph 2(2)), and(ii) agree to act as the nominated person, and(d) the witness has signed a statement that—(i) the instrument appointing the nominated person was signed by the patient in the presence of the witness,(ii) the witness has no reason to think that the patient lacks capacity or competence to make the appointment,(iii) the witness has no reason to think that the nominated person lacks capacity or competence to act as a nominated person,(iv) the witness has no reason to think that any fraud or undue pressure has been used to induce the patient to make the appointment, and(v) the witness has no reason to think that the nominated person is unsuitable to act as a nominated person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This changes the process for appointing a nominated person. It removes the requirement for the nominated person’s signature to be witnessed and the various statements and signatures no longer have to be contained in the same instrument.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This and my amendments to paragraph 10 of new Schedule 1A ensure that where a nominated person is appointed for a patient who is aged 16 or 17 and for whom a local authority has parental responsibility, the local authority is appointed as the nominated person.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 77, line 27.
“(2) If a local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient, the approved mental health professional must appoint that local authority.(2A) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but the relevant patient has a competent deputy who is willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint the deputy.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 77, line 27.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Schedule 2, page 77, line 27.
Baroness Merron
“10A “(1) This paragraph applies where an approved mental health professional is deciding who to appoint as a nominated person for a relevant patient who is aged under 16.(2) If a local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient, the approved mental health professional must appoint that local authority.(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but there are one or more other persons who have parental responsibility and who are willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint one of them.(4) In any case in which sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not identify who is to be appointed, the approved mental health professional must, in deciding who to appoint, take into account the relevant patient’s past and present wishes and feelings so far as reasonably ascertainable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This largely replicates the effect of existing paragraph 10 of new Schedule 1A but ensures that where a nominated person is appointed for a patient who is aged under 16 and for whom a local authority has parental responsibility, the local authority is appointed as the nominated person.
Baroness Berridge
“(3) Where sub-paragraph (2) does not apply, the approved mental health professional must appoint as a nominated person— (a) a guardian who has been appointed for the relevant patient,(b) a person who is named in a child arrangements order, as defined by section 8 of the Children Act 1989, as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live, or(c) a person who has parental responsibility for the relevant patient.(3A) In this paragraph “guardian” includes a special guardian within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 but does not include a guardian under section 7 of that Act.(3B) Where there is more than one person identified as a potential nominated person in sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c) then the approved mental health professional must in deciding who to appoint—(a) take into account the relevant patient’s past and present wishes and feelings so far as reasonably ascertainable, or(b) where it has not been possible to ascertain the relevant patient’s past and present wishes, preference must be given to the eldest person.”
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s reasoning, but I am sure it will not be a surprise to her that there is now a matter of disagreement, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to leave out clause 50.
Earl Howe
“Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatmentAfter section 23 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (discharge of patients) insert—“23A Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatment(1) A patient who has been detained under this Part of this Act must, within 30 days of their discharge, be offered a consultation with an independent mental health advocate to review their experiences of hospital treatment.(2) A report from any consultation undertaken pursuant to subsection (1) shall be produced by the independent mental health advocate in partnership with the patient.(3) The report referred to in subsection (2) shall be provided to the managers of the hospital within 14 days of its completion.(4) The managers of the hospital shall publish each year a report setting out what they have learned from patients’ experiences at the hospital, and the actions they have taken.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mandate the de-briefing of mental health patients after they have left hospital.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply to the proposal that I made to give mental health patients an automatic opportunity to avail of a debriefing process after leaving hospital, in the interests of patient empowerment and greater transparency for the system generally. I am afraid that I nevertheless wish to test the opinion of the House.
Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Chancel Repair (Church Commissioners’ Liability) Measure be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, this Measure rationalises the legal basis on which the Church Commissioners are obliged to provide funds to repair the chancels of certain parish churches. The existing law in this area has its origins in the time before the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. The rule that applied generally in England was that the people of the parish were responsible for maintaining the nave of the parish church, the main part of the church where the people would generally stand or kneel during services, and the rector of the parish was responsible for the chancel, the eastern-most part of the church that contains the altar and seats the clergy.
Legislation over several centuries, beginning in the 1530s and concluding with the establishment of the Church Commissioners in 1947, has resulted in the commissioners inheriting some of the land that had once formed part of the endowment of a rectory. That ownership carries with it the rector’s liability to keep in repair the chancel of the relevant parish church.
The commissioners’ land carries liability for around 350 parish churches. In some cases, the commissioners have the whole liability. In other cases, they share it with other landowners. In 2023, they incurred net expenditure of around £354,000 on chancel repairs, which was considerably down on £608,000, which occurred in 2022. They expect expenditure for 2024 and 2025 to be in the region of £1.2 million for each year.
Cathedral chapters also carry liability for the chancels of around 200 parish churches. The Church Commissioners currently have a statutory power to make grants to chapters to cover these liabilities. In 2023, the commissioners made net grants of about £124,000 to chapters for this purpose, meeting the entirety of cathedral chapters’ liabilities in this regard.
When land that carries chancel repair liability is sold, the purchaser takes on that liability, provided that it is registered against the title of the land before the sale takes place. That has the potential to reduce the value of the land in question and result in lower sale proceeds than would otherwise be the case. If the liability is not registered against the title of the land, the purchaser takes the land free of the liability, in which case the parish loses out because the liability, in effect, disappears.
This Measure will cut through some of those complex issues. It will detach chancel liability from any land that currently belongs to the Church Commissioners and turn it into a free-standing statutory obligation on the commissioners to make the relevant payments. That will mean that parishes will no longer need to go to the trouble of registering chancel repair liability for which the commissioners are responsible. Those parishes will continue to be entitled to receive payments from the commissioners to maintain the chancels of their churches, and the commissioners will be able to sell land without having to reduce the sale price to take account of a liability having been registered against the title.
The Measure also helps cathedral chapters: instead of having to rely on grants from the commissioners to offset their liability to repair the chancels of various parish churches, chapters will no longer carry the liability at all. It will be transferred to the commissioners, who will become subject to a direct statutory obligation to meet the liabilities that, until now, have fallen on cathedrals. As noble Lords will be aware from its report, the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered the Measure and found it to be expedient. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. The Ecclesiastical Committee, under our excellent chair, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, considered these Measures on 3 February this year, as we have heard, after they had gone through all the synod’s scrutiny. Before I begin, I must declare my interests: I am high steward of Ripon Cathedral in North Yorkshire—as we have heard, cathedrals are also mentioned in the Measure—and I have a nephew who is a parish priest on the Isle of Man, although that is exempt from these Measures at the moment.
The first Measure, on chancel repair et cetera, is about an enforceable liability to repair or contribute to the repair of the chancel of a parish church. In essence, it would detach the Church Commissioners’ liability from the affected land and convert it into a free-standing statutory duty, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester told us clearly. This would enable the Church Commissioners to sell any land they own, free of responsibility for the repair of any chancel liabilities. The commissioners would continue to be liable to repair the chancel as a continuing statutory duty, even after they sell any land for which there is a chancel repair liability.
The Measure also makes provision for the conversion of the current statutory chancel repair duty of the chapter of each cathedral into a statutory duty of the commissioners. It does not abolish chancel repair liability or change the liability of third parties to pay contributions to any chancel repair that is needed. As the right reverend Prelate has already told us, we were happy to accept this Measure, as proposed by the synod.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as your Lordships’ House has heard, I am chair of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The committee heard a considerable amount of evidence from the Church, and a number of MPs who are part of the Ecclesiastical Committee asked some very relevant questions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who has just spoken. We were satisfied, according to the 1919 statute that sets up the Ecclesiastical Committee, that it was “expedient”—that is the phrase used in the statute—to pass this Measure to this House.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to contribute, but I feel I must. I was also part of the committee coming to the conclusion that the noble and learned Baroness has just mentioned. My degree in theology at Cambridge clearly did not fit me for understanding the complexities of land tenure in parish churches, but I just wished—I know that this is a silly thing to say—that all the chancels in Methodist churches that I know about could have been included in the Measure being put forward.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to follow on the noble Lord’s last comment: of course they would not, because the Methodist Church is not the established Church. That is why we are discussing this issue: because it is the established Church. I think that most people watching this—I declare my interest as a member of the National Secular Society—will be surprised that, in 2025, we have to debate this based on the established Church and the archaic nature of one Church in this land.
I appreciate that the right reverend Prelate has to come and speak to this Measure because of the position that the established Church is in and the privilege that the Bishops sometimes get to be able to plead to Parliament about some special interest for the established Church, but I wish to place on record not just my voice but that of many people. The very fact that we have an established Church and these archaic rules means that this Parliament has to take this up. It would be better, eventually, for the Church to be disestablished and to be in control of its own rules and laws and not subject to the need for Parliament and parliamentary time.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the comments that have been made, and I am especially grateful for the interest and support of Methodists, who view the matter from a different perspective. Perhaps I may comment on the place of the Church of England in the history of the land. We are very aware of being the stewards of a large part of this nation’s history. Much of it is invested in the physicality of our church buildings, and I regard this process as one in which we are transparent and accountable for how we discharge that responsibility, so I hope that this will not be regarded as time that is wasted.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Moraes) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that, under this procedure, there is no reply from the Government.
Church Funds Investment Measure
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church Funds Investment Measure be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, this is another piece of reforming legislation; it updates legislation dating from 1958, which enables various Church of England bodies to invest in pooled funds. These are known collectively as the CBF Church of England funds. Approximately 11,500 Church bodies invest in these funds; they include diocesan boards of finance, parochial church councils and cathedral chapters. The current assets of the funds are in the region of £3 billion.
The legislation authorising these pooled investment funds—the Church Funds Investment Measure 1958—is out of date and prevents those funds being regulated funds. To address this, the measure provides for the transfer of the CBF Church of England funds to what is known as a charity-authorised investment fund. The structure for this type of fund was created in 2016 by the Financial Conduct Authority working with the Charity Commission. It has significant advantages for investors. First, charity-authorised investment funds are jointly regulated by the Charity Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority. This offers investors greater protection and reassurance that the funds are regulated and overseen in accordance with industry best practice while maintaining their charitable status. Secondly, no VAT is payable on the fees of the managers of these funds, resulting in a modest saving for charities that invest in them.
The Measure permits the trustee of the CBF Church of England funds to transfer the assets of those funds to a charity-authorised investment fund. The result will be the CBF Church of England funds, instead of being unregulated as is currently the case, will become authorised and regulated jointly by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Charity Commission. Value added tax will also cease to be payable on investment managers’ fees, resulting in a cost saving to church investors. Again, the Ecclesiastical Committee has found the Measure to be expedient. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as the House knows, I am chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee. We considered this Measure, we heard evidence from the Church and we deemed it expedient.
Perhaps I could just add that, since the Church of England is the established Church, it is entirely appropriate that suitable Measures from synod should become Acts of Parliament, which is what is happening at the moment—and these two Measures are appropriately being brought to this House.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, no one disputes that the present system creates this for Parliament. My argument is not that it is happening; my argument is that it should not happen because we should not have an established Church. It is quite incredible—and I hope that the outside world listens to this debate—that the Church of England suddenly has a £3 billion fund that it now wishes to be regulated, which is good, but also that it can save money by not paying VAT. Again I point out that, by having the Bishops in this House, the Church has a special and privileged position to be able to argue for that. So while the system of the established church remains, Parliament’s time is going to be wasted with this kind of discussion about the governance of the Church of England, when with any other church it would be for the equivalent of the synod to make that decision without having to come to this Parliament to make the decision of synod. That is all my argument is—that, regardless of whether this is a good or a bad Measure, it should not be coming to Parliament because we should not have an established Church; it should be an equal church among many religions and faiths across the country, and Parliament should be debating other things rather than the internal governance and how to use £3 billion of the Church of England’s funds.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
I am grateful for the comments that have been made. I leave the matter at that. We greatly value the leadership of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I would like to record, if I may, our thanks to her for her diligent chairing of the Ecclesiastical Committee.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradley
“(d) a specified accountable person or body is appointed, who will be responsible for ensuring that the provisions within this subsection are completed within the specified time limit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that there is an accountable person, who will ensure that transfer to hospital takes place within 28 days.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register.
In Committee, I moved an amendment that would require a specified accountable person to be appointed by the relevant referring body to ensure that the specified 28-day transfer period is met. This proposal was based on the fact that many agencies are involved in arranging prison transfers. From my experiences in helping to develop services across health and justice, I believe there could be significant merit in creating a single role: a dedicated official whose primary function would be to ensure efficient transfers, with the ability and power to liaise and intervene with the various agencies at the most senior level where necessary.
As I said in that debate, the amendment would clarify and enhance accountability and transparency, and
“support the desire expressed in the impact assessment”
of the Bill to increase
“‘accountability for all agencies involved in the transfer process to meet’ … the deadline”.
It is important to note again that this is supported by
“Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review, which stated that it would help … ‘unblock the institutional barriers and … give … the teeth it needs to push the transfer through’”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 61.]
At the conclusion to that debate, first, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, from the Opposition Front Bench, commented that my amendment
“again, speaks to the point of implementation”
of provisions in the Bill, and said that this
“could be a sensible way of holding providers to account and working with them to address the shortcomings in patient transfers”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; col. 66.]
Secondly, and most importantly, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, helpfully reminded the House that the previous Government had run a public consultation seeking views on the effective way to establish this role, but no consensus was reached. Further, a cross-agency working group was established to scope out the role, and that work
“continues between health and justice partners”
on this issue. He suggested that a non-statutory approach
“will ensure that the interests of patients are considered while providing the flexibility required, given the complexity of the process”.—[Official Report, 27/1/25; cols. 67-68.]
Very helpfully again, the Minister offered to meet to discuss this further and for that to be undertaken before Report. I am very pleased that such discussions have taken place, and thank not only the Minister but the excellent officials in both the Ministry of Justice and NHS England for their very constructive engagement with me.
I still strongly believe that we need effective oversight of the transfer process, hence I tabled Amendment 38, which proposes that either an accountable person “or body”—a slight extension to my original amendment—is established for the purpose and, of course, to ensure accountability and transparency to Parliament on this matter. I hope the Minister will now support this proposition. I look forward to his response at the end of this short debate and will listen carefully to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in Committee, a number of us stressed the importance of those sections of the Bill relating to its application for prisoners suffering mental disorder. I continue to push to ensure that the parts of the Bill that relate to the responsibilities of the MoJ in relation to the Department of Health and Social Care are not neglected once the Act becomes law.
In Committee, I focused on calling for a government review of the impact of the Bill on prisoners, but, from listening to the thoughtful response from the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, I saw that this could become yet another bureaucratic report. I therefore commend Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, as an elegant way of ensuring that the crucial provision of a transfer to hospital within 28 days is more than an “if only” paper aspiration.
My Amendment 40, which I am delighted is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is also a practical proposal. It is designed to tackle problems that directly pertain to the Bill, broadly because, regardless of this legislation, the reality is that there will continue to be large numbers of prisoners suffering mental disorders who are incarcerated within the prison estate rather than in secure hospitals. The question then is what happens to their mental health care when they are released. If this aspect is neglected, these ex-prisoners could well become increasingly unwell and deteriorate, and therefore be in need of future detention.
It would be a real mistake to neglect any policy or practice associated with this Bill that fails to address the need for bespoke, ongoing support in the community, in which ex-prisoners’ mental health is not allowed to fall further, creating new risks to both them and the public. This is a real risk. Estimates from a 2023 report from the Centre for Mental Health, based on a survey of 75% of prisons and young offenders’ institutions in England, found that one in seven prisoners receive mental health support while in custody—the figure is one in four among women. However, continuity of that care collapses after release. Research led by the University of Manchester recently found that, of 53 prisoners who had been in touch with in-house services due to severe and enduring mental health conditions, only four were in touch with community health services six months after release.
It is perhaps understandable why this happens. When leaving prison, both the authorities and prisoners may focus on practical challenges, such as lack of housing and how to earn money and a living, and therefore mental health support can and does slip down the priority list. It is also the case that leaving prison can present a shock to the system, and that affects this. Prisoners will be leaving a structured environment, focused on routine, and, in many instances, returning to more disorganised and chaotic conditions. Freedom may mean an arbitrary end to an effective course of treatment, someone having waited perhaps months or even years to access services, such as therapy or specialised groups, in which they have started to open up about traumatic experiences—all in-prison services. Suddenly, on release, there is an abrupt end to such support. Targeted interventions, prescribing regimes and the access to medication inside are no longer guaranteed on the outside.
I understand that ensuring continuity of care can be incredibly difficult. People leaving prison often have multiple and complex needs, and can be wary of accessing care in the community because of a lack of trust in state institutions that means that they are less likely to proactively seek out help. Ex-prisoners report that they fear that disclosing mental health challenges to, for example, probation staff will draw attention to their vulnerabilities. Then there is the dread of recall—an especially acute fear for IPP prisoners: a fear of being sent back to prison if they appear too ill to cope, or a dread of that other detention mechanism, sectioning.
All that this amendment seeks is to ensure a smooth handover between prisoners and community services. Without such ministerial reassurance, I fear that this will undermine core parts of the Bill unless it is taken into account. The stock reply to such concerns is that prison mental health services send on information to prisoners’ GPs, but in the real world this is often nonsense. Prisoners often do not have a fixed address on release, so they are discharged with just a medical letter. Prison nurses explain that they do not know where their patient will be released to, beyond a hostel somewhere, making it impossible to connect that person to even primary care. Prison-led medical staff complain that often they are not informed of the impending release until very shortly beforehand—sometimes a week or days—and this is especially acute in relation to the present early release scheme. There is not enough time to set up appropriate community provision, to communicate with services or even to conduct proper assessments of individual patients before their release. Clinical needs are therefore deprioritised, and prisoners fall through the net of statutory services.
What is needed, and what this amendment envisages, is that a relevant detention authority is responsible for discharge packages which will, for example, register prisoners with GP services in the precise area a person is discharged to, and liaise with relevant third-party organisations and community provision to make arrangements. Prisons and health authorities would work together to prevent deteriorating mental health and the potential for behaviour on the outside that would mean yet more contact with the criminal justice system for the ex-prisoner and, possibly, emergency intervention and detention.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and have added my name to it—probably not a combination that you will see very often. This amendment, as the noble Baroness set out with practical, clear evidence, makes such a lot of sense that I had to back it.
My particular interest when it comes to prison policy is women in prison. More and more shocking figures are emerging all the time about what is happening in our women’s prisons. A third of women in prison are now self-harming, which is a 29% increase in the last quarter, and 82% of women in prison report mental health problems. As the noble Baroness said, one in four women in prison are receiving help from mental health services. That is not to say that there are not enormous issues around male jails as well—the figure for male jails is one in seven—but I want to take a moment to paint a picture.
Six in 10 female prisoners are serving sentences of less than six months. Their life is torn apart and they are put into prison, where maybe they start to get help from the mental health services. Here are some other figures: seven in 10 women in prison report being victims of domestic violence; 53% report that they were victims of child abuse. We have a huge and often acute need for mental health services here, yet, as the noble Baroness set out, these women are thrown out, virtually on to the street, and the chances of continuing care and support being there are utterly unrealistic.
I suspect the Minister will say that the Government are trying to improve the situation. I respect and understand that. None the less, this is a practical, sensible measure that it would be common sense for the Government to take on board.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I want to make a couple of contributions to the debate. In so doing, I reflect on that fact that we have not spent much time talking about the criminal justice side of this Bill. I wonder why that is.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, it makes eminent sense to ensure that there is an accountable person or body responsible for ensuring that transfers to hospital occur within 28 days. I have a simple view of the world: if you want to make sure that some things get done, you need to ensure that someone is in charge and that that person is held to account. As the Minister knows, I am quite keen on responsible people, particularly in relation to this Bill, to ensure that things get done—hence, I support the amendment.
I was very interested in the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her amendment, focusing on ensuring that prisoners treated for a mental disorder have access to continued mental health treatment once they are back in the community. That is such common sense and such an obvious thing to do, if we are to stop repeat admissions and detentions and the whole thing becoming a revolving door. We all know that it is not easy in the community at the best of times to get access to the treatment that you need, particularly mental health treatment. It is particularly difficult for people who have recently been released from detention. Further, we all know the episodic nature of many mental health conditions, so this amendment is just good common sense.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I want to express my support for the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bradley, because in Committee I had a parallel amendment that dealt with a similar issue. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, said about locating specific responsibility for getting people through the system. In this area, time is absolutely of the essence to avoid crises and worsening mental health states. So I strongly support the thought behind my noble friend’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can help us by showing that the problem is understood and that the Government see it as a priority to resolve the problems that undoubtedly occur at present.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 38 and 40. One of the things about being a politician is that when you say things, you cannot hide. When the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, told me he was about to quote me in his contribution, I thought, “Oh no, what have I said now?”, so I am grateful to him for warning me and not being too harsh on me. As other noble Lords have said, this is an eminently sensible amendment, and I hope we will get a positive response from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradley for bringing this discussion before the House today and his commitment to improving outcomes for patients since the publication in 2009 of the Bradley Report, which highlighted the need to ensure that transfers between prison and secure hospital take place in a timely manner. I also thank him for his kind words about my superb team in the Ministry of Justice.
The Government are committed to addressing the unnecessary delays that some patients experience, which can cause significant distress to these individuals, their families and those charged with their care. Transparency and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, expressed clearly, are essential to the successful implementation of this reform and to reducing delays more broadly. I thank my noble friend Lord Bradley for the constructive conversations with my officials since Committee to ensure we get this oversight mechanism right.
I am pleased to share that this Government have recently established a health and justice strategic advisory group, which will bring together key partners with responsibility for the various parts of the transfer process. This group will be chaired by a national clinical director, who will report regularly to Ministers and be responsible for agreeing a joint work plan to support implementation of the statutory time limit, identifying solutions to common barriers to timely transfers and holding partners to account. I am confident that this group will provide effective oversight by bringing together operational leaders across health and justice with the levers necessary to effect change, while inviting challenge from critical friends such as the Care Quality Commission and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons to ensure external scrutiny. I will continue to work closely with my noble friend Lady Merron to ensure that the long-term future of the strategic advisory group remains a priority.
As my noble friend announced earlier, the Government have committed to providing an annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the Mental Health Act reforms. Through this reporting mechanism, I will update Parliament on the implementation of the statutory time limit and on the strategic advisory group, and provide data on transfer timelines when available for publication. I hope this reassures my noble friend of this Government’s commitment to improving timely access to treatment. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 40 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would ensure that prisoners released into the community who have previously been treated for a mental disorder can continue to receive access to treatment in the community. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act already places a duty on health and social care services to provide aftercare to patients under specific criminal justice sections of the Act who are released from hospital into prison or into the community. These services aim to reduce the risk of a deterioration of the patient’s mental condition and, accordingly, the risk of them requiring admission to hospital again for treatment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is right that our women’s prisons have many women who are mentally unwell. That is why we have set up the Women’s Justice Board—to reduce the number of women in prison and to help divert many women away from custody in the first place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will be pleased to know that, in addition to the Section 117 aftercare that is available to those detained under the Mental Health Act, all prisoners who have engaged in any form of treatment while in prison—regardless of whether they have been detained under the Mental Health Act —have access to services in the community when they are released.
To strengthen the links between substance misuse and health services in prisons and in the community, and to support access to treatment, we have recruited 57 health and justice partnership co-ordinators and managers across all probation regions in England and Wales. NHS England’s RECONNECT, a care after custody service, supports prison leavers with vulnerabilities including mental health needs to engage with the right health services in the community through referrals and peer support. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is right: through-the-gate continuity is crucial. The successful pathway is how we reduce reoffending and help people who are unwell.
I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that there is already sufficient provision in the Act to ensure that prisoners who have previously been treated for a mental disorder can continue to receive access to treatment in the community. I urge her not to move the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not doubt in any way that prisoners can access that community care; the problem is that they are not accessing it. The assurances about new schemes are positive, but the idea was to make this more than just an abstract wish list and make sure that something practical happens. If that is what the new scheme—although it does not exist yet—will do, that is reassuring, but it is certainly not what is happening now.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Baroness has visited many prisons, as I have, and knows how complex they can often be. One of the main points of the Bill is to make sure that our partners—because we often work with third sector organisations—make sure that it is a priority that people who are leaving prison and are unwell get the continuing care that they need.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that positive response. I believe it is a major step forward in ensuring that the time limit of 28 days for the transfer of prisoners to an appropriate health setting is adhered to. I believe that the new strategic body that the Minister recommended will also have a significant part to play in increasing transparency and accountability as we go forward.
I am pleased that, in the general debate, the Minister mentioned the RECONNECT service, which is being rolled out across the country as we speak. It will have a significant impact on the continuity of care that has so rightly been identified tonight. With the assurance the Minister has given to the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron
“(5) In section 143 (general provisions as to regulations, orders and rules)—(a) for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The following are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—(a) any Order in Council under this Act;(b) any order made by the Secretary of State under section 54A or 68A(7);(c) any statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Act, other than regulations made under section 48B(3);(d) any statutory instrument containing rules made under this Act.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 48B(3) (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 26, line 6.
Lord Kamall
“Removal of patients by authorised persons (1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.(2) In section 135 (warrant to search for and remove patients)—(a) in subsection (1), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(b) in subsection (1A), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(c) in closing words of subsection (2), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(d) in subsection (3ZA)(a)(ii), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(e) in subsection (7)(b), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”. (3) In section 136 (removal etc of mentally disordered persons without a warrant)—(a) in subsection (1), after each instance of “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(b) in subsection (1A), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(c) in subsection (1B), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”;(d) in subsection (2A)(a)(ii), after “constable”, insert “or authorised person”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Kamall seek to introduce a new category of “authorised person” who can carry out detentions under the 1983 Act to offer better inter-agency response. The proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.
Baroness Merron
Member's explanatory statement
The material in this clause is, so far as it needs to be retained, inserted into clause 36 (see my amendment to that clause).
Baroness Merron
“Review of duty to notify incidents(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review into—(a) whether regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 (S.I.2009/3112) (duty to notify incidents) ought to be extended to require a notification to be given in any other cases in which a person under the age of 18 is admitted to a hospital or registered establishment for medical treatment for, or assessment in relation to, mental disorder, and(b) whether the time period mentioned in regulation 18(2)(h) of those Regulations remains appropriate.(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The report must be laid and published before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (5) In this section the following expressions have the meaning given by section 145 of the Mental Health Act 1983—“hospital” ;“medical treatment” ;“mental disorder” ;“registered establishment” .”Member's explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State to carry out a review into the circumstances in which incidents involving mental health patients under the age of 18 ought to be notified to the Care Quality Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, having heard the concerns of noble Lords in Committee around the placement of children and young people, we want to go further than when we started. It is a statutory requirement for CQC to be notified when a person under 18 is placed in an adult psychiatric unit for longer than 48 hours. CQC takes action to assess risk and ensure the child is being safeguarded. Government Amendment 46 will now require the Secretary of State to review whether current notification requirements should be extended to other incidents and whether the 48-hour time period remains appropriate. A report on the findings of this review must be laid before Parliament within two years.
I am also pleased to announce today that NHS England will use existing powers under the NHS Act 2006 to require ICBs to provide information, first, on accommodation or facilities for patients under the age of 18 and, secondly, on any incidents where a person under the age of 18 is placed in a setting that is clinically appropriate but is outside of the natural clinical flow or not in a specialised children and young people’s mental health ward. Those requirements will be set out in the new service specification and made clear in the revised code of practice. Collecting this information is crucial to enable NHS England to monitor and minimise risk and make the case for changes in local capacity to meet population needs.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that we will lay regulations under existing powers to require ICBs to provide information that CQC reasonably requests and to publish an action statement where directed to do so by CQC. This will strengthen CQC oversight of how it monitors the application of the Act in local areas, such as the duty on ICBs under Section 140 to notify local authorities specifying hospitals where arrangements are in place for the provision of accommodation and facilities for children and young people. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I just want to clarify something, as the Minister has referred quite a lot to NHS England and its role going into the future. My understanding is that there is a sea change due at NHS England. How can we be sure that some of these roles, which are very important to this Act, will still be there and that they will be the people who will be responsible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will answer the question at the end for simplicity; I do have an answer for the noble Baroness.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, in those circumstances, if I may, I shall now speak to Amendment 51, which is also in this group. This is the same amendment that I put forward in Committee to provide a statutory basis for determining the competence of a child under 16 to make decisions for the purposes of this Bill and the Mental Health Act 1983. I should emphasise that it is concerned not with the consequences of such decisions but with the determination of competence for the purposes of those decisions.
I will not repeat at any length the arguments from Committee but remind the House that this amendment was prompted by the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which referred to the complexity of the law in this area concerning those under 18 years of age and referred to the absence of consistent criteria to establish capacity or competence. Sixteen and17 year-olds are subject to the Mental Capacity Act and have the benefit of a statutory presumption of capacity applicable to adults. Children under 16 covered by this Bill do not have the benefit of that presumption and the existing Mental Capacity Act does not apply to them.
The competence or otherwise of those under 16 to make decisions is considered by reference to the principles decided judicially by the House of Lords in the case of Gillick, to which the Minister referred when rejecting my amendment. However, Gillick did not actually set out any test for assessment of competence or any method for such assessment. It simply provided that a child under 16 could consent to medical treatment if considered by professionals to have the maturity and intelligence to understand what is involved. There was no indication of how the broad notions of maturity and intelligence were to be assessed.
This has left professionals, legal and medical, with what has been called inherent uncertainty. The Bill will create a range of situations in which professionals will have to assess a child’s competence, but it is silent as to how that is to be done. In rejecting this amendment, the Minister suggested that it could cause confusion if it was seen to be a different test to that established by Gillick.
The more that I and others have thought about that and analysed the argument, the harder it has been to accept it. First, as I have said, Gillick does not establish any methodical test. The House of Lords in that case did not have to set out how competence was to be assessed. Secondly, this amendment does not conflict with or undermine Gillick. On the contrary, it is intended to build upon it and to provide a workable approach to problematic assessments which professionals sometimes have to undertake.
The amendment provides a clear, structured test for determination of a child’s competence to fill the gap in the Bill and to address the uncertainty to which the Joint Committee referred. I therefore suggest that, rather than create uncertainty or confusion, as was suggested by the Government, it will actually reduce or remove it, and it will provide a clear statement of parliamentary intention as to relevant considerations to be brought to bear.
The Minister has been kind enough to write to me recently, explaining further the Government’s reasons for not supporting my amendment. She stated concern that it could have unintended consequences. However, unintended consequences are by their nature unknown, unforeseeable and may never happen. I have therefore found it difficult to understand the Government’s concerns, particularly as my amendment is expressly limited, referring only to decisions under this Bill and under the existing statute.
The Government also suggested that it might have the effect of restricting the ability of children to exercise choice and autonomy. I have to say I do not understand how that could be suggested. On the contrary, I think it would facilitate the exercise of choice and ensure respect for Article 12 rights, which are expressly referred to in the amendment. The exact terms of Article 12 of the UN convention require that a child who is capable of forming his or her own views is assured of the right to express those views freely, and that those views are given due weight according to age and maturity. In short, I do not see the problems suggested by the Government, and accordingly I commend this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I agree with all three amendments that we are considering at this moment, but in particular I support Amendment 51 and agree respectfully with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. He has set it out extremely carefully and clearly.
Despite meeting the most helpful Minister to discuss this and other matters in the Bill, I absolutely cannot understand why the Government do not realise that the absence of any information to help medical professionals looking at a 14 or 15 year-old who has mental health issues, which are why they are in hospital, but who appears otherwise to be very bright, is an issue. How on earth are they to judge whether that child has the degree of competence necessary for the professionals to listen carefully to what the child has to say? If you are over 16, you are included in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but under-16s have not been included.
I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that Gillick is very long-winded. It would be unreasonable for any medical professional looking at a child of 13, 14 or 15 to settle down and read the judgments of the then House of Lords to find out that they say that Gillick should be applied but absolutely do not say how.
This is why we have this amendment. The Government might decide that they are not prepared to accept it. I did not see the letter that the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but I cannot understand why there is any confusion. I cannot understand why a form of advice to mental health professionals on dealing with under-16 year-olds in mental health conditions might be applied in any other circumstance in any other litigation. It does not apply.
I have spoken not only to the Minister but to the very helpful team who surround her, and I have been completely unable to understand what on earth they are really worried about. I would be—and I would like the Government to be—much more worried about anyone over 16. There is primary legislation telling anyone how to judge that someone over 16 has the ability to make decisions, but there is nothing to tell anybody about someone under 16.
In my view, there will be a serious lacuna in the law that is very unhelpful, particularly to mental health professionals. What on earth are they going to do with a child who, as I say, is bright and cheerful despite what his or her mental health problems are? How on earth are they going to approach judging whether that child has the sort of competence that over-16s have?
I find it difficult that what is contained in this excellent proposed new clause by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is seen as somehow confusing or that it will be used in the wrong circumstances, or anything like that. If Amendment 51 is not going to be accepted, what on earth is the help that the Minister expects to give to mental health professionals dealing with under-16s?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I say humbly and briefly, following that expert explanation of Amendment 51 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and its powerful reinforcement by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that I attached my name to this amendment simply because I thought it was such an important one, following our debate in Committee. I felt that it should have a full slate of signatures from as broadly around the House as possible. I do not claim any particular expertise here, but my intention to do this was strengthened by the joint briefing from the Law Society, Mind and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition. It is quite notable and I am sure many noble Lords will have received it. That briefing is explicitly on Amendment 51, which just shows the level of concern on this issue among NGOs.
It is worth saying—it is kind of stating the obvious—that, as the briefing notes:
“We consider that the test should be on the face of the Bill, not in a Code of Practice as the Government suggests. This is because the courts have made clear that codes of practice should reflect the law and cannot create law”.
That sets out clearly to me, as a legal lay person, where we are. As the joint briefing then says,
“a clear and consistent approach to assessing a child’s competence can only be achieved by including a test in the Bill. The Code is not the right place”.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will also say briefly that I too added my name to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In Committee, I pondered this issue long and hard. At one stage, I thought that perhaps more consultation was required, but having listened to the arguments and heard from people in the sector, which was very helpful, along with the briefings we have received, I am now firmly of the view that this is a real gap in the current Bill.
We have this opportunity and, as has been said two or three times so far today, we do not get such an opportunity very often. It might be once every 10 or 15 years that we get the opportunity to look at mental health legislation such as this. I have therefore come strongly to the view that we need to make the most of this opportunity so that there is a proper test for decision-making for under-16s—a sort of competence test—within the Bill.
In coming to that view, I have taken two or three things into consideration. One is that it would apply only when the Bill requires that a child’s competence is to be considered. Then, very importantly I thought, the amendment is concerned only with the question of a child’s ability to decide, not what happens once that has been determined. Finally, this excellent amendment explicitly limits this test to decision-making under the Bill and the previous Mental Health Act 1983. In short, it applies only to children who fall within the scope of this legislation, so it is tightly drawn. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, set out so powerfully the need for this and the case for it, in a way that I could not possibly do. I just wanted to explain how my thinking had evolved since our discussions in Committee.
Briefly, while I am on my feet, I was always very supportive of the amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for strengthening safeguards for children admitted to adult wards and out-of-area placements. This is a really important issue and I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on the subject. I was also interested to hear the Minister talk about the amendment that she has put forward in relation to this, so I hope that progress is being made in this important area. I will be interested to hear what the noble Earl’s reaction is to that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing my full support for Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. A very compelling case was put by forward by him and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I also thank the Minister very warmly for her Amendment 46 and her helpful explanation of what it is likely to entail regarding the process that will flow from it. It is reassuring to know that our Committee debates on age-appropriate treatment for children and young people have been seriously considered by the Minister. I put on record my appreciation of the advanced notice she gave me of her intention to meet noble Lords’ concerns in this constructive way. I hope, nevertheless, that she will not mind me posing a number of questions prompted by the government amendment and my Amendment 58, which has been grouped with it.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I added my name to this amendment, but I of course support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston—it is urgent to have an answer to that when the Bill proceeds.
I support all that my noble friend on the Front Bench said about children in adult wards, but I particularly focus on his request for attention to out-of-area placements. We know, from many of the cases that, sadly, we have had to debate in this House, that, when people are detained unduly—almost as though they are placed somewhere and the keys are thrown away—it is all too often because they are well away from their home base and from convenient visiting by relatives, and, as my noble friend said, often far away local authorities that might have had some sort of overview of them previously.
This is very difficult. We know that local authorities are stretched financially, and, presumably, keeping an eye on what is happening to somebody who has gone well out of their area has a clear cost implication. None the less, we are talking about children. Therefore, I support my noble friend and I hope the Minister will find a way forward to support these children.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords across the House for their contributions during the debate on this group, the last of the evening. I am glad that both Front Benches welcome government Amendment 46, albeit I heard the noble Earl, Lord Howe, say that he had hoped that we would go further. I am glad that the other commitments made at the start of the debate were welcomed.
Amendment 58 was tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. We agree with the intention of this amendment but do not believe that placing more limitations and prescriptions in legislation is the best vehicle to reduce the placement of children in certain settings.
In Committee, I set out existing measures to address and monitor this issue. The latest data from the CQC’s Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2023/24 report shows that it was notified of 120 instances where a person under the age of 18 was admitted to an adult ward, which was a 38% decrease compared to 2022-23. I committed to set out guidance in the revised code on the process to determine whether a placement is in a child’s best interests, and to ensure that safeguards are in place. NHSE will also do this in the new service specification—I will return to this point for the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I hope that the additional commitments we have made in this debate show that the Government take this matter seriously and that we are committed to continuing to work on and address this issue.
To the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made about NHSE, I assure her that, as we work to bring the two organisations together—NHSE and DHSC—we will ensure that we continue to evaluate impacts of all kinds and that the functions currently undertaken by NHSE will continue along with that change. It will take some two years for the full process, including legislation, to take effect. However, admin changes are happening more immediately. The main thing of which I want to assure the noble Baroness is that the change into the future will not affect the commitments that we have given; they will continue, and without duplication.
Before I turn to Amendment 51, I will go back to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who asked whether we would undertake a concerted effort to look at other directions of the issue, such as training and suitable in-patient or outreach mental health services. In response, I can say that, subject to securing further investment, NHS England is developing a new model for specialised children and young people’s mental health services, which will be supported by a new service specification and quality standards. The priority for these services is to transform and expand community services to make sure that there are local accessible community alternatives and to reduce the need for admission and dependency on in-patient beds, as well as reducing the length of stay and keeping young people closer to home. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that we are in the same place on this and that it is a matter of actually putting it into action.
I return to Amendment 51, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and spoken to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and other noble Lords. We believe that the Mental Health Act is not the appropriate legislative vehicle to set out a statutory test for competence for under-16s, and nor would it be appropriate to seek to establish a test in a single setting. We are not satisfied that the possible implications for mental health in other settings where Gillick is applied have yet been fully explored.
The principle of Gillick competence is established in case law, as noble Lords will be aware, not statute. Any statutory test should reflect existing case law and would not necessarily override the application of Gillick outside the Act. The design of the test is partly aligned with the tests set out in the Mental Capacity Act. There is no consensus in the courts, as noble Lords will be aware, on whether it is appropriate to apply these tests to test competence in children under 16.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the question of unintended consequences, to which I am able to respond. The creation of any test that does not consider the interaction with existing case law could inadvertently limit the ability of children detained under the Act to exercise choice and autonomy under their care and treatment. Those are the concerns about unintended consequences.
We are also greatly concerned that, in seeking to provide clarity on assessing competence in mental health settings, two different tests could be created. This is likely to cause further confusion and a risk of legal challenge for decision-makers in mental health settings, potentially in any setting where Gillick is applied. This could have unintended consequences—I use that phrase again—for the ability of children to exercise choice and autonomy, as I have already mentioned, which I hear is counter to the noble Lord’s intention.
The noble Lord will understand that we cannot comment on or prevent how, as I say, courts will interpret the test or whether there will be further calls for similar tests. The courts may even go as far as to apply this test in other settings. That is what we mean when we say the introduction of a test for decisions under the Act will or may cause confusion and uncertainty in other settings. We do not think the consequences of this have been given proper consideration, nor can this risk be appropriately mitigated. We will consult on the statutory guidance for assessing competence in mental health settings, as I have mentioned, in the revised code of practice. I hope that will meet the intention to provide further clarity.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked what additional support would be provided to clinicians in engaging with children and young people, as we are rejecting this amendment. The Mental Health Act code of practice already provides guidance on establishing competence in under-16s. As I have said, we will consult on the guidance in the revised code of practice. I also re-emphasise that we feel it is better to focus on improving the practical application of Gillick rather than create or risk further confusion.
I hear that there are differences of opinion. While I am sure that what I say will not completely satisfy noble Lords who have raised concerns, I hope it gives a sense of where we have got to and the reasons. I therefore hope that these reasons will convince noble Lords not to press their amendments.